Wartzman v. Hightower Productions, Ltd.
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
456 A.2d 82 (1983)
Several men wanted to employ an entertainer to break the Guinness Book of World Records for sitting atop a flagpole. These men approached the law firm of Wartzman, Rombro, Rudd and Omansky, P.A. (the law firm) (defendant), and hired attorney Wartzman to set up a corporation for the venture. The men informed Wartzman that they would need to sell stock in order to raise the funds necessary to finance the venture. Wartzman filed the articles of incorporation, creating Hightower Productions, Ltd. (Hightower) (plaintiff). The articles of incorporation authorized the corporation to issue one million shares of stock at 10 cents per share, for a total of $100,000. The men began developing the project, including setting up a corporate account, opening an office, hiring their entertainer, constructing the premises within which the entertainer would sit on top of the flagpole, and scheduling press events for the stunt. Hightower raised $43,000 by selling stock. However, Hightower became low on funds. Just two weeks before the stunt, Wartzman informed Hightower that it could not sell anymore stock because the corporation was “structured wrong.” Specifically, Wartzman failed to prepare an offering memorandum and also failed to have Hightower make required disclosures to prospective investors. Wartzman informed Hightower that it would need to hire a securities attorney, which would cost between $10,000 and $15,000. Wartzman offered to set up the meeting with a securities specialist. Hightower asked Wartzman to have the firm cover the cost because Hightower could not do so, but the request was refused. Hightower hired substitute counsel. Hightower learned that, because it was not in compliance with securities laws, the initial $43,000 investment would need to be placed in escrow, Hightower would need to hire a securities specialist, and that there would be an additional six to eight weeks of work before Hightower could sell additional stock or take their stunt across state lines. Hightower filed suit against Wartzman. A jury awarded Hightower damages reflecting its expenditures for relying upon the contract between itself and the law firm. The law firm appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. Hightower filed a cross appeal, seeking prejudgment interest.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Getty, J.)
What to do next…
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 724,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
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.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 724,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.