Wilmington NC Attorney for Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Cases
The North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act covers virtually any kind of business activity imaginable. A violation requires only that a person or company suffer damages due to a "deceptive act or practice" "in or affecting commerce." This broadly worded law applies to virtually any kind of commercial activity imaginable.
Moreover, violations of this law are subject to treble damages, and attorneys fees may also be awarded. Violations of this law can be very expensive, and potentially devastating to any company doing business in North Carolina. Making matters even worse, the law does not require an intentional act, or bad faith by the defendant. Even a person intending to conduct their business ethically could violate this act.
This is a highly sophisticated and problematic area of law. Decisions turn on specific facts, and quite often, two seemingly similar cases will be decided in completely different ways. Because a violator is subject to treble damages, it is imperative that both plaintiffs and defendants seek counsel knowledgeable about the many subtleties and intricacies of this Act.
Since the law in this area can change quickly and with no warning to the typical business owner, it is advisable to periodically examine your business practices, and have them reviewed by counsel to ensure that your business employs the best possible practices to maintain compliance with this law.
We have handled, and continue to handle, numerous cases involving claims under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as related claims of fraud, fraudulent transfers, and the like, including the following representative cases.
Broda v. Day, (11 CVS 715 New Hanover County) (represented Canadian citizen; obtained preliminary injunction freezing $37,500.00 in bank account before obtaining $128,200.85 judgment for Fraud and Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices against pro se defendant in case arising out of contract to purchase yacht)
Lee Enterprises Mfg. Co. v. Koke, (07 CVS 3434 New Hanover County) (represented Indiana manufacturer in claim alleging Fraud, Deceptive Trade Practices, NSF Checks and other claims; although Defendants were represented by counsel, we nevertheless obtained a $748,220.73 default judgment against all parties jointly and severally; subsequently defeated Defendants' Rule 60 motion to set aside judgment, then successfully moved to dismiss Defendants' appeal).
Day-Lewis v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., (08 CVS 2850 New Hanover County) (represented national wood flooring inspection company against claims alleging Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Breach of Contract, Breach of Warranty and other claims. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without settlement shortly before our motions for Summary Judgment and Rule 11 sanctions were to be heard)
Erichsen v. RBC Capital Markets, LLC, 7:11-cv-190 (E.D.N.C.) (representing high-volume professional securities trader in Federal case against broker alleging Fraud, Deceptive Trade Practices, and other allegations)
Bank of America, N.A. v. Alliance Construction, et al., 10 CVS 2537 (Onslow County), 12 CVS 487 (New Hanover County), 12 CVS 1876 (Onslow County) and JAMS REF. NO. 1440003522. Defended developer corporation, shareholders and guarantors, and filed counterclaims for ECOA violations by Bank of America, breach of contract, and deceptive trade practices, against action by bank to collect on $5.5 million note. After multiple lawsuits spanning four calendar years in two counties, one trial, and an arbitration proceeding, settled confidentially just prior to arbitration hearing.
Oxford Street Properties, LLC v. Urban Smart Growth-Belville, LLC, et al (10 CVS 45 New Hanover County) (represented a Los Angeles, California developer in a politically sensitive high-profile claim alleging violation of Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act with regard to parcels of property in Belville and Wilmington, including the controversial "Five Points" project, as part of a multi-state effort to collect on a $29 million arbitration award; case was settled confidentially)
PPD, Inc. v. Laughlin, 08 CVS 2531 (New Hanover County) (represented former financial officer of publicly traded (at the time) corporation in case involving allegations regarding breach of stock option agreement based on alleged solicitation of employees and non-compete violations).
David Long & Assocs v. Kwiatek, et al, (10 CVS 4623 New Hanover County) defeated employer's motion for preliminary injunction in case alleging violation of the North Carolina Trade Secrets Act, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Conversion, and Tortious Interference with Contract.)
Lee v. Equalizer, Inc., et al., (10 CVS 4700 New Hanover County) (represented Wilmington, NC corporation, its President and a shareholder, in an action by another shareholder seeking dissolution, and alleging Deceptive Trade Practices, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and seeking injunctive relief and the appointment of a receiver; after our Motion to Stay Pending Corporate Investigation, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stats. § 55-7-43, Plaintiff failed to comply with various court orders and was held in civil contempt; Complaint was later involuntarily dismissed with prejudice as a contempt sanction against the Plaintiff in September 2011.)
State ex rel. Cooper v. Heil, et al (08 CVS 09961 Wake County) (represented Defendant in Attorney General action for Deceptive Trade Practices alleging actions in multiple counties and seeking in excess of $1.4 million in damages; settled for $50,400.00
Zero International v. The Finishing Advantage, Inc. (Duplin County, Arbitration) (represented Georgia- based powder-coat system manufacturer in case alleging breaches of warranty and unfair and deceptive trade practices. Plaintiff sought well over $200,000 in damages but was awarded just $30,000).
Spivey v. New Directions Group Care Management, LLC, 08 CVS 1787 (Columbus County) (defended a Whiteville, NC Limited Liability Company and its Manager in an action by member seeking involuntary dissolution and receivership, as well as allegations of Fraud, Conversion, and Deceptive Trade Practices; settled just prior to hearing on our motion for Summary Judgment)
KERNER LAW FIRM. BIG PICTURE. BOTTOM LINE. SM