• Alternative Dispute Resolution
  
• Appellate
  
• Banking
  
• Bankruptcy
  
• Business Litigation
  
• Church Law
  
• Collections
  
• Construction Law
  
• Contract Law
  
• Corporate Law
  
• Estate Planning
  
• Fidelity & Surety Law
  
• Hospital and Medical
  Malpractice Defense
  
• Insurance Coverage
  
• Landlord - Tenant
  
• Legal Malpractice Defense
  
• Litigation
  
• Mechanic’s Liens
  
• Military Law
  
• Nursing Home Liability Defense
  
• Personal Injury
  
• Premises Liability
  
• Products Liability
  
• Probate Law
  
• Professional Liability
  
• Real Estate
  
• Retirement Plans
  
• Taxation
  
• Workers’ Compensation

This page is a compilation of some of the recent developments in our firm’s Practice Areas. To check for updates in your area of interest, simply click on the Practice Area to your left.

Business Litigation

Drury Development Corp. v. Foundation Ins. Co., 380 S.C. 97, 668 S.E.2d 798 (2008).
Opinion No. 26559, decided November 3, 2008.

The plaintiff filed suit against an insolvent corporation, alleging that the corporation had failed to pay an obligation it owed the plaintiff. The plaintiff further sought to pierce the corporate veil and hold the corporation’s parent and subsidiary companies, as well as its shareholders, personally liable for the corporation’s debt. The suit was removed to federal court, and the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina certified to the South Carolina Supreme Court the question of whether a judgment against the corporation is a prerequisite to a veil-piercing action. The court held that separate actions are not necessary so long as the plaintiff pleads facts sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss as to both the corporate liability claims and the veil-piercing claims.

Atwood Agency v. Black, 374 S.C. 68, 646 S.E.2d 882 (2007).
Opinion No. 26348, decided June 25, 2007.

In this equity action, a vacation rental agency alleged that a former employee misappropriated its homeowner and renter lists, using them to divert business from the agency to another employer in violation of the South Carolina Trade Secrets Act. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s injunction against the employee, finding that the content of the renter and homeowner lists was readily ascertainable from publicly available sources and therefore did not qualify for protection under the Act.

 

Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, LLP makes this information available as a service to its clients and friends. This information is not a solicitation or an effort to provide legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be relied upon without consulting a qualified attorney to determine if it is applicable to a specific legal need.