Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

A Malaysian national who worked as a managing director for Goldman Sachs in Malaysia was prosecuted for his role in a large-scale financial scheme involving 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a Malaysian state-owned investment fund. The government presented evidence showing that, along with other conspirators, he participated in three major bond offerings raising $6.5 billion, from which more than $2.5 billion was diverted for bribes and kickbacks to officials and participants, including himself. The funds were laundered through shell companies, and the defendant received $35.1 million that was deposited in an account controlled by his family members. The defendant’s wife asserted at trial that these funds were legitimate investment returns, not criminal proceeds.Prior to this appeal, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied several motions by the defendant. The court rejected his arguments that the indictment should be dismissed for lack of venue, concluding that acts in furtherance of the conspiracy passed through the Eastern District of New York. The court also found that the government did not breach an agreement regarding his extradition from Malaysia, since the superseding indictments did not charge new offenses. The district court excluded a video recording offered by the defense as inadmissible hearsay, and ultimately, a jury found him guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment and ordered to forfeit $35.1 million.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the defendant argued improper venue, breach of extradition agreement, erroneous exclusion of evidence, and that the forfeiture was an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. The Second Circuit held that the district court had not erred in any respect. Venue was proper, the extradition agreement was not breached, the evidentiary ruling was not an abuse of discretion, and the forfeiture was not grossly disproportionate to the offense. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and forfeiture order were affirmed. View "USA v. NG CHONG HWA" on Justia Law

Two brothers operated a farming and cattle partnership, with one managing the finances and records and the other handling outside operations. The financial brother, assisted by his daughter, maintained control over the partnership’s handwritten ledgers and inventory records, while the other brother relied on the information provided. Over several years, the managing brother made false entries in the ledgers, diverted partnership income into personal accounts, and concealed certain ownership interests in partnership assets from his brother. Suspicious discrepancies surfaced when the outside-operating brother noticed substantial errors affecting his reported net worth, prompting him to seek dissolution of the partnership and to sue for damages.The District Court for Thurston County conducted a bench trial, hearing evidence from the parties and expert witnesses. It found that the managing brother and his daughter had exclusive control over the partnership’s finances and intentionally concealed information. The court concluded that the outside-operating brother could not reasonably have discovered the wrongdoing earlier, given his lack of access to original records and his trust in the managing brother. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff under several theories, including breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract, and imposed joint and several liability on both defendants.Upon appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal questions de novo. It held that the claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment were not barred by the statute of limitations, as discovery of the fraud occurred within the allowed period. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s determinations regarding liability, damages, and the denial of post-trial motions, upholding the judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court specifically affirmed the joint and several liability for both defendants and the calculation of damages, rejecting the appellants’ arguments regarding settlements, contract defenses, and the statute of limitations. View "Sebade v. Sebade" on Justia Law

Two financial advisors entered into two agreements as part of a business transaction: an operating agreement establishing them as members of a wealth management firm and a purchase-and-sale contract under which one advisor would gradually buy out the other's ownership interest. The operating agreement contained a noncompete clause and provisions for mediation and arbitration. After the buyout concluded, the selling advisor remained employed with the company and could only be terminated for cause. In January 2024, he was terminated for cause and immediately began working at a competing firm within the restricted radius specified in the noncompete provision.Following his termination, the company and the buying advisor filed suit in the Circuit Court of Forrest County, alleging breach of contract and seeking, among other relief, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enforce the noncompete clause. The trial court granted the injunction and denied the selling advisor’s motions to dissolve the restraining order, to deny the injunction, and to compel mediation and/or arbitration. The trial court found that the noncompete clause remained binding and that the parties had not shown a clear intent to compel mediation or arbitration for this dispute, given specific contractual language.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed whether the noncompete provision was enforceable, whether the trial court erred in issuing the preliminary injunction, and whether the denial of the motion to compel mediation/arbitration was proper. The Court held that the noncompete provision was binding based on the evidence at the preliminary injunction stage, that the trial court did not err in granting the preliminary injunction, and that the mediation/arbitration provisions were not clearly applicable to this dispute. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the trial court’s order in all respects. View "Wiggins v. Southern Securities Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Jerome and Shaun Cohen operated a Ponzi scheme through their companies, EquityBuild, Inc. and EquityBuild Finance, LLC, from 2010 to 2018. They solicited funds from individual investors and institutional lenders, promising high returns secured by real estate, primarily in Chicago. In reality, the Cohens used new investors’ funds to pay earlier investors and overvalued properties to retain excess capital. By 2018, the scheme collapsed, leaving over $75 million in unpaid obligations. The Securities and Exchange Commission intervened, obtaining a temporary restraining order and having a receiver appointed to liquidate assets and distribute proceeds to victims.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois oversaw the receivership and determined how proceeds from the sale of two properties—7749 South Yates and 5450 South Indiana—should be distributed. Both a group of individual investors and Shatar Capital Partners claimed priority to the proceeds, with Shatar arguing its mortgages were recorded before those of the individual investors. The district court found that Shatar was on inquiry notice of the individual investors’ preexisting interests and thus not entitled to priority, limiting all claimants’ recoveries to their contributed principal, minus any amounts previously received.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s distribution order. The appellate court affirmed, holding that under Illinois law, Shatar was on inquiry notice of the individual investors’ interests in both properties at the time it invested, given multiple red flags about the properties’ financing and EquityBuild’s business model. As a result, the individual investors were entitled to priority in the distribution of proceeds. The court also found Shatar’s challenge to the distribution plan moot, as there were insufficient funds to benefit Shatar after satisfying the investors’ claims. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Duff" on Justia Law

