Reported Cases

Any result achieved on behalf of clients in other matters does not necessarily indicate similar results can be obtained for other clients.

  • The State of South Carolina, ex relatione, T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General v. National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., et al., Case No. 94-CP-23-2428, Court of Common Pleas for Greenville County before Judge Henry Floyd. This was an action brought on behalf of all employers in South Carolina involving Workers’ Compensation Insurance. The settlement in this action consisted of a $24.5 million immediate cash payment and future relief consisting of programs, incentives and discounts having a total present value of $8 million along with provision for direct reimbursement of expenses of litigation in the amount of $500,000. The claim in the case was for recoupment of losses sustained by employers in the State of South Carolina who were squeezed into the Workers’ Compensation residual market. There were more than 29 attorneys of record in the matter, both local and nationally, on behalf of the defendants. Motions and discovery lasted over four years and the production of documents exceeded one million documents.
  • Ross Cosmetics Securities litigation filed in the U.S. District Court, Spartanburg Division. This litigation was ultimately settled for approximately $9 million in 1993.
  • Multimedia securities litigation filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Greenville County before Judge Pyle. As a result of this action, the company elected a recapitalization plan which resulted in an increase of $7.00 per share over the initial freeze out offer. Without considering the potential value of the opportunity for continued equity participation, it was estimated that the benefit to the public shareholders was in excess of $40 million.
  • Moorman v. Crawford, et al., Case No. CC-86-0050-M, U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina. This was a stockholder’s derivative action filed on behalf of the stockholders in a large closely held corporation. A settlement arrangement was entered into with the company wherein the company made an offer to all of its shareholders to purchase all or part of their stock at substantial amounts over previous stock purchases.
  • Kitchens v. U.S. Shelter, 82-1951-1, U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. This was a class action securities matter involving a judgment of $6.2 million.
  • Phillips v. Bebber, C.A. #9-88-2051-3, U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. This was an ERISA class action involving termination of a pension plan of Trailways Bus Lines. This litigation resulted in terminating the pension plan and recovering a surplus for the benefit of the class which exceeded $30 million.
  • Thomas v. Tru-Tech, U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15929. This was an ERISA class action involving termination of a pension plan. Plaintiffs received a $217,000 non-jury verdict, Judge G. Ross Anderson; affirmed by the 4th Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals.
  • Patriots Point Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. This was a class action involving a defaulted bond issue. Plaintiffs received a $12.7 million settlement in 1992.
  • Bonney v. Grainger, 356 S.E.2d 137 (S.C. Ct. App.). This was trust litigation in which long-standing trustee of some 40 years was removed for lack of authority to act as trustee.
  • Newsom, et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Carolina, et al. Case No. 2002-CP-40-4997, Court of Common Pleas, State of South Carolina, County of Richland. This is a class action brought on behalf of all doctors in South Carolina against various Blue Cross entities. The Court has recently certified the Plaintiff class action motion of plaintiffs.
  • Horner, et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Civil Action No. 5:04-CV-81-FL(2); U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division. This is a class action brought on behalf of all doctors in North Carolina against various Blue Cross entities. A class certification motion has not yet been filed in this case.
  • Gosnell, et al. v. Wild Turkey Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 2003-CP-23-00678, Court of Common Pleas, State of South Carolina, County of Greenville. This was a class action involving a subdivision in Greenville, South Carolina. The class was certified and involved 31 various homeowners. The case was recently settled.
  • Vogt v. Greenmarine Holding, LLC, case No. 02-Civ. 2039 (GEL), U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. This is a class action brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN Act”), on behalf of all terminated employees of Outboard Marine Corporation. The WARN Act requires employers to give sixty days notice to employees prior to a mass layoff or plant closing. The case was originally filed in early 2001 in Atlanta Federal District Court where it was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. In 2002 the case was refiled in New York. Discovery is virtually completed and the class certification and other issues are expected to be ruled on later this year. The class of plaintiffs (former employees of Outboard Marine Corporation), is expected to exceed Five Thousand (5,000) individuals. In filings with the Court plaintiffs have alleged the damages to the class exceed $44.5 Million. A significant ruling in this case is found at: Vogt v. Greenmarine Holding, LLC, 318 F. Supp. 136 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).

