Andrew Silverman is a litigator licensed in Delaware and Pennsylvania whose practice focuses on helping clients with corporate and commercial litigation, insurance coverage, products liability, and intellectual property litigation.
In the area of corporate law and business litigation, Andrew assists clients with a variety of matters in the Pennsylvania and Delaware courts, including the Delaware Court of Chancery. Andrew has helped his clients litigate and negotiate a variety of claims and issues, such as shareholder oppression, LLC member disputes, advancement and indemnification rights, and fiduciary duties of officers and directors.
Andrew's commercial litigation practice focuses on the representation of businesses and individuals regarding breaches of contract, warranty, insurance coverage, and construction law claims. In this role, Andrew has helped manufacturers, distributors, and financial institutions assert and defend rights under a variety of commercial contracts and agreements. Andrew's practice in this area also encompasses the enforcement and defense of intellectual property infringement claims, trade secret protections, and licensing agreements.
In addition to litigation matters, Andrew counsels businesses and provides on-site risk avoidance training regarding compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and employee use of social media.
Prior to joining MacElree Harvey, Andrew practiced with a national commercial and products liability firm where he acted as assistant national coordinating counsel for various Fortune 500 clients in defense of a variety of lawsuits. Andrew's experience with complex civil litigation enables him to assist clients concerning sophisticated and document intensive representation.
Andrew attended Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Delaware where he served as clerk for the Bankruptcy Division of the Pennsylvania Civil Law Clinic. Following law school, Andrew clerked for the Delaware Court of Common Pleas, where he assisted in the writing of judicial opinions.
Client Problem: Andrew's client, a minority shareholder of a closely held corporation, was frozen out of corporate decision making by a majority shareholder who also breached fiduciary duties and violated the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.
Solution: Andrew assisted his client by negotiating a business separation on favorable terms which included a high settlement value and the client's ability to compete in the same market.
•Client Problem: The client, a financial institution, was sued for bad faith breach of contract in the District of Delaware where it was alleged the client wrongfully refused to honor an indemnity clause.
Solution: Andrew helped the client by briefing a successful motion for summary judgment arguing that it was in fact the plaintiff that violated the contract and thereby relieved his client from its duty to indemnify.
•Client Problem: The client, a distributor, was sued for copyright infringement in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after publishing protected content on its marketing website.
Solution: Andrew defended the claims against his client and helped resolve an insurance coverage dispute that enabled settlement on favorable terms.
•Client Problem: A demand for advancement and indemnification was made on the client, a Delaware corporation undergoing dissolution.
Solution: Andrew assisted the client by drafting an opinion that the officer's claim for indemnification was not valid under the circumstances thereby allowing the client to continue with dissolution.
•Client Problem: Andrew's client, a 50 percent shareholder of a retail company, discovered the financial misconduct of one of her partners, who also sought to freeze the client out of the business.
Solution: Andrew helped the client negotiate a business separation that relieved her from any financial liability for her former partner's misconduct.
•Client Problem: The client, a manufacturer, discovered that a used equipment supplier was marketing and selling refurbished and re-engineered versions of the client's exclusive products under the client's trademark. Of additional concern was the fact that the supplier caused additional consumer confusion by marketing the refurbished products on its website in such a way that would cause a consumer to believe that they were associated and authorized by the client.
Solution: After filing a Lanham Act complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania, Andrew obtained a permanent injunction that prevented further trademark infringement in addition to recovery of attorney's fees.
•Attorney ad litem for State of Delaware Family Court
•Could Your Social Media Strategy Get You Sued?
•Why I Became An Attorney
•Best Advice Received
•How I Help My Clients
Does Your Company Need an FCPA Policy?
The Legal Intelligencer, May 2015
Negotiating a Business Separation on Favorable Terms
Morgan and Westfield, March 2015
•Delaware State Bar Association, Litigation Section
•Pennsylvania Bar Association
•Chester County Bar Association
•Federal Bar Association, Delaware Chapter, Intellectual Property and Communications Law Section
•Delaware State Chamber of Commerce
•Western Chester County Chamber of Commerce
•John E. Stively, Jr. American Inn of Court
You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.