Tom Shroyer focuses his practice on complex civil litigation, including shareholder rights disputes, securities litigation, contract disputes, business torts, and intellectual property litigation.
Highly respected by both clients and opposing counsel for his ability to anticipate problems and develop practical solutions with bottom-line success, Tom has handled numerous multimillion-dollar claims for local and national businesses.
Shareholder Rights Litigation
Plaintiffs v. Shareholders (Hennepin County District Court File No. CT 03-015235 and CT 03-13928) – Prosecuted plaintiffs’ claims for control of $125-million printing company and repayment of $9 million in promissory notes; action consolidated with minority shareholder claim for relief under Minn. Stat. 302A.751.
Shareholders v. Company (Hennepin County District Court File No. EM 96-008614) – Obtained court-ordered buy-out of former shareholder at favorable price based on valuation of defendants’ appraiser.
Securities and Class Action Claims
Class Action (D. Minn. No. 97-2259) – Defended accounting firm on securities fraud class action and won dismissal under Private Litigation Securities Reform Act of 1995.
Investor v. CPA, 682 F. Supp. 429 (D. Minn.); Investor v. CPA, 638 F. Supp. 1283 (D. Minn. ); Investor v. CPA, 692 F. Supp. 1057 (D. Minn.); Investor v. CPA, 703 F. Supp. 1388 (D. Minn.) – Served as lead defense counsel for complex securities fraud and accounting malpractice claims arising out of sale of abusive tax shelters.
Employee v. Plan Sponsor, 739 F.2d 1293 (8th Cir. 1984) – Defended class action ERISA and common law fraud claim.
Investor v. CPA, 587 F. Supp. 719 and 591 F. Supp. 837 (D. Minn. 1984) – Established exception to American Pipe tolling doctrine for statute of limitations in this securities fraud class.
Investor v. Broker Dealer (D. Minn., No. 4-90-125) – Represented plaintiffs in $25-million securities fraud class action for sale of wind farm by Control Data, Inc.
Investor v. Law Firm (D. Minn.) – Defended major Minnesota law firm on securities fraud and legal malpractice class action brought under fraud on the market theory.
Insurance Broker v. Health Insurance Company (Hennepin County District Court File No. 03-002739) – Obtained lucrative, confidential settlement of claim for health insurance broker against insurance companies for breach of contract to pay renewal premiums.
Seller v. Developer, 1992 WL 333619 (Minn. Ct. App.) – Successfully defended claim to impose equitable mortgage on sale of $10 million of commercial property on grounds of fraud.
Insurance Company v. Insured, 117 F. Supp. 2d 911 (D. Minn.) – Reformation of insurance policy.
Insurance Company v. Insured, 23 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (D. Minn.) – Determined that failure to disclose known claim in insurance policy application voids coverage.
Claimant v. Insured, 1993 WL 121257 (Minn. Ct. App.) – Defeated Miller v. Shugart settlement on grounds that terms were unreasonable and a sham.
Insurance Company v. Insured, 726 F. Supp. 740 (D. Minn.) – Established that punitive damages are not insurable in Minnesota.
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademark Owner v. Infringer (D. Minn. No. 07-4570) – Obtained injunction against sale and advertising of drink product, and related web domains, infringing on client’s trademarks.
Plaintiff v. Case Worker (Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-C7-06-000770) – Successfully defended this case through six days of trial, resulting in a jury verdict that completely rejected a claim of rape put forth by a social services client against her case worker and his employer.
Distributor v. Manufacturer (Hennepin County District Court File No. 05-1192) – Won dismissal of claim for tortious interference with distribution franchise agreement and sanctions for attorneys’ fees against plaintiff.
In re Estate, 2005 WL 1619867 (Minn. Ct. App.) – Led successful defense of will contest and handwriting forgery claim. The Minnesota Court of Appeals commented that the credibility of the plaintiff’s handwriting expert was “effectively undermined” by Mr. Shroyer (WL 1619867 at p. 4).
Developer v. Township, 551 N.W.2d 248 (Minn. Ct. App.) – Successfully defended zoning moratorium on development of concentrated hog finishing operation.
Developer v. Township, 1995 WL 479670 (Minn. Ct. App.) – Successful defense of municipal zoning and planning law.