Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Robert Allen Stanford operated a billion-dollar Ponzi scheme through various entities in Texas and Antigua. In 2009, a federal district court appointed an equity receiver (the "Receiver") to manage the assets of the Stanford entities, handle claims from defrauded investors, and pursue claims against third parties. This appeal concerns a settlement with Societe Generale Private Banking (Suisse) S.A. ("SGPB"), which included a bar order preventing future Stanford-related claims against the Swiss bank. Two individuals appointed by an Antiguan court to liquidate one of the Stanford entities argued that the bar order should not apply to their claims against SGPB.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas approved the settlement and issued the bar order. The Joint Liquidators objected, arguing that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. They filed their objection in a related Chapter 15 proceeding rather than the main SEC action, leading to a jurisdictional dispute. The district court held a hearing, during which it indicated that any participation by the Joint Liquidators' counsel would be considered a waiver of their jurisdictional objection. The court approved the settlement and entered the bar order, prompting the Joint Liquidators to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not have the necessary personal jurisdiction to bind the Joint Liquidators with its bar order. The court emphasized that injunctions require in personam jurisdiction, which the district court lacked over the Joint Liquidators. The court vacated the district court's scheduling order and the bar order as it applied to the Joint Liquidators, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Dickson v. Janvey" on Justia Law

A Wisconsin-based corporation, Uline, Inc., sells industrial and packaging products and employs sales representatives who visit customers in Minnesota. Uline did not pay Minnesota income or franchise taxes for 2014 and 2015, claiming exemption under 15 U.S.C. § 381, which protects certain out-of-state business activities from state taxation. The Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue audited Uline and assessed taxes for those years, arguing that Uline's activities in Minnesota went beyond mere solicitation of orders.The Minnesota Tax Court upheld the tax assessment, finding that Uline's sales representatives engaged in activities beyond solicitation, specifically the preparation of "Market News Notes," which included detailed market research and competitor information. Uline appealed, arguing that these activities were either protected solicitation or de minimis and thus not subject to state taxation.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether Uline's activities created a sufficient nexus with Minnesota to justify the imposition of state taxes. The court found that the preparation of Market News Notes by Uline's sales team went beyond the solicitation of orders because it involved detailed market research that served independent business functions. The court also determined that these activities were not de minimis, as they were regular and systematic, with over 1,600 Market News Notes prepared during the two years in question.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the tax court's decision, holding that Uline's activities in Minnesota were not protected from state income or franchise taxation under 15 U.S.C. § 381 and were not de minimis. Therefore, Uline was subject to Minnesota state taxes for the years 2014 and 2015. View "Uline, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Revenue" on Justia Law

Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a nonprofit organization, alleged that Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta) censored its Facebook posts about vaccine safety and efficacy. CHD claimed that Meta’s actions were directed by the federal government, violating the First and Fifth Amendments. CHD also asserted violations of the Lanham Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, the Poynter Institute, and Science Feedback were named as defendants.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed CHD’s complaint. The court found that CHD failed to establish that Meta’s actions constituted state action, a necessary element for First Amendment claims. The court also dismissed the Lanham Act claim, ruling that Meta’s fact-checking labels did not constitute commercial advertising. Additionally, the court rejected the RICO claim, stating that CHD did not adequately allege a fraudulent scheme to obtain money or property.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that CHD did not meet the requirements to treat Meta as a state actor. The court found that Meta’s content moderation policies were independently developed and not compelled by federal law. CHD’s allegations of government coercion and joint action were deemed insufficient. The court also upheld the dismissal of the Lanham Act claim, concluding that Meta’s fact-checking labels were not commercial speech. The RICO claim was dismissed due to a lack of proximate cause between the alleged fraud and CHD’s injury.Judge Collins partially dissented, arguing that CHD could plausibly allege a First Amendment claim for injunctive relief against Meta. However, he agreed with the dismissal of the other claims. The Ninth Circuit’s decision affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Meta. View "Children's Health Defense v. Meta Platforms, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-investors brought a securities fraud class action against Atieva, Inc., d/b/a Lucid Motors, and its CEO, Peter Rawlinson. They alleged that Rawlinson made misrepresentations about Lucid's production capabilities, which affected the stock price of Churchill Capital Corp. IV (CCIV), a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) in which the plaintiffs were shareholders. These misrepresentations were made before Lucid was acquired by CCIV. Plaintiffs purchased CCIV stock based on these statements but did not own any Lucid stock, as Lucid was privately held at the time.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California initially held that the plaintiffs had statutory standing but dismissed the action for failure to allege a material misrepresentation. The court allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint, but ultimately denied the amendments as futile and dismissed the case with prejudice, concluding that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged materiality.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal on an alternative ground. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs lacked standing under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, following the Birnbaum Rule, which limits standing to purchasers or sellers of the stock in question. The court agreed with the Second Circuit's precedent in Menora Mivtachim Ins. Ltd. v. Frutarom Indus. Ltd., holding that purchasers of a security of an acquiring company (CCIV) do not have standing to sue the target company (Lucid) for alleged misstatements made prior to the merger. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing. View "MAX ROYAL LLC V. ATIEVA, INC." on Justia Law

