Rudolph Friedmann Secures Sweeping Victory for Business Owner in Complex Business Litigation Case Including Award of Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to Indemnification Agreement

Firm’s client accused of breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and breach of contract; lawsuit requested equitable relief and damages

Following four and a half years of litigation, including a jury trial and a bench trial, Jon Friedmann, Eric Walz, and Casey Sack secured a victory for the firm’s client in the Business Litigation Session of Suffolk County Superior Court. The Rudolph Friedmann trial team secured a complete victory—winning all counts before the jury, defeating all claims before the judge, and prevailing on the client’s counterclaim for indemnification.

The case involved an executive-level employee who left her employer to start her own business and was sued by her former employer. The employee, represented by RF, was also a Trustee of her former employer’s insurance trust and was accused of breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and/or breach of contract. Her former employer also sought equitable relief for disgorgement of profits and treble damages under 93A. The firm’s client filed a counterclaim for indemnification.

After nearly three weeks of testimony in the November 2024 jury trial, during which the firm presented substantial evidence that the allegations were untrue and the funds subject to the alleged misappropriation were well-documented and lawful, the jury deliberated for less than one day and returned a unanimous verdict for the firm’s client on all counts.

The court reserved the plaintiffs’ requests for equitable relief and damages under M.G.L. c. 93A to itself and a bench trial was held on April 16, 2025. At the conclusion of the case, the judge ruled against the plaintiffs and for the firm’s client on both claims. The court also ruled the firm’s client prevailed on her claim for indemnification and is entitled to attorney’s fees in connection with all claims brought against her.

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly spoke with Jon Friedmann about the case. Jon noted that the decision is important because indemnification agreements in corporate documents are often overlooked. “The ruling helps clarify indemnification rights and also helps clarify when [alternative remedies like disgorgement] are appropriate.” Read the article “Indemnification agreement nets defense costs” (subscription required).