Business Litigation Session 2025 Year In Review

Faculty

• Hon. Kenneth Salinger, Superior Court
• Kate Beattie, Esq., Foley & Lardner LLP
• Jamie Steven, Esq., Foley & Lardner LLP

Every year, the Business Litigation Session ("BLS") of the Massachusetts Superior Court handles a wide variety of complex business and commercial disputes. In doing so, it decides issues not only of first impression but also other complex issues of interest to any practitioner who litigates business disputes. This CLE will review the most notable BLS decisions from 2025 to give practitioners additional tools that they can use when they are litigating in Massachusetts (and perhaps elsewhere). 

A number of significant cases will be discussed. Examples include:

• Yanai v. Kein, Case No. 258CV00565-BLS2 (Salinger, L.) (May 22, 2025) (enforcing mandatory forum selection clause and requiring that breach of contract claims and related claims involving the same operative facts be asserted in Israel; dismissing G.L. c. 93A claim because detailed factual allegations in the complaint established that the center of gravity of the alleged misconduct did not occur in Massachusetts)
• Commonwealth v. ExxonMobil, Case No. 1984CV3333-BLS1 (Krupp, J.) (Apr. 9, 2025) (exploring the Kovel doctrine under the attorney-client privilege and holding that a document otherwise covered by the privilege may lose or maintain its privileged nature when disclosed to a third party, depending on whether the third party’s involvement was necessary to facilitate attorney-client communications)
• MCR Labs, LLC v. Analytics Labs, LLC, et al., Case No. 2584CV00260-BLS2 (Squires-Lee, J.) (Oct. 21, 2025) (holding that parties need not be engaged in a business relationship for a claim under G.L. c. 93A, § 11 for “unfair competition,” as opposed to unfair trade practices)
• Waltham Centerpoint I Investment Group, LLC v. Generation Bio Co., Case No. 2484CV00462-BLS2 (Salinger, J.) (Jan. 21, 2025) (granting preliminary injunction and holding that irreparable harm includes economic injury that cannot be vindicated by litigation on the merits, such as loss of market share or business opportunities—including the ability to build out and lease other space—even if it does not threaten the movant’s existence; finding that inability to reasonably quantify such harm supports injunctive relief)
• Town of Braintree v. MIIA Property & Casualty Group, Inc., Case No. 2484CV1398-BLS1 (Krupp, J.) (May 5, 2025) (addressing attorney-client privilege and the “at issue” waiver in insurance defense, and holding that when an insurer provides a defense—even under a reservation of rights—the common interest doctrine typically permits the insurer access to defense counsel’s communications about liability, while communications solely about coverage may remain privileged)
• Anaplan Parent, LP v. Brennan, Case No. 2584CV2350-BLS2 (Squires-Lee, J.) (Sept. 2025)
  (holding that a noncompetition agreement signed only by the employer’s parent company is not enforceable under the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act, which requires the agreement to be signed by the actual employer)