Complex Civil Litigation & Business Disputes

Complex civil litigation refers to high-stakes business and commercial disputes in federal court that involve document-intensive discovery, sophisticated parties, technical or regulatory subject matter, and substantial damages exposure. The category includes breach of contract claims in significant commercial disputes, breach of fiduciary duty claims against executives and directors, business fraud and fraudulent inducement actions, trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, partnership and member disputes, tortious interference, conversion and unjust enrichment claims, investment disputes, and executive employment and retaliation matters.

These cases require counsel who can manage voluminous discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, take and defend depositions of executives and experts, and present complex evidence to a federal judge or jury. Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC handles these matters in federal courts across the country.

The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) creates a federal civil cause of action for the misappropriation of trade secrets related to a product or service used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce. A trade secret under the DTSA includes business, financial, technical, scientific, and engineering information that the owner has taken reasonable measures to keep secret and that derives independent economic value from not being generally known. The DTSA supplements (but does not preempt) state trade secret laws based on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, allowing plaintiffs to bring federal and state claims together.

DTSA cases often begin with an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and proceed under expedited discovery. The statute also provides for exemplary damages of up to twice the actual damages awarded for willful and malicious misappropriation, attorneys’ fees, and (in extraordinary circumstances) ex parte civil seizure. The firm represents plaintiffs and defendants in DTSA cases, including disputes involving departing executives, leading prediction-markets platforms, money-services businesses, and technology companies.

Civil fraud and misappropriation claims are the firm’s core civil practice. On the plaintiff side, the firm builds these cases the way it built federal criminal fraud cases at DOJ: through factual investigation, financial forensics, structured document review, and targeted depositions designed for trial. The factual elements (false or misleading representations, scienter, reliance, duties to disclose, and damages) require the same development whether the case is civil or criminal. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) requires fraud claims to be pleaded with particularity, including the time, place, and content of each alleged misrepresentation. The firm draws on prosecution-side experience in framing fraud pleadings and presenting fraud claims at trial.

On the defense side, the firm attacks the elements the plaintiff must prove. Was the alleged statement actually false, or just unfavorable in hindsight? Was it material? Did the plaintiff actually rely on it? Were the damages caused by the alleged fraud or by independent market events? Was a duty to disclose even owed? The firm represents plaintiffs and defendants in fraud, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, conversion, and misappropriation cases in federal courts nationwide.

Yes, when properly supported. Federal courts have issued TROs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 directing wallet addresses and the international cryptocurrency exchanges that custody them. The motion typically requires blockchain tracing evidence sufficient to identify the wallets at issue, a sworn factual record establishing the underlying fraud or theft, a showing of irreparable harm given the speed at which digital assets dissipate, and a tailored order that the receiving exchange can implement. Personal jurisdiction over foreign exchanges, service of process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f), and the international comity considerations that follow all require careful handling.

The firm has obtained TROs directed at wallet addresses held at international exchanges, including following a $12 million poison address hack. The firm coordinates blockchain tracing, drafts the emergency papers, secures the order, and manages compliance and follow-on discovery against the exchanges. Where appropriate, the firm also coordinates with the FBI, IRS-CI, and other federal law enforcement to align civil recovery with parallel criminal investigation.

Retain experienced federal litigation counsel immediately. Do not respond to the receiver or produce documents without legal representation. Receivers regularly use voluntary productions and informal interviews to develop the factual record that supports a later complaint.

A clawback demand from a federally appointed receiver (typically appointed in an SEC or CFTC enforcement action) can result in the recovery of profits, principal, salary, commissions, referral fees, or other proceeds an individual received from the entity in receivership, even where the recipient had no knowledge of any fraud. Receivers proceed under state-law fraudulent transfer statutes, the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, common-law unjust enrichment, and the equitable powers of the appointing court. Effective response strategy depends on the receiver’s tracing methodology, the structure of the underlying transactions, good-faith defenses, statute of limitations, and any parallel exposure to DOJ or state regulators. The firm has defended individuals against clawback demands seeking over $2 million in proceeds from investments later found to be fraud schemes. The firm negotiates with receivers to reduce or eliminate liability and litigates clawback complaints in federal court when negotiation is not possible.

Civil claims for fraud, fraudulent inducement, concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, and misrepresentation are built on the same factual development that drives federal criminal fraud cases. The case theory turns on the timing and content of representations, the basis for reliance, duties to disclose, the documentary trail, and the resulting damages.

Scott Armstrong served as an Assistant Chief in the Market Integrity and Major Fraud Unit at DOJ’s Fraud Section, where he tried 16 federal jury trials in complex fraud cases, including the first-ever cryptocurrency market manipulation case under Title 15. Drew Bradylyons served as Chief of the Financial Crimes and Public Corruption Unit at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, where he supervised complex financial fraud investigations and trials, including a first-of-its-kind commodities insider trading prosecution. The firm builds civil fraud and misappropriation cases the same way it built criminal ones.

