Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

A commercial landlord leased a property to an individual, Sina, who stopped paying rent soon after the lease began, causing significant unpaid rent and property damage. The landlord regained possession of the property and found it had been gutted. The landlord sued Sina for breach of contract and prevailed at trial, but the initial judgment was reversed on appeal due to a change in parol evidence law. On retrial before a referee, the landlord again prevailed, with the referee finding substantial damages and the trial court adopting the referee’s decision, entering judgment for the landlord. This judgment was affirmed on appeal.After the second judgment, Sina and his wife filed for bankruptcy. During related bankruptcy proceedings, the landlord discovered new evidence revealing that Sina, his brothers, their wives, and a family-owned corporation, Amey, were all part of a longstanding “one-for-all” family partnership. The landlord moved in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to amend the judgment to add these family members and Amey as judgment debtors, arguing that they were the true parties in interest and had been virtually represented in the litigation by Sina.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the trial court's decision to amend the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that substantial evidence supported the findings that the family members and Amey were part of a partnership that controlled the litigation and benefited from it. The court held that under Code of Civil Procedure section 187, a court may amend a judgment to add parties who had sufficient control of the litigation and unity of interest with the original judgment debtor, even if traditional alter ego requirements are not strictly met. The court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the addition of the individual partners and Amey as judgment debtors. View "8451 Melrose Property, LLC v. Akhtarzad" on Justia Law

PhantomALERT, a developer of a traffic app that crowdsources real-time data, modified its app in early 2020 to help users spot and avoid Covid-19 outbreaks. Apple rejected PhantomALERT’s updated app from its App Store, citing new guidelines limiting Covid-19-related apps to those from recognized health entities and requiring apps in highly regulated fields to be submitted by legal entities, not individual developers. PhantomALERT was invited to revise and resubmit its app for compliance. The Google Play Store also rejected the app for similar reasons. Apple later updated its guidelines, allowing certain Covid-related apps endorsed by government entities, but PhantomALERT alleged it was not notified of this change.PhantomALERT sued Apple in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, California antitrust law, and California unfair competition law. Apple moved to dismiss, and PhantomALERT missed the deadline for an opposition brief, instead filing an amended complaint. The district court dismissed the original complaint without prejudice as conceded and denied leave to late-file the amended complaint, finding it futile. The court determined PhantomALERT’s antitrust allegations failed to define a relevant product or geographic market and that prerequisites for injunctive relief under California law were not met.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the district court’s order de novo, finding the dismissal was final and appealable. The Circuit affirmed, holding that PhantomALERT failed to plausibly allege relevant product markets for its Sherman Act claims, including the alleged App Store single-brand aftermarket and submarket for Covid-19-related tracing apps. The court concluded the amended complaint did not state a claim under federal or California antitrust laws, nor under California’s unfair competition law. The dismissal was affirmed without prejudice. View "PhantomALERT Inc. v. Apple Inc." on Justia Law

In the aftermath of the 2008 housing crisis, Congress created the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and authorized it to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. The FHFA and the U.S. Treasury entered into agreements whereby the Treasury would provide capital to these companies, initially in exchange for fixed-rate dividends. In 2012, these agreements were amended so that Fannie and Freddie were required to pay the Treasury dividends equal to their net worth above a specified reserve, a change known as the “Net Worth Sweep.” The announcement of this amendment caused the value of Fannie and Freddie shares to drop significantly, and shareholders, including those holding both common and junior preferred shares, filed suit alleging various statutory and contract violations.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially dismissed most claims, but after appellate review and remand, permitted the shareholders’ implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim to proceed to trial. The jury found the FHFA had violated this implied covenant by adopting the Net Worth Sweep, awarding over $612 million in damages, which the district court increased to $812 million with prejudgment interest. The district court denied the FHFA’s post-trial motions and rejected shareholders’ attempts to seek restitution or reliance damages beyond expectation damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court of Appeals held that the implied covenant claim was not foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent or by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, that the claim was available against the FHFA as conservator, and that the Net Worth Sweep violated the reasonable expectations of shareholders. The court also determined that post-Net Worth Sweep purchasers of shares could pursue the claim, and that the denial of restitution and reliance damages was proper. Accordingly, the award of expectation damages was affirmed. View "Fairholme Funds, Inc v. FHFA" on Justia Law

