Guide to Litigation in Boston (Business Litigation Section)

Navigating the Boston Business Litigation Session: A Guide for Businesses Facing Complex Disputes

If your business is involved in a legal dispute in the Boston area, the Business Litigation Session (BLS) of the Massachusetts Superior Court offers a specialized forum for resolving complex commercial cases. This court is uniquely designed to handle high-stakes and multifaceted business disputes efficiently, making it a vital resource for companies navigating litigation.

This guide explains how the BLS works, what types of cases it handles, and why your business might benefit from representation in this prestigious court.

What Is the Boston Business Litigation Session?

The Boston Business Litigation Session (BLS) is a specialized division of the Massachusetts Superior Court focused on resolving complex business disputes. Established in 1999, the BLS is known for its efficient case management and expertise in commercial law, making it a trusted venue for high-value and intricate cases.

Key Features of the BLS

• Expert Judges: The judges presiding over the BLS specialize in commercial disputes, ensuring informed decisions and tailored legal processes. The judges rotate frequently (and can maintain control over a case if they rotate out of the BLS). The current judges are as follows:

  • Judges Peter Krupp (January-June) and Hélène Kazanjian (July-December) sit in BLS1. 

  • Judges Kenneth Salinger (January–June) and Debra Squires-Lee (July–December) sit in BLS2.

  • Judge Kenneth Salinger also serves as the BLS Administrative Justice.  

• Efficient Management: The court prioritizes expedited case handling to reduce delays and legal costs.

• Focus on Complex Cases: The BLS is reserved for disputes involving challenging legal or financial issues, making it the go-to forum for sophisticated litigation.

  Types of Cases Heard in the BLS

  The BLS addresses a wide variety of business disputes, including:

  • Breach of Contract: Disagreements over the enforcement or interpretation of business agreements.

  • Corporate Governance Issues: Shareholder disputes, partnership conflicts, and fiduciary duty claims.

  • Business Torts: Cases involving unfair competition, fraud, or misrepresentation.

  • Intellectual Property Disputes: Disputes over trademarks, copyrights, or trade secrets in a business context.

  • Employment Law Issues: High-level disputes such as executive compensation and non-compete agreements.

  Whether your case involves a local partnership dispute or a multi-million-dollar breach of contract, the BLS offers a specialized setting for resolution.

  How Are Cases Accepted Into the BLS?

  Not every business-related case qualifies for the BLS. Cases must meet specific criteria and follow a defined process for acceptance:

  Step 1: Filing the Complaint

  • Plaintiffs file their complaint in the Suffolk Superior Court, located in Boston, and include a BLS Civil Action Cover Sheet.

  • The cover sheet outlines the nature of the dispute and why it merits the specialized attention of the BLS.

  Step 2: Administrative Review

  • The Administrative Justice of the BLS reviews the case to determine its eligibility.

  • Factors considered include:

    • Complexity of the Issues: Does the case involve intricate legal, financial, or technical issues?

    • Significance: Could the case set a legal precedent or have substantial implications for the business community?

    • Jurisdictional Thresholds: While the BLS does not impose a specific monetary threshold, the Massachusetts Superior Court generally handles cases involving disputes exceeding $50,000.

  Step 3: Acceptance or Redirection

  • If accepted, the parties are notified, and the case is assigned to one of the two BLS sessions (BLS1 or BLS2).

  • Cases that do not meet the criteria are redirected to a standard session within the Suffolk County Superior Court.

Examples of Cases Heard by the BLS

The types of cases obviously varies, but listed below are some examples of prominent cases recently heard and/or are pending in the BLS.

• 1. Demoulas Family Dispute

  The Demoulas family dispute is a notable example of complex litigation handled by the Boston Business Litigation Session (BLS). This protracted legal battle centered around control of DeMoulas Super Markets, Inc., the parent company of the Market Basket supermarket chain.

  Background:

  • Founding: DeMoulas Super Markets was established in 1917 by Greek immigrants Athanasios ("Arthur") and Efrosini Demoulas as a small grocery store in Lowell, Massachusetts. Over time, it expanded into a successful supermarket chain.

  • Family Expansion: The founders' sons, Telemachus ("Mike") and George Demoulas, took over the business and grew it into a substantial enterprise. However, George's untimely death in 1971 led to significant family tensions.

  Legal Disputes:

  • Initial Allegations: In the early 1990s, George's heirs accused Mike of transferring company assets and shares to his side of the family without proper authorization, effectively diluting their ownership stake.

  • Court Rulings: After extensive litigation, a judge ruled in favor of George's family in 1994, ordering the return of 50.5% of the company's stock to them and removing Mike as president of the company.

  • Ongoing Conflicts: Despite the ruling, disputes persisted between the two family factions, led by cousins Arthur S. Demoulas (son of Mike) and Arthur T. Demoulas (son of George), over company control and management practices.

  2014 Employee Protests:

  • CEO Ouster: In June 2014, Arthur T. Demoulas was removed as CEO by the company's board, controlled by Arthur S.'s side of the family. This action sparked widespread protests from employees and customers, who supported Arthur T.'s leadership style and feared changes to the company's culture.

