Shcharansky v. Shapiro
Alexander Shcharansky and Tatiana Shcharansky, Petitioners-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
Vadim Shapiro, Boris Pusin, Ilya Markevich, Alex Komm and Dmitry Khots, Respondents-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
Vadim Shapiro, Boris G. Pusin, Ilya Markevich, Alex Komm and Dmitry Khots, Cross-Petition Plaintiffs/Appellants,
Boris Shcharansky, Zoya Staroselsky, Leonid Shcharansky, and Slava Staroselsky, Cross-Petition Defendants/Appellees.
Vadim Shapiro, Boris Pusin, Ilya Markevich, Alex Komm and Dmitry Khots, Third-Party Petition Plaintiffs/Appellants,
Continuous Control Solutions, LLC, Third-Party Defendant/Appellee.
Attorney for Appellants
Jaki K. Samuelson and Anna E. Mallen
Attorney for Appellees
Mark E. Weinhardt and Danielle M. Shelton
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott J. Beattie, Judge. AFFIRMED ON APPEAL; REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS ON CROSS-APPEAL. Considered by Bower, C.J., Ahlers, J., and Potterfield, S.J. Blane, S.J., takes no part. Opinion by Potterfield, S.J. (31 pages)
The Shapiro Group and members of the Shcharansky Group owned and operated Continuous Control Solutions, Inc. (CCS) until 2007, when members of the Shcharansky Group purchased the Shapiro Group’s shares of CCS through the execution of a stock purchase agreement—ending the Shapiro Group’s part in the business. That agreement, and what followed, have been the focus of nearly a decade of litigation. In this third appeal, we are asked to determine if the district court properly limited the scope of the 2018 trial, based on the ruling of our supreme court in Shcharansky v. Shapiro, 905 N.W.2d 579, 588 (Iowa 2017), so as not to include evidence of the Shapiro Group’s alleged affirmative defenses to Alexander and Tatiana Shcharansky’s contribution claim against them. Additionally, regarding their cross-claims for breach of contract and reimbursement, the Shapiro Group maintains the district court should have granted their motions for directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding verdict, or new trial. Alexander and Tatiana Shcharansky cross-appeal, arguing the district court erred in its determination they were not entitled to prejudgment interest for their contribution claim; they otherwise ask that we affirm. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court ruling as to all the issues raised by the Shapiro Group on appeal. However, on cross-appeal, we reverse the district court’s ruling as to Alexander and Tatiana Shcharansky’s request for interest from the day they filed their contribution claim. We remand for the limited purpose of correction of the judgment order.