inara
Uploaded by
10 SLIDES
301 VUES
130LIKES

Equitable Justice in Maglica Case: Claire vs. Anthony Maglica

DESCRIPTION

In June 1993, Claire Maglica filed a lawsuit against Anthony Maglica in the Superior Court of Orange County, CA, seeking equity in their jointly built company, Mag Instrument, Inc. Claire worked alongside Tony for over two decades, contributing significantly to the company’s growth, which is now valued at over $300 million. Despite their verbal agreement to equally share the fruits of their labor, Claire alleges she was wrongfully excluded from the profits and was not compensated fairly for her contributions. The case highlights issues of fiduciary duty and possible fraud.

1 / 10

Télécharger la présentation

Equitable Justice in Maglica Case: Claire vs. Anthony Maglica

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Opening Statement Claire Maglica v. Anthony Maglica Superior Court of Orange County, CA June 1993

  2. 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

  3. Undisputed Facts

  4. Undisputed Facts

  5. 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.

  6. Undisputed Facts

  7. Claire Maglica Testimony

  8. Tony Maglica Testimony

  9. 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”

  10. 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

More Related