An Indiana appeals court has dismissed a derivative malpractice lawsuit filed by a shareholder in a consumer collections law firm against the outside attorneys tasked with assisting his office’s merger with a larger organization.
The plaintiff in the case, Glenn Vician, was arguing against lawyers from the firm Bingham Greenbaum & Doll LLP. His lawsuit was filed in 2018, three years after his collection firm, known as Bowman Heintz Boscia & Vician PC, had finished its asset sale to a bigger, out-of-state firm.
The court’s decision was based on two main factors. Firstly, Vician’s claims against Bingham Greenbaum & Doll LLP were believed to be time-barred. Secondly, and perhaps more critically, the court found that the claims lacked merit. Vician’s lawsuit was therefore rejected by the court.
The decision by the Court of Appeals of Indiana reinforces the condition that shareholders’ litigation regarding firm merges must not only be timely, but also based on substantial grounds.
For more detailed information on this case, visit the original report on Bloomberg Law here.