Caroline McIntyre

Representative Cases

Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Securities Litigation

• Logan Hessefort v. Super Micro Computer, Inc.,USDC, NDCA Case No. 4:18-CV-00838-JST
  Represented the President, CEO, and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Super Micro Computer, Inc. in a class action lawsuit alleging violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
  
  
• Stein v. Liang et al.,USDC NDCA Case No. 4:21-CV-03357-JST and Barry v. Liang et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 20CV372190
  Represented the President, CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Super Micro, Inc. in derivative lawsuits in the Northern District of California and Santa Clara County Superior Court.
  
  
• Zurvan Mahamedi v. Lex Kosowsky, Case No. 1-15-CV-278496, Santa Clara County Superior Court
  Represented a publicly traded company, Littelfuse, Inc. and its President and CEO, David Heinzmann, in an action filed against them alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, negligence, concealment, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting. The trial court sustained our clients’ demurrers to the Complaint without leave to amend. The Court of Appeal for the State of California, Sixth Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrers without leave to amend.
  
  
• Atinar Capital II, LLC, et al. v. Aida Alvarez, et al., No. CGC-17-559515, San Francisco County Superior Court
  Representing two venture funds in a case alleging breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty arising out of a company’s financing rounds.
  
  
• Kerrigan Capital, LLC, et al v. David Strohm, et al., CIV 534431, San Mateo County Superior Court
  Represented several venture funds in a case filed on behalf of a proposed class of common shareholders of a company, alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of the company’s financing rounds.
  
  
• Kohli v. Neocarta Ventures, L.P., No. 107CV092847, Santa Clara County Superior Court
  Represented seven venture funds in a lawsuit alleging causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.
  
  
• Represented an asset management company and two of its principals in an action filed against it in federal District Court alleging claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting fraud, and tortious interference.
  
  
• Baker v. Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield, et al., No. CV 08-3974 SBA, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division
  Represented four entities in an action alleging breach of fiduciary duty, minority shareholder oppression and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. The Court granted our clients’  motion to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring direct claims.
  
  
• Barnes v. Daley, No. 1-09-CV158534, Santa Clara County Superior Court
  Represented Defendant, a former outside director, in an action alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and unfair business practices.
  
  
• Tyler v. Solaicx, et al., No. 11CV194167, Santa Clara County Superior Court
  Represented several Defendants, including companies and individual director Defendants, in a lawsuit arising from a preferred stock financing. Plaintiff claimed that Defendants unfairly diluted minority shareholder interests in the company in anticipation of a merger.
  
  
• In re Trident Microsystems, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. C-06-03440, United States District Court, Northern District of California; Limke v. Lin, et al., No. 1-CV-07-080390, Santa Clara County Superior Court
  Represented an officer and former director of Trident Microsystems, Inc. in derivative shareholder suits concerning stock option practices.
  
  
• Bucephalus Alternative Energy Group, LLC v. KCR Development, No. 08 Civ. 7343, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
  Represented Defendants in an action regarding a proposed investment in a company. The Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, finding there was no personal jurisdiction.
  
  
• Scognamillo, et al. v. Credit Suisse First Boston LLC, et al., Case No. C03-02061 (TEH), 2005 WL645466, United States District Court for the Northern District of California
  Represented the former Chief Financial Officer of Netcentives, Inc. in a case involving allegations of stock price manipulation by investment bankers in connection with an Initial Public Offering. Netcentives' stock was alleged to have been manipulated. The Court granted our client's motion to dismiss, dismissing the action with prejudice against the former CFO. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court.
  
  
• In re Peregrine Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 02-CV-0870 BEN (RBB)
  Represented the former CEO of Peregrine Systems, Inc. in a shareholder class action in federal District Court and related securities actions in state court.
  
  
• Mudgett v. Chemoil Corp., et al., San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. 321977
  Represented four companies and three individual directors in a case alleging promissory fraud, breach of fiduciary duty regarding sale of company assets, and rescission against them. The Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeal for the State of California, First Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s order.
  
  

Breach of Contract and Fraud Complex Litigation and Trials

• Represent distributor of petroleum products in a variety of disputes with station operators, including:
  • Represent distributor of petroleum products in action filed against it in Orange County Superior Court alleging breach of contract and various tort claims relating to a Consulting Agreement and two tax sharing agreements with the City of Santa Ana.
  
  
  • Represent the distributor in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, where Plaintiffs allege that the Treaty of 1855 between the Yakama Nation and the United States shields Plaintiffs from having to pay or reimburse to the distributor any money for California fuel excise or sales taxes incurred by the distributor.
    