Thrivent Financial for Lutherans and its subsidiary, which sell securities including variable annuities and life insurance contracts, are required as broker-dealers to be members of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). FINRA’s rules mandate that disputes with customers be arbitrated in FINRA’s forum and prohibit class action waivers in customer agreements, which conflicted with Thrivent’s preferred arbitration process. Thrivent sought to have its own dispute resolution program, culminating in binding arbitration in a non-FINRA forum, applied to all customer disputes involving these products. After FINRA interpreted its rules as prohibiting Thrivent’s program, Thrivent petitioned the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to amend or abrogate the relevant FINRA arbitration rules, arguing they violated the Federal Arbitration Act.After receiving no response for nearly a year, Thrivent sought mandamus relief from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which was denied. Eventually, the SEC denied the petition for rulemaking in a brief letter that cited resource constraints and agency discretion but did not specifically address Thrivent’s arguments or provide a substantive rationale. Thrivent then petitioned the D.C. Circuit for review of the SEC’s denial.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that while agency discretion in rulemaking is broad, the SEC’s denial was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to provide a reasoned explanation particular to Thrivent’s petition. The court did not address the underlying merits of Thrivent’s claim or the validity of the FINRA rules. Instead, it granted the petition in part, remanding the matter to the SEC for further consideration and a more reasoned explanation. The court otherwise denied Thrivent’s petition for review. View "Thrivent Financial for Lutherans v. SEC" on Justia Law

A group of shareholders alleged that a major aerospace manufacturer and several of its former executives made repeated misrepresentations regarding the company’s commitment to safety following two fatal airplane crashes involving one of its aircraft models. The shareholders claimed that these false and misleading statements artificially inflated or maintained the company’s stock price. When a subsequent in-flight safety incident and other disclosures revealed ongoing safety and quality issues, the company’s stock price declined, causing significant losses for the shareholders. The lead plaintiffs, representing a proposed class, sought to recover these losses through a class action lawsuit.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia oversaw the initial proceedings. It denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding the allegations sufficiently detailed, and subsequently certified a class. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs’ proposed damages methodology, which was based on an “out-of-pocket” measure, satisfied the requirements established by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Supreme Court’s decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend. The court found that this methodology fit the plaintiffs’ theory of liability and that class-wide issues predominated over individual questions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed whether class certification was proper. The Fourth Circuit found that the plaintiffs did not provide a sufficiently specific damages methodology at the class certification stage, as required by Comcast. The court held that simply describing a general measure of damages was inadequate, and that the plaintiffs needed to commit to a particular methodology and demonstrate its consistency with their liability theory. Because the district court did not conduct the rigorous analysis required and relied on inadequate proof, the Fourth Circuit reversed the class certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In re: The Boeing Company" on Justia Law

In this dispute, an Argentine construction company issued dollar-denominated convertible debt notes to two trusts as part of a capital-raising effort. The parties entered into an indenture agreement, later amended in December 2019, which authorized the company’s Board of Directors to convert the notes into equity if certain financial thresholds were met. Section 1301 of the indenture vested the Board with authority to determine if these conditions were satisfied, provided their determination was free from “manifest error.” In 2020, the Board concluded that the threshold for conversion had been reached, relying on the company’s increased net equity following the issuance of new preferred shares. The trusts disagreed, contending the Board’s calculation was manifestly erroneous and that the actual value of equity sold did not meet the $100 million threshold required by the indenture.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York presided over a bench trial. The court dismissed the trusts’ claims regarding improper amendment and bad faith, focusing solely on the manifest error claim. After reviewing the evidence, the District Court concluded that the Board had manifestly erred by using metrics not contemplated by the indenture—specifically, shareholder equity changes and liquidation preferences—rather than the actual value of shares sold. The court found that the threshold for mandatory conversion had not been met, and GCDI breached the agreement by ceasing interest payments on the notes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the District Court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment, holding that the Board’s determination constituted a manifest error under New York law because it failed to value the equity sold as required by the indenture’s plain terms. The judgment awarding damages to the trusts was affirmed. View "Tennenbaum Living Tr. v. GCDI S.A." on Justia Law

A truck dealership and a manufacturer entered into a contract permitting the dealership to sell and service the manufacturer’s trucks in specified regions, with the manufacturer holding the right to appoint additional dealers in those regions at its sole discretion when it determined such appointments were warranted. The manufacturer appointed a new dealer within the dealership’s area, citing customer support needs and concerns about the dealership’s performance. Internal documents revealed the manufacturer had a plan to consolidate its dealer network for efficiency and improved sales, and had previously denied the dealership’s request to expand its franchise. Despite the appointment of the new dealer, the original dealership retained its nonexclusive right to sell trucks in its area.Prior to the current suit, the dealership protested before the Rhode Island Dealer Board, alleging statutory notice failures and bad faith denial of expansion, but the Board dismissed the protest as extraterritorial application of Rhode Island law. The dealership sought reversal in Rhode Island Superior Court, and the case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, which granted summary judgment to the manufacturer. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed summary judgment on certain claims and certified a question to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which clarified statutory interpretation. Based on that, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on the statutory-notice claim.Upon de novo review, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the manufacturer acted within its contractual discretion in appointing a new dealer, as the contract only required the manufacturer to have a reason related to its business objectives, not to market conditions. The court also held there was no breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as the manufacturer’s actions were consistent with the contract’s objectives. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer. View "Rhode Island Truck Ctr., LLC v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC" on Justia Law