A nonprofit entity, Sports Medicine Research and Testing Laboratory (Sports Medicine), sought a property tax exemption for its South Jordan facility, claiming it was used exclusively for charitable purposes. Sports Medicine performs testing for both professional sports organizations at market rates and for government agencies and charitable organizations at discounted or no cost. It argued that the revenue from market-rate testing supports its charitable mission and that its vacant property space is intended for future charitable use.The Salt Lake County Board of Equalization denied the exemption, stating the property was not used exclusively for charitable purposes. Sports Medicine appealed to the Utah State Tax Commission, which affirmed the Board's decision. Sports Medicine then sought judicial review from the Utah Supreme Court.The Utah Supreme Court held that the property did not qualify for a tax exemption. The court reasoned that while Sports Medicine's discounted testing for charitable organizations could be considered a charitable use, its market-rate testing for professional sports organizations was not. The court emphasized that generating profit, even if used to support a charitable mission, does not constitute a charitable use of property. Additionally, the court found that the vacant portion of the property, intended for future charitable use, did not meet the requirement for current exclusive charitable use. Consequently, the court upheld the Tax Commission's denial of the property tax exemption. View "Sports Medicine Research v. Tax Commission" on Justia Law

The case involves a court-appointed receiver tasked with distributing funds recovered from a Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Kevin Merrill, Jay Ledford, and Cameron Jezierski. The scheme defrauded over 230 investors of more than $345 million. The appellants, comprising institutional and individual investors, were among the victims. The institutional investors, known as the Dean Investors, frequently withdrew and reinvested their funds, while the individual investors, known as the Connaughton Investors, invested through a third-party fund and later received settlements from that fund.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland approved the receiver's distribution plan, which used the "Rising Tide" method to allocate funds. This method ensures that no investor recovers less than a certain percentage of their principal investment, but it deducts pre-receivership withdrawals from the recovery amount. The Dean Investors objected to this method, arguing that their reinvested withdrawals should not be counted against them. The Connaughton Investors objected to the plan's "Collateral Offset Provision," which counted third-party settlements as withdrawals, reducing their distribution from the receiver.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's approval of the distribution plan. It held that the Rising Tide method without the Maximum Balance approach was appropriate, as it ensured a fair distribution to more claimants. The court also upheld the Collateral Offset Provision, reasoning that it prevented the Connaughton Investors from receiving a disproportionately higher recovery compared to other victims. The court emphasized the need for equitable distribution and the administrative feasibility of the receiver's plan. View "CCWB Asset Investments, LLC v. Milligan" on Justia Law

John Gomez, Gilbert Hurtado, and Jesus Hurtado were members of G&H Dairy, LLC, which defaulted on its loans in 2013. To avoid bankruptcy, they negotiated with Wells Fargo and signed a Letter of Intent (LOI) to distribute G&H's assets among themselves. Gomez and Jesus Hurtado purchased the personal property assets and assumed portions of G&H’s debt, but they could not agree on the sales price for the real property. Gomez sued the Hurtado brothers and G&H for breach of contract, estoppel, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty, and sought judicial dissolution of G&H. The Hurtados counterclaimed for damages and also sought dissolution.The District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of Idaho granted summary judgment for the Hurtados on Gomez’s breach of contract claim, ruling the LOI unenforceable, but denied summary judgment on the other claims. After a bench trial, the court ordered the dissolution and winding up of G&H and dismissed the remaining claims. Gomez appealed.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court’s decision. It held that the LOI was unenforceable as it was an offer contingent on future agreements and lacked definitive terms. The court also found no breach of fiduciary duty by the Hurtados, as the LOI was unenforceable and the parties had not agreed on the real property transfer terms. The court dismissed Gomez’s quasi-estoppel claim, concluding that the Hurtados did not change their legal position since the LOI was not enforceable. The court also upheld the district court’s final accounting and winding up of G&H, finding no error in the characterization of transactions or member allocations. The court awarded attorney fees to the Hurtados, determining that Gomez’s appeal was pursued unreasonably and without legal foundation. View "Gomez v. Hurtado" on Justia Law

