Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

A manager of two limited liability companies, after significant ownership changes and internal conflict, was removed from his managerial role and asked to sell his shares. When he refused, other company members and the companies themselves sued him, initially over breach of the operating agreements. During litigation, they discovered that in 2017, he had secured a $275,000 loan against company real estate, transferred the proceeds to company accounts, and then paid off personal debts with the money without authorization or proper disclosure to his co-owners.The Elkhart Superior Court held a bench trial and found for the plaintiffs on claims including breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and, importantly, under the Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act (CVRA) for criminal conversion. The court found that the defendant used company funds to pay personal obligations without authorization, constituting criminal conversion, and awarded treble damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals was divided. The majority concluded that because the funds were commingled, they did not qualify as “special chattel” and thus did not support a conversion claim, but affirmed treble damages under the CVRA on the theory of theft. A concurring judge disagreed with the special-chattel requirement and believed conversion had been established.The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacating the appellate opinion. The Court held that money need not be “special chattel” or segregated to support a criminal-conversion claim or a CVRA action. The statutory elements of conversion are sufficient, and the judicially created special-chattel requirement is not part of the criminal-conversion statute. The Court affirmed the trial court’s award of treble damages under the CVRA but directed the award to be made to the proper company victim. It also affirmed the findings on breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. View "Harper v. S&H Leasing LLC" on Justia Law

Branch Metrics, Inc. brought an antitrust action against Google, LLC, alleging violations of the Sherman Act based on documents uncovered in earlier litigation brought by the United States against Google. Branch Metrics claimed Google maintained monopoly power in online search and search advertising markets, using exclusive agreements that caused anticompetitive harm. The suit was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, although most relevant witnesses and evidence were located in California.Google responded by requesting a transfer of venue to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), arguing that it was clearly more convenient for parties and witnesses and that the sources of proof were located there. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas permitted venue discovery but ultimately denied Google’s motion to transfer. The court found that certain private interest factors slightly favored transfer, while one public interest factor—administrative difficulties stemming from court congestion—weighed against transfer, and the rest of the factors were neutral.On mandamus review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the district court misapplied the law by placing undue weight on the court congestion factor, which Fifth Circuit precedent considers speculative and non-dispositive. The appellate court held that the district court erred by allowing that single factor to override all other factors, contrary to circuit authority. The Fifth Circuit also rejected Branch Metrics’ argument that the Clayton Act insulated its choice of venue from transfer. The court granted Google’s petition for a writ of mandamus and ordered the case transferred to the Northern District of California. View "In Re: Google" on Justia Law

A group of shareholders brought a class action against a telecommunications company and its executives, alleging violations of securities laws related to the company’s merger with another entity. The plaintiffs claimed that the registration statement and prospectus for the merger contained false statements and omitted material facts about illegal billing practices known as “cramming,” which they argued were widespread, known to senior management, and impacted the company’s financial performance. The amended complaint incorporated allegations and statements made by confidential witnesses and public filings from related lawsuits, as well as affidavits from other cases, all supporting the claim of pervasive cramming practices.Initially, the Boulder County District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to plead material misrepresentations or omissions with particularity and denied leave to amend. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed in part but reversed the denial of leave to amend the omissions claim based on the cramming theory, instructing that any borrowed allegations must be pleaded as facts after reasonable inquiry as required by C.R.C.P. 11. After the plaintiff amended the complaint, the district court dismissed it again, concluding that the plaintiff’s counsel had not satisfied the requirement to conduct a reasonable inquiry, as the complaint relied on allegations from other lawsuits without direct verification from the original sources or witnesses.The Colorado Supreme Court, en banc, reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal. The Supreme Court held that under C.R.C.P. 11(a), counsel must conduct a sufficient investigation to support allegations, at least on information and belief, but the extent of the required investigation is fact-dependent. Copying allegations from related complaints does not alone violate Rule 11 provided counsel’s inquiry is objectively reasonable in context. The Court found that the plaintiff’s counsel had met this standard and affirmed the judgment below. View "CenturyLink, Inc. v. Houser" on Justia Law

A group of farmers and farming entities brought suit against several manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of seeds and crop-protection chemicals, alleging that these defendants conspired to obscure pricing data for these “crop inputs.” The plaintiffs claimed that this conspiracy, which included a group boycott of electronic sales platforms and price-fixing activities, forced them to pay artificially high prices. They sought to represent a class of individuals who had purchased crop inputs from the defendants or their authorized retailers dating back to January 1, 2014. The plaintiffs asserted violations of the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and various state laws, seeking both damages and injunctive relief.After the cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The district court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Sherman Act because they did not adequately allege parallel conduct among the defendants. The RICO claims were also dismissed with prejudice, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The district court dismissed the antitrust claim with prejudice, noting that the plaintiffs had prior notice of the deficiencies and had multiple opportunities to amend.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead parallel conduct or provide sufficient factual detail connecting specific defendants to particular acts. It concluded that the complaint’s group pleading and conclusory allegations did not meet the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss. The court also ruled that the dismissal with prejudice was proper given the plaintiffs’ repeated failures to cure the deficiencies. View "Duncan v. Bayer CropScience LP" on Justia Law

Four football players who had previously attended junior colleges (JUCOs) and then transferred to a Division I university challenged the NCAA’s “JUCO Rule.” This rule treats time spent and games played at JUCOs as counting toward limits on athletes’ eligibility to play NCAA sports—specifically, a five-year window to play four seasons. The NCAA had recently issued a temporary waiver (the “Pavia waiver”) that relaxed the rule regarding the number of seasons, but not the five-year limit. The plaintiffs, having enrolled in college over five years earlier, were rendered ineligible for the 2025–26 season under the rule, even with the waiver. After their requests for an NCAA waiver were denied, the players sued, alleging the rule violated the Sherman Act and state law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia granted a preliminary injunction, allowing the players to participate for the 2025–26 season. The NCAA appealed, and the Fourth Circuit requested additional briefing on mootness since the 2025–26 season had ended. The circuit court found the case was not moot because the dispute was capable of repetition yet evading review, especially as one player had already sought a waiver for the following season.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case. The court held that the district court erred by applying an abbreviated “quick look” analysis instead of the full “rule of reason” required under the Sherman Act for this type of eligibility rule. The circuit court further found that the district court failed to make adequate factual findings regarding the relevant market, as required for antitrust analysis. The court concluded that the players had not met their burden for a preliminary injunction, and the district court’s order was therefore vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Robinson v. National Collegiate Athletic Association" on Justia Law

A nonprofit religious organization in Nevada, which owns and manages a temple, is governed by bylaws and led by an elected Management Committee. Certain general members, who previously served on the Management Committee, alleged that current management breached the organization’s bylaws. Specifically, they claimed that management formed unauthorized committees to transfer temple property into a trust without proper member approval, failed to issue membership cards and maintain records, and denied access to inspect corporate records. The members sought declaratory relief and alleged violations under Nevada corporate law.The case was first brought in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada. Management moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, which generally prohibits civil courts from resolving internal church disputes involving doctrine, governance, or religious law. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the claims could be resolved using neutral legal principles without delving into religious doctrine or practice.Petitioners then sought a writ of prohibition or mandamus from the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada, challenging the district court’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Nevada clarified that, while the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine restricts judicial intervention in religious disputes, an exception exists when courts can resolve a matter using neutral principles of law that do not require interpretation of religious doctrine, practices, or texts. The court held that this neutral-principles exception is not limited to property disputes but may apply to other matters, including corporate governance, so long as no ecclesiastical issues are implicated. Finding that the allegations in the complaint were secular and could be adjudicated on that basis, the Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed that the district court could proceed. View "SINGH VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

After Jet Midwest International Co., Ltd. made a $6.5 million loan to Jet Midwest Group, LLC (JMG) for the purchase of a Boeing 737-700, JMG defaulted on repayment. Jet Midwest sued for breach of contract, and when it could not collect on its judgment due to JMG’s lack of funds, Jet Midwest brought claims under the Missouri Fraudulent Transfer Act against several individuals and entities (the Ohadi/Woolley defendants), alleging the improper transfer of assets to avoid payment. Following a bench trial, Jet Midwest prevailed on its claims, and the district court awarded money damages, interest, and set a schedule for further motions on attorney’s fees and costs.Previously, the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri awarded Jet Midwest over $6.5 million in attorney’s fees and costs. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated this award, finding the district court had not properly performed a lodestar calculation for attorney’s fees and had not analyzed which costs were recoverable under federal law. On remand, Jet Midwest reduced its fee request but sought a multiplier; the district court ultimately awarded $5.8 million in attorney’s fees, granted prejudgment interest at 14 percent, and included expert witness fees and other litigation costs. Both sides appealed aspects of this award.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the district court properly calculated and awarded $5.8 million in attorney’s fees but erred in awarding expert witness fees as part of attorney’s fees, as Jet Midwest failed to provide sufficient evidence that such fees were recoverable under the relevant standards. The Eighth Circuit also held that the district court erred in applying a 14 percent prejudgment interest rate and ordered that Missouri’s statutory rate of nine percent should apply. Additionally, the court clarified that, after August 6, 2020, the federal postjudgment interest rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) governs. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings. View "Jet Midwest International Co., Ltd v. Ohadi" on Justia Law

Kendell Seafood Imports, Inc. and Mark Foods, LLC are both fish importers. Kendell alleged that Mark Foods tortiously interfered with its agreement with Chilean Sea Bass, Inc. (CSB), a fish distributor. According to Kendell, it had arranged with CSB to purchase the distributor’s entire catch for several years, including 2021, and that CSB agreed to roll over an outstanding 2020 balance into the 2021 price. Kendell further claimed that Mark Foods was aware of this agreement and attempted to solicit business from CSB during the same period, thereby interfering with Kendell’s relationship and causing it harm.After Kendell initially sued Mark Foods for tortious interference in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Mark Foods moved to dismiss the complaint. In response, Kendell filed an amended complaint with similar facts but with additional details about the agreement with CSB. The district court treated the amended complaint as operative and, after considering substantive arguments from both parties, granted Mark Foods’ motion to dismiss with prejudice. The district court found that Kendell’s allegations did not plausibly support three essential elements of tortious interference: the defendant’s knowledge of the contract, intentional interference, and resulting damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case on appeal. It held that the district court properly applied the pending motion to dismiss to the amended complaint, as the amendments did not affect the relevant arguments. Applying Rhode Island law, the First Circuit concluded that Kendell had not sufficiently pleaded that Mark Foods knew about the specific agreement with CSB. Because this element was not plausibly alleged, the court affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the case with prejudice. View "Kendell Seafood Imports, Inc. v. Mark Foods, LLC" on Justia Law

Eric Smith was the majority owner, chairman, and CEO of Consulting Services Support Corporation (CSSC), which wholly owned CSSC Brokerage Services, Inc. (CSSC-BD), a registered FINRA broker-dealer. Although CSSC-BD was registered, Smith did not personally register with FINRA, claiming an exemption so long as he was not involved in managing the securities business. However, between 2010 and 2015, Smith actively managed CSSC-BD, including overseeing debt offerings, preparing offering documents with false statements, and soliciting investments totaling $130,000 from four investors. A FINRA examination and investor complaints uncovered these activities.Following an investigation, FINRA’s Department of Enforcement filed a complaint against Smith for violations of federal securities laws and FINRA rules. After a disciplinary proceeding, FINRA found against Smith and imposed sanctions, including $130,000 in restitution and a bar from associating with any FINRA member. Smith appealed to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which affirmed FINRA’s findings and sanctions. Smith then sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, arguing that FINRA lacked jurisdiction over him and that the proceedings violated his rights under Article III and the Seventh Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that FINRA had statutory authority to discipline Smith because, despite not registering, he controlled a FINRA member firm and was therefore a “person associated with a member” under the relevant statute. The court found Smith’s constitutional claims barred because he failed to raise them before the SEC as required by statute, and none of the exceptions to the exhaustion requirement applied. The petition for review was denied. View "Smith v. Securities and Exchange Commission" on Justia Law

Minority shareholders of an Argentine oil and gas company, previously privatized in 1993, became involved in litigation after the Argentine government expropriated a majority stake in the company in 2012. The government’s acquisition of shares was conducted without making a public tender offer to minority shareholders, a process that was explicitly required by the company’s bylaws to protect such shareholders in the event of a takeover. The plaintiffs, consisting of Spanish entities and a New York hedge fund, had acquired significant stakes in the company, and after the expropriation, they claimed that they suffered substantial financial losses due to the government’s failure to comply with the tender offer requirement.The plaintiffs sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims under Argentine law against both the Argentine Republic and the company. After extensive litigation, the district court found in favor of the plaintiffs on their breach of contract claims against the Argentine Republic, awarding over $16 billion in damages, but granted summary judgment to the company, finding it had no obligation to enforce the tender offer provision. The court also dismissed the promissory estoppel claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs' breach of contract damages claims against the Argentine Republic and the company were not cognizable under Argentine law, reasoning that the bylaws did not create enforceable bilateral obligations between shareholders and that Argentine public law governing expropriation precluded such claims. The court affirmed the dismissal of the promissory estoppel claims and judgment in favor of the company, but reversed the judgment against the Argentine Republic, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Petersen Energía v. Argentine Republic" on Justia Law