Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Matador Holdings, Inc. and HoPo Realty Investments, LLC filed separate appeals to challenge elements of a circuit court's order involving commercial property owned by Matador. Matador sued HoPo for payment for materials and services Matador provided to HoPo's lessee Stratford Plastic Components of Alabama. The lease agreement contained provisions allowing for HoPo or its agents to enter the property during the lease-term to make inspections or repairs. Stratford had applied for and received a line of credit with Matador. After taking possession of the leased property, Stratford ordered materials from Matador to convert the property into one suitable for Stratford's production needs. Stratford vacated the property before the lease term expired without paying Matador for the materials. HoPo's agents testified that Stratford did not request any changes be made to the leased property and had no knowledge that Matador would supply materials to the lessee. To resolve the dispute, the trial court denied Matador's claim that HoPo was unjustly enriched by the services provided to Stratford that were unpaid, but the court placed a lien on HoPo's property for the unexpired portion of the Stratford lease. Upon review of the trial court record and its order, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's denial of Matador's unjust enrichment claim. Furthermore, the Court reversed the lower court's order insofar as it enforced any portion of a lien against HoPo's property or the improvements made to the property. The Court ruled the lien void.

In 2007, Massachusetts Defendant No. 1 Steel Products, Inc. (No. 1 Steel) was a subcontractor on a construction project at a health rehabilitation center in Massachusetts (Cape Regency project). While working on the project, No. 1 Steel determined that it needed to hire out some of the steel fabrication for which it was responsible. No. 1 Steel found Alabama Plaintiff Garrison Steel Fabricators, Inc. (Garrison). No. 1 Steel was dissatisfied with Garrison's work and refused to pay Garrison anything beyond what it had previously paid. In an attempt to collect the remaining amount owed, Garrison sent No. 1 Steel notice that it intended to file mechanic's liens on the project unless it was paid. Upon receiving the notice, No. 1 Steel filed a motion in Massachusetts court to discharge and release the not-yet-filed-lien, arguing that Garrison was not registered to do business in Massachusetts and that no written contract of the parties' agreement existed. The Massachusetts court granted the motion without stating a rationale. In 2009 Garrison sued No. 1 Steel in Alabama court, asserting claims of open account, implied contract and labor and work performed. No. 1 Steel moved to dismiss, arguing a lack of personal jurisdiction. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court found the "specific contacts" No. 1 Steel had were not sufficient enough that it should have anticipated being haled into court in Alabama; No. 1 Steel's relationship with Garrison was limited to a one-time purchase of customized goods. The Court directed the trial court to dismiss Garrison's case because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over No. 1 Steel.

Plaintiffs James Adams, Stanley Dye and Ed Holcombe were all shareholders in Altrust Financial Services, Inc. They sued Altrust, the Peoples Bank of Alabama (collectively, Altrust) and Dixon Hughes, LLC, Altrust's public-accounting firm, for violating the Alabama Securities Act. Altrust is a holding company that fully owns, controls and directs the operations of the Bank. Altrust and the Bank share common officers and directors and issue consolidated financial statements. Shareholders voted to reorganize the company in 2008 from a publicly held company to a privately held company. The move would have freed the company of certain reporting obligations imposed by the federal Securities Exchange Act and allowed the company to elect Subchapter S status for tax purposes. Relying on information in a proxy statement, Plaintiffs elected not to sell their shares of Altrust stock and instead voted for reorganization. Plaintiffs alleged that the proxy statement and financial reports contained material misrepresentations and omissions that induced them to ultimately sign shareholder agreements that made them shareholders in the newly reorganized Altrust. Plaintiffs contended that if (in their view) instances of mismanagement, self-dealing, interested-party transactions and "skewing" of company liabilities had been fully disclosed, they would have elected to sell their shares rather than remain as shareholders. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Plaintiffs' allegations were not specific to them but to all shareholders, and as such, they did not have standing to assert a direct action against the company. Because Plaintiffs did not have standing to assert claims against Altrust, they also lacked standing to assert professional negligence claims against the accounting firm. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Petitioner Delta International Machinery Corporation (Delta) sought a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to vacate an order that granted Respondent Brandon Landrum access to "certain technology" in its control. Respondent was operating a portable bench saw manufactured by Delta. His hand came into contact with the sawblade and ended with injuries to his hand and amputation of his index finger. In 2007, Respondent sued Delta alleging the saw was defective and unreasonably dangerous. Though the parties agreed to a protective order which forbade certain confidential materials from being released to Respondent's expert witness who happened to be employed by one of Delta's competitors, the trial court allowed Respondent's expert to review certain technology in Delta's possession pertaining to design of safety features of the saw. The technology Respondent sought to discover had pre-dated technology that had been developed by a joint venture of all saw manufacturers, of which Delta was a part. Delta claimed that its "flesh-sensing" technology was not discoverable because it did not exist at the time Respondent's saw was manufactured, and pre-dated the joint venture. Delta objected to Respondent's discovery request as "irrelevant" and "confidential." The trial court granted Respondent's motion to inspect. Delta subsequently filed its petition to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the flesh-sensing technology was both a trade secret and was not relevant to Respondent's claims. As such, the Court concluded that the trial court exceeded its discretion in allowing discovery of that technology and in allowing access to the technology by Delta's competitor. The Court granted Delta's request for the writ, and directed the trial court directed the trial court to vacate its order granting Respondent's motion to inspect.