A nonprofit research foundation affiliated with a state university entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the university in 2007, becoming a statutorily regulated direct-support organization (DSO). The MOU provided that the foundation’s board would include two appointees from the university but was otherwise silent on board approval and on budget approval processes. In 2018, the Florida Legislature enacted a law requiring all DSO board appointments to be approved by the university’s board of trustees. Around the same time, a regulation by the Board of Governors (BOG) required university boards of trustees to approve DSO budgets. The foundation challenged these requirements, arguing that they impaired its contractual rights under the MOU.The Circuit Court conducted a trial and found that the MOU limited the university’s involvement to only the two appointees and that the statutory board approval requirement impaired the MOU. It concluded that the university failed to show a significant and legitimate public purpose for the statute. However, regarding the budget approval dispute, the court held that the MOU did not address budget approval, so there was no contractual impairment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed both findings, concluding that the statutory board approval requirement rewrote the parties’ contract, while the regulation on budget approval did not impair the MOU.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the case. It held that the MOU only addressed the university’s power to appoint two board members and was silent on approval of other appointments or on budget approval. Therefore, the statutory and regulatory changes did not impair any specific contractual obligations. The court reversed the Fourth District’s ruling on the board appointment issue and otherwise affirmed, holding that neither the statute nor the regulation unconstitutionally impaired the MOU. View "Florida Atlantic University Board of Trustees v. Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute Foundation, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff was an employee who brought claims for wrongful termination, Labor Code violations, and breach of contract against two defendants: the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the Public Transportation Services Corporation (PTSC). MTA had created PTSC, a nonprofit public benefit corporation, to provide retirement and employment benefits to certain workers and to manage employees who support MTA’s transportation functions. The plaintiff did not file a prelitigation claim under the Government Claims Act (GCA) before suing these entities.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County first granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of both defendants, finding that the plaintiff had not alleged compliance with the GCA’s claim presentation requirements. The plaintiff was given leave to amend but continued to argue that PTSC was not a public entity subject to the GCA, and that even if it was, the claims presentation requirement should not apply because PTSC had not registered as required by statute. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, finding both defendants to be public entities and that PTSC was not required to register separately from MTA. The court entered judgment for both defendants.On appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, the plaintiff did not challenge the judgment in favor of MTA but contested the ruling as to PTSC. The appellate court held that PTSC qualifies as a public entity for purposes of the GCA’s claims presentation requirement, given its creation and control by MTA. However, the court found that if PTSC failed to register properly on the Registry of Public Agencies—including with county clerks where it maintains offices—this would excuse the plaintiff’s noncompliance with the GCA. The judgment for MTA was affirmed, but the judgment for PTSC was reversed and remanded to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint. View "Black v. L.A. County Metropolitan Transp. Authority" on Justia Law

Several nonprofit, faith-based organizations that provide pregnancy-related services and oppose abortion initiated an action against the New York State Attorney General. These organizations had made statements regarding abortion pill reversal (“APR”), a protocol intended to counteract the effects of medication-induced abortion. After the Attorney General commenced a civil enforcement action in New York state court against other entities (not parties to this case) for making similar APR-related statements, the plaintiffs alleged they faced a credible threat of sanctions if they continued such speech. As a result, they stopped making APR-related statements and sought declaratory and injunctive relief in federal court, arguing that the regulation of their APR-related speech violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Western District of New York addressed the Attorney General’s argument that the federal court should abstain under the Younger v. Harris doctrine due to the parallel state enforcement action. The district court found abstention unwarranted, noting the federal claims were not inextricably intertwined with the state action and would not interfere with it. On the merits, the district court determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim because the APR-related speech was noncommercial, religiously and morally motivated, involved no financial benefit or remuneration, and did not directly offer APR but instead provided information and referrals. Since the Attorney General did not show the state’s restrictions would survive strict scrutiny, the district court granted a preliminary injunction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The Second Circuit held abstention under Younger was not required, as the plaintiffs’ claims were independent of the state enforcement action. The court found no abuse of discretion in the grant of the preliminary injunction, agreeing that the plaintiffs’ APR-related speech was noncommercial and protected, and the Attorney General failed to meet the strict scrutiny standard. View "Nat'l Inst. of Fam. & Life Advocs. v. James" on Justia Law