  • Operational Impact: The protests led to work stoppages, empty store shelves, and significant financial losses, drawing national media attention.

  • Resolution: In August 2014, a deal was reached allowing Arthur T. Demoulas to purchase the 50.5% stake held by Arthur S.'s family for approximately $1.5 billion, restoring him as CEO and ending the public dispute.

  Significance:

  The Demoulas family dispute exemplifies the intricate nature of family-owned business conflicts and the role of the BLS in adjudicating such complex commercial cases. The BLS's involvement was critical, as it provided the parties with experienced judges to navigate the numerous legal issues, including fiduciary duties, shareholder rights, and corporate governance, ultimately facilitating a resolution that allowed Market Basket to continue its operations and growth.

  2. Milanoski v. Priscoli

  The case of Milanoski v. Priscoli is another case that exemplifies the type of complex disputes adjudicated by the Boston Business Litigation Session (BLS). This litigation involved complex issues such as judicial estoppel and the enforceability of agreements to agree, providing significant insights into these legal doctrines. The BLS's handling of this case underscores its role in resolving sophisticated business conflicts, offering clarity on nuanced legal principles.

  3. Oxford Global Resources, LLC v. Hernandez

  The case of Oxford Global Resources, LLC v. Hernandez (2018) addressed the enforceability of non-compete agreements and forum selection clauses, particularly when an employee works in a state that disfavors such restrictions.

  Case Background:

  • Parties Involved: Oxford Global Resources, LLC, a Massachusetts-based recruiting and staffing company, employed Jeremy Hernandez as an account manager in its Campbell, California office. As a condition of employment, Hernandez signed a confidentiality, non-solicitation, and non-competition agreement. This agreement specified that it would be governed by Massachusetts law and that any legal disputes would be resolved in Massachusetts courts.

  Legal Dispute:

  • Alleged Breach: After resigning from Oxford, Hernandez joined a competing firm in California. Oxford alleged that Hernandez violated the agreement by soliciting its clients and misusing confidential information.

  • Lawsuit Filing: Oxford filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts Superior Court, seeking to enforce the terms of the agreement. Hernandez moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, arguing that California was the appropriate venue for the dispute.

  BLS Court's Analysis and Decision:

  • Choice of Law Provision: The court determined that enforcing the Massachusetts choice of law provision would contravene California's strong public policy favoring open competition and employee mobility.

  • Forum Selection Clause: The court found the forum selection clause unenforceable, noting that litigating in Massachusetts would impose undue hardship on Hernandez, a California resident.

  • Forum Non Conveniens: Considering factors such as the location of witnesses and relevant evidence, the court concluded that California was a more suitable forum for the case.

  In sum, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, allowing the dispute to be litigated in California.

  Why Choose the BLS for Your Business Dispute?

  The BLS offers several benefits for businesses involved in high-stakes litigation:

  1. Experienced Judges

  The BLS judges have extensive experience handling commercial law cases, ensuring a deeper understanding of the complexities unique to high-dollar business disputes. Dynamis has experience litigating in BLS and in other Massachusetts courts (such as the standard Superior Court). Clients generally much prefer to litigate in the BLS.

  2. Faster Resolutions and a Tailored Process

  With a focus on streamlined case management, the BLS minimizes delays, helping businesses resolve disputes more efficiently. The judges actively work to solve disputes without added expensive motion practice. The BLS allows for more flexible approaches to discovery, evidence presentation, and dispute resolution, reducing legal expenses and operational disruptions.

• How Our Firm Can Help

  As a Boston-based litigation firm, we have extensive experience representing clients in the Business Litigation Session. Here’s how we can assist:

  1. Case Assessment and Filing

  We carefully evaluate your case to ensure it meets the BLS criteria and help prepare the necessary documentation for acceptance. See our example in the Stefanoni art case.

  2. Strategic Representation

  Our attorneys specialize in crafting customized strategies for complex business disputes, ensuring your interests are effectively represented at every stage.

  3. Efficient Case Management

  We work to resolve disputes quickly and cost-effectively, which can be more easily done in BLS, minimizing the impact on your business operations.

  4. Advocacy in High-Stakes Cases

  From case inception to mediation to trial, we provide very aggressive advocacy designed to achieve favorable outcomes, whether through settlement or courtroom success. We have a track record of winning, and we work hard to maintain that track record (although no guarantees of future results).

  Local Expertise Matters

  As a firm with significant roots and experience in Boston, Dynamis understands the unique aspects of practicing in the BLS and the broader Massachusetts state court system. Dynamis has litigated multiple cases in the BLS. In 2023, Dynamis obtained a large settlement on behalf of a client in the BLS. This case was a difficult breach of contract and fiduciary duty case involving a Delaware C-Corp and a former chief executive. In addition, and as another example, Dynamis is currently litigating a $1 billion family dispute involving a massive art collection in the Czech Republic.

For expert legal advice, contact Dynamis LLP or email boston@dynamisllp.com today. We’re here to guide you through every step of your case.