Skip to Main Content
Quotation Mark Right iconAnthony has an ability to be a guiding light through the process and also cut through layers of jargon to clarify details in simple terms. He manages the litigation process in an efficient manner. Make no mistake Anthony is aggressive and has his clients’ interests top of mind.Quotation Mark Right icon
~ Brad B., CEO

*Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Co-Chair, Labor and Employment

Whether I am working with a client to solve a legal dispute (in or out of court) or keeping their family or their business affairs in order, the goal remains the same: solve the client’s problem. No client or dispute is the same, but my determined ability to solve problems promptly remains critical.

Anthony Rainone has built a successful practice handling all manner of labor and employment, from counseling to litigation, commercial and construction disputes, and shareholder/limited liability company member disputes.


Each lawsuit handled by Anthony depends on its unique facts and particular circumstances. An example of his successful results include:

  • Obtained summary judgment order forcing the oppressing majority group of shareholders of a nutraceutical business to sell their shares to the oppressed minority group of shareholders based upon the multiple oppressive acts of the majority under the New Jersey Business Corporation Act.  The oppressive acts of the majority included, but was not limited to, disbanding the duly elected board, suspending the duly appointed President, and attempting to undue previous corporate actions.  During the litigation, we obtained immediate temporary restraints that undid the majority’s actions above and which reinstated the duly elected board and duly appointed president during the pendency of the litigation.  During the litigation, the majority set up a competing business and diverted significant revenue from the company, which competing business was shut down by the Court by entry of a preliminary injunction.  Berman v. Kane, Chancery Division, Cumberland County, New Jersey (Dec. 2022)
  • Obtained a multi-million dollar settlement of shareholder oppression claims arising out of 50+ year family run business.  After several years of litigation, obtained favorable settlement for our client, a shareholder who alleged oppression by the other shareholder including the misappropriation of over $1,000,000 from the business by the oppressing shareholder.
  • Represented a beverage distributor seeking payment of a multi-million dollar termination fee under an exclusive distribution agreement with a foreign beverage manufacturer.  Beverage distributor defeated the manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment and resulted in a favorable resolution for the client after summary judgement.  Brands Within Reach, LLC v. Belvoir Fruit Farms Ltd., 2022 WL 4585445 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2022).        
  • Represented homeowners in claims of Consumer Fraud Act and other violations arising out of the construction of a luxury home.  After the trial court prematurely dismissed the architect and engineer professionals, successfully obtained interlocutory appeal and reversal of the Court’s dismissal of the Consumer Fraud Act and other claims against the professionals.  Losasso v. Calvitti Pools & Spas, Inc., 2022 WL 1916773 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 6, 2022).
  • Represented a WBE/MBE construction company in defense of claims by pension and welfare funds seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions.  Obtained a published decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the grant of a preliminary injunction restraining an arbitration proceeding initiated by the funds, and subsequently obtained summary judgment for the client dismissing all claims by the funds with prejudice.  MZM Constr. Co., Inc. v. New Jersey Bldg. Laborers’ Statewide Benefit Funds, 2022 WL 1320619, at *1 (D.N.J. May 3, 2022); MZM Constr. Co., Inc. v. New Jersey Bldg. Laborers Statewide Benefit Funds, 974 F.3d 386 (3d Cir. 2020).
  • Represented a subcontractor against a general contractor under the Prompt Payment Act for failure to pay for services rendered.  After prevailing in the trial court on the substantive claims and recovering the full amount of the client’s claim, we then obtained a published decision from the Appellate Division ordering full award of attorneys’ fees and costs under the Prompt Payment Act.  The Appellate Division held for the first time that the Prompt Payment Act’s attorneys’ fees and costs provision does not require that the award be proportionate to the amount of the claim at issue.  JHC Indus. Servs., LLC v. Centurion Companies, Inc., 469 N.J. Super. 306 (App. Div. 2021).
  • Represented construction company in defense of successor liability/alter ego claims by pension and welfare funds seeking to enforce a six figure judgment against a subsequently formed entity.  Obtained summary judgment dismissing all claims against the construction company.  Nacirema Demolition & Recycling Inc. v. New Jersey Bldg. Laborers Statewide Benefit Funds, 2020 WL 1041376, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 4, 2020).

*Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.