Connection lost
Server error
Fishkin v. Susquehanna Partners, G.P. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An employer sued former employees for breaching non-compete agreements. The court held the employer could not recover the ex-employees’ profits as damages, as disgorgement is not a proper remedy for contract breach unless the defendant’s profits directly define the plaintiff’s loss.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that under Pennsylvania law, disgorgement of a defendant’s profits is not a proper measure of restitution damages for breach of a non-compete agreement. The remedy is limited to the value of the benefit conferred, not the profits gained from the breach.
Fishkin v. Susquehanna Partners, G.P. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Cal Fishkin and Igor Chernomzav, former securities traders for Susquehanna International Group (SIG), executed employment contracts containing non-competition covenants. The agreements provided SIG with alternative remedies for a breach: either specified liquidated damages or injunctive relief plus other remedies available at law. Fishkin, who had earned SIG approximately $30 million in one year using a proprietary trading formula, became dissatisfied with his compensation. While still employed, he began discussions with a third party, NT Prop, to form a competing venture. When asked about SIG’s profitability, Fishkin stated he was bound by confidentiality but implied high profits by saying, “you’ll be pleased.” After leaving SIG, Fishkin and Chernomzav formed a competing firm, TABFG, and began trading. SIG sued for breach of contract and sought an injunction and damages. SIG conceded it could not prove its own lost profits (expectation damages) and instead sought restitution damages measured by the profits earned by TABFG. The district court granted a permanent injunction but denied SIG’s claim for disgorgement, finding it was only entitled to nominal damages. SIG appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under Pennsylvania contract law, may a non-breaching party recover restitution damages measured by the breaching party’s profits when its own lost profits cannot be calculated with reasonable certainty?
No. The court affirmed the denial of SIG’s claim for restitution damages. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irur
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Under Pennsylvania contract law, may a non-breaching party recover restitution damages measured by the breaching party’s profits when its own lost profits cannot be calculated with reasonable certainty?
Conclusion
The case serves as a strong precedent limiting contract damages to their Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut
Legal Rule
For a breach of contract, a defendant's profits are not the proper Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur
Legal Analysis
The court analyzed the three primary contract remedies under Pennsylvania law: expectation, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff cannot recover a defendant’s profits as