When the business record tells a different story
A company may discover that financial information was inaccurate, ownership was misrepresented or an explanation for a transaction does not match the records. The initial concern is often clear. Establishing what happened, who was responsible and how it caused a loss requires a closer investigation.
Matthew Bialick examines the statements, documents and financial relationships behind the dispute. That work connects the alleged deception to the decision it influenced and the evidence needed to pursue or defend a claim.
Disputes involving deceptive business dealings
MJB Law evaluates matters involving:
- Allegedly false statements about financial condition, ownership or business assets.
- Material misrepresentations made to obtain payment, credit or a business agreement.
- Concealment of important facts where a legal duty to disclose is alleged.
- Disputed descriptions of how money or property would be used.
- Claims that a transaction or agreement was induced by fraud.
- Conflicting accounts of the relationships among businesses, owners and insiders.
The analysis begins with the particular transaction. Which statement was made, who received it, when it was made and what happened in response can determine the direction of the case.
Identifying the statement, the reliance and the loss
An unsuccessful transaction or an unpaid contract does not by itself establish fraudulent misrepresentation. A fraud claim requires its own supporting facts.
For a misrepresentation claim, the assessment includes whether a material factual statement was false, the speaker's knowledge and intent, whether the recipient reasonably relied on it, and whether that reliance caused financial loss. A concealment theory also requires attention to whether the circumstances created a duty to disclose.
Emails, financial statements, transaction documents and communications made before the dispute arose can be particularly important. They help distinguish what the parties knew at the time from explanations developed after the relationship deteriorated.
Experience uncovering concealed business activity
Matthew's broader fraud and asset-recovery experience includes representing Glenwood State Bank, with Jack Atnip III, in litigation involving related earthmoving businesses. The representation produced a trial victory on fraudulent-transfer, successor-liability and civil-conspiracy claims. The challenged judgments were affirmed on appeal.
The record connected business activity, equipment and revenue across entities through contracts, invoices, checks and testimony. That investigation illustrates the importance of testing ownership claims and business explanations against the underlying records.
Read the Glenwood State Bank case summary
Read the 2016 Court of Appeals opinion (unpublished)
Connecting liability with a practical recovery strategy
A fraud claim may be only one part of the dispute. Contract claims, ownership questions or transactions involving related parties may require separate analysis.
Where money or property has moved beyond the original party's reach, MJB Law evaluates potential fraudulent-transfer claims and, where supported by the record, successor liability or veil piercing. The strategy considers both the merits of the claims and the practical questions of who may be liable and what assets may be available.
Learn more about the firm's fraud litigation and asset recovery practice.
Discuss your business fraud matter
Identify the parties, the transaction, the statement or omission at issue and any approaching deadline. After a conflict check, the firm can arrange an appropriate way to review the relevant records.