*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** PURSUIT PARTNERS, LLC, ET AL. v. REED SMITH, LLP, ET AL. (AC 41551) Elgo, Moll and Devlin, Js. Syllabus The plaintiffs, M Co., O Co. and P Co., sought to recover damages from the defendant R Co., a law firm, for breach of contract for its alleged violation of a confidentiality provision of a settlement agreement executed by the plaintiffs and A Co., to which R Co. was a signatory. The plaintiffs and A Co. had executed a confidential settlement agreement to resolve certain litigation and arbitration proceedings. Thereafter, A Co. brought a related action, Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P. v. Pursuit Investment Management, LLC, (193 Conn. App. 381) (Alpha Beta), seeking damages for the alleged failure of the defendants, which included the plaintiffs in the present case, to provide A Co. with its proportionate share of the litigation proceeds secured by the settlement agreement. In Alpha Beta, the trial court found that the delayed payment of the proceeds to A Co. constituted a material breach of the settlement agreement by certain defendants in that action, relieving A Co. of its confidentiality obligations thereunder, and this court held that the court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. Subsequently, the plaintiffs commenced this action against R Co., alleging that R Co. breached the confidentiality provision of the agreement when it communicated with S Co. in connection with litiga- tion involving the plaintiffs in the present case. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by R Co. on defensive collateral estoppel grounds, concluding that, in Alpha Beta, the defendants were determined to be the culpable parties, excusing further adherence to the confidentiality provisions by A Co., and, once the court had ruled in favor of A Co., it found that R Co.’s obligation pursuant to the confiden- tiality provisions of the agreement also was excused. Held: 1. The plaintiffs could not prevail on …Original document

This content is restricted to site members only. If you are an existing user, please log in to "My Account". New users may register here 

Existing Users Log In
   
New User Registration
*Required field