Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, who provided subadvisory investment services and loaned $1.5 million to FolioMetrix (personally guaranteed by two individuals), later engaged with defendants involved in a proposed merger of investment firms. Plaintiffs alleged that during merger negotiations, defendant Putnam promised to relieve the original borrowers of their obligations and personally assume the debt. Subsequent communications referenced intentions to transfer the loan liability to the new entity, but when plaintiffs sought a formal promissory note, defendants refused. Ultimately, defendants did not repay any portion of the loan.Plaintiffs filed suit in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco in March 2019, alleging breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. At trial, the central dispute was whether defendants had agreed to assume the loan obligations under the promissory note. Plaintiffs argued that the agreement was formed through emails and conduct, while defendants denied any assumption of liability. The jury found in favor of defendants, determining no contract was formed and no promise was made to repay the loans. Following trial, the court awarded defendants attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717, based on a fee provision in the original promissory note, after reducing the requested amount.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, addressed several issues. It ruled that the automatic bankruptcy stay did not preclude resolution of the appeal because the debtor (NAI) was the plaintiff rather than a defendant. The court rejected plaintiffs’ claims of error regarding jury instructions on contract formation, finding insufficient argument and no prejudice. It affirmed the attorney fee award, concluding the action was “on the contract” containing the fee provision, and held the fee amount was within the trial court’s discretion. The judgment and fee order were affirmed. View "Navellier v. Putnam" on Justia Law

A stockholder derivative suit was filed alleging that Tesla’s non-employee directors, with the approval of Elon Musk, breached their fiduciary duties by granting themselves excessive stock option compensation between 2017 and 2020. After discovery and mediation, the parties reached a settlement. Under its terms, the directors agreed to return to Tesla a mix of cash, stock, and unexercised stock options, and to forgo future compensation for certain years. The settlement also included various corporate governance reforms.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware approved the settlement, rejecting an objector’s arguments regarding the fairness and structure of director contributions and the binding nature of future stockholder approval votes for director compensation. The court valued the benefit to Tesla using the intrinsic value (“in the money” value) of the returned options, along with returned cash and stock, and awarded attorneys’ fees as a percentage of the calculated benefit. Tesla objected to the fee award, arguing that the value of the returned options to the company was far less than their intrinsic value and should instead be measured by the grant date fair value (GDFV), which reflects the accounting benefit to Tesla.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the approval of the settlement but reversed the method used to calculate the attorneys’ fee award. It held that the intrinsic value of the cancelled options should not have been included in determining the monetary benefit to Tesla for purposes of a common fund fee calculation. The Court concluded that, in derivative litigation, unless an investor-level benefit falls within a recognized exception, the benefit to the corporation is controlling. The Supreme Court modified the fee award to reflect only the actual corporate benefit and remanded for any further disputes regarding fees. View "IN RE TESLA, INC. DIRECTOR COMPENSATION STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION" on Justia Law

Murray and Kimberly Lee hired Debra Champion to clean their home, with Champion’s son, Alex Brandon Burkett, sometimes assisting. Over time, the Lees noticed cash, prescription medication, foreign currency, silverware, and jewelry missing from their house. After suspecting Champion, they continued to employ her due to her plausible explanations. Eventually, after another acquaintance reported missing property following Champion’s cleaning, the Lees discovered their Gorham silverware gone and filed a police report. Detective Sergeant Richard Pollard investigated and identified Burkett as a suspect. LeadsOnline records indicated Burkett conducted numerous transactions with EFS, Inc., d/b/a Quik Pawn Shop ("Quik Pawn"), selling silverware and jewelry believed to be the Lees’ property. The Lees were unable to recover their stolen items.The Lees sued Quik Pawn in the Jefferson Circuit Court, alleging negligence, wantonness, and civil conspiracy, later dismissing most claims except wantonness. Quik Pawn moved for summary judgment, which was granted for conspiracy and emotional distress, but denied for wantonness. Quik Pawn’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the value of stolen items was granted. At trial, the jury found for the Lees on the wantonness claim and awarded $250,000 in punitive damages. Quik Pawn’s postjudgment motions were denied by operation of law. Quik Pawn appealed, and the Lees cross-appealed the exclusion of valuation evidence.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case. It held that the Lees failed to present substantial evidence that Quik Pawn’s acts or omissions proximately caused their loss, as the property had been sold long before the Lees discovered the theft or reported it. The Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered judgment for Quik Pawn, finding the cross-appeal moot due to this disposition. View "EFS Inc. v. Lee" on Justia Law