A director and former officer of a closely held Delaware corporation engaged in egregious acts of sexual harassment and racist behavior toward two employees. These actions led to the employees’ resignations and prompted successful charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The employees then filed lawsuits in the New York state courts, resulting in judgments totaling over $1.8 million against both the director and the corporation, jointly and individually.After these outcomes, the corporation’s other stockholder and director, who also serves as its president, filed a derivative suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. He alleged that the director’s acts were not only violations of employment law but also constituted a breach of fiduciary duty—specifically, the duty of loyalty. He sought to hold the director liable to the company for the monetary judgments and other losses, arguing that the director’s unlawful, self-interested conduct was per se disloyalty under Delaware law.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware first determined that it had personal jurisdiction over the director under Delaware’s director consent statute. The court then addressed demand futility and found that, given the board’s composition and the nature of the alleged conduct, the plaintiff’s ability to proceed depended on whether the complaint stated a viable claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The court concluded that, under Delaware law, interpersonal workplace misconduct—even when unlawful and reprehensible—does not by itself amount to a breach of the duty of loyalty unless it involves the misuse of corporate power as part of the company’s internal affairs. The court reasoned that employment law, not corporate doctrine, provides the remedy for such conduct. Accordingly, the court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. View "Brola v. Lundgren" on Justia Law

Investors in a major energy company alleged that the company and several executives misled them about involvement in a Florida election-interference scheme. The alleged scheme included tactics such as supporting “ghost” candidates in state and local elections, bribery, covert payments, and manipulating media outlets. These actions were reportedly orchestrated by the company’s main subsidiary and its CEO, with assistance from a political consulting firm. When reports of the scheme began to surface, the company and its executives publicly denied any involvement or wrongdoing, including direct statements to the press and investors. However, after further scrutiny and media coverage, the company’s leadership changed course, abruptly terminating the subsidiary’s CEO and filing updated risk disclosures with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that acknowledged potential legal and reputational risks associated with the allegations. On the same day as these disclosures, the company’s stock price fell sharply, resulting in significant losses for investors.Previously, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the investors’ complaint, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead loss causation—a necessary element of securities fraud. The District Court found that the investors did not identify a sufficient corrective disclosure linking the alleged fraud to the stock price decline.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with the District Court. The Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged loss causation by identifying corrective disclosures—namely, the company’s risk disclosures, the CEO’s abrupt departure, and a unique compensation claw-back provision—that collectively revealed enough truth to the market to undermine prior denials. The court found the alleged sequence of disclosures, price drop, and market analyst reactions sufficient at the pleading stage. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "City of Hollywood Police Officers Retirement Syst v. NextEra Energy, Inc." on Justia Law

A business dispute arose when an individual agreed to sell her furniture and design company to a limited liability company controlled by two individuals for $2.7 million, with payment to be made in installments. The seller also entered into a consulting agreement to assist in the transition but was terminated a few months later. The seller alleged that she did not receive compensation due under the consulting agreement and that the buyer failed to pay the final installment of the purchase price. She asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent inducement, and promissory fraud. The defendants counterclaimed and brought in several third parties, but most of those claims were eventually dismissed, leaving several claims—including for declaratory judgment, conversion, slander, breach of contract, and tortious interference—still pending.The Cullman Circuit Court tried only the seller’s promissory fraud and fraudulent inducement claims against the two individual defendants, entering judgment based on a jury verdict for the seller and awarding over $10 million in damages. The court stayed all claims against the corporate defendants after they filed for bankruptcy. Despite multiple claims and parties remaining, the circuit court certified its judgment against the individuals as final under Rule 54(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Alabama determined that the circuit court’s Rule 54(b) certification was improper. The Supreme Court found that closely intertwined and factually overlapping claims, counterclaims, and third-party claims remained unresolved, and that proceeding in piecemeal fashion risked inconsistent results and unnecessary duplication. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the circuit court’s order was not properly certified as final and thus was not appealable at this stage. View "Roberson v. Daniel" on Justia Law