Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Two Saudi Arabian companies, Al Rushaid Petroleum Investment Company and Al Rushaid Trading Company, specialized in helping foreign manufacturers access the Saudi oil and gas market. Over several decades, they entered into various agreements with Dresser-Rand Group (DRG), including exclusive sales representation and joint venture contracts related to the sale and servicing of DRG products in Saudi Arabia. In 2014, Siemens Energy announced its acquisition of DRG, which was completed in 2015. After the acquisition, Al Rushaid alleged that Siemens excluded them from contracts and joint venture benefits, misused proprietary information, and diverted business opportunities.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida first dismissed Al Rushaid’s original complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading but allowed amendment. Al Rushaid then filed an amended complaint asserting claims for tortious interference, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. The district court dismissed all claims without prejudice, finding that Siemens was not a stranger to the relevant business relationships due to its ownership of DRG, that the unfair competition claim was improperly pleaded and lacked necessary elements, and that the unjust enrichment claim failed to meet pleading standards.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. The court held that Siemens, as owner of DRG, was not a stranger to the contracts or business relationships under Florida law, defeating the tortious interference claims. The unfair competition claim was dismissed as a shotgun pleading and for failure to allege required elements. The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed for lack of clarity and because express contracts governed the subject matter. The district court’s dismissal of all claims without prejudice was affirmed. View "Al Rushaid Petroleum Investment Company v. Siemens Energy Incorporated" on Justia Law

A nonprofit corporation purchased a 192-unit apartment complex from a government agency in 1994 at a significant discount. In exchange, the purchaser agreed by contract to rent all units at below-market rates to low-income families for 40 years and to comply with annual reporting and administrative fee requirements. Around 2016, the purchaser stopped fulfilling these obligations, including the reporting and fee provisions. The government’s successor agency, through its monitoring agent, notified the purchaser of the breach and initiated legal action seeking remedies under the contract.The purchaser counterclaimed in state court, seeking a declaration that the agreement was no longer enforceable and an injunction against further enforcement. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as successor to the original government agency, intervened, removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and moved to dismiss the counterclaim. The purchaser argued that the contract’s obligations ended when Congress repealed the statute that created the original agency and authorized such agreements. The district court rejected this argument, holding that the contract remained enforceable, dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice, and remanded the case to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the contract’s plain language required the purchaser to comply with its obligations for the full 40-year term, regardless of the repeal of the underlying statute. The court found that the FDIC, as successor, retained both contractual and statutory authority to enforce the agreement. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the counterclaim, concluding that the agreement remains enforceable and the purchaser is still bound by its terms. View "Affordable Housing Group, Inc. v. Florida Housing Affordability, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) 2023 Funding Order, which amended the funding structure for the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT). The CAT was established to create a single electronic system for gathering and maintaining data on stock trades. Initially, the SEC estimated the cost of building and operating the CAT to be significantly lower than the actual costs incurred. The 2023 Funding Order allowed self-regulatory organizations (SROs) to pass all CAT costs to their broker-dealer members, a shift from the original plan that required both SROs and broker-dealers to share the costs.The American Securities Association and Citadel Securities, LLC challenged the 2023 Funding Order, arguing that it was arbitrary and capricious. They contended that the SEC failed to justify the decision to allow SROs to pass all CAT costs to broker-dealers and did not update its economic analysis to reflect the actual costs of the CAT, which had significantly increased since the original estimates.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the SEC's 2023 Funding Order was internally inconsistent and represented an unexplained policy change from previous rules that required both SROs and broker-dealers to share CAT costs. The court also determined that the SEC failed to consider the effects of allowing SROs to pass all CAT costs to broker-dealers, creating a potential free-rider problem. Additionally, the court held that the SEC's reliance on outdated economic analysis was unreasonable given the significant increase in CAT costs.The Eleventh Circuit vacated the 2023 Funding Order, stayed its decision for sixty days to allow the SEC to address the issues, and remanded the matter to the SEC for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. View "American Securities Association v. Securities and Exchange Commission" on Justia Law

AST & Science LLC, a company in the satellite technology and communications business, hired Delclaux Partners SA to introduce it to registered broker-dealers for investment purposes. Delclaux introduced AST to LionTree Advisors LLC, which handled AST's Series A financing. Two contracts were involved: a Finder’s Fee Agreement between AST and Delclaux, and a separate agreement between AST and LionTree. After the Series B financing, Delclaux claimed it was owed fees from four transactions, which AST refused to pay, leading to AST suing Delclaux for breach of contract, alleging Delclaux acted as an unregistered broker-dealer.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied summary judgment on AST’s complaint and granted summary judgment to AST on Delclaux’s counterclaim. Delclaux appealed, but the appeal was voluntarily dismissed due to jurisdictional questions. The district court later held that it lacked diversity jurisdiction but claimed federal-question jurisdiction, asserting that the case involved a federal issue regarding the Securities Exchange Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with the district court’s assertion of federal-question jurisdiction. The appellate court held that the breach-of-contract claim was governed by state law and did not meet the criteria for federal-question jurisdiction under the Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing test. The court found that the federal issue was not substantial enough to warrant federal jurisdiction. Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "AST & Science LLC v. Delclaux Partners SA" on Justia Law