The State of Ohio brought a lawsuit in state court against several pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and related entities, alleging they conspired to artificially inflate prescription drug prices in violation of Ohio law. Ohio claimed that the PBMs, acting as intermediaries between drug manufacturers and health plans, negotiated rebates and fees in a manner that increased drug list prices and extracted payments from pharmacies, harming consumers and violating state antitrust and consumer protection statutes. The PBMs provided services to both private clients and federal health plans, including those for federal employees and military personnel.The defendants, Express Scripts and Prime Therapeutics, removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under the federal officer removal statute, arguing that their negotiations on drug prices were conducted on behalf of both federal and non-federal clients in a unified process subject to federal oversight. Ohio moved to remand the case to state court, asserting that its claims did not target conduct directed by federal officers and disclaimed any challenge to the administration of federal health programs like FEHBA or TRICARE. The district court accepted Ohio’s disclaimer and determined that the complaint did not impose liability for acts under federal direction, granting Ohio’s motion to remand.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the matter de novo. The court held that the PBMs were “persons acting under” federal officers because their negotiations were performed under detailed federal supervision and regulation for federal health plans. The court further found that the complaint related to acts under color of federal office, as the alleged wrongful conduct was inseparable from federally directed negotiations. The court also determined that the PBMs raised colorable federal defenses based on federal preemption. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s remand order and remanded the case for further proceedings in federal court. View "Ohio ex rel. Yost v. Ascent Health Services, LLC" on Justia Law

Harman International Industries was acquired by Samsung Electronics in a reverse triangular merger, after which a class of former Harman shareholders filed a federal securities lawsuit alleging that disclosures made in connection with the transaction were misleading and violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The shareholders claimed they were deprived of a fully informed vote and the full value of their shares, seeking damages equal to the difference between the merger price and Harman’s true value. The parties settled the suit for $28 million, which was distributed to a class defined as shareholders who held Harman stock at any time during the relevant period, including some who did not receive merger consideration.Harman sought coverage for the $28 million settlement under its Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance policies with Illinois National Insurance Company, Federal Insurance Company, and Berkley Insurance Company. The insurers denied coverage, invoking a “Bump-Up Provision” that excluded settlements representing an effective increase in deal consideration for claims alleging inadequate consideration in an acquisition. Harman sued the insurers for breach of contract in the Delaware Superior Court. After initial motions were denied due to insufficient facts, both sides moved for summary judgment on the applicability of the Bump-Up Provision.The Delaware Superior Court held that the Bump-Up Provision did not exclude coverage because the underlying complaint did not allege inadequate consideration as a viable remedy, and the settlement amount did not represent an effective increase in deal consideration. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, holding that although the complaint did allege inadequate consideration, the insurers failed to prove the settlement amount effectively increased the deal consideration. Thus, the $28 million settlement was covered under Harman’s policies. View "Illinois National Insurance Company and Federal Insurance Company v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated" on Justia Law

A Nebraska limited liability company owned by Michael Perkins hired RMR Building Group, LLC, managed and solely owned by Robert M. Ryan II, as a general contractor to redevelop a shopping center. Their contract used a cost-plus billing arrangement, where Perkins paid RMR in advance for specific construction costs, including a substantial sum for HVAC equipment and RMR’s fee. RMR deposited the funds into its general operating account but did not pay for the HVAC equipment; instead, it used the money to cover other business obligations. Perkins terminated the contract after RMR failed to provide proof of payment for the equipment and then sued RMR and Ryan for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and fraudulent misrepresentation, also seeking to pierce the corporate veil and hold Ryan personally liable.The District Court for Douglas County found that RMR breached the contract and was liable under theories of money had and received and unjust enrichment, but not for conversion or fraudulent misrepresentation. The court declined to disregard RMR’s corporate entity, finding no sufficient evidence that Ryan diverted funds for personal use or that RMR was a mere facade for Ryan’s dealings. Perkins appealed these findings.The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed in part, concluding that the corporate veil should be pierced and Ryan held jointly and severally liable for the misappropriated funds, relying on factors from United States Nat. Bank of Omaha v. Rupe. On further review, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the evidence did not establish by a preponderance that RMR’s entity should be disregarded, nor did it support fraud or conversion claims against Ryan. The Supreme Court remanded with direction to affirm the district court’s judgment. View "Perkins v. RMR Building Group" on Justia Law

