Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 17,600+ case briefs...

Conklin v. Perdue

Superior Court of Massachusetts
2002 WL 31421763 (2002)


Jeffrey Conklin (plaintiff) and Beth Perdue (defendant) formed CPInternational, Inc. (CPI) as a Massachusetts corporation in 1993. Conklin and Perdue were attorneys who met while working at Digital Equipment Corporation. Conklin and Perdue each held 50 percent of CPI’s stock. Conklin provided all the capital contributions for CPI. The business was not successful, and Conklin continued to contribute capital funds to CPI. Conklin and Perdue were reimbursed for expenses by CPI and also took a draw from CPI. Conklin has asserted that Perdue’s draw of $112,434 from CPI was a loan, and that Perdue signed a promissory note for that amount. By the end of 1995, CPI was still not succeeding, and Conklin decided that CPI was not economically viable. Conklin informed Perdue that the arrangement was not working out and attempted to set up a meeting to discuss the issue. Conklin and Perdue then began making accusations toward each other, and Perdue went as far as removing files from the CPI office. Conklin and Perdue exchanged letters through January 19, 1996. Conklin and Perdue then completely stopped communicating about CPI. However, neither party took any action to dissolve CPI. Conklin began a new business called TradeAccess, which was not in the same business as CPI. TradeAccess was also not successful. Conklin sued Perdue for: (1) breach of the promissory note and (2) breach of her fiduciary duty for removing files from the CPI office. Perdue asserted that Conklin breached his fiduciary duty by starting TradeAccess.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Van Gestel, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 457,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 457,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 17,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial