Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

A shareholder of a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco sought to inspect the company’s records under California Corporations Code sections 1600 and 1601. The shareholder, a California resident holding over 11% of the voting shares, requested access to various documents to evaluate his ownership interest and potential value, communicate with other shareholders, and investigate alleged mismanagement. The company denied the request, citing its status as a Delaware corporation and referencing a forum selection clause in its bylaws, which designated the Delaware Court of Chancery as the exclusive forum for internal affairs claims.Following the denial, the shareholder filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the San Francisco County Superior Court to compel inspection. Shortly thereafter, the company initiated a declaratory action in the Delaware Court of Chancery, seeking confirmation that Delaware law governed the shareholder’s inspection rights. The company then moved to stay the California proceedings, arguing the forum selection clause applied and was enforceable. The Superior Court granted the stay, finding that Delaware law governed interpretation of the clause, and that shareholder inspection rights constituted internal affairs under both Delaware and California law. The court further held that enforcing the clause did not violate California public policy, as Delaware law provided meaningful inspection rights.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. It agreed that the forum selection clause covered the inspection claim but held that enforcing the clause would violate California public policy. The court determined that California’s statutory inspection rights are unwaivable and more extensive than those provided under Delaware law. Because the company failed to show that Delaware law offered the same or greater rights, enforcement of the clause would impermissibly limit the shareholder’s statutory protections. The appellate court reversed the stay and remanded with instructions to deny the motion. View "Salamon v. Orchid Global" on Justia Law

A publicly traded Delaware company specializing in plant-based sweeteners became the subject of a merger transaction led by the controlling stockholder of a major suitor, who was also the father of the company’s CEO. Shortly after becoming interim CEO, the son secretly provided his father’s investment firm with confidential and material nonpublic financial information, including a key valuation report. Over the next several months, the CEO continued to share sensitive company data with his father’s entities. The father’s investment firm then accumulated a significant ownership stake in the company and submitted an offer to acquire it. The board responded by forming a Special Committee and attempting to restrict the CEO’s involvement, but after he refused to sign a confidentiality agreement, he was placed on leave. Despite this, he was later given access to confidential board materials and attended meetings regarding the sale process.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware reviewed the case after the plaintiff, a stockholder, brought a class action challenging the merger and related conduct. The plaintiff alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, statutory violations under 8 Del. C. § 203, and conversion. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The court found that the plaintiff had adequately alleged that the board’s process was grossly negligent, noting the board’s failure to adequately wall off the conflicted CEO and its misleading proxy statement to stockholders. As a result, the statutory safe harbors under 8 Del. C. § 144(a)(1) and (a)(2) were unavailable at the pleading stage.The court held that claims could proceed against the CEO and the executive chairman, who had negotiated a lucrative consulting agreement in connection with the merger. It dismissed the remaining directors, finding them disinterested and not alleged to have acted in bad faith. The court also dismissed the statutory and conversion claims, holding that the challenged stockholder vote satisfied Section 203’s requirements and that deficiencies in the proxy statement did not render the merger invalid. View "Dodiya v. Franklin" on Justia Law

Roy Hill, founder and CEO of Clean Energy Technology Association, Inc. (CETA), solicited investments by representing that CETA owned patented carbon capture technology and promised investors returns from these assets. CETA, however, operated as a Ponzi scheme, using funds from new investors to pay returns to earlier ones. UniBank, a Washington-based commercial bank, provided secured loans to investors who used the funds to buy interests in CETA’s purported assets. UniBank perfected its security interests in the distributions from CETA. After the SEC initiated an enforcement action alleging fraud and sought appointment of a receiver, Albert Black was appointed to marshal CETA’s assets for the benefit of creditors and investors.In parallel litigation, investors sued UniBank in Washington state court for fraud and negligence, but UniBank obtained summary judgment on the basis that it owed no duty to the investors. Meanwhile, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, the receiver recommended a pro rata distribution of the remaining CETA estate funds to all investors and creditors based on net cash losses, aggregating UniBank’s claims with those of other victims rather than honoring UniBank’s asserted secured creditor priority. UniBank objected, arguing its perfected liens should grant it priority recovery. The district court overruled UniBank’s objection, adopted the receiver’s recommendation, and ordered pro rata distributions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s order. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court failed to provide UniBank with adequate due process because it adopted the receiver’s recommendation with only a cursory analysis and without giving UniBank a meaningful opportunity to present its evidence and arguments, particularly given the extensive record. The court vacated the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with due process requirements, without expressing a view on the merits. View "Black v. Unibank" on Justia Law

