judicata or claim preclusion makes a valid, final judgment conclusive on the parties and their privies, and bars further litigation on all matters that were or should have been adjudicated in the action. See Heacock v. Heacock, 402 Mass. 21, 23, 520 N.E.2d 151, 152-53 (1988). The purpose of the compulsory counterclaim rule is “to prevent multiplicity of actions and to achieve resolution in a single lawsuit of all disputes arising out of common matters.” Carteret Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Jackson, 812 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir.1987). “The scope of ‘transaction or occurrence’ is liberally interpreted, as the court determines whether ther antitrust violation to be compulsory counterclaim to earlier suit for patent infringement); Pochiro v. Prudential Ins. Co., 827 F.2d 1246, 1251-53 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). There are several noteworthy caveats to these
holding former employees claims for defamation abuse of process breach of employment contract and intentional interference with business relationship to be compulsory counterclaims to employers prior state court action for appropriating confidential consumer information holding that plaintiff could state a claim for conversion of confidential information holding improper conduct to be an element of the tort of intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship holding former employees breach of fiduciary duties to employer satisfies the sturges prerequisites for a claim of tortious interference with prospective business relations holding that court would not imply a statutory cause of action for employers interference in employees assertion of claim for compensation