This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Profits

Lisa Arie, fka Lisa Dee v. TEAM Acquisition Corp.

Published: Feb. 4, 2012 | Result Date: Jan. 5, 2012 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 1220042053 Arbitration –  $1,526,680

Court

JAMS


Attorneys

Claimant

Daniel Y. Zohar


Respondent

Stephen F. Moeller
(Valensi Rose PLC)


Experts

Claimant

Michael Spindler
(technical)

Respondent

Coral Hansen
(technical)

Facts

Claimant Lisa Arie, formerly known as Lisa Dee, started an advertising production company in New York in the early 1990s. In our around 2008, her company was acquired by respondent TEAM Acquisition Corp., a large entertainment payroll and business affairs company based in Burbank.

As part of the acquisition, Arie was kept on as the president of the advertising production company, now a division of TEAM, for a two-year period. Incentives were built into the agreement whereby if that division achieved certain profit goals during that two-year period, Arie would receive additional compensation.

After the two-year period had expired, TEAM determined that the profit goals had not been met and denied that it owed any bonus to Arie.

TEAM claimed that the division lost money during the first year and earned only a small profit during the second. Both TEAM's CEO and CFO testified at the arbitration in support of TEAM's position.

Arie disputed those numbers and contended that TEAM had exceeded the profit goals set by the agreement. Arie claimed that TEAM's calculation of the profit achieved was based on a misinterpretation of the defined methodology under the agreement between the parties. Arie claimed that under a proper interpretation of that agreement, a payment of $1 million was due to her, plus interest, costs and attorney's fees.

Result

$1,526,681 to Arie. Judge Lourdes G. Baird ruled that Arie's interpretation of the agreement was correct, that the profit goals had been met, and awarded a payment of $1 million to Arie, plus interest, costs and attorney fees.


#84378

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390