Cowboy Racing was formed in Wyoming with two members: EFTI, which held a 51% interest and was managed by William Edwards, and Dillinger’s, with a 49% interest, managed by Ryan Clement. The company’s operating agreement appointed Edwards and Clement as the initial managers and set out procedures for removing a manager, including both a for-cause provision and a mechanism for removal with the consent of a majority interest. In February 2025, EFTI, holding the majority interest, removed Clement as a manager citing his unauthorized expenditures. Despite his removal, Clement continued to act as though he had authority on behalf of Cowboy Racing.EFTI and Cowboy Racing then filed suit in the District Court of Laramie County, seeking a declaration that Clement could not act on behalf of the company, enforcement of a purchase right under the operating agreement, damages for breach of a letter of intent, and, relevant here, a preliminary injunction to prevent Clement from representing himself as a manager. Clement objected, arguing that the removal process was procedurally and substantively improper and conflicted with the operating agreement.The Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming reviewed the district court’s grant of the preliminary injunction, applying an abuse of discretion standard. The Court held that while the district court’s order was inartfully phrased as a final determination, it properly found that Cowboy Racing and EFTI were likely to succeed on their claim that Clement was lawfully removed under the operating agreement. The Court concluded the agreement was unambiguous and that EFTI, as the majority member, had the authority to remove Clement with express written consent. The preliminary injunction was affirmed, but the parties retain the right to present further evidence at trial on the merits. View "Dillinger's LLC v. CR-GTD, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2022, Soohyung Kim and his company, through an affiliate, secured a winning bid to purchase TEGNA, a large broadcast television company. The transaction required regulatory approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) within 450 days, as specified in the merger agreement. The proposal drew objections from several organizations and individuals, including labor unions, public interest groups, and a rival bidder. Amid ongoing objections and extended public comment periods, the FCC’s Media Bureau ultimately failed to approve the license transfer within the required timeframe, resulting in the expiration of the merger agreement and obligating Kim’s group to pay significant break-up fees.After the collapse of the merger, the appellants filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against both the FCC and various private parties. They alleged constitutional and statutory violations, including Equal Protection claims, Communications Act violations, federal civil rights and conspiracy claims, and D.C.-law tort claims, asserting that the FCC and private parties conspired to prevent the merger based on race. The District Court dismissed all claims. Regarding the FCC, the court found the appellants lacked standing for prospective relief, as they failed to allege a substantial risk of future injury. The court also dismissed the Communications Act claims for lack of jurisdiction. As to the claims against private parties, the court applied Noerr-Pennington immunity and found no plausible basis for the civil rights or tort claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. The court held that the appellants lacked standing against the FCC due to insufficient allegations of likely future injury. The court further held that the claims against private appellees failed because the complaint did not plausibly allege intentional race discrimination or actionable tortious interference, and thus did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. View "SGCI Holdings III LLC v. FCC" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C. published articles critical of a technology company and its CEO, which led to corporations pulling their advertisements from the company’s platform, resulting in significant losses for the company. The technology company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging interference with contract, business disparagement, and interference with prospective economic advantage under Texas law. The nonprofit and its employees sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim. After this was denied, and following further discovery showing that affected advertisers were not based in Texas, the nonprofit moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, citing venue statutes and a forum-selection clause.The district court denied both the motion to dismiss and the motion to transfer venue, finding that the transfer request was untimely and that the evidence was insufficient to show the Texas venue was improper. It also expressed concerns about the nonprofit’s litigation conduct and considered possible sanctions. The nonprofit then petitioned for a writ of mandamus from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, seeking to compel a venue transfer.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the petition in part. It held that the district court erred by failing to consider the required eight public- and private-interest factors when analyzing the transfer motion under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a), instead focusing solely on the timeliness of the motion. The Court ordered the district court to vacate its denial of the transfer motion and conduct a new venue analysis consistent with appellate precedent. The nonprofit’s related interlocutory appeal was held in abeyance pending the outcome of the remand. View "In Re: Media Matters for America" on Justia Law

A Puerto Rican distributor of HVAC products brought suit against a Miami-based manufacturer after their commercial relationship deteriorated. The distributor alleged that the manufacturer’s actions impaired its distribution rights under Puerto Rico’s Dealer’s Act (Law 75). After the distributor dismissed claims against certain non-diverse defendants, the manufacturer removed the case to federal court and asserted a counterclaim alleging the distributor owed over $235,000, as well as seeking a declaratory judgment that it had just cause to terminate the relationship.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico granted summary judgment to the manufacturer on the Law 75 claim, finding in its favor, and dismissed the manufacturer’s declaratory judgment counterclaim as unripe. The court denied summary judgment on the remaining damages counterclaim, finding material factual disputes and setting it for trial. The distributor sought entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b), which the court denied due to overlap between the claims. The distributor’s attempt to obtain appellate review via a petition under Rule 5 was also denied by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Subsequently, the manufacturer moved to voluntarily dismiss its remaining counterclaim without prejudice. The district court granted that motion, dismissing the counterclaim without prejudice and denying the distributor’s requests for dismissal with prejudice or for attorney fees and costs. The court then entered judgment dismissing the distributor’s claims with prejudice and the manufacturer’s counterclaim without prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit determined that it lacked appellate jurisdiction. The court held that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not produce a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 when the dismissed claim could be revived in the same district court. Consequently, there was no final, appealable judgment, and the appeal was dismissed. View "Air-Con, Inc. v. Daikin Applied Latin America, LLC" on Justia Law

