Case Background
The revival of De Tomaso, a legendary Italian sports car brand, started as a story of a successful partnership between Ryan Berris and Norman Choi but ended in a bitter legal battle in a New York federal Court. Ryan Berris, a well-known figure in the world of elite automobiles, helped Norman Choi turn a struggling venture into a viable business. By 2020, they agreed to relaunch De Tomaso with Berris serving as CEO and Chief Marketing Officer. Berris claimed he worked 80-hour weeks, leveraged his industry connections, and used his personal funds to bring the brand back to life.
However, the relationship soured when Berris discovered that Choi was allegedly cutting corners, falsifying financial records, and misleading customers to prepare the company for a public merger. Berris argued that when he confronted Choi about these issues, Choi and his associate, Samuel Lui, conspired to push him out of the company. In May 2022, after refusing to sign a resignation letter that would have waived his rights to compensation, Berris was locked out of his company accounts and terminated.
Cause
The conflict stemmed from a fundamental disagreement over the company's direction. Berris focused on building an exclusive, high-quality brand, while he alleged Choi became obsessed with a "bogus" process to take the company public through a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC). Berris claimed that this shift led to unethical business practices and his eventual wrongful termination.
Injury
Berris alleged that the Defendants' actions caused him significant financial and professional harm. He claimed he was deprived of his 10% equity stake in De Tomaso, unpaid salary, and commissions. Furthermore, he asserted that Choi defamed him to industry partners and clients, damaging the reputation he had built over decades.
Damages Sought
In his complaint, Berris asked for:
Compensatory and general damages for his lost equity, salary, and commissions.
Punitive damages to punish the Defendants for their alleged misconduct.
An injunction to stop the Defendants from making further defamatory statements.
Reimbursement for his legal fees and the out-of-pocket expenses he covered for the company.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Ryan Berris
Counsel for Plaintiff: John T. Zach | David L. Simons | Alexander Izaak Earnhardt | Andrew P. Steinmetz | Kelly Waldo | Sophie Roytblat
Defendants: Sung-Fung Choi | De Tomaso
Counsel for Defendants: Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton Llp | Paul Anthony Werner, III | Alexandra Bustamante | Angelo Amir Pavone | Bradley M. Rank | Hannah Wigger | Imad Sayed Matini | Ryan Michael D'Ercole | Stephen James Binhak | Nelson Andrew Boxer | Yevgeniya Lotova | Paula Kae Colbath | Leily Lashkari | Nathalie Russell
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Berris’s legal team argued that he was the heart and soul of De Tomaso’s revival and that Choi had repaid his loyalty with betrayal and fraud. They painted a picture of a dedicated professional who was cast aside once he became an obstacle to Choi's alleged financial schemes.
The defense, led by Samuel Lui’s counsel, told a very different story. They characterized Berris as a "world-class fabulist" who used conspiracy theories to mask his own "profound incompetence" and "bizarre behavior". They claimed Berris actually breached his own duties to the company and resigned in disgrace after his misconduct came to light.
Claims
Berris brought several legal claims against the Defendants, including:
Breach of Contract: Alleging that De Tomaso failed to pay his agreed-upon salary, commissions, and equity.
Defamation: Claiming Choi sent emails containing false and damaging statements about him to industry contacts.
Wrongful Discharge: Arguing he was fired in retaliation for reporting potential fraud.
Defense
The Defendants denied all wrongdoing. They argued that Berris was never a 10% owner and that he had failed to prove the existence of a binding contract for the compensation he claimed. They also launched counterclaims against Berris, alleging that he was the one who breached his fiduciary duties specifically the duties of loyalty and care—to De Tomaso.
Jury Verdict
The jury in the Southern District of New York returned a unanimous verdict on February 5, 2026.
On Plaintiff Ryan Berris's claim for breach of contract against De Tomaso Automobili Holdings N.A. LLC, the jury found against Berris, answering No by a preponderance of the evidence. Because the breach of contract claim failed, the jury moved on to consider Berris's alternative claim of quantum meruit against De Tomaso, on which it found in Berris's favor, awarding him $540,502.36, excluding any expenses the jury found Berris had waived.
Because the jury found for Berris on quantum meruit, it was required to consider his claim for piercing the corporate veil. On that claim, the jury found that Berris had not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Norman Choi exercised complete domination and control over De Tomaso or failed to treat it as a separate business entity, and accordingly returned a No verdict on that question without reaching the follow-on question of whether any such domination resulted in fraud, illegality, or an unjust act against Berris.
On Berris's defamation claim against Choi, the jury again found against Berris, concluding he had not proved that claim by a preponderance of the evidence as defined in the Court's instructions. As a result, the jury did not reach any of the follow-on questions regarding qualified privilege, compensatory damages, or punitive damages related to defamation.
Finally, on De Tomaso's counterclaim against Berris for breach of fiduciary duty, the jury found in De Tomaso's favor on both theories breach of the duty of loyalty and breach of the duty of care and awarded De Tomaso total damages of $129,069.36 for both breaches combined. The verdict was signed by the foreperson and dated February 5, 2026, in New York, New York, with the jury having reached all findings unanimously.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com
