Case Results

Corporate Division Advisory for Separation and Investment

In Washington D.C., a corporate division involving the creation of a new subsidiary through an asset transfer must comply with the statutory framework of the District’s Business Corporation Act, including provisions governing dispositions of assets, shareholder approval, fiduciary obligations, and disclosure requirements. This corporate division case study illustrates how a D.C. corporate attorney assisted a mid sized company in separating its rapidly growing business unit and establishing an investment ready subsidiary while carefully aligning the steps of the transaction with applicable governance rules. Because corporate division in Washington D.C. involves legal scrutiny relating to board determinations, shareholder rights, and regulatory disclosures, the attorney ensured that every aspect of the restructuring reflected statutory compliance and minimized litigation risk.

Anti Stalking Law Resolved With “No Charges Filed”

This case study details how a Washington, D.C. resident wrongfully accused under the Anti Stalking Law secured a “no charges filed” outcome after a full law-enforcement investigation.Stalking allegations in D.C. are treated seriously because the Anti Stalking Law covers a broad range of conduct: repeated approaches, messages, notes, surveillance, or other behavior that could cause fear or emotional distress. Even everyday neighborhood disputes can escalate into criminal exposure if misunderstood. Through rapid evidence development, context-driven explanation, and focused advocacy, the defense team demonstrated that the client’s actions were legitimate attempts to resolve a noise problem not stalking leading authorities to decline prosecution.

Embezzlement Complaint Defense Non Prosecution Secured

A New York criminal defense attorney was retained to represent a client who had been wrongfully accused through an embezzlement complaint filed over the transfer and non return of a leased high end vehicle. Although the matter initially appeared to involve potential criminal exposure, a detailed review of New York law quickly revealed that the client lacked criminal intent and had gained no unlawful benefit.Because embezzlement related allegations in New York are evaluated through proof of intent, benefit, and unauthorized control, the defense focused on dismantling the factual basis of the embezzlement complaint and demonstrating that the situation arose from financial hardship rather than fraudulent conduct.Through structured investigation, review of transfer communications, and persistent engagement with the assigned prosecutor, counsel ultimately secured a full non prosecution outcome, allowing the client to avoid criminal liability and reputational harm.

Unlawful Entry Charge New York Non Prosecution Defense

A client facing an unlawful entry charge in New York sought immediate legal assistance after being investigated for entering a private education center late at night while intoxicated. Although the situation raised concerns under New York Penal Law §140.10 (Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree) and related trespass provisions, the facts suggested an accidental, non malicious entry rather than a willful intrusion.This case study outlines how structured legal representation, early fact development, and mitigation based negotiation led to a full non prosecution disposition, allowing the client to avoid criminal liability and long term consequences.Because unlawful entry cases often turn on intent, property boundaries, consent, and alleged disturbance, a careful application of New York trespass laws was essential to achieving a favorable outcome.