Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

An employee benefit plan, providing healthcare benefits, believed that Walgreens fraudulently overcharged it and other insurance providers by filling prescriptions for generic drugs with a dosage form that differed from, and was more expensive than, the dosage form prescribed. The plan sued Walgreens and companies that manufactured the generic drugs at issue, claiming a scheme to defraud insurers, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the complaint alleged misconduct by the defendants but did not plausibly allege the type of concerted activity undertaken on behalf of an identifiable enterprise required for a successful RICO claim. RICO is not violated every time two or more participants commit a predicate crime listed in the statute. View "United Food & Commercial Workers Unions v. Walgreen Co." on Justia Law

Pro-Pac, a packaging business, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2006, then filed an adversary proceeding against WOW, a logistics service provider, for aiding and abetting a Pro-Pac employee’s breach of fiduciary duty. The bankruptcy court found that WOW had aided and abetted the Pro-Pac employee, but based its award on an independent unjust enrichment claim. The district court ordered the bankruptcy court to dismiss, reasoning that the unjust-enrichment argument had been introduced too late in the case. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that the district court erred in dismissing the case, but that the bankruptcy court erred in assessing Pro-Pac’s damages. On remand, the bankruptcy court must reexamine issues relating to WOW’s tort liability. If the bankruptcy court wants to award punitive damages, it must first award compensatory damages based on the harm Pro-Pac suffered. View "Pro-Pac Inc. v. WOW Logistics Inc." on Justia Law

The original named defendants in the case, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to overtime pay, were JT Packard, the plaintiffs’ employer, and Packard’s parent, Bray. A parent corporation is not liable for FLSA violations by its subsidiary unless it exercises significant authority over the subsidiary’s employment practices. The district judge allowed substitution of Betts, which had purchased Packard’s assets and placed them in a wholly owned subsidiary. After a conditional settlement for $500,000 in damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, Betts appealed the substitution. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding no good reason to reject successor liability in this case. Packard was a profitable company. It was sold, not because it was insolvent, but because it was the guarantor of its parent’s bank loan and the parent defaulted. View "Teed v. Thomas & Betts Power Solutions, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Plaintiff bought a used pickup truck in 2011 for $28,000 and financed the purchase with a six-year installment contract at an interest rate of 23.9 percent. The dealer assigned the contract to AmeriCredit. After making the first installment the plaintiff sent AmeriCredit a copy of the installment contract that he had stamped “accepted for value and returned for value for settlement and closure,” and told AmeriCredit to collect the balance under the contract from the U.S. Treasury. AmeriCredit repossessed the truck, sold it, and billed the plaintiff $11,322.28 to cover the difference. The plaintiff sued AmeriCredit and its officers for $34 million in compensatory damages and $2.2 billion in punitive damages. The district judge could not make sense of the pro se complaint and dismissed it as frivolous. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded with directions that the judge either dismiss without prejudice or dismiss with prejudice, as a sanction; vacate the default judgment in favor of AmeriCredit on its counterclaim; and dismiss the counterclaim without prejudice. The court noted the earmarks of the “Sovereign Citizens” movement. View "Baba-Dainja El v. AmeriCredit Fin. Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

In 1999 the Sellers conveyed businesses to CT Acquisition Corp. The price was to be paid over time. The Sellers insisted on a surety bond (put up by Frontier Insurance) and personal guarantees by the principals of CT Acquisition. The Guarantors also promised to indemnify Frontier and promised to post collateral on Frontier’s demand. CT Acquisition did not pay, the Guarantors failed to keep their promise, and the Sellers turned to Frontier, which did not pay because it was in financial distress. Frontier demanded that the Guarantors post collateral. The district court read the agreement to require collateral only after Frontier’s obligation to the Sellers had been satisfied, or at least quantified. The suit was dismissed as unripe. Meanwhile the Sellers had sued Frontier and obtained judgment of $1.5 million. Frontier then filed another suit against the Guarantors. The district court concluded that, Frontier’s obligation having been quantified, the Guarantors must post collateral and, following remand, ordered the Guarantors to deposit with the Clerk $1,559,256.78, The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting the Guarantors’ argument that they need not post collateral until Frontier has paid the Sellers. View "Frontier Ins. Co. v. Hitchcock" on Justia Law

