Significant Litigation

Listed below are some of the significant cases the firm has handled. See Reported Cases for citations to all reported cases in which the Firm has been involved.

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

ERISA Litigation:

PHILLIPS v BEBBER was a pension fund class action litigation in the United States District Court, Greenville Division, 1988-89. The judge granted summary judgment for termination of the Trailways' bus drivers' pension plan. In addition to terminating the pension plan, the Plaintiffs were able to recover a surplus for the benefit of the class which exceeded $30 Million. The case was affirmed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

THOMAS v TRU-TECH was an ERISA class action in the United States District Court, Greenville Division, 1988, resulting in a non-jury verdict for plaintiff, which was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals.

Probate Litigation:

BONNEY v GRAINGER, S.C. Court of Common Pleas (1983-87) was trust litigation in which long-standing trustee of some 40 years was removed for lack of authority to act as trustee. Subsequent appeal held Master-in-Equity could not sell property with contingencies.

Securities Litigation:

KITCHENS v UNITED STATES SHELTER, United States District Court, Greenville Division (1982-89) Class action securities litigation resulting in judgment for class in 1988.

MENDOZA v. SNIPES, Court of Common Pleas, Greenville County, was an action for violation of the South Carolina Securities Act, resulting in a judgment for the Plaintiffs in 1989.

PATRIOTS POINT in the United States District Court, Charleston Division, was a class action securities litigation involving bonds issued by the Patriots Point Authority in Charleston settled in 1992 with the Plaintiffs receiving approximately $12.7 Million.

ROSS COSMETICS, United States District Court, Spartanburg Division, was a class action securities litigation settled by the Plaintiffs for approximately $9 Million in 1993.

Legal Malpractice:

GANTT v PEMBERTON, et al., United States District Court, Louisiana, 1978-82, was a legal malpractice claim against a tax attorney regarding improper liquidation of corporation, settled after trial and before appeal.

Other Litigation:

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. The Gilreath Law Firm was one of several co-counsel for Plaintiffs in this case which 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 defense attorneys of record in the matter, both local and nationally. Motions and discovery lasted over four years and the production of documents exceeded one million documents.

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.