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in September, holding that once both parties submit written consent—even mistakenly—a jury trial cannot be unilaterally withdrawn.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.