Belmont did not pay subcontractors and suppliers on some projects. Gad, its CEO, disappeared. West Bend Mutual paid more than $2 million to satisfy Belmont’s obligations and has a judgment against Belmont, Gad, and Gizynski, who signed checks for more than $100,000 on Belmont’s account at U.S. Bank, payable to Banco Popular. Gizynski told Banco to apply the funds to his outstanding loan secured by commercial real estate. Banco had a mortgage and an assignment of rents and knew that Belmont was among Gizynski’s tenants; it did not become suspicious and did not ask Belmont how the funds were to be applied. Illinois law requires banks named as payees to ask the drawer how funds are to be applied. The district judge directed the parties to present evidence about how Belmont would have replied to a query from the Bank. Gizynski testified that Gad, as CEO, would have told the Bank to do whatever Gizynski wanted. The judge found Gizynski not credible, but that West Bend, as plaintiff, had the burden of production and the risk of non-persuasion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument based on fiduciary duty, but reversed an order requiring Banco to pay West Bend’s legal fees View "W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co v. Belmont St. Corp." on Justia Law

In 2006 a coal-mining company borrowed $7 million from Caterpillar secured by mining equipment. The company was also indebted to Peabody, for an earlier loan, and at Peabody’s request, transferred title to the same equipment, subject to Caterpillar’s security interest, to a Peabody affiliate. In 2008, Peoples Bank lent the mining company $1.8 million secured by the same equipment and filed a financing statement. Wanting priority, the bank negotiated a subordination agreement with Peabody. After the mining company defaulted, the bank obtained possession of the assets and told Caterpillar it would try to sell them for $2.5 million. Caterpillar did not object, but claimed that its security interest was senior. The bank sold the equipment for $2.5 million but retained $1.4 million and sent a check for $1.1 million to Caterpillar. Caterpillar neither cashed nor returned the check. The district court awarded Caterpillar $2.4 million plus prejudgment interest. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The bank’s claim of priority derives from its dealings with Peabody. The bank did not obtain a copy of a security agreement for Peabody’s loan; a security interest is not enforceable unless the debtor has authenticated a security agreement that provides a description of the collateral. View "Caterpillar Fin. Servs. v. Peoples Nat'l Bank" on Justia Law

OCV supplies equipment and licenses software for in-room hotel entertainment and sought a judgment of $641,959.54 against Roti, the owner of companies (Markwell, now defunct) that owned hotels to which OCV provided services. The district judge granted summary judgment, piercing the corporate veil, but rejecting a fraud claim. The Seventh Circuit reversed. While the Markwell companies were under-funded, OCV failed to treat the companies as separate businesses and proceed accordingly in the bankruptcy proceedings of one of the companies and made no effort to determine the solvency of the companies. View "On Command Video Corp. v. Roti" on Justia Law

After the corporate office of Steak N Shake restaurants tried to require one of its franchisees to adopt a new policy for menu pricing and promotions, the franchisee sued Steak N Shake in a declaratory judgment action and later filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in order to stop the implementation of the new policy. The franchise, in operation since 1939, is the oldest in the country and previously had the ability to set its own prices. The district court found that in the absence of an injunction, the franchisee would have its franchises terminated and would suffer irreparable harm and granted a preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. There was sufficient evidence to find, as a threshold matter, that the franchise would suffer irreparable harm if it was forced to implement Steak N Shake’s pricing policy. View "Stuller, Inc. v. Steak N Shake Enter., Inc." on Justia Law

EAR, a seller of manufacturing equipment, defrauded creditors by financing non-existent or grossly overvalued equipment and pledging equipment multiple times to different creditors. After the fraud was discovered, EAR filed for bankruptcy. As Chief Restructuring Officer, Brandt abandoned and auctioned some assets. Five equipment leases granted a secured interest in EAR’s equipment; by amendment, EAR agreed to pay down the leases ($4.6 million) and give Republic a blanket security interest in all its assets. Republic would forebear on its claims against EAR. The amendment had a typographical error, giving Republic a security interest in Republic’s own assets. Republic filed UCC financing statements claiming a blanket lien on EAR’s assets. After the auction, Republic claimed the largest share of the proceeds. The matter is being separately litigated. First Premier, EAR’s largest creditor, is concerned that Republic, is working with Brandt to enlarge Republic’s secured interests. After the auction, EAR filed an action against its auditors for accounting malpractice, then sought to avoid the $4.6 million transfer to Republic. The bankruptcy court approved a settlement to end the EAR-Republic adversary action, continue the other suit, divvy proceeds from those suits, and retroactively modify the Republic lien to correct the typo. First Premier objected. The district court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. First Premier was not prejudiced by the settlement. View "First Premier Capital, LLC v. Republic Bank of Chicago" on Justia Law