Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, representing a putative class, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Grubhub Inc., Postmates Inc., and Uber Technologies, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and its state analogues by entering into no-price competition clauses (NPCCs) with restaurants, which prevented the restaurants from offering lower prices through other channels. The plaintiffs claimed that these NPCCs led to artificially high prices for restaurant meals. The class included customers who purchased takeout or delivery directly from restaurants subject to NPCCs, customers who dined in at such restaurants, and customers who used non-defendant platforms to purchase from these restaurants.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The court held that the scope of the arbitration clauses was an issue for the court to decide and that the clauses did not apply to the plaintiffs' claims as they lacked a nexus to the defendants' Terms of Use. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not agreed to Grubhub's Terms of Use.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision in part, ruling that the question of arbitrability for the plaintiffs' claims against Grubhub is for the court to decide and that Grubhub's arbitration clause does not apply to the plaintiffs' antitrust claims. However, the court reversed the district court's decision in part, finding that Grubhub had established an agreement to arbitrate with the plaintiffs and that the threshold question for the plaintiffs' claims against Uber and Postmates is for the arbitrator to decide. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Davitashvili v. Grubhub" on Justia Law

Little Hearts Marks Family II L.P. ("Little Hearts") was a member of 305 East 61st Street Group LLC, a company formed to purchase and convert a building into a condominium. 61 Prime LLC ("Prime") was the majority member and manager, and Jason D. Carter was the manager and sole member of Prime. In 2021, the company filed for bankruptcy and sold the building to another company created by Carter. The liquidation plan established a creditor trust with exclusive rights to pursue the debtor’s estate's causes of action. Little Hearts sued Prime and Carter for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, seeking damages for lost capital investment and rights under the Operating Agreement.The bankruptcy court dismissed all claims, ruling that they were derivative and belonged to the debtor’s estate, thus could only be asserted by the creditor trustee. The district court affirmed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims, agreeing that these were derivative and could only be pursued by the creditor trustee. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims, determining that these were direct claims belonging to Little Hearts and could proceed. The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed as duplicative of the contract claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "In re 305 East 61st Street Group LLC" on Justia Law

Givaudan SA, a Swiss multinational manufacturer of flavors and fragrances, entered into a business relationship with Conagen Inc., a Massachusetts-based synthetic biology company. In 2016, the two companies executed a term sheet outlining several potential transactions, including Givaudan's purchase of a 5% equity stake in Conagen for $10 million and an exclusivity agreement for Conagen's intellectual property. Givaudan paid the $10 million and received the shares, but negotiations on the exclusivity agreement failed.Givaudan sued Conagen in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment, seeking the return of its $10 million. After a bench trial, the district court found Conagen not liable on all claims and dismissed the case. Givaudan appealed the dismissal of its breach of contract claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Givaudan failed to prove damages, an essential element of a breach of contract claim under Delaware law. The court found that the $10 million payment for the 5% equity stake was a completed transaction and not contingent on the successful negotiation of the exclusivity agreement. The court also determined that the term sheet was a binding preliminary agreement that established a duty to negotiate in good faith, but Givaudan did not incur any costs or expenses that would qualify as reliance damages. Thus, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Givaudan v. Conagen" on Justia Law

Sealed Appellant 1, the former CEO of a publicly traded company, and Sealed Appellants 2 and 3, a lawyer and law firm that represented him and the company, appealed an order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district court compelled Sealed Appellants 2 and 3 to produce documents withheld under attorney-client privilege in response to grand jury subpoenas. The court found that the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege applied, as there was probable cause to believe that communications between Sealed Appellants 1 and 2 were made to criminally circumvent the company’s internal controls.The district court concluded that the company had an internal control requiring its legal department to review all significant contracts. It found that Sealed Appellant 1 and Sealed Appellant 2 concealed settlement agreements with two former employees who had accused Sealed Appellant 1 of sexual misconduct. These agreements were not disclosed to the company’s legal department or auditors, violating internal controls and resulting in false statements to auditors.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It first determined that it had jurisdiction under the Perlman exception, which allows for immediate appeal when privileged information is in the hands of a third party likely to disclose it rather than face contempt. On the merits, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s application of the crime-fraud exception. It held that there was probable cause to believe that the communications were made to circumvent internal controls, thus facilitating or concealing criminal activity. Consequently, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order compelling the production of the documents. View "In Re: Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated September 13, 2023" on Justia Law

