Securites and Partnership Disputes

Crosscode (now Codelogic, Inc.) Crosscode, Inc. v. Sharma
Mr. Friedman was brought in after the startup SAAS company terminated its founder and CEO. Mr. Friedman and his team led an internal investigation and discovered that the CEO engaged in securities fraud and other wrongdoing. The former CEO retaliated by claiming that pursuant to an agreement, he owned all of the company’s intellectual property and was wrongfully terminated. Mr. Friedman’s team secured a preliminary injunction against the former CEO from enforcing the agreement and using the Company’s IP, and ultimately achieved a beneficial settlement. Dave also helped his client successfully navigate bankruptcy and shed liabilities created by the former CEO so that the company could emerge with a clean slate.

Mayacamas Winery
Mr. Friedman’s team partnered with a large firm to handle a breach of fiduciary duty and partnership dispute between two 50% members of an LLC involving the storied California winery, Mayacamas. Simultaneous litigation ensued in Napa County and the Delaware Court of Chancery, which ultimately led to a successful resolution for his client.

Re: CG Blockchain
Mr. Friedman recently represented a client in an SEC investigation related to the cryptocurrency company, CG Blockchain, the subject of significant press due in part to the fact that the Company’s founder concealed his true identity and his prior conviction for engaging in one of Canada’s largest financial scams.

Storm Ventures, L.P. vs. Pipedrive, Inc.
Mr. Friedman’s team represented Pipedrive, a venture-backed SAAS company in litigation filed by one of its seed-investors in which the Plaintiff claimed that it was entitled to more shares of the company on a breach of contract theory. The case was successfully resolved as part of Pipedrive’s acquisition by a large private equity fund.

Confidential Client in SEC Insider Trading Investigation
Mr. Friedman recently represented a technology executive in an insider trading investigation. The matter concluded with the SEC taking no action against his client.