Author: Bailey Glasser

BG Wins Writ of Prohibition Before State of West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals

A Bailey Glasser litigation team composed of founding partner Ben Bailey and lawyer Christopher Smith succeeded in obtaining a writ of prohibition from the State of West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals on behalf of our client, Pachira Energy.

Continue reading

A Bailey Glasser litigation team composed of founding partner Ben Bailey and lawyer Christopher Smith succeeded in obtaining a writ of prohibition from the State of West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals on behalf of our client, Pachira Energy.

In this action for extraordinary relief, Pachira sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the Circuit Court of Monongalia County from a January 2023 order by that court which ordered disassociation of a partnership even though no party to the litigation sought disassociation in the underlying litigation. The underlying litigation involved the requested dissolution and winding up of a partnership under the West Virginia Revised Uniform Partnership Act. However, instead of ordering this dissolution, the circuit court disassociated Pachira from the partnership, effectively kicking it out of the partnership while allowing the partnership to continue operating.

In recognizing that “extraordinary remedies are reserved for ‘really extraordinary causes,’ the appellate court found for our client and determined that: “[a]fter a careful review of the parties’ arguments, the record before this Court and the applicable law, we conclude that the circuit court committed a clear legal error in ordering dissociation when that relief was not requested by either party. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition, vacate the order dissociating Pachira from the water system association, and remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings.”

Obtaining relief of this nature is rare, but our litigators felt was warranted in this particular case. The case is now back before the Circuit Court for additional litigation. To read the Court’s Memorandum Decision, please visit here.

Sharon Iskra Argues Case Before Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

On April 17, BG partner and Institutional Abuse and Neglect team leader Sharon Iskra argued before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia in support of a $3.5 million jury verdict rendered against a residential care facility on behalf of two developmentally disabled individuals who had been abused as children.

Continue reading

On April 17, BG partner and Institutional Abuse and Neglect team leader Sharon Iskra argued before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia in support of a $3.5 million jury verdict rendered against a residential care facility on behalf of two developmentally disabled individuals who had been abused as children.

As April is Child Abuse Prevention Month as well as Sexual Assault Awareness Month, Sharon was proud to argue on behalf of her clients before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

To learn more about Sharon and her work, visit this link.

To learn more about the work of Bailey Glasser on behalf of the survivors of sexual abuse, visit here.

Brian Glasser Named a Top 200 Lawyer in America by Forbes

Bailey Glasser founding partner Brian Glasser has been named one of “America’s Top 200 Lawyers” by Forbes in its first-ever elite lawyer list.

Continue reading

Bailey Glasser founding partner Brian Glasser has been named one of “America’s Top 200 Lawyers” by Forbes in its first-ever elite lawyer list.

Forbes described its criteria as follows: “[t]he elite lawyers on this list were selected through a rigorous, multi-stage process of researching, evaluating and rating thousands of candidates, conducted by an editorial team with broad experience in law practice and the legal marketplace. The result is a collection of top lawyers involved in the most consequential cases, deals or legal trends in recent years . . . . they all share reputations for integrity, records of excellence—and Forbes’ recognition as the best in the business. What follows is a power list of lawyers whose skill, passion and purpose set them apart—for when you or your business need it most.”

In the last two years alone, Brian won a $5 million award against MyPillow CEO and election conspiracist Michael Lindell; helped lead the challenge to Johnson & Johnson’s “Texas Two Step” bankruptcy maneuver on behalf of people injured by J&J’s asbestos-riddled talc products; helped win dismissal of the bankruptcy of 3M subsidiary Aearo Technologies by a federal judge which thereafter resulted in the $6 billion settlement of more than 260,000 lawsuits brought by veterans and U.S. service members alleging that 3M military earplugs caused their hearing loss; and has won tens of millions of dollars for his clients in other lawsuits. He has also led the filing of hundreds of lawsuits on behalf of people abused as minors by the State of Maryland’s juvenile hall facilities via a new law passed in October 2023 that permitted previously time-barred claims by abuse survivors.

Read more here.

BG Files Amicus Brief on Behalf of Military Veterans

Bailey Glasser filed an amicus brief supporting military families opposing arbitration sought by Citibank in the case Pablo Espin v. Citibank, N.A., currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Amici Curiae represented are the National Guard of the United States, the Military Officers Association of America, and the Reserve Organization of America.

Continue reading

Bailey Glasser filed an amicus brief supporting military families opposing arbitration sought by Citibank in the case Pablo Espin v. Citibank, N.A., currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Amici Curiae represented are the National Guard of the United States, the Military Officers Association of America, and the Reserve Organization of America. This case involves a proposed class of military members who are arguing that Citibank cannot force them to arbitrate claims the bank overcharged credit card fees, arguing federal laws on military-member lending negate arbitration agreements.

ERISA Practice Group Leader and former veteran Greg Porter stated: “We are proud to support military families in opposing Citibank’s efforts to force their claims into arbitration. As a veteran who served overseas, I understand the challenges that military families face when members are serving outside the country.”

Greg served four years in the United States Army, including 18 months on the demilitarized zone in Korea where he was part of the Joint Security Area forces in Pan Mun Jom. We thank Greg and all veterans for their service.

To learn more about Greg Porter visit this link.

To learn more about our ERISA and ESOP practice visit this link.

Bailey Glasser Wins Partial Summary Judgment in Symbria ESOP Litigation

On March 25, 2024, Bailey & Glasser, LLP won a motion for partial summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the case Placht v. Argent Trust Company, Case No. 21-cv-5783. The lawsuit claims that Argent, the trustee for the Symbria Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the “ESOP”), caused the ESOP to purchase $66,500,000 of Symbria, Inc. stock for more than fair market value, violating federal pension law in the ERISA statute. The court held that the plaintiff proved every element of her ERISA prohibited transaction claims, removing the need to provide additional proof of these elements at trial.

Continue reading

On March 25, 2024, Bailey & Glasser, LLP won a motion for partial summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the case Placht v. Argent Trust Company, Case No. 21-cv-5783. The lawsuit claims that Argent, the trustee for the Symbria Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the “ESOP”), caused the ESOP to purchase $66,500,000 of Symbria, Inc. stock for more than fair market value, violating federal pension law in the ERISA statute. The court held that the plaintiff proved every element of her ERISA prohibited transaction claims, removing the need to provide additional proof of these elements at trial.

The court made important rulings of law in favor of the plaintiff and beneficiaries of employee benefit plans generally.

First, the court rejected Argent’s argument that the plaintiff’s claim that Argent caused the ESOP to engage in a prohibited transfer of plan assets to “parties in interest” to the ESOP requires a showing of subjective intent to benefit such parties through the transfer. The court explained that rejecting a subjective intent requirement comports with Congress’ intent for the statute to set forth per se violations, for which the parties’ intent should have no bearing as to whether a violation occurred. This has been a hotly contested issue in ERISA litigation.

Second, the court rejected Argent’s argument that an affirmative defense that the ESOP paid “adequate consideration” thwarted the plaintiff’s claims concerning the allegedly prohibited and imprudent stock transaction. Referring to facts adduced by the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s experts’ analyses, the court held that “factual questions exist as to whether Argent acted prudently and ensured that the Plan paid no more than ‘adequate consideration’ for the Symbria stock.” Therefore the plaintiff’s “claims and Argent’s defenses with respect to the ESOP Transaction must proceed to trial.” This decision puts plan fiduciaries to their proof and is precedent that, rather than being decided on a premature summary judgment, trials are required on the fact-intensive inquiry into the diligence of trustees’ stock valuations and transaction negotiations.

For more visit here.