The case involves a business dispute where ECB USA, Inc. and Atlantic Ventures Corp. (the buyers) sued Savencia Cheese USA, LLC and several individuals (the sellers) after a failed business deal. The buyers, who are foreign nationals, acquired Schratter Foods Incorporated, a Delaware corporation based in New Jersey, after the sellers allegedly misrepresented the company's corporate governance and financial health. The deal was negotiated primarily in France, but the buyers hired a Florida lawyer and moved the company to Florida post-closing.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the claims against the sellers for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the claims against Savencia Cheese for failure to state a claim. The buyers appealed these dismissals.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the sellers because the buyers' use of a Florida lawyer did not establish sufficient contacts between the sellers and Florida. The court emphasized that due process requires more than a plaintiff's unilateral conduct to confer jurisdiction in a forum.Regarding the claims against Savencia Cheese, the appellate court agreed with the district court that the buyers failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim. The court found that the buyers' allegations were conclusory and did not meet the required pleading standards for conspiracy, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference with a contract.In conclusion, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims against both the sellers and Savencia Cheese. View "ECB USA, Inc. v. Savencia Cheese USA, LLC" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Horn, a former registered stockbroker, was convicted by a jury in April 2022 of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and securities fraud. The district court sentenced him to 100 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release, and ordered him to pay restitution of $1,469,702. Horn appealed his convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and alleging cumulative error. He also raised objections regarding the calculation of his loss, restitution, and offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida initially reviewed the case. The jury found Horn guilty on all counts, and the district court sentenced him accordingly. Horn's co-defendant, Omar Leon Plummer, was also convicted and sentenced. Horn's appeal followed, raising several issues related to the trial and sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support Horn's convictions. The court held that Horn acted with the requisite intent to defraud, as evidenced by his distribution of materially false information to investors and his role in the fraudulent scheme. The court also rejected Horn's arguments regarding cumulative error, finding no merit in his claims.Regarding sentencing, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court found no clear error in the district court's determination that Horn was an organizer or leader of the criminal activity, justifying a four-level enhancement. The court also affirmed the use of intended loss rather than actual loss for sentencing purposes, consistent with the Guidelines and relevant case law. The court concluded that the district court's loss calculation and restitution order were supported by reliable and specific evidence. View "USA v. Horn" on Justia Law

ADT filed suit against Vision Security for violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). The parties agreed to an injunction prohibiting Vision Security from using certain sales tactics. NorthStar Alarm then acquired customer accounts, rental leases, and other assets from Vision Security and hired four senior officers and some of the sales team from Vision Security. ADT moved to hold NorthStar in contempt of the injunction when NorthStar allegedly used sales tactics prohibited by the injunction. The court concluded that NorthStar cannot be bound by the injunction when it is not in privity with Vision Security and in the absence of any evidence that it had notice of the injunction. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment holding otherwise. View "ADT LLC v. Northstar Alarm Services, LLC" on Justia Law

In December 2011, Purchasing Power filed suit against Bluestem in Georgia state court. Bluestem, a citizen of Minnesota and Delaware, sought to remove the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Burr & Forman (B&F) was the law firm representing Purchasing Power. In 2014, the district court granted summary judgment for Bluestem. On appeal, this court noted that the pleadings did not allege Purchase Power's citizenship. B&F had failed to realize, and no one bothered to investigate, that Falcon, one of the LLCs, did not own an interest in Holdings directly. This missing piece of information was essential in destroying diversity jurisdiction because Falcon was incorporated in Delaware, of which Bluestem was a citizen. The district court subsequently found that B&F misrepresented to either the district court or Bluestem on five occasions that diversity of citizenship existed. In this appeal, B&F challenged the district court's sanctions order. The court reversed the district court's imposition of sanctions, concluding that, while the requirements of diversity jurisdiction were complicated, no party in this case acted with bad intentions. View "Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc." on Justia Law

American Dawn terminated plaintiff, a restaurant linen salesman, for participating in a fraudulent scheme against ALSCO, and plaintiff later found employment with American Dawn's competitor, Baltic. After plaintiff joined Baltic, a sales manager at American Dawn and a consultant for ALSCO allegedly conspired to freeze Baltic out of the restaurant linens market. Plaintiff lost his job as a result of the alleged conspiracy and subsequently filed suit, alleging violation of the antitrust laws, 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq. The court concluded that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge a conspiracy directed at his employer even if the conspiracy caused plaintiff's termination. The court further concluded that plaintiff failed to plead claims of racketeering, tortious interference, civil conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Feldman v. American Dawn, Inc." on Justia Law

This case stems from a dispute between two doctors regarding the medical viability of a novel use for a particular drug. The Tobinick Appellants filed suit against the Novella Appellees, and Yale, challenging Dr. Novella's article criticizing Dr. Tobinick's novel treatments. The Tobinick Appellants then filed an amended complaint to add allegations relating to Dr. Novella's second article that was published just nine days prior. The court concluded that, because the Tobinick Appellants have not demonstrated a probability of success on the actual malice issue, the district court did not err in granting Dr. Novella's special motion to strike the state law claims pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16(a); even though Dr. Novella had not yet filed his answer, the district court did not abuse its discretion in twice denying the Tobinick Appellants' motion for leave to amend the operative complaint because it properly sought to prevent an undue delay caused by the Tobinick Appellants' last-minute attempts to amend their complaint; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying each of the Tobinick Appellants' discovery-related requests for relief; and the court rejected the Tobinick Appellants' Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in all respects. View "Edward Lewis Tobinick, MD v. Novella" on Justia Law