Tax-Related Litigation:

  • Calhoun v. Wells, jury trial U.S.D.C., Greenville Division [Judge Houck], related matters at 45 AFTR2d 80-1686 (D.S.C., 1980) and 80-2 U.S.T.C. (CCH) 9643 (D.S.C. 1980).
  • Covil Insulation Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 65 T.C. 364 (1975), tax deficiency litigation.
  • Jim Lee Wilson v. Commissioner, 35 T.C.M. (CCH) 1019, (1976), tax deficiency litigation.

Reported Cases and Orders:

  • Covil Insulation Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 65 T.C. 364 (1975)
  • Jim Lee Wilson v. Commissioner, 35 T.C.M. (CCH) 1019 (1976)
  • Calhoun v. Wells, 80-1 T.C.M. (CCH) 9431 (D.S.C.1980); 80-2 T.C.M. (CCH) 9643, (D.S.C. 1980)
  • Llewelyn v. Dobson Bros., 262 S.E.2d 726 (S.C. 1980)
  • Gantt v. Boone, Wellford, Clark and Langschmidt, 559 F. Supp. 1219 (M.D. La.1983)
  • Runion v. U.S. Shelter, 98 F.R.D. 313 (D.S.C.1983)
  • Diamond v. Lamotte, 709 F.2d 1419 (11th Cir. 1983)
  • South Carolina National Bank v. Darmstadter, 622 F. Supp. 226 (D.S.C. 1985); 813 F.2d 403 (4th Cir. 1986) cert. denied 479 U.S. 1065 (1987)
  • Lee v. Chesterfield General Hosp. Inc., 344 S.E.2d 379 (1986)
  • Bonney v. Grainger, 356 S.E.2d 138 (1987); 387 S.E.2d 720 (1990)
  • Pate v. Ford, 360 S.E.2d 145 (1987); 376 S.E.2d 775 (1989)
  • Kitchens v. U.S. Shelter, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 93,920 (D.S.C. 1988); 1988 W.L. 212511 (D.S.C. 1988); U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15929 (D.S.C. 1988); U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16044-16050 (D.S.C. 1987)
  • Newsom v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 386 S.E.2d 627 (1989)
  • Elmore v. Cone Mills Corp., Federal Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 95,506 (D.S.C.1990); 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13583 (D.S.C. 1991); 6 F.3d 1028 (4th Cir. 1993); 23 F.3d 855 (4th Cir., en banc, 1994)
  • Phillips v. Bebber, 914 F.2d 31 (4th Cir. 1990)
  • Thomas v. Tru-Tech, Inc., 12 Employee Benefits Cases 1304; 900 F.2d 256 (4th Cir. 1990)
  • USF&G v. Patriot’s Point Development Authority, 772 F. Supp. 1565 (D.S.C.1991); 788 F. Supp. 880 (D.S.C. 1992)
  • Nipper v. Snipes, 7 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 1993); 38 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 23
  • Thomas v. Peacock, 39 F.3d 493 (4th Cir. 1994)
  • Peacock v. Thomas, 116 S.Ct. 862 (1996)
  • Collins Entertainment Corp. v. Infinational Techs, 145 F.3d 1323, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 19210 (4th Cir. S.C. 1998)
  • Vogt v. Greenmarine Holding, LLC 318 F. Supp. 2d 136, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1196, 21 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 47 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
  • Crown Cork & Seal Co., v. CBS Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7896 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 1, 2002)
  • Summey v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 449 F. Supp. 132 (D.S.C. 1976)
  • Banco de Credito Indus. v. Citizens & Southern Natl. Bank of South Carolina, 1980 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 15871 (D.S.C. Dec. 24, 1980)
  • DOT v DOE, Inc., 563 S.E.2d 565 (2002)
  • Pond Place Partners v. Poole, 351 S.C. 1; 567 S.E.2d 881 (Ct. App. 2002)
  • Hall v. Fedor, 349 S.C. 169; 561 S.E.2d 654 (Ct. App. 2002)
  • Bob Jones Univ. v. Strandell, 344 S.C. 224; 543 S.E.2d 251 (2001)
  • Collins Music Co. v. IGT, 353 S.C. 559; 579 S.E.2d 524; cert. denied by [Collins Music Co. v. IGT, 157 L. Ed. 2d 143, 124 S. Ct. 303 (U.S. 2003)]
  • Vogt v. Greenmarine Holding, LLC, 318 F. Supp. 2d 136 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
  • Wachovia Bank National Association v. Daniel G. Schmidt, III, et. al., 388 F.3d 414 (4th Cir. 2004); Petition for rehearing and rehearing, en banc, Denied January 28, 2005; cert. granted June 13, 2005, 25 S.Ct. 2904, 162 L.Ed.2d 293
  • Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303 (2006)
  • Wachovia Bank, Nat. Ass'n v. Schmidt, 445 F.3d 762 (4th Cir. April 25, 2006)