Shanda Games Limited, a video game company registered in the Cayman Islands, issued proxy materials as part of a freeze-out merger. The lead plaintiff, David Monk, alleged that these materials were materially misleading, causing him to accept the merger price instead of exercising his appraisal rights. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Monk’s claims, stating he failed to properly allege loss causation.The district court found that Monk had adequately pleaded that Shanda made two material misstatements but ruled that Monk had failed to plead reliance because the market in ADS was not efficient after the merger announcement. The court also held that the statements about the merger's fairness were inactionable opinions. Monk's motion for reconsideration was denied in part and granted in part, and his motion to add another lead plaintiff was denied. Monk filed a second amended complaint, which was again dismissed for failure to state a claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court erred in dismissing Monk’s claims. The appellate court concluded that Monk adequately alleged material misstatements, including the preparation of financial projections, the projections themselves, and the fairness of the merger. The court also found that Monk adequately pleaded scienter, reliance, and loss causation. The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In re Shanda Games Ltd. Securities Litigation" on Justia Law

F5, a Cayman Islands corporation that invests in international shipping companies, filed a shareholder derivative action on behalf of Star Bulk, a global shipping company, alleging that individual members of Star Bulk's board and affiliated entities improperly exploited their control over the corporation in executing three separate transactions. F5's complaint included four causes of action, three of which were derivative and one of which purported to be a direct class-action claim for wrongful equity dilution. In this case, F5 did not seek intracorporate remedies by making a pre-suit demand on Star Bulk's board of directors. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the dilution claim was properly derivative under Delaware law and that F5 failed to plead demand futility under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1(b)(3)(B), as to any of the claims. The court affirmed, concluding that F5's dilution claim was properly derivative, not direct; the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the non-class, derivative claims; and F5 did not allege facts sufficient to excuse it from making a pre-suit demand. View "F5 Capital v. Pappas" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, unsuccessful bidders in a bankruptcy proceeding, appealed the district court's dismissal of their suit alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, and common law fraud against the law firm K&L Gates, LLP and two of its former partners. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants used their prior representation of plaintiffs to undermine plaintiffs' attempt to acquire assets in a bankruptcy sale.  The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss based on res judicata. The court agreed with plaintiffs that they could not have brought their claims during the bankruptcy proceedings, and that this present action would not disturb the orders of the bankruptcy court. The court explained that the circumstances in this case did not demand that plaintiffs raise their claim in the bankruptcy proceeding, and noted that the relevant issues were not litigated through an adversary proceeding or otherwise. Accordingly, the court reversed and vacated, remanding for further proceedings. View "Brown Media Corp. v. K&L Gates, LLP" on Justia Law

Carrington appealed the district court's judgment requiring them to pay plaintiff, the indirect purchaser and assignee of a limited prejudgment interest in defendants' fund, damages plus prejudgment interest for breach of the limited partnership agreement. Defendants principally contend that the district court erred in its interpretation of the agreement and should have granted summary judgment in their favor on the issue of liability. Defendants argue that, in any event, permitting plaintiff to withdraw from the fund would have precipitated a sale of fund assets at distressed prices, making it impossible for plaintiff to receive more than a minuscule distribution, if any. The court rejected defendants' challenges to the district court's ruling on the issue of liability. However, the court concluded that there were factual issues to be tried as to the calculation of damages. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Umbach v. Carrington Investment Partners (US)" on Justia Law

TAL challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Chugh Defendants. The district court held that TAL's claims for breach of fiduciary duty by Chugh had previously been determined in Chugh's favor in a prior proceeding and thus TAL was collaterally estopped from asserting them. The court concluded that Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply when a court in the United States simply gives preclusive effect to factual findings from an otherwise unrelated foreign liquidation proceeding, as was done here; the district court properly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel where the affirmative defenses in the wind-up proceeding are based in substance on the same allegations made in the Third Amended Complaint; TAL's contention that findings of fact made by the Cayman court cannot have preclusive effect in the district court proceeding are meritless; and TAL's comity argument also lacks merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Trikona Advisers Limited v. Chugh" on Justia Law

Defendant, a marketer of over-the-counter pregnancy test kits, was found liable for false advertising in violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). Plaintiff, a leading competing marketer of over-the-counter pregnancy test kits, claimed that, in informing the user as to how long her pregnancy had been in effect, defendant’s product communicated the false impression that it uses the same metric and gives the same number of weeks of pregnancy as a medical professional would do. The district court found in favor of plaintiff and imposed an injunction on defendant. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff's Lanham Act claim is not precluded by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., claim; there is no error in the district court's finding of falsity in defendant's Launch Package and advertising messages associated with it by reason of their unambiguous implication that defendant’s product measures weeks-pregnant in a manner that is consistent with the measurement used by doctors; agreed with the district court's finding, based on survey evidence, that the message communicated by the Revised Package was impliedly false; there was no error in the district court’s findings that the falsity was material and injurious to plaintiff; and the court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the injunction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Church & Dwight Co. v. SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics" on Justia Law