Thomasville Feed & Seed, Inc. (Thomasville Feed) petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Wilcox County Circuit court to transfer the action filed against it by Roy Saulsberry and Roy Saulsberry, Jr. (The Saulsberrys) to the Clarke Circuit Court. The Saulsberrys own and operate a cattle farm in Wilcox County. Thomasville Feed is located in Clarke County. In April 2010, the Saulsberrys sued Thomasville Feed in Wilcox County Circuit Court, alleging that fertilizer they purchased from Thomasville Feed was defective and that Thomasville Feed was liable for damages under Alabama tort law. Thomasville Feed moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that Thomasville Feed only does business in Clarke County, and that Clarke County had jurisdiction over it. The trial court denied Thomasville Feedâs motion to dismiss. Thomasville Feed then filed a motion to transfer the case to Clarke County, which the trial court denied. Thomasville subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court for extraordinary relief. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that venue was proper in Clarke County. The Court vacated the Wilcox County order that denied Thomasville Feedâs motion to transfer, and issued the writ of mandamus to direct the court to transfer the case to Clarke County.

Plaintiff Branded Trailer Sales, Inc. (Branded) appealed a circuit court judgment that dismissed its case against Universal Truckload Services for lack of personal jurisdiction. A customer contacted Branded about having some flatbed trailers designed and manufactured. Branded contacted Universal for a recommendation for companies that could do the work. Universal recommended Liddell Trailers, LLC to design and manufacture the trailers. Branded entered into a contract with Liddell. The contract provided that Universal would buy several of the specially-designed trailers from Branded. Liddell later contacted Branded that the price for each trailer would increase from their previously-agreed cost, and that it would take longer for the components to be assembled. Branded would later learn that Universal negotiated a deal directly with Liddell to provide the same trailers at a lower price, excluding Branded from the agreement. Branded filed suit alleging that Universal and Liddell had intentionally interfered with the Branded-Liddell contract. Upon review, the Supreme Court found sufficient evidence that Branded made detailed assertions regarding its theories of personal jurisdiction, and the record reflected Branded presented that evidence to support those assertions. Therefore, the Court found that the trial court exceeded its discretion when it granted Universal's motion to dismiss. The Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (Nationwide) appealed a trial courtâs order that denied its "renewed motion for a judgment as a matter of law" in its case against J-Mar Machine & Pump. J-Mar is a repair shop that held a commercial liability and property insurance policy with Nationwide. In 2004, in anticipation of its policy renewal, Nationwide sent an inspector to the shop. In his report, the inspector noted several safety hazards and a messy shop. The insurance policy was renewed in March but several months later Nationwide cancelled the policy. Nationwide cited the inspectorâs report as reason for the cancellation. J-Mar management was not aware of the cancellation until late that year when shop property was stolen. When it tried to file a claim, Nationwide declined J-Marâs claim. A jury trial was held on the disputed policy cancellation and coverage. At the close of J-Marâs case, Nationwide moved the court for a "judgment as a matter of law" which was denied. Nationwide unsuccessfully motioned again at the close of all evidence. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that the evidence J-Mar presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury verdict in its favor. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial courtâs judgment denying Nationwideâs motion and rendered a judgment in Nationwideâs favor.

Petitioner Willard Ryals appealed a trial court's order enforcing a creditor's judgment against him in favor of Respondent Lathan Company, Inc. (Lathan). In 2004, Lathan sued Ryals Construction Company for breach of a construction sub-contract. The contract called for Ryals to obtain workers' compensation insurance for the project. Lathan claimed it made an advance payment for the insurance. When Ryals failed to get the insurance, Lathan sued. No one appeared on behalf of Ryals on the trial date. A default judgment was entered on behalf of Lathan. Two years later, Lathan tried to collect on its default judgment by serving a post-judgment discovery request on Ryals Construction. The request went unanswered. Lathan filed a motion for sanctions, naming "Ryals Real Estate," Willard Ryals and Ryals Construction Company. Through counsel, Willard Ryals moved to strike the motion for sanctions which the trial court granted. Lathan then amended its complaint to substitute Willard Ryals with fictitious parties. Rather than re-allege the allegations of its first complaint, Lathan sought to hold Ryals Real Estate and Willard Ryals liable as alter egos for the judgment it held against Ryals Construction Company. After a bench trial, the trial court determined that Lathan's amended complaint did not technically substitute Willard Ryals and Ryals Real Estate for fictitiously named parties in the original complaint; it added them and asserted a new cause of action. The court found that Willard Ryals and Ryals Construction were liable for the creditor judgment. Willard Ryals appealed, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Lathan's amended complaint. Upon careful consideration of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court dismissed the case as void: "The trial court's attempt to treat Lathan's amended complaint as a new action was in words only and was not sufficient to commence a new action." Accordingly, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter its judgment against Willard Ryals and Ryals Real Estate.