Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves plaintiffs-appellees, trustees of the Peter and Elizabeth C. Tower Foundation, who brought claims against UBS Financial Services, Inc. and Jay S. Blair (collectively, the "UBS Defendants") under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and New York state law. The plaintiffs allege that the UBS Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in managing the Foundation's investment advisory accounts. Specifically, they claim that John N. Blair, the father of Jay Blair, improperly used his position to place the Foundation’s assets with his son's investment firm, which later became affiliated with UBS.The United States District Court for the Western District of New York denied the UBS Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The court found that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to question the validity of the arbitration agreement, warranting a trial on that issue. The UBS Defendants had previously moved to stay or dismiss the action under the Colorado River abstention doctrine, which was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., which held that courts may not impose a prejudice requirement when evaluating whether a party has waived enforcement of an arbitration agreement. The Second Circuit concluded that the UBS Defendants waived their right to compel arbitration by seeking a resolution of their dispute in the District Court first, thus acting inconsistently with the right to arbitrate. Consequently, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of the UBS Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration on the alternative ground of waiver. View "Doyle v. UBS Financial Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Veltor Underground LLC, a construction business, applied for a $125,000 loan under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) during the COVID-19 pandemic, claiming it had six employees. However, the Small Business Administration (SBA) later discovered that these "employees" were actually independent contractors. Consequently, the SBA denied Veltor's request for loan forgiveness, as payments to independent contractors do not qualify as "payroll costs" under the CARES Act.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the SBA and associated individuals. The court found that Veltor's payments to independent contractors did not meet the statutory definition of "payroll costs," which is a requirement for loan forgiveness under the PPP.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the CARES Act's definition of "payroll costs" includes only payments to employees and not to independent contractors. The court reasoned that the Act distinguishes between businesses with employees and self-employed individuals, including sole proprietors and independent contractors, and that the term "payroll costs" does not encompass payments made to independent contractors by businesses. Therefore, Veltor was not entitled to loan forgiveness and must repay the loan. View "Veltor Underground, LLC v. SBA" on Justia Law

Mark Schena operated Arrayit, a medical testing laboratory in Northern California, which focused on blood tests for allergies. Schena marketed these tests as superior to skin tests, despite their limitations, and billed insurance providers up to $10,000 per test. To maintain a steady flow of patient samples, Schena paid marketers a percentage of the revenue they generated by pitching Arrayit’s services to medical professionals, often misleading them about the tests' efficacy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Schena transitioned to COVID testing, using similar deceptive marketing practices to bundle allergy tests with COVID tests.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Schena’s motion to dismiss the EKRA counts, arguing that his conduct did not violate the statute as a matter of law. The jury convicted Schena on all counts, including conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, healthcare fraud, conspiracy to violate EKRA, EKRA violations, and securities fraud. The district court sentenced Schena to 96 months in prison and ordered him to pay over $24 million in restitution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed Schena’s convictions. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 220(a)(2)(A) of EKRA covers payments to marketing intermediaries who interface with those who do the referrals, and there is no requirement that the payments be made to a person who interfaces directly with patients. The court also concluded that a percentage-based compensation structure for marketing agents does not violate EKRA per se, but the evidence showed wrongful inducement when Schena paid marketers to unduly influence doctors’ referrals through false or fraudulent representations. The court affirmed Schena’s EKRA and other convictions, vacated in part the restitution order, and remanded in part. View "United States v. Schena" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, K7 Design Group, Inc. (K7) offered to sell hand sanitizer to Walmart, Inc., doing business as Sam’s Club (Sam’s Club). K7 and Sam’s Club discussed and agreed upon the product, price, quantity, and delivery terms for various hand sanitizer products through email communications. K7 delivered over 1,000,000 units of hand sanitizer to Sam’s Club, which paid approximately $17.5 million. However, Sam’s Club did not collect or pay for the remaining hand sanitizer, leading to storage issues for K7.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas held a jury trial, where the jury found in favor of K7 on its breach of contract claim and awarded $7,157,426.14 in damages. Sam’s Club’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial were denied by the district court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Sam’s Club argued that K7 failed to present sufficient evidence of an obligation to pay for the products, the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and the district court abused its discretion in instructing the jury. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the communications between K7 and Sam’s Club constituted binding orders under Arkansas’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The court found that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its jury instructions or in denying Sam’s Club’s motions. The court also affirmed the district court’s award of prejudgment interest and attorney fees and costs. View "K7 Design Group, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc." on Justia Law

Anderson & Koch Ford, Inc., a Ford dealership in North Branch, Minnesota, operates under a Ford Sales and Service Agreement. In late 2022, Ford announced plans to establish a new dealership in Forest Lake, Minnesota, and to reassign half of Anderson & Koch’s designated