A breach of fiduciary duty claim arises when a person owing a fiduciary duty (such as an officer to a corporation, a director to shareholders, a partner to a partnership, or a trustee to a beneficiary) breaches the duties of loyalty, care, or good faith. Common claims against former executives involve self-dealing, undisclosed conflicts of interest, diversion of corporate opportunities, misuse of confidential information, and conversion of corporate assets.

These cases are built on the factual record: the timing of the executive’s departure, the executive’s access to corporate information before and after departure, the structure of any competing venture, and the documentary trail of communications and transactions. The firm has represented a leading multi-national franchise in claims against a former executive for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The firm also defends executives and directors against such claims, where the case theory often turns on the scope of the fiduciary duty, the business judgment rule under the law of the entity’s state of organization, and the factual record supporting or rebutting the allegations.

Civil business disputes frequently arise from the same factual conduct that draws federal or state regulatory scrutiny. A dispute between an investor and a fund may run parallel to an SEC investigation. A dispute between trading counterparties may run parallel to a CFTC investigation. A dispute between a government contractor and a subcontractor may run parallel to a DOJ False Claims Act investigation. A dispute involving healthcare reimbursement may run parallel to an OIG or DOJ investigation under the Anti-Kickback Statute. State attorneys general and state securities regulators, including the New York Attorney General and the Texas State Securities Board, increasingly drive parallel state-side activity.

Coordination across these proceedings is necessary but not sufficient. Effective representation requires substantive fluency in the regulatory frameworks the parallel investigators are applying. Strategy that protects a client in civil court without understanding what the SEC, CFTC, OIG, or state regulator is actually examining will fail in one forum or the other. The firm draws on its federal white-collar defense practice to litigate civil disputes with command of the underlying regulatory substance. The firm has secured the complete dismissal of an executive in an action brought by the Texas State Securities Board, even as related civil litigation proceeded.

Civil disputes in heavily regulated industries routinely turn on federal regulations, compliance frameworks, and industry-specific standards. A breach of contract claim between a healthcare manufacturer and a national distributor may turn on the Anti-Kickback Statute, Stark Law, and related regulatory guidance. A breach of fiduciary duty claim against an executive at a cryptocurrency company typically involves misappropriation of corporate digital assets, self-dealing in token allocations or treasury holdings, and diversion of corporate opportunities. Establishing the elements of those claims requires fluency in custody arrangements, on-chain transaction tracing, and the structure of token treasuries. A trade secret claim involving a money-services business or fintech may require evidence and expert testimony on proprietary algorithms, customer data, or payment system architecture.

The firm regularly navigates these frameworks in its criminal and False Claims Act defense practice. That fluency carries directly into civil litigation. Representative matters include a CEO of a leading wound-care product in a dispute with a national distributor, money-services businesses in trade secret and recovery disputes, and executives in cryptocurrency-related litigation.

Fraudulent inducement is a tort claim alleging that a party was induced to enter into a contract by a knowing or reckless misrepresentation of material fact on which the party reasonably relied. A breach of contract claim alleges only that one party failed to perform its obligations under the contract. Fraudulent inducement targets the formation of the contract itself.

A fraudulent inducement claim can support remedies unavailable on a pure contract theory, including rescission, punitive damages, and damages outside the four corners of the contract. Pleading fraud also requires particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), including the time, place, and content of the alleged misrepresentation and the identity of the speaker. The firm pursues and defends fraudulent inducement claims in investment disputes, M&A disputes, vendor disputes, and disputes between business partners.

Yes. The firm represents senior executives in retaliation matters arising from concerns raised about employer conduct, compliance, or regulatory matters. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act protects employees of publicly traded companies and certain affiliates who report securities violations and other specified misconduct. The False Claims Act anti-retaliation provision (31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)) protects employees who engage in protected activity in connection with a False Claims Act matter. The Dodd-Frank Act protects whistleblowers who report violations to the SEC.

The firm represents a former executive in claims of adverse employment action and retaliation for raising concerns about his employer’s practices. Retaliation cases involving executive whistleblowers often turn on complex regulatory subject matter (securities, FCA, healthcare, AML). The firm litigates these cases with fluency in the underlying regulatory regime. State-law claims for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, breach of contract, and related theories may also apply.

Most civil cases settle. The terms on which they settle are driven by the credible threat of trial. Counsel who have actually tried federal cases bring different leverage to settlement negotiations, mediations, and dispositive motion practice than counsel who have not.

The firm’s attorneys have tried 25 federal jury trials. Scott Armstrong served as lead trial counsel in a two-week federal trial against two defendants convicted of misleading private investors in a Ponzi scheme that laundered approximately $650 million through financial institutions, the first-ever cryptocurrency market manipulation case tried under Title 15 involving over $300 million in spoof and wash trades, and a multi-week manipulation case against two senior traders at a major financial institution in the precious metals futures markets. Drew Bradylyons served as Chief of the Financial Crimes and Public Corruption Unit at EDVA and previously prosecuted a first-of-its-kind commodities insider trading ring in natural gas futures at DOJ’s Fraud Section.