opening statement n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Opening Statement PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Opening Statement

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 10

Opening Statement - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 62 Views
  • Uploaded on

Opening Statement. Claire Maglica v. Anthony Maglica Superior Court of Orange County, CA June 1993. Reason For Lawsuit. Recovery of equity in Mag Instrument, Inc . Tony and Claire Maglica and promised the fruits of their relationship would be equal property

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

Opening Statement


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
opening statement

Opening Statement

Claire Maglica

v.

Anthony Maglica

Superior Court of Orange County, CA

June 1993

reason for lawsuit
Reason For Lawsuit
  • Recovery of equity in Mag Instrument, Inc.
  • Tony and Claire Maglica and promised the fruits of their relationship would be equal property
  • Claire worked with Tony side by side at Mag Instrument, Inc. for over twenty years
  • Due to Claire and Tony’s combined efforts, Mag Instrument, Inc. is now worth over $300 Million
undisputed facts2
Undisputed Facts

Claire’s idea for a multi-colored flashlight that would fit in a purse or pocket turned into a product line spanning more than a decade and with over fifteen models.

conclusion
Conclusion
  • Claire and Tony Maglica had a verbal contract sharing ownership of the proceeds of their 20 years of labor
  • Claire directly impacted profits of the company and was not paid the “reasonable value of services”
conclusion1
Conclusion
  • Tony was fraudulent in attaining Claire’s signature on the Separate Property Agreement
  • Tony had a fiduciary duty to act to benefit the owners of Mag Instruments
  • Tony breached his fiduciary duty by transferring stock without Claire’s knowledge