Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

B&B, a supplier of self-sealing fasteners, sued Fastenal for breach of an exclusive supply agreement, tortious interference with business expectancy, and violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA) based on Fastenal's purchases of self-sealing fasteners from competing suppliers. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the draft complaint that accompanied B&B's demand letter for the purpose of establishing when the statute of limitations began to run; the four-year statute of limitations applied to B&B's breach of contract claim; the statute-of-limitations barred the breach-of-contract claim; because no reasonable jury could find that B&B was ignorant of the facts surrounding Fastenal's breaching conduct, B&B could not benefit from an equitable exception to the statute of limitations; B&B had no cognizable tortious interference or ADTPA claims; and the attorney's fee award must be affirmed. View "B & B Hardware v. Fastenal Co." on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's order denying Debtor's claim of an exemption for limited partnership units that she received from her employer, Kwik Trip, Inc. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the bankruptcy court, holding that the Kwik Trip benefit plan was similar to the plans listed in Minn. Stat. 550.37, 24, and the right to payments thereunder were on account of Debtor's length of service at Kwik Trip. Therefore, the Court held Debtor may properly claim her interests in the limited partnership units distributed under the Kwik Trip employee benefit plan as exempt. Remanded to determine whether the amount of Debtor's interest in the partnership and benefit plan over the statutory limit was reasonably necessary for her support. View "Foellmi v. Ries" on Justia Law

Contractor contracted to build a restaurant in Minnesota, promising to pay each subcontractor, upon receipt of payment from the owner, the amount to which the subcontractor was entitled. Appellant became the subcontractor for carpentry and drywall work. Upon completing its work, Appellant was not paid the full amount owed. After Contractor settled a dispute with the restaurant, it offered Appellant a smaller sum, claiming it was Appellant's pro rata share of the settlement proceeds. Appellant rejected the offer and sued Contractor and its Owner in state court. Owner and his wife subsequently filed a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief, with the debt to Appellant unsatisfied. Appellant commenced this adversary proceeding to have the debt declared nondischargeable. The bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) determined that neither 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(4) nor 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6) barred discharge of the debt. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Owner was not a section 523(a)(4) fiduciary by reason of a Minnesota statute or Owner's Minnesota common law duties, nor did Contractor's use of its own property amount to embezzlement; and (2) the BAP did not err in finding no malicious injury, which resolved the section 523(a)(6) issue. View "Reshetar Sys., Inc. v. Thompson" on Justia Law

This case involved a wire transfer from Plaintiff's bank account to Defendant's wife. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant, a former employee of Plaintiff, initiated the transfer unlawfully. Defendant moved for summary judgment, offering evidence of another explanation for the transfer. Plaintiff did not offer any evidence in response, and the district court entered summary judgment for Defendant. At issue on appeal was whether Defendant made the initial showing required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, thereby shifting the burden to Plaintiff to present affirmative evidence showing that a genuine issue of material fact existed. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant made the required showing. View "Gannon Int'l, Ltd. v. Blocker" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's dismissal of her petition seeking half the proceeds of the sale of stock that was ordered forfeited in her ex-husband's conviction for mail fraud and money laundering in connection with the Thomas Petters Ponzi scheme. The court concluded that petitioner did not allege a legal interest in the stock proceeds sufficient to confer standing, and that, even if she did, her petition failed on the merits. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Continental sold its food and beverage metal can and can-end technology to Crown via a stock purchase agreement (SPA) in March 1990. The parties disputed the extent of each other's resultant liabilities, as defined by the indemnity provision in the SPA in concurrent binding arbitration and judicial proceedings. Continental subsequently appealed the grant of summary judgment and the district court's denial of its motion to reconsider or alter or amend its judgment. The court found that Continental failed to meet its burden of proving it was not afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the meaning of the indemnity provision. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that Continental was precluded from further litigating the provision's meaning, properly granted summary judgment in favor of Crown, and did not abuse its discretion in denying Continental's motion to reconsider.

MoBev appealed the district court's order denying its motion for partial summary judgment and granting Shelton's motion for summary judgment on MoBev's claims for violation of Missouri franchise law. Because the plain language of the Missouri franchise statue at issue unambiguously required that the general definition of "franchise" applied to liquor supplier-wholesaler relationships and the relationship between MoBev and Shelton did not satisfy this definition, the court affirmed the judgment.

Appellants, Robert A. Sears and Korley B. Sears, appealed from the June 8th, 2011 order of the bankruptcy court overruling their objections to claims that were filed by the Sears Family Members in the bankruptcy case of the debtor and disallowing Claim No. 26 of Korley. The court held that the bankruptcy court correctly disallowed Claim No. 26 where Korley's proof of claim provided no legal basis for liability by the debtor. The court also agreed with the bankruptcy court's determination that Robert and Korely failed to overcome the presumptive validity of the proofs of claim filed by the Sears Family Members. The court finally held that there was no need for the bankruptcy court to allow Robert and Korley more time to develop the record or a hearing with testimony and cross-examination of witnesses, before it ruled on the claim objections.

Defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting and the falsification of a document. See No. 10-117 issued this date in defendant's criminal prosecution. With defendant's direct appeal pending, the government learned that he would be paid to settle unrelated civil litigation. The government moved the district court for, inter alia, a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining defendant and his attorney or agents from spending, dispersing, investing or otherwise placing the settlement amount beyond the reach of the United States while the issue was resolved. The court held that a sentencing court had jurisdiction to enforce its restitution order and could use the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), when necessary and appropriate, to prevent the restitution debtor from frustrating collection of the restitution debt. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in enjoining defendant and his agents from transferring liquid assets and in declining to dissolve the injunction until the amount to be applied to his restitution debt had been paid. As the court had vacated the restitution order in the criminal case, the payment order in this case was also vacated for further proceedings.

Polysilicon producer MEMC entered in exclusive sales representation agreements with Semi-Materials. Under these agreements, Semi-Materials was to serve as the sales representative for MEMC in China and Korea. Semi-Materials brought suit against MEMC, claiming it was entitled to certain commissions. The court held that, considering the four corners of the agreements at issue, the court could not agree with the district court's conclusion that the agreements clearly and unambiguously limited Semi-Materials to receiving commissions only on those sales which included terms whereby the risk of loss remained with MEMC until the product entered China or South Korea. Because the meaning and intent of that language was uncertain and subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, it was necessary to reverse the grant of partial summary judgment and remand this matter to the district court for trial. The court also held that the evidence presented to the jury at trial supported its finding that MEMC clothed a sales manager with the authority to enter into the agreements with Semi-Materials. Accordingly, MEMC could not show there were no probative facts presented at trial supporting the jury's determination that Semi-Materials reasonably relied upon the sales manager's apparent authority to enter into the agreements. Moreover, the court rejected MEMC's argument that Semi-Materials failed to perform a material obligation to the contracts to provide regular reports to MEMC. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment for MEMC and affirmed its denial of MEMC's judgment as a matter of law.