William Daniel Davis

William Daniel Davis provides representation to corporations and individuals on a wide range of commercial and corporate litigation and matters of arbitration. He concentrates his practice on business format franchise, commercial contract, and disputes in business tort.

William has defeated several piercing the corporate veil claims against sole shareholder of closely-held companies after jury and he was the first chair. He also obtained summary judgment for clients sued for fraudulently acquiring and reselling millions worth of commercial shipping discounts from Federal Express.

William has successfully defended cases and obtained favorable appeal judgments after bench trial where he was the first chair who stopped creditors from dividing contract claims He has also helped clients on appeal cases and secured win in the party’s commercial real estate deal.

William was instrumental in the termination of a quick service restaurant franchise agreement. Though there were constant alleged operational defaults coming after a week-long American Arbitration Association evidentiary hearing and he was first chair. He has handled similar tort claims in litigation after the exclusion of registered investment advisory firm’s motion for summary judgment. He has gotten favorable judgments against a party in breach of legal services contract.

He also got a favorable settlement in an executive compensation dispute in an American Arbitration Association evidentiary hearing where he acted as second chair. Williams has handled churning claims in a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration hearing where he also acted second chair.

He also prevented a franchisor from getting any monetary damages from a daycare franchisee which evidently terminated its franchise agreement after a jury trial and he acted as first chair. William has handled settlement cases involving seven figures commercial collection matter in Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2 dispute for an original equipment producer after a motion practice that ended up in discovery sanctions, partial summary judgment, and the denial of expert testimony on the other party’s counterclaims.