    
  • Purported class action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging claims of price discrepancies, shortages, and failure to pass on a tax credit. The Court denied with prejudice Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification finding that Plaintiffs: (1) failed to establish that questions of law or fact common to the class predominate over the questions affecting the individual members; (2) failed to establish that their claims are typical of the class; (3) failed to establish that they and their counsel can adequately represent the class, or that Plaintiffs are willing to act as fiduciaries and protect the interests of the class members; and (4) failed to establish that proceeding as a class action is superior to the alternatives.
    
    
  • Secured a favorable jury verdict for the distributor in an action alleging price discrepancies, shortages, and late deliveries. Plaintiff sought more than $1.5 million in damages from the distributor, including loss of its business.
    
    
• Phan v. Tony Tolani, et al., 16CV291491, Santa Clara County Superior Court
  Represented the Plaintiff—a purchaser of a high-tech manufacturing company in San Jose—in trying her claims of breach of contract against the sellers, Defendants Tony Tolani and Shalini Tolani, and concealment against Mr. Tolani, in a sharply contested retrial in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Plaintiff claimed that the Tolanis failed to disclose accurate and complete information to her during due diligence before they sold the manufacturing company to her to inflate the purchase price for their own gain. This jury trial win was particularly challenging because Plaintiff, represented by different counsel, had already lost four of her seven claims at a first jury trial that resulted in a mistrial on the remaining claims of concealment and breach of contract. In the retrial, after eight days of trial and several days of deliberations, we secured a unanimous jury verdict of concealment and breach of contract against Tony Tolani, and a jury verdict of breach of contract against Mrs. Tolani. The jury awarded Plaintiff damages in the amount of $577,600 against the Tolanis. Based on the attorney’s fees clause in the underlying contract, the Tolanis also agreed to pay an additional $775,000 to Plaintiff for attorney’s fees and costs.  
  
  
• Represented a prominent technology company in declaratory relief action and cross-claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief involving a dispute over the cancellation provisions of an agreement to provide IT services to a large financial institution.
  
  
• Nguyen v. Huang, et al., Sonoma County Superior Court, Case No. SCV240886
  Represented the CEO and President of Unicond defending an action filed by Plaintiff. The action included a contract relating to sound electronic assemblies consisting of audio amplifiers and switched-mode power supplies. Plaintiff contended Defendant wrongfully failed to pay him $3 million, which he claimed was owed under the contract. On the eve of trial, Plaintiff dismissed his action with prejudice without any payment by Defendant.
  
  
• Maplebrook Townhomes LLC v. Greenbank, No. 10-CV-63688 LHK, United States District Court, Northern District of California
  Represented Greenbank in this action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and the Truth in Lending Act. The Court granted our client’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Other Representative Cases

• Lifelink Foundation, Inc. v. Lifelink.com, Inc., United States District Court for the District of Colorado Case No. 1:20-cv-02274-RPM-SKC
  Represented Defendant in action alleging federal and common law trademark infringement, false designation of origin, passing off, false advertising, and unfair competition. Defeated Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction against Defendant. Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s use of the marks (1) creates a high probability of confusion, causing harm to Plaintiff’s goodwill; and (2) causes a loss of control over its business reputation. The Court found that “Plaintiff’s speculative and conclusory arguments do not show irreparable injury” and that Plaintiff has not shown “that confusion is likely to occur despite the vast differences between the parties’ businesses.” The Court noted in its Order that “Plaintiff has fallen well short of showing it has a clear and unequivocal right to relief.”

• Katarzyna Kudlacz and Natalia Bien v. Cultural Care, Inc. et al., San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-20-584567
  Representation of defendant International Care Limited (“International Care”) in action filed by Katarzyna Kudlacz and Natalia Bien, individually and on behalf of all other au pairs similarly situated, pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code § 2698 (“PAGA”) against defendants Cultural Care, Inc. (“Cultural Care”) and International Care seeking civil penalties for alleged violations of Labor Code and Wage Orders.

Investigations 

       Caroline's representative counsel in investigations includes:

• Seven current and former employees of a publicly traded company in an SEC investigation of earnings management at the company.
• Audit Committee investigation for publicly traded company regarding stock option granting practices.
• Audit Committee investigation regarding revenue recognition/government contract billing practices.
• Special Litigation Committee investigation concerning stockholder derivative claims regarding venture financing.
• Audit Committee investigation for publicly traded company regarding revenue recognition and stock option granting practices.
• Audit Committee investigation for publicly traded company regarding allegations by founder/director regarding management.
• Audit Committee investigation regarding allegations by an employee regarding attempts by certain members of senior management to manage financial results.