Commerce Funding Corp. v. Worldwide Security Services Corp., et al., 249 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2001) - We represented Worldwide Security Services Corp., a Texas based security services company, in an interpleader action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. We asserted cross claims against Southern Financial Bank for tortuous interference with contract and with prospective advantage for its actions with Worldwide's factor. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank dismissing the tort claims on Southern's assertion that it was privileged to insert itself into the relationship between Worldwide and its factor because it had a good faith belief in a legitimate financial interest in the disputed funds being held. New law was made in this district when the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court on the tortuous interference with contract claim holding that merely a good faith belief of a legitimate interest in the disputed funds, when that belief is found to be false, is an insufficient basis to assert the claim of privilege. In order to assert the privilege defense the interest in the disputed funds must be actual.

Star Diamond, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 965 F.Supp. 763 (E.D. Va. 1997) - Mark Byrum represented Lloyd's, London in this jeweler's block insurance case, where the plaintiff made a claim for an unexplained loss of a satchel of diamonds, for which the insurer denied coverage and refused to pay claiming the loss fell under two exclusions: the "unattended automobile" exclusion and the "unexplained loss or mysterious disappearance" exclusion. In this case of first impression in Virginia, the U.S. District Court granted the insurer's summary judgment motion on the mysterious or unexplained loss exclusion (the insured's explanation for the loss was that the diamonds were in the car at one point and not at another). Thus, based upon the mysterious or unexplained loss exclusion, the insurer was not required to pay the claim.

RZS Holdings v. Commerzbank, AG, 279 F.Supp.2d 716 (E.D. Va. 2003) - We were local counsel in this dispute involving the Virginia "long-arm statute" on behalf of Commerzbank over a $20 million letter of credit, the underlying transaction involving 400,000 barrels of Venezuelan oil. The U.S. District Court granted Commerzbank's motion to dismiss on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction. In this case of first impression in Virginia, the court held that a foreign bank, which agrees to confirm a letter of credit issued by another foreign bank in a foreign nation for the benefit of a resident of Virginia, does not purposefully avail itself of the laws, privileges and protections of the Commonwealth of Virginia.