Our attorneys have extensive experience in multiple practice areas to successfully negotiate and litigate commercial disputes for our business clients. Although they represent a diverse range of business industries, our clients can rely on us to use resources efficiently and effectively. We use our skills to put the client in the driver’s seat; whether helping to negotiate an effective settlement before a dispute becomes protracted or using every resource available to best represent the client’s interests in discovery or at trial. Our approach has resulted in the successful resolution of numerous commercial matters over the years, from compliance issues to complex litigation.
BSCR attorneys have successfully represented clients in UCC, contract, and business tort litigation related to: shareholder and corporate officer liability; commercial leases; land use and zoning; pharmaceutical products; railroad equipment; aviation equipment and components; oil drilling equipment; generating plants and generator components; fleet sales; trucks and trucking equipment; insurance coverage; complex construction projects and construction materials; computer software systems and design; and mining.
In addition to extensive experience with local, regional and national commercial litigation, BSCR has a comprehensive understanding of compliance issues that a number of businesses encounter. We represent clients in arbitration, mediation and court-sponsored dispute resolution proceedings. The industries we represent include: aerospace, automotive, construction, energy, engineering, hospitality, industrial equipment, insurance, pharmaceutical, real estate, healthcare, and telecommunications.
For more information about our Commercial practice contact John Cowden at 816.448.9347 or James Scott Kreamer at 816.471.2121.
| The CFPB recently filed its complaint against Navient, the nation’s largest servicer of federal and private student loans for alleged failures in servicing those loans. Filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Complaint contains allegations that Navient violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the FDPCA and seeks millions in restitution.
| In a ruling favorable to home loan mortgage servicers, the Florida Supreme Court held that the trial court’s dismissal of a previous foreclosure action caused the loan to decelerate, thus recommencing the 5-year statute of limitations period for acceleration of the loan.
| While the very concept of an electronic mortgage is not new, the adoption of e-mortgages as the new “normal” remains a hot topic in the mortgage servicing realm. Despite the technology behind electronic document execution, delays in e-notarization laws prevent e-mortgages from fully replacing traditional home loan transactions.
| On October 25, 2016, FinCEN issued an Advisory outlining recommendations and requirements for financial institutions to report suspicious activity in compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act, clarifying these institutions’ obligation to report cyber-events, even where no financial transaction was completed.
| In a long-awaited opinion, the D.C. Circuit Court held that the structure of the CFPB, as it exists currently, is unconstitutional. The Court also rejected the Director’s argument that the applicable statute of limitations does not apply to a CFPB administrative action.
| The results of the November 8, 2016 election have unmistakably cast doubt on the future of the CFPB, particularly as it exists today. With Donald Trump as President-elect, along with a Republican-held House and Senate, it is likely that some of the preceding years’ regulations and consumer protections will be undone.
| In a recent decision, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals sided with consumers asserting deceptive labeling practice claims against merchants under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA).
| A Missouri plaintiff did not irrevocably waive the protections of the work product doctrine simply by designating an expert witness and then withdrawing the designation without disclosing the expert’s analysis or conclusions.
| In McNearney v. LTF Club Operations Company, Inc., the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District recently affirmed a trial court ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant fitness club from claims by the Plaintiff that it was negligent and reckless in allowing her to become injured while participating in a boot camp exercise class.
| On May 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Green v. Brennan in order to resolve a split among the Circuits on whether, in an action for constructive discharge, the 45-day limitation period for the employee to initiate contact with the EEOC begins to run after the employer’s last discriminatory act, or at the time of the employee’s resignation.
| In its first 4-4 decision since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that resulted in affirmation of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals’ opinion in favor of a Missouri bank in a dispute concerning the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
| The Kansas Court of Appeals recently held that, even where a debt collector delayed its motion to compel arbitration until 2 years after the litigation was commenced, the trial court did not have the authority to decide that the delay was, in effect, a waiver of arbitration.
| In its current state, the MMPA has allowed consumers to collect substantial verdicts in cases that have strayed from the original intent of lawmakers. SB793 hopes to restore a balance that requires not only that businesses act fairly, but also that consumers act reasonably.
| While a Kansas court may grant relief from a final judgment based on excusable neglect, it is an abuse of discretion to grant that relief when the party seeking that relief has failed either to explain what facts constituted excusable neglect or to provide any evidence to support that claim.
| The Eighth Circuit recently analyzed the application of the “outside sales” and “administrative” exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act in the context of promotional workers. Also, the Court was asked to decide, for the first time, what constitutes a valid waiver of an employee’s rights under the FLSA.
| An agent may recover attorney’s fees when enforcing a principal’s contract if: the agent is granted the express authority to enforce the contract in the contract itself, the contract contains an attorney’s fees provision, and the agent is the prevailing party.
| A defendant removing a case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act need not provide evidence proving the jurisdictional amount in controversy in the notice of removal. A “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” is sufficient.
| Experts are not required to rule out all possible causes when performing the differential etiology analysis if the experts have properly ruled in the alleged cause.
| A Kansas plaintiff may amend their pleadings to assert punitive damages up until the day of the pretrial conference.
| A man who sued his former employer, alleging he was discharged in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, appealed on the basis that the trial court used a jury instruction with the wrong standard. In a 5-2 decision written by Judge George W. Draper III, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected the 'exclusive causation' standard and replaced it with the "contributing factor" standard. On remand and in future cases, the jury must determine whether the plaintiff's filing of a workers' compensation claim was a "contributing factor" to his or her discharge.
| Based on its adoption of a statutory scheme of comparative negligence, Kansas has abolished common law assumption of the risk as a bar to recovery. Simmons v. Porter, 298 Kan. 299, 312 P3d 345, 355 (Kan. 2013).
| The plaintiff has the burden of proving standing, which is a jurisdictional issue that can be raised at any time.
| In Kansas, the parties bind themselves to an enforceable settlement, even though the parties contemplate subsequent execution of a formal instrument. However, when the parties specifically condition a contract on it being reduced to writing and signed, there is no enforceable contract until such act is accomplished.