Alliance Data Systems, a company based in Columbus, Ohio, faced mounting debt and responded by selling off side businesses, including spinning off its LoyaltyOne division into a standalone company called Loyalty Ventures Inc. Prior to and during the spinoff, executives publicly described LoyaltyOne’s Canadian AIR MILES program as having strong, long-term sponsor relationships. However, in the period leading up to and following the spinoff, AIR MILES lost several major sponsors, including its second largest, Sobeys, which announced its intention to exit the program shortly before the sponsor’s contract allowed. Loyalty’s financial condition deteriorated, leading to its bankruptcy about a year and a half after the spinoff.Investors, specifically two funds managed by Newtyn Management, brought a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. They alleged that Alliance Data Systems and individual executives committed securities fraud by making misleading statements or omissions about AIR MILES’s sponsor relationships and LoyaltyOne’s financial health, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that Newtyn had not adequately alleged any actionable misrepresentation or omission, nor had it sufficiently pled that the defendants acted with scienter (intent to defraud).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the statements cited by Newtyn were either immaterial puffery, accurate historical statements, or accompanied by sufficient cautionary language such that no reasonable investor would have been misled. The court also determined that Newtyn failed to plead a strong inference of scienter and that its related scheme liability and control person claims could not survive absent a primary violation. The judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed. View "Newtyn Partners, LP v. Alliance Data Systems Corp." on Justia Law

A minor league baseball team in Oregon lost its longstanding affiliation with a Major League Baseball (MLB) club after MLB restructured its relationship with minor league teams in 2020. The team’s owner alleges that a minority owner of an MLB franchise, who also served on the board and a negotiation committee of the national minor league association, acted to reduce the number of minor league clubs for personal gain, which resulted in the team’s exclusion from the new affiliation structure. The owner claims that the association’s rules left it dependent on the board and committee members to protect its interests.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the owner’s complaint, finding that it failed to plausibly allege the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the board member and the team. The owner appealed, arguing that fiduciary duties arose under Florida’s non-profit statute, by contract, or by implication due to the structure of the association and the interactions between the parties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s dismissal de novo. The Third Circuit held that Florida’s non-profit statute does not create a fiduciary duty from a director to the members of the non-profit, only to the corporation itself. The court also found no express or implied fiduciary duty arising from contractual provisions or the surrounding circumstances. The court distinguished direct and derivative actions and concluded that the complaint did not allege facts to support a direct or implied fiduciary relationship. Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim. View "Sports Enterprises Inc v. Goldklang" on Justia Law

An investor brought a derivative action against the managers of a limited liability company, alleging unauthorized transactions conducted under their management. After a bench trial, the investor lost both at trial and on appeal. The investor’s claims were rejected, and the court awarded costs to the prevailing manager. Although both managers were originally involved in the case, only one remained relevant for the cost award proceedings at this stage.Following the trial and appellate losses, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County awarded costs to the prevailing manager under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 and California Rules of Court, rule 8.891, which together provide that a prevailing party is generally entitled to recover costs. The plaintiff had previously defeated the manager’s motion for a security bond under Corporations Code section 17709.02, a statute intended to deter frivolous derivative suits. The plaintiff argued that this earlier success on the bond motion should bar any subsequent award of costs, claiming that section 17709.02 overrides the ordinary cost rules.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed this argument. The appellate court held that Corporations Code section 17709.02 does not preclude an award of ordinary litigation costs to a prevailing defendant in a derivative action where the bond motion was denied. The court found no statutory language supporting the plaintiff’s position and noted that case law, including Brusso v. Running Springs Country Club, Inc., confirms that the bond statute is special-purpose and does not displace general cost-recovery rules. The appellate court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, awarding costs to the prevailing defendant. The court also found that the plaintiff had forfeited several additional arguments by failing to support them with adequate briefing or legal authority. View "Barrios v. Chraghchian" on Justia Law

Under Armour, a publicly traded sports apparel company, faced significant legal claims and government investigations over its financial forecasts and accounting practices following the bankruptcy of a major customer, Sports Authority, in 2016. Shareholders alleged that Under Armour made misleading public statements about its financial prospects and that company insiders sold stock at inflated prices. These allegations led to a federal securities class action, derivative demands, and eventually an SEC investigation into whether Under Armour manipulated its accounting by pulling forward revenue to maintain the appearance of strong growth.In the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Under Armour’s insurers sought a declaratory judgment, arguing that the securities litigation, derivative actions, and government investigations constituted a single claim under the terms of Under Armour’s directors and officers insurance policies and therefore were subject only to the coverage limit of the earlier policy period. Under Armour countered that the government investigations were a separate claim, entitling it to an additional $100 million in coverage under a subsequent policy. The district court sided with Under Armour, finding that the government investigations and the earlier shareholder claims were not sufficiently related to constitute a single claim under the policy’s language.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that, under the plain meaning of the 2017–2018 insurance policy’s “single claims” provision, the claims related to Under Armour’s public financial statements and its accounting practices were “logically or causally related” and thus constituted a single claim. As a result, only the coverage limits from the earlier, 2016–2017 policy period applied. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment in favor of Under Armour. View "Navigators Insurance Co. v. Under Armour, Inc." on Justia Law