A power company based in Florida sued a North Carolina-based power company, alleging that the latter had monopoly power in the wholesale power market in the Carolinas and maintained that power through anticompetitive conduct, violating § 2 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiff presented evidence that the defendant devised a plan to exclude the plaintiff from competing for the business of Fayetteville, North Carolina, the only major customer whose contract was expiring soon enough for the plaintiff to compete.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court found that while there was a question of fact regarding the defendant's monopoly power, the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant engaged in anticompetitive conduct. The court concluded that the defendant's actions constituted legitimate competition to retain Fayetteville’s business.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred by compartmentalizing the defendant's conduct rather than considering it as a whole. The appellate court noted that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to show that the defendant's conduct, including a blend-and-extend strategy and interference with the plaintiff's interconnection efforts, could be seen as part of a coordinated anticompetitive campaign. The court held that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding whether the defendant's actions were anticompetitive.The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court also ordered that the case be assigned to a different judge, citing the principle that once a judge recuses himself, he should remain recused from the case. View "Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v. NTE Carolinas II, LLC" on Justia Law

Frank Driscoll was running along East Shore Road in Isle La Motte when he was struck by a trailer being pulled by a truck driven by Benjamin Wright, an employee of Wright Cut and Clean, LLC. Driscoll was running on the left side of the road, facing traffic, while Wright was driving in the same direction on the right side. As Wright's truck approached, Driscoll moved to the left edge of the road but was struck by the trailer when he moved back towards the center. Driscoll was unconscious when police arrived and had no memory of the accident.Driscoll sued Wright for negligence and Wright Cut and Clean for vicarious liability and direct negligence in hiring, training, and supervising Wright. The Superior Court, Grand Isle Unit, Civil Division, bifurcated the claims and held a jury trial on the negligence claim. Driscoll's expert, Dr. Jerry Ogden, testified about the dimensions of the trailer and the truck's speed but could not establish Driscoll's position before the impact or a clear causative link between Wright's actions and Driscoll's injuries. The court granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendants, concluding that Driscoll failed to establish causation.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that Driscoll did not provide sufficient evidence of causation, as his expert could not definitively link Wright's actions to the injury. The court emphasized that without clear evidence showing that Wright's alleged negligence caused the injury, the claim could not proceed. Consequently, the judgment in favor of Wright and Wright Cut and Clean was affirmed, and the direct negligence claim against Wright Cut and Clean was also dismissed due to the lack of an underlying tort by Wright. View "Driscoll v. Wright Cut and Clean, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Brian L. Porter, trustee of the Brian L. Porter Revocable Trust, and Marvin A. Remmich, manager of McMillan Storage LLC, an Idaho limited liability company. The conflict centers on the management of the LLC and the conduct of its members. Remmich initially filed a complaint in California against Porter, alleging various breaches related to the construction of the LLC’s storage facility. Porter later filed a complaint in Idaho, accusing Remmich of mismanaging the LLC. Both parties reside in California, and the LLC’s principal place of business is also in California.In the California action, the court denied Porter’s motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens, retaining jurisdiction over the case. Subsequently, the Idaho District Court dismissed Porter’s claims without prejudice under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(8), which allows for dismissal when another action between the same parties for the same cause is pending. The district court reasoned that the California court could adjudicate the entire controversy, and concurrent litigation would lead to increased costs and potentially inconsistent judgments.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court’s decision. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Idaho action. The court found that the parties and claims in both actions were essentially the same, and the California court was in a position to resolve the entire dispute. The court emphasized considerations of judicial economy, minimizing litigation costs, and avoiding inconsistent judgments. Consequently, the Idaho action was dismissed without prejudice, and Porter was directed to pursue his claims in the California court. View "Porter v. Remmich" on Justia Law