Practice Areas & Industries: Kohrman Jackson & Krantz PLL

 





Group Profile Lawyers in this Group Offices Locations for this Group
 

Practice/Industry Group Overview

We practice sophisticated, result-oriented litigation. Our approach mirrors the firm’s overall philosophy of providing innovative representation that recognizes business realties and is both economical and responsive to our clients’ individual needs.

The lawyers in our litigation practice group have experience in the successful resolution of a broad range of commercial and regulatory matters, including construction, contracts, creditor disputes, employment issues, fraud, securities and shareholder litigation.

We are also experienced in representing national broker-dealers, clearing firms and individual brokers in securities arbitration work and other regulators.

Though we regularly win substantial victories for our clients, success is often measured by business decisions that impact how a client should proceed. Our attorneys understand that litigation can be time-consuming, emotionally stressful and expensive. Accordingly, we can often prevent a lawsuit through judicious negotiation and counseling.

Our successes include:

  • Successfully represented insiders of public company in shareholder lawsuit involving the sale of a public company
     
  • Successfully represented an ousted company president and shareholder in a fraud action against an acquiring shareholder
     
  • Represented the State of Ohio Department of Insurance in formulating, presenting and obtaining approval of an insolvent insurance company’s rehabilitation plan
     
  • Obtained temporary restraining order preventing dissident shareholders of a publicly held company from voting their shares at a shareholder meeting in violation of contractual obligation
     
  • Successfully represented medical supply company and lessor of MRI equipment against hospital/lessee that breached long term equipment lease
     
  • Obtained seven figure award in California arbitration against Fortune 100 company in claim involving breach of contract and fraud in the sale of an aerospace subsidiary
     
  • Gained multiple victories in injunction cases brought to enforce anti-competition clauses in employment agreements
     
  • Obtained dismissal of securities arbitration cases against national broker-dealers and individual brokers based upon claims of unsuitability and fraud
     
  • Significant return for not-profit institutions involved in investments of CDO’s
     
  • Represented national broker-dealer and broker against claims by broker’s wife who alleged fraud, theft and mismanagement of inheritance
     
  • Successful representation of New York artist wrongfully induced to become a limited partner in a fraudulent hedge fund investment

 
 
Articles Authored by Lawyers at this office:

Will the Ohio Supreme Court Eliminate Manager and Supervisor Liability for Discrimination?
Jonathan T. Hyman, July 30, 2014
Ohio’s discrimination is unique in that it allows for the imposition of individual liability against managers and supervisors for their personal acts of discrimination. The case, Genaro v. Central Transport (1999), is the bane of defense lawyers and employers alike. Aside from adding a...

Orange Is the New Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
Jonathan T. Hyman, July 25, 2014
Orton-Bell v. State of Ind. (7th Cir. 7/21/14) [pdf] concerns allegations of sexual harassment levied by a substance-abuse counsel at an Indiana maximum security prison against her co-workers and superiors. The allegations break down into two categories:

When Your Plaintiff Is a Prostitute
Jonathan T. Hyman, July 22, 2014
Let’s say an employee sues your company for sexual harassment. And let’s say the allegations are bad-that the supervisor told the plaintiff he could save her job if she “f***ed” him, after which the supervisor raped her. Like I said, BAD. As an employer, you don’t have...

Supreme Court Rules Contraception Coverage Violates Employers' Religious Freedom
, July 21, 2014
On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, holding that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive coverage mandate violated the religious freedom of family-owned corporations.