FOLLOW US

A high-stakes corporate feud returned to center stage this week as the co-founder of a capital firm urged the Connecticut Supreme Court to reject an investment bank’s push to preserve a $10.4 million judgment, arguing that the case belongs before a jury—not a judge.

Founder Says Appeals Court Got It Right

In a blistering filing Wednesday, Dean S. Barr, co-founder of Foundation Capital Partners LLC, told the state’s justices that the intermediate appellate court correctly scrapped the bench verdict and restored the case to the jury docket.

Barr argued that investment bank FIH LLC had already given “binding” written consent to a jury trial—even if both sides filed their jury claims late. He accused FIH of inflating a mundane procedural extension into what it called a matter of “statewide importance.”

“Stripped of its mischaracterizations, the petition identifies no question warranting this court’s review,” Barr wrote, insisting the appellate panel had merely applied long-settled law.

The now-disputed judgment stems from a ruling by Stamford Superior Court Judge Sheila A. Ozalis, who pulled the case from the jury list after determining both parties had missed the filing deadline. She tried the case herself and delivered the $10.4 million verdict.

FIH Says Consent Was Never Given

The appellate court reversed Ozalis’ decision in September, holding that once both parties submit written consent—even mistakenly—a jury trial cannot be unilaterally withdrawn.

FIH, short for Find Invest Hold, fired back in October, seeking review from the state’s high court. The bank contends the appellate panel invented a new rule by treating the mutual misunderstanding as “consent” under Connecticut law.

According to Barr’s response, FIH is rewriting history to suggest constitutional stakes where none exist.

But FIH’s attorney Jim Glasser countered that the dispute raises a fundamental question: “whether a party can consent to give up a right without knowing about that right in the first place.” He criticized Barr’s opposition for “incendiary rhetoric” and insisted the Supreme Court should take the case.

A Long, Tangled Legal History

The battle traces back to 2015, when FIH launched a federal suit alleging an investment fraud scheme involving four individuals. Two defendants—Joseph Elmlinger and Thomas Ward—settled for $3.725 million in 2019. The case against Barr and Joseph E. Meehan later shifted to state court in 2020.

FIH accused Barr of misrepresenting the number of investment deals he handled at Foundation Capital and of hiding how his divorce—entangling family ties to Meehan—would affect his ability to run the firm. The fallout, they claimed, “poisoned” operations.

State claims included fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act. After a nine-day bench trial, Judge Ozalis found Barr and Meehan jointly and severally liable for $6.75 million, later adjusted to $10.4 million with interest, attorney fees, and cost calculations.

Power Players Behind the Scenes

FIH is controlled by Lazer Milstein, son of the billionaire co-founders of Burlington Coat Factory, with his own son, Nesanel Milstein, also involved. The stakes, both financial and reputational, have only intensified as the case climbs toward the state’s highest court.

Barr is represented by Pastore LLC, while FIH is backed by attorneys from Wiggin and Dana LLP.

What Comes Next

Whether the dispute returns to a jury—or remains bound to the bench judgment—now rests with the Connecticut Supreme Court.

The case, already stretching across a decade and multiple venues, continues to evolve, with its $10 million question hanging in the balance like a cliff-edge deal in a high-risk investment portfolio.