A state administrative enforcement action was initiated against a corporation and several individuals, alleging violations of securities laws, specifically securities fraud and the sale of unregistered securities. The plaintiffs, who were respondents in that administrative proceeding, sought declaratory relief in court, arguing that the administrative process and the underlying statute violated their right to a jury trial under the Delaware Constitution and their due process rights because they were denied access to prior agency decisions and information relevant to their defense.Previously, the Superior Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the plaintiffs’ claims. The Superior Court found that the plaintiffs did not have a constitutional right to a jury trial in this type of administrative proceeding, reasoning that neither the statute nor the nature of the action provided for such a right. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ due process challenge as unripe, interpreting it as an as-applied challenge that could only be addressed after a final agency action affecting the plaintiffs’ rights.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the Superior Court’s decision. The Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the right to a jury trial under Article I, Section 4 of the Delaware Constitution applies only to causes of action sufficiently analogous to those historically triable by a jury at common law. The Court found that the administrative enforcement action for securities fraud and registration violations was not sufficiently analogous to any common law cause of action that would have warranted a jury trial. Regarding due process, the Court agreed with the Superior Court that the plaintiffs’ claim was unripe as an as-applied challenge, and concluded that, even viewed as a facial challenge, the plaintiffs failed to show that the statute was unconstitutional in all its applications. Thus, the judgment of dismissal was affirmed. View "Swan Energy, Inc. v. Investor Protection Unit of the Delaware Department of Justice" on Justia Law

Two shareholders brought a derivative action on behalf of two Maryland closed-end investment funds against the funds’ investment adviser and members of the funds’ board of directors. The shareholders alleged that the board’s failure to control the funds’ use of leverage led to substantial losses during a downturn in the energy sector, and that the investment adviser benefited from the increased leverage through higher fees. The board consisted of five directors, four of whom were allegedly independent, and one who was the chief executive officer of the adviser. The board renewed the adviser’s contract and took defensive actions after the losses were realized. The shareholders did not make a pre-suit demand on the board before filing suit, claiming that such a demand would have been futile.The Circuit Court for Baltimore City dismissed the derivative claim with prejudice, finding that the shareholders had not pleaded sufficient facts to excuse the demand requirement under Maryland law. The court reviewed each allegation and concluded that none established demand futility. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed, holding that the allegations indicated only that a demand was unlikely to succeed, not that it was futile. The appellate court also rejected the shareholders’ argument that potential personal liability for directors constituted a disabling conflict sufficient to excuse demand.The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. It clarified that under Werbowsky v. Collomb, the futility exception is satisfied only if shareholders clearly and particularly allege that a majority of the board could not consider a litigation demand in accordance with the statutory standard of conduct for directors. The court held that futility depends on the board’s capacity to consider a demand, not on the likelihood of refusal, and that allegations of potential personal liability or hostility to litigation do not excuse the demand requirement. The judgment of the Appellate Court of Maryland was affirmed. View "Nathanson v. Tortoise Capital Advisors" on Justia Law

A major radio broadcasting company sought to purchase national radio audience data from a market research firm, which is the sole supplier of such data in the United States. The broadcaster also desired to buy the firm’s local radio audience data in select markets, while sourcing local data from a competitor in other markets. In 2024, the research firm instituted a policy requiring national broadcasters to purchase its local data in every market where they operate in order to access the full national report. This policy forced the broadcaster to choose between buying all local data from the firm or losing access to the essential national data product.The broadcaster sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the firm’s policy constituted an unlawful tying arrangement under the Sherman Act. After discovery and a hearing, the district court found that the firm used its monopoly power in the national data market to coerce customers into buying local data products, resulting in anticompetitive effects in local markets by excluding competitors. The district court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the firm from enforcing its tying policy and from charging commercially unreasonable rates for the national report as a standalone product. The firm’s subsequent counterclaims and the broadcaster’s bankruptcy petition led the district court to stay litigation of the counterclaims, but not the broadcaster’s claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s order for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that constructive tying—where pricing effectively conditions the purchase of one product on another—can violate the Sherman Act. It affirmed the district court’s findings regarding coercion, anticompetitive effects, irreparable harm, and the tailored injunction, and held that the bankruptcy did not require a stay of the appeal. The preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Cumulus Media New Holdings Inc. v. The Nielsen Co. (US), LLC" on Justia Law