  • Simon v. KPMG LLP, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 469956 (D.N.J. February 27, 2006)
  • Simon v. KPMG LLP, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1541048, 97 A.F.T.R.2d 2006-2806 (D.N.J. June 2, 2006)
  • George v Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan, 259 F.R.D. 225, D.S.C., September 04, 2009
  • Schmidt v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 2008 WL 5396684, W.D.N.C., December 23, 2008 (No. 3:08-cv-185)
  • Collins Music Co., Inc. v. JGT, 365 S.C. 544, 619 S.E.2d 1, 2005 WL 1676715, S.C.App. July 18, 2005 (No. 4015)
  • George v. Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan, 259 F.R.D. 225, D.S.C., September 04, 2009
  • George v. Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan, 560 F.Supp.2d 444, D.S.C., June 02, 2008
  • George v. Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan, 2008 WL 27177433 Pens. Plan Guide (CCH) P 24003C, D.S.C., June 02, 2008
  • BCD, LLC v. BMW Mfg. Co., LLC, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 304878, D.S.C., January 31, 2008 (No. 6:05-CV-2152-GRA.)
  • BCD, LLC v. BMW Mfg, Co., LLC, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 776092, D.S.C., March 09, 2007 (C/A No. 6:05-cv-2152-GRA.)
  • BCD, LLC, Rosen Campus I, LLC v. BMW Mfg. Co., LLC, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 128887, D.S.C., January 12, 2007 (C/A No. 6:05-CV-2152-GRA.)
  • Cox House Moving, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 Wl 3230757, D.S.C., November 06, 2006 (CA No. 7:06-1218-HMH.)
  • Cos House Moving, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 2303182, 60 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 642, D.S.C., August 08, 2006 (CA No. 7:06-1218-HMH.)
  • Wachovia Bank, Nat. Ass'n v Schmidt, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2003 WL 25426201, D.S.C., August 01, 2003 (No. CIVA 6:03-2005-20.)
  • Love v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Ass'n, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 4097612, S.D.Fla September 04, 2008 (No. 03-21296-CIV.)
  • In re Managed Care Litigation, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 2944897, S.D.Fla., July 24, 2008 (Master File No. 00-1334-MD.Tag-Along Case No. 03-21296-CIV.)
  • In re Managed Care Litigation, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 2741529, S.D.Fla., July 14, 2008 (Master File No. 00-1334-MD.Tag-Along Case No.03-21296-CIV.)
  • Collins Music Co. Inc. v. IGT, 365 S.C. 544, 619 S.E.2d 544, 2005 WL 1676715, S.C. Appl, July 18, 2005 (No. 4015)
  • Schmidt v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 2008 WL 5396684, (W.D.N.C. Dec. 23, 2008) (No. 3:08-cv-185)

  • George v. Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 2717743, Pens. Plan Guide (CCH) P 24003C., (D.S.C. June 2, 2008)
  • George v. Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan, 259 F.R.D. 225 (D.S.C. Sept. 4, 2009)
  • Simon v. KPMG LLP, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 469956, (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2006)
  • Simon v. KPMG LLP, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1541048, 97 A.F.T.R.2d 2006-2806 (D.N.J. June 2, 2006)

The information contained in this site is provided as a public service for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a comprehensive statement of the law or, in particular, to contain legal advice. Laws vary from state to state and are subject to change, which could affect the information available on this site. If you have questions regarding any information found on this site, you should consult an attorney who can investigate the particular circumstances of your situation. Persons receiving information found on this site should not act on this information without receiving professional legal counsel. Use of and access to this web site does not create an attorney client relationship between the Gilreath Law Firm, P.A. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. Any result achieved on behalf of clients in other matters does not necessarily indicate similar results can be obtained for other clients.