Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Cook Timber Company sued Georgia Pacific Corporation, claiming breach of contract and antitrust violations, both unilaterally and through a conspiracy with other market participants. The circuit judge granted Georgia Pacific a directed verdict on Cook Timber’s conspiracy and breach-of-contract claims, but the jury returned a verdict for Cook Timber on its unilateral antitrust claim. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded. Because Cook Timber failed to present sufficient evidence to support its unilateral antitrust claims, the jury’s verdict on that claim was reversed. Further, the Court reversed the directed verdict on Cook Timber’s breach-of-contract claim. The Court affirmed the circuit judge’s decision to grant Georgia Pacific a directed verdict on the conspiracy claim. View "Georgia Pacific Corporation v. Cook Timber Company, Inc." on Justia Law

White Hall on MS River, LLC began with an informal gentleman’s agreement in which there would be five initial contributors each putting up $500,000 with which to purchase land from International Paper. All of the parties were aware that the price per acre would increase substantially if the sale did not take place on or before December 31, 2007. Based on assurances from Dennis Kilpatrick and Murray Moran, the sale did take place. Those assurances were that their remaining funds would be payable after the new year. Due to the fact that there was only $2 million available at closing, the interest rate at which the purchase could be made was substantially increased, and the entire acreage sought by White Hall would be encumbered by deeds of trust, making no collateral available, and making the ability to use the timber on the land unavailable. In the end, only three of the men executed the agreement: Dominick Cvitanovich, Jackie Richards, and James McBeth. The signature page provided signature lines only for the three of them. The Agreement stated that “Establishment of a Membership has been defined as a cash contribution of Five Hundred Thousand dollars ($500,000.00) for a membership interest of two (2) shares.” Exhibit A, attached to the operating agreement, showed the capital contributions by all five men. Cvitanovich, Richards, and McBeth each had contributed $500,000. The alleged ambiguity of White Hall’s membership requirements arose because, while the Agreement stated that a $500,000 capital contribution must made to become a member of White Hall, it also stated that “‘Members’ means the persons listed on attached Exhibit A.” Exhibit A included Kilpatrick, though it also showed that he possessed “0” ownership shares. The Agreement provided no procedure for including a person who failed to make the initial $500,000 contribution. Kilpatrick eventually sued White Hall to get his capital contribution refunded. The Chancery Court issued a final judgment in favor of White Hall, finding that Kilpatrick was not a member of White Hall and that Kilpatrick was not entitled to the recovery of his capital contribution. Finding no error in the Chancery Court's order, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kilpatrick v. White Hall on MS River, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2004, Quality Diesel Service, Inc. obtained a judgment against Gulf South Drilling Company, LLC. Then, after learning that Tiger Drilling Company, LLC was indebted to Gulf South, Quality Diesel had multiple writs of garnishment issued and served on Tiger Drilling from 2004 to 2006. All of Tiger Drilling’s answers to the writs were almost identical, stating that Tiger Drilling was indebted to Gulf South but that the debt was not yet due. On November 29, 2006, Quality Diesel contested Tiger Drilling’s responses by filing a Petition to Controvert Answers to Garnishments, specifically contesting Tiger Drilling’s answer to a writ issued on January 18, 2006. On March 14, 2014, Tiger Drilling filed a motion to dismiss the garnishment proceeding. On October 3, 2014, the Circuit Court granted dismissal on the ground that the underlying judgment had expired while the case was pending. On appeal, Quality Diesel contended that, because the underlying judgment was valid when the writs of garnishment were issued and served (and when it filed its Petition to Controvert) it could maintain a garnishment proceeding against Tiger Drilling, despite the fact that the underlying judgment has since lapsed. This case presented an issue of first impression concerning Mississippi’s garnishment law: when a party gets a judgment, timely executes a writ of garnishment, and timely initiates a garnishment proceeding, is that party required to renew the underlying judgment to collect the “property in the hands of the garnishee belonging to the defendant” at the time the garnishment proceeding was filed, to defeat the running of the statute of limitations? The Supreme Court held that a party was not required to renew the underlying judgment to collect such property under these circumstances. In this case, the Court reversed and remanded. View "Quality Diesel Service, Inc. v. Tiger Drilling Company, LLC" on Justia Law

This case centered on a dispute between Gerald Scafidi and his sister, Jo Ann Hille about three family corporations and the land they inherited from their parents. Unable to get along, each sibling ran one of the corporations essentially as a sole proprietorship, while the third corporation ceased to do business. The sister, unhappy with the deadlock, brought this suit to end her business dealings with her brother and divide the assets. The chancellor found that the parties had failed to observe corporate formalities, so they were not entitled to the protections of the corporate form. The chancellor made an equitable distribution and granted each party full ownership of separate companies and then adjusted the property lines to grant each sibling a fifty-percent interest in the land. One corporation that could not be divided was sold by agreed order and the proceeds of the sale were divided between the siblings. Other parts of the ruling addressed attorney’s fees, expert fees, unpaid taxes, the BP settlement, and other matters. Gerald appealed, arguing that the chancellor erred by not following the statutory framework for dissolving and distributing corporate assets according to stated ownership interests. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Scafidi v. Hille" on Justia Law

Expro Americas, LLC ("Expro") filed a complaint seeking, inter alia, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Eddie Walters, a former Expro employee, and H&H Welding, LLC. Expro offered "oil and gas well and pipeline services," including providing "specially designed flaring products and services to pipeline transmission companies and refineries along the Gulf Coast." Expro's six-inch, trailer-mounted flare stacks were at the heart of this dispute. Eddie Walters was an Expro employee until August 5, 2013. Thereafter, Walters was employed by Clean Combustion, a competitor of Expro's that was created in 2013 by former Expro employees. Expro filed its application for a restraining order against H&H and Walters, alleging that both defendants stole the design for its flare stack. Expro specifically alleged that "[t]he information used to design and create the trailer-mounted flaring system is a ‘trade secret' of Expro's." Furthermore, it alleged breach of contract against H&H, claiming that the terms of Expro's purchase orders with H&H contained a "Proprietary Rights" section "in which H&H ‘warrants to keep all design, information, blueprints and engineering data with respect to the Goods confidential and to not make use of but to assign to Expro each invention, improvement and discovery relating thereto (whether or not patentable) conceived or reduced to practice in the performance of the Purchase Order by any person employed by or working under the directions of the Supplier Group.'" The trial court granted the restraining order, but after conducting an evidentiary hearing, the chancellor dissolved the temporary restraining order and found no facts to justify the issuance of a preliminary injunction. The chancellor awarded the defendants attorneys' fees and expenses in excess of the $5,000 injunction bond that Expro had posted. After determining that Expro's suit against H&H was meritless, the chancellor sua sponte dismissed H&H from the suit with prejudice. Expro appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court found that the chancellor did not err by awarding the defendants attorneys' fees and expenses, because Expro's application for a preliminary injunction was frivolous and was made in bad faith. However, the Court found the chancellor misapplied Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4, and therefore erred by dismissing H&H from the suit with prejudice. View "Expro Americas, LLC v. Walters" on Justia Law