Philip Shawe's Attorney Discusses Transperfect Co-CEO Liz Elting And Legal Team Seeking Permission From The Court To Discontinue All Offensive Claims Against Co-CEO Shawe in New York Supreme Court

NEW YORK, Oct. 9, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- After three years of contentious litigation, numerous motions and unyielding delay tactics, TransPerfect Co-CEO Elizabeth Elting and her Legal Team consisting of Kramer Levin, Paul Weiss and Gerald Lefcourt are now asking New York Supreme Court Judge, Debra James, permission to discontinue Elting's claims against Co-CEO Philip Shawe. This comes after the judge made a recent determination that the exchange of discovery would proceed in the New York Tort case.

Shawe's attorney Glenn Faegenburg of The Edelsteins, Faegenburg & Brown LLP said, "Elting's legal team should not be permitted to unilaterally discontinue claims they have already presented and aggressively litigated in New York County Supreme Court, in order to avoid providing discovery regarding those claims."

"Among Elting's frivolous claims against Shawe, that she and her legal team now want to drop, are false allegations of defamation, assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress," Faegenburg continued. "Absent the Court's permission to withdraw their claims, discovery supporting Shawe's contention that Elting and her legal team filed a false defamation action against Shawe they knew was untrue will likely be uncovered."

Faegenburg said, "We believe that the false defamation countersuit is the product of a scheme by Elting, in concert with her advisors, to manufacture false claims against Shawe, and that many of those schemes are memorialized in Elting's emails. If their motion to discontinue Elting's counterclaims is denied, emails regarding these schemes may be required to be turned over to Shawe as part of the discovery proceedings in the New York Tort action."

"Now that Elting and her team know that the discovery process may, in fact, reveal nefarious planning on their part, she is seeking to petition the Court to 'take-back' the claims she previously swore to and fiercely litigated," Faegenburg said.

"Notably, this same tactic was used in the Delaware case where Elting withdrew over 250 allegations from her complaint the day before an expedited trial was to begin. In that case Shawe alleged that Elting and her lawyers had fraudulently manufactured deadlock to convince the Chancellor to put the company up for sale," Faegenburg added.

The court's edict also subjects Ms. Elting's mental and psychological history to the scrutiny of the Court. Elting and her attorneys know that by claiming physical, emotional, and psychological damages, Shawe will be entitled to copies of her medical records including mental health records. In light of the Court's recent ruling to permit the discovery process to proceed, Elting's only hope of keeping her personal records from being revealed to the court and to the public is to ask the Court for permission to withdraw the claims that she herself intentionally made against Shawe.

"My time is important. Mr. Shawe's time is important. Elting and her lawyers have wasted our collective time litigating non-meritorious claims against Shawe for years. What really disturbs me is that the only reason they are backing out now is because they don't want the discovery process to expose that they used an e-mail that I myself wrote in an effort to protect both parties, as a basis to file a knowingly false defamation claim against my client," Faegenburg said.  "Now, they want to just snap their fingers and make their prior misdeeds magically vanish without repercussion!"

Faegenburg said, "We find it laughable and preposterous that Elting and her legal team are now claiming in their motion papers that they want to 'streamline and simplify the litigation, and to bring it to an expeditious conclusion.' If that was their desire why did they bring and litigate these unsupported and false claims for years in the first place. The truth is that, this time, their plan is not playing out the way they wanted it to; now they are running for cover. We can only hope that the court sanctions them accordingly."

Mr. Faegenburg's case is New York State Supreme Court Index Number 155890/2014.

SOURCE The Edelsteins, Faegenburg & Brown LLP