Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

The Texas Attorney General alleged that Annunciation House, a nonprofit organization in El Paso, was unlawfully harboring illegal aliens. The Attorney General sought to examine the organization's records and initiate quo warranto proceedings, which could lead to the revocation of its charter. Annunciation House, which provides shelter to immigrants and refugees, was served with a records request by state officials, who demanded immediate compliance. Annunciation House sought legal relief, arguing that the request violated its constitutional rights.The 205th Judicial District Court in El Paso County granted a temporary restraining order and later a temporary injunction against the Attorney General's records request. The court also denied the Attorney General's motion for leave to file a quo warranto action, ruling that the statutes authorizing the records request were unconstitutional and that the allegations of harboring illegal aliens did not constitute a valid basis for quo warranto. The court further held that the statutes were preempted by federal law and violated the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case on direct appeal. The court held that the trial court erred in its constitutional rulings and that the Attorney General has the constitutional authority to file a quo warranto action. The court emphasized that it was too early to express a view on the merits of the underlying issues and that the usual litigation process should unfold. The court also held that the statutes authorizing the records request were not facially unconstitutional and that the trial court's injunction against the Attorney General's records request was improper. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "PAXTON v. ANNUNCIATION HOUSE, INC." on Justia Law

In 2017, Tower Health, a non-profit corporation, acquired Pottstown Hospital, an acute care facility in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Tower Health created a non-profit LLC, Pottstown Hospital, LLC, to manage the hospital. The hospital provides various health services, including emergency care, inpatient and outpatient services, and community outreach. The hospital applied for a charitable real estate tax exemption for three properties, which was initially granted by the Montgomery County Board of Assessment Appeals.The Pottstown School District appealed the exemption to the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, arguing that the hospital did not operate entirely free from a profit motive due to high executive compensation and the relationship with Tower Health. The trial court found that the hospital met the criteria for a purely public charity under the HUP test, including operating free from a private profit motive, and upheld the tax exemption. The court noted that the hospital provided substantial uncompensated care and that executive compensation was reasonable and within market value.The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court's decision, focusing on the compensation of Tower Health's executives and the management fees charged to the hospital. The court concluded that the hospital did not operate free from a private profit motive, as a substantial portion of executive compensation was tied to financial performance.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and held that the compensation of Tower Health's executives and the management fees were not relevant to the hospital's tax exemption status. The court emphasized that only the hospital's operations and executive compensation should be considered. The court found that the hospital's executive compensation was reasonable and within market value, thus meeting the HUP test. The Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court's decision and reinstated the trial court's order granting the tax exemption. View "Pottstown SD v. Mont Co Bd" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who own or operate gasoline service stations in Puerto Rico, offered two different prices to consumers: a higher price for those using credit or debit cards and a lower price for those paying with cash. In 2013, Puerto Rico's legislature enacted Law 152-2013, amending Law 150-2008 by removing a provision that allowed merchants to offer cash discounts. Plaintiffs ceased offering the lower price due to the threat of fines and criminal prosecution. They sued the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, arguing that Law 150 is preempted by federal law and is unconstitutionally vague.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico rejected the plaintiffs' arguments and granted the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court found that neither the Cash Discount Act (CDA) nor the Durbin Amendment preempted Law 150. The court also declined to address the constitutional vagueness argument, noting that the complaint did not allege that Law 150 is unconstitutionally vague.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the CDA and the Durbin Amendment do not preempt Law 150. The CDA regulates the conduct of credit card issuers, not merchants or states, and does not confer an absolute right to offer cash discounts. The Durbin Amendment regulates payment card networks, not states, and does not preempt state legislation restricting cash discounts. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not properly plead a vagueness claim in their complaint, rendering the claim unpreserved for appellate review. Consequently, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. View "Asociacion de Detallistas de Gasolina de PR Inc. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

In 2018, the City of Nashua approved a bond resolution to construct a performing arts center. Due to financing complications, the City formed two non-profit corporations to take advantage of a federal tax credit. In 2020, NPAC Corp., a private, for-profit corporation, was formed to aid in the tax credit process. NPAC is wholly owned by one of the non-profits, which is owned by the City. Laurie Ortolano requested NPAC's public records related to the center, but NPAC claimed it was not subject to the Right-to-Know Law (RSA chapter 91-A). Ortolano then filed a complaint seeking access to these records.The Superior Court dismissed Ortolano's complaint, agreeing with NPAC that it was not a public entity subject to RSA chapter 91-A. The court also dismissed the claims against the City, reasoning that the relief sought was derivative of the claim against NPAC. Additionally, the court denied Ortolano's motion to amend her complaint to allege constitutional violations because she failed to attach a proposed amended complaint.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. It affirmed the dismissal of the claims against the City, finding that Ortolano's complaint did not state an independent claim against the City. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the claims against NPAC, ruling that the trial court erred by not applying the "government function" test to determine if NPAC was a "public body" under RSA chapter 91-A. The court also upheld the trial court's denial of Ortolano's motion to amend her complaint, as the proposed amendment did not cure the defect in the original pleading.The case was remanded for the trial court to apply the "government function" test to determine whether NPAC is subject to the Right-to-Know Law. View "Ortolano v. City of Nashua" on Justia Law

The case involves an enforcement action by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Gregory Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management, LLC. The SEC alleged that Lemelson made false statements of material fact, engaged in a fraudulent scheme, and violated securities laws, resulting in approximately $1.3 million in illegal profits. The SEC sought disgorgement of these profits, a permanent injunction, and civil monetary penalties. Lemelson moved to dismiss the complaint, and the district court dismissed one of the challenged statements. The SEC filed an amended complaint, and the jury ultimately found Lemelson liable for three statements but rejected other claims.The District Court for the District of Massachusetts held Lemelson in contempt for violating a protective order and threatening a priest who provided information to the SEC. After the jury verdict, the district court issued a final judgment, including a five-year injunction against Lemelson and a $160,000 civil penalty. Lemelson appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. Lemelson then moved for attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), arguing that the SEC's demands were excessive compared to the final judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court's denial of Lemelson's motion for fees and costs. The appellate court found that the district court incorrectly compared the SEC's demand to the scope of the initial claims rather than the final judgment obtained. The appellate court vacated the denial of fees and costs and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the SEC's demands were excessive and unreasonable compared to the final judgment. The appellate court also noted that the district court should consider whether Lemelson acted in bad faith or if special circumstances make an award unjust. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Lemelson" on Justia Law

Ogen and Dorit Perry, along with their limited partnership Dahlex LP, sought a writ of mandate to compel Milestone Financial LLC and its managers to produce corporate records under the California Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act. The trial court partially granted the petition, ordering the disclosure of some records but redacting member names and addresses, deeming the member list a protected trade secret. The court also declined to order the production of audited records.Milestone appealed, arguing the Perrys lacked standing, the records request did not meet statutory standards, and the redaction order should have included more documents. The Perrys cross-appealed, contending the member list is not a trade secret and the court erred in not ordering audited records. They also appealed the trial court's order on attorney fees and costs, arguing the awarded amount did not reflect the findings in the writ order and was an abuse of discretion.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, found substantial evidence supporting the trial court's decision that the Perrys' request was reasonably related to their interests. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the member list is a trade secret but directed the trial court to amend its order to require Milestone to provide financial statements accompanied by the appropriate report or certificate. The appellate court also reversed the attorney fee award and remanded for reconsideration, requiring the trial court to provide a more detailed explanation for the reduced fee award. The judgment was otherwise affirmed, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs on appeal. View "Perry v. Stuart" on Justia Law

In 2023, James Broad and Rebecca McCrensky began operating a car-rental agency, Becky's Broncos, LLC, on Nantucket Island without the necessary local approvals. The Town of Nantucket and the Nantucket Town Select Board ordered Becky's to cease operations. Becky's sought preliminary injunctive relief in the District of Massachusetts to continue their business.The District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Becky's request for a preliminary injunction. The court found insufficient evidence of discriminatory effect under the dormant Commerce Clause and concluded that Becky's had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. Becky's appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that Becky's did not show a likelihood of success on the merits of its dormant Commerce Clause claim, as the ordinance did not discriminate against out-of-state businesses. The court also found that Becky's failed to establish a likelihood of success on its antitrust claims due to a lack of a concrete theory of liability. Additionally, Becky's procedural due process argument was rejected because it did not establish a property interest in the required medallions. Lastly, the court held that the ordinance survived rational basis review under substantive due process, as it was rationally related to legitimate government interests in managing traffic and congestion on the island. View "Becky's Broncos, LLC v. Town of Nantucket" on Justia Law

PharmacyChecker.com LLC, an online pharmacy accreditation and price comparison service, sued its competitor LegitScript LLC for allegedly engaging in a group boycott in violation of antitrust laws. LegitScript moved for summary judgment, arguing that PharmacyChecker lacked antitrust standing because its business facilitated the illegal importation of foreign drugs, thus precluding any legally cognizable injury under Section 4 of the Clayton Act.The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon denied LegitScript's motion for summary judgment. The court found that PharmacyChecker's business was legal and that LegitScript had not shown that PharmacyChecker itself engaged in illegal activity. The court also noted that the facilitation of potentially illegal activities by some of PharmacyChecker's users did not bar its antitrust standing. LegitScript's motion to certify the order for interlocutory appeal was granted, and the case was brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that PharmacyChecker had antitrust standing under Section 4 of the Clayton Act. The court relied on Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedents, including Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp., Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., and Memorex Corp. v. IBM. These cases established that neither the equitable defense of in pari delicto nor unclean hands could bar a plaintiff from bringing an antitrust suit, even if the plaintiff's business involved some illegal conduct. The court concluded that PharmacyChecker's facilitation of potentially illegal drug importation by some users did not negate its standing to sue for antitrust violations. View "PHARMACYCHECKER.COM LLC V. LEGITSCRIPT LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Andrew Roth, a shareholder of Estée Lauder Companies Inc. and Altice USA, Inc., filed suits alleging that controlling shareholders of these companies engaged in transactions that violated Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act. Roth claimed that the controlling shareholders sold shares of the companies while the companies repurchased their own shares, and sought to pair these transactions to impose liability for short-swing profits.In the Southern District of New York, Roth's complaint against LAL Family Corporation and LAL Family Partners L.P. was dismissed. The court held that issuer repurchases cannot be paired with insiders' sales of outstanding shares to create Section 16(b) liability. Similarly, in the Eastern District of New York, Roth's complaint against Patrick Drahi and other defendants was dismissed. The court relied in part on the analysis from the Southern District of New York, concluding that Roth's legal theory was invalid.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the cases and affirmed the judgments of dismissal. The court held that Section 16(b) does not impose liability for pairing sales by controlling shareholders with share repurchases by corporations they control. The court reasoned that under applicable state law, repurchased shares are transformed into treasury shares, which are different in kind from outstanding shares and cannot be paired. Therefore, Roth's theory of liability was rejected, and the judgments dismissing his complaints were affirmed. View "Roth v. LAL Family Corp." on Justia Law

Renaissance Medical Foundation (the Practice) is a nonprofit health organization certified by the Texas Medical Board. The Practice employed Dr. Michael Burke, a neurosurgeon, to provide medical services to its patients. Rebecca Lugo brought her daughter to Doctors Hospital at Renaissance for brain surgery performed by Dr. Burke. The surgery resulted in permanent neurological damage to Lugo’s daughter. Dr. Burke later expressed that a retractor used during the procedure migrated into the child’s brainstem, causing the injury. Lugo filed a lawsuit alleging negligence by Dr. Burke and sought to hold the Practice vicariously liable for his actions.The trial court denied the Practice’s motion for summary judgment, which argued that it could not be held vicariously liable for Dr. Burke’s negligence because it did not control the manner in which he provided medical care and that Dr. Burke was an independent contractor. The court concluded that Dr. Burke’s employment agreement granted the Practice sufficient control over him to trigger vicarious liability. The court authorized a permissive interlocutory appeal of the ruling.The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that Dr. Burke was an employee of the Practice under traditional common-law factors and was acting within the scope of his employment when the alleged negligence occurred. The Practice then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of Texas.The Supreme Court of Texas held that a nonprofit health organization may not be held vicariously liable if exercising its right of control regarding the alleged negligence would interfere with its employee physician’s exercise of independent medical judgment. The court concluded that the Practice did not conclusively demonstrate such interference and affirmed the denial of the Practice’s motion for summary judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "RENAISSANCE MEDICAL FOUNDATION v. LUGO" on Justia Law