ARTICLE
24 June 2026

Appeals Court Vacates Chapter 93A Judgment Where Factual Disputes Over Defendants’ Motivations Require Resolution At Trial

GT
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Contributor

Greenberg Traurig, LLP has more than 3,100 lawyers across 51 locations in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia. The firm’s broad geographic and practice range enables the delivery of innovative and strategic legal services across borders and industries. Recognized as a 2025 BTI “Best of the Best Recommended Law Firm” by general counsel for trust and relationship management, Greenberg Traurig is consistently ranked among the top firms on the Am Law Global 100, NLJ 500, and Law360 400. Greenberg Traurig is also known for its philanthropic giving, culture, innovation, and pro bono work. Web: www.gtlaw.com.

On June 9, 2026, in Rondout Group Advisors, LLC v. Fresh American, LLC, the Massachusetts Appeals Court vacated summary judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs on their Chapter 93A, Section 11 claim...
United States Massachusetts Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

On June 9, 2026, in Rondout Group Advisors, LLC v. Fresh American, LLC, the Massachusetts Appeals Court vacated summary judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs on their Chapter 93A, Section 11 claim, concluding that genuine disputes of material fact precluded a finding of liability.

The plaintiffs were financial advisors engaged to assist with a company acquisition on behalf of the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants engaged in commercial extortion by threatening to derail the transaction shortly before closing unless the plaintiffs agreed to reduce their fees. The trial court accepted that theory and entered summary judgment on the Chapter 93A claim. The Appeals Court vacated that judgment, emphasizing that, in the commercial context, Chapter 93A liability based on alleged coercive conduct depends heavily on the surrounding facts and motivations of the parties.

The defendants presented evidence supporting a legitimate business justification for their actions. Specifically, the defendants contended that their efforts to renegotiate compensation were not an attempt to extract an undeserved concession, but rather a response to alleged misconduct by the plaintiffs and their managing director, including claims that the plaintiffs acted contrary to the defendants’ interests during the transaction, failed to communicate during critical stages of the deal, misrepresented the reasons a key investor withdrew, and failed to make promised investments. The Appeals Court found that this evidence created a factual dispute as to whether the defendants’ conduct constituted unlawful commercial extortion or a good faith response to perceived contractual breaches.

This decision reflects the principle that a business dispute does not become an unfair or deceptive act simply because the parties disagree about a contractual agreement or the amount owed under a contract. Although it is true that breaching the terms of an agreement and using the breach in a coercive way to secure unwarranted benefits or require the other contracting party to give up rights can violate Chapter 93A. where a defendant identifies evidence that its conduct was motivated by a genuine belief that the plaintiff breached contractual obligations or otherwise acted improperly, questions regarding unfairness, coercion, and commercial extortion are often fact-intensive and unsuitable for summary judgment. Rondout illustrates that where legitimate business justifications are supported by the record, factfinders may view the dispute as a contractual disagreement rather than an unfair or deceptive act under Chapter 93A.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More