Court upholds verdict on behalf of minority shareholders after eliminated one cause of action

Michael Ward and Robert Tinucci sued Scott Insinga, Kevin Flynn and a number of other individuals and corporations, after their interest in a "repossession order forwarding company" was manipulated out from under them while they were out of town.  The case went to a jury which awarded the plaintiffs a substantial verdict on several counts.   The Defendants appealed the decision and the Plaintiffs cross-appealed the failure to make the judgment "joint and several" and applicable, in full, to all of the co-conspirators.

Ultimately, the higher court upheld most of the verdict, but it also refused to recognize the applicability of the rules on joint and several liability.  The Court essentially held that the plaintiffs were bound by the strategic decision of their attorneys in seeking individual awards under various theories. The partial reversal stemmed from the Court's conclusion that the wrongs proved by the Plaintiffs did not involve a "third-party" so there was no "tortious interference with a business expectancy."