A large public pension fund alleged that a government-sponsored enterprise and three of its senior officers made false and misleading statements regarding the company’s exposure to subprime and Alt-A mortgages during a period preceding the 2008 financial crisis. The pension fund claimed that the company’s public statements and disclosures understated its exposure to high-risk loans, while internal documents and risk assessments suggested a much greater level of risk. It further argued that, when the company’s actual exposure came to light, its stock price fell, resulting in significant losses to shareholders.Previously, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied class certification, excluded the pension fund’s expert, and granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court concluded that the pension fund failed to establish reliance due to an inability to show that the company’s stock traded in an efficient market, improperly rejected the fund’s price-maintenance theory of fraud, found insufficient evidence to support loss causation and damages, and determined the defendants did not act with scienter. The court also found no actionable misstatements regarding credit-risk and underwriting standards, and dismissed control-person liability claims after finding no underlying securities violation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The appellate court held that the pension fund presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the company made materially false or misleading statements regarding its subprime and Alt-A exposure, and that issues of scienter and reliance were present. The court determined that the lower court erred in rejecting the price-maintenance theory and improperly excluded the plaintiff’s expert. It also concluded that the fund should be allowed another opportunity to seek class certification and to present evidence of loss causation and damages. The court reinstated the underlying securities fraud and control-person liability claims for further proceedings. View "OPERS v. FHLMC" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on a business relationship involving ownership interests in Delaware Valley Regional Center, an EB-5 investment business. Joseph P. Manheim, holding a controlling interest through West 36th, Inc., eliminated Young Min Ban’s interests by unilaterally enacting a bylaw that allowed him to acquire Ban’s shares and redeem a partnership interest at self-determined values. Ban, who owned a minority share of West 36th, Inc. and a significant partnership interest in a related entity, sued for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and conversion, seeking damages equivalent to the fair value of his lost interests.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware found Manheim liable for breaching his duty of loyalty and awarded Ban $6,898,612 in damages, declining to consider Ban’s expert’s supplemental valuation as it was based on new inputs not timely disclosed. After trial, Ban moved for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses, arguing for the first time that Manheim’s pre-litigation conduct warranted fee shifting under the bad-faith exception to the American Rule. The Court of Chancery granted this, treating fees as an element of damages due to Manheim’s conduct.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the lower court’s damages determination and its exclusion of the supplemental valuation, finding no abuse of discretion. However, the Supreme Court reversed the award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. It held that a claim for attorneys’ fees as damages based on pre-litigation conduct must be raised before trial to provide adequate notice and an opportunity for the opposing party to defend. Because Ban did not raise this claim until after trial, the Supreme Court concluded it was waived. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling. View "Ban v. Manheim" on Justia Law

Two investigative journalists, on assignment for a nonprofit media organization known for undercover reporting, infiltrated Democratic political consulting operations in 2016 using false identities. One reporter, posing as a philanthropist, met with a political consultant who then arranged for his colleague to hire the second reporter, also undercover, as an unpaid intern at the consultant's firm. The intern secretly recorded conversations and internal meetings over eight days, gaining access to nonpublic information. The media organization later published a video series alleging a conspiracy to incite violence at political events, using footage from both public interactions and the intern’s covert recordings.After the video’s release, major clients of the consulting firm terminated their contracts, citing concerns about scandal and the security breach. The consulting firm and its principals sued the journalists and their organizations in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, and violations of federal and D.C. wiretapping laws. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on some claims but allowed others to proceed to trial. A jury found for the plaintiffs on the remaining claims and awarded damages for lost contracts and statutory damages for wiretapping.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the verdict. It held that the First Amendment barred damages based on losses caused by the publication’s protected speech, as the plaintiffs failed to prove that the unprotected conduct (the infiltration and covert recording) was the predominant cause of their damages. The court also held that the intern did not owe a fiduciary duty to the consulting firm under D.C. law, and therefore the wiretapping claims could not stand. The court reversed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law and vacated the damages awards. View "Democracy Partners, LLC v. O'Keefe" on Justia Law