Client Stories 
The Challenge:
A Coordinated, Secret Takeover
In 2018, J. Park & Associates purchased a thriving tax and accounting practice in Mechanicsville, Virginia. As part of the deal, the seller and key staff stayed on to support a smooth transition.
By 2021, however, a shadow company had been formed. The facts revealed a classic “insider threat” scenario: a former employee misappropriated trade secrets in violation of the VUTSA and launched a competing business, conspiring with the seller to copy the company server and systematically siphon clients, staff, and proprietary data to the new entity. When the misconduct was discovered, they denied everything—including the existence of incriminating text messages.
The DBA Strategy:
Forensic Precision and Calculated Pressure
Our team moved beyond standard document discovery. When the defendants claimed no communications existed, we used third-party subpoenas to prove otherwise. That opened the door to a court-ordered forensic review of the defendants’ electronic devices, including their personal cell phones.
The forensic review uncovered multiple digital “smoking guns” supporting the conspiracy and led to an adverse inference against multiple defendants.
DBA also faced a significant legal hurdle: the seller’s noncompete had been executed by a trust, not the seller personally. We advanced a creative “closely related parties” theory, arguing that the noncompete was enforceable against the seller individually because of the close relationship between the trust and its beneficiary—the founder of the company. That theory had been used successfully in other contexts, but this appears to be a first in Virginia in the noncompete context.
By successfully applying this novel theory, our team closed a loophole that would have otherwise allowed a founder to hide behind a trust structure to circumvent their noncompete obligations.
The Courtroom Strike:
Dismantling the $1.6M Counterclaim
Litigation is rarely a one-way street. In this case, our client faced a $1.6M counterclaim designed to create pressure and cloud the narrative.
During trial, DBA executed a strategic maneuver: striking the opposition’s damages expert mid-testimony. This surgical strike effectively crippled an important component of the counterclaim’s foundation. By the time the case reached the jury, we had successfully reduced our client’s exposure from $1.6M to just $86,972—a 94% reduction in liability.
The Result:
Justice and Business Continuity
The Hanover County jury found all defendants jointly and severally liable on every count our team advanced. The final judgment in favor of DBA’s client was $9,573,963.94 which included:
- $8,835,677.99 awarded by the jury
- $738,285.95 awarded post-trial for attorneys’ fees, costs, and
forensic expenses
Following the trial, our client posted the following public review on Google:
“Chris and Erin literally saved my business… At every step, they fought tooth and nail… [I] ultimately received a favorable $9M ruling. Trust in them like I do.”
— John Park, J. Park & Associates
Why This Case Matters
A business acquisition does not end at closing. When a seller or key employee stays involved, the transition period can become a major point of risk—especially if that person still has access to clients, staff, systems, and sensitive company data.
This case shows how quickly post-sale misconduct can threaten enterprise value. What may be framed as “normal competition” can become business conspiracy, trade secret theft, tortious interference, and noncompete litigation when insiders use their access to move the business out from under the buyer.
In M&A, sometimes your greatest risk is the person sitting across from you at the closing table. Trust, but verify—and have a plan for when the “transition period” turns into a “takeover attempt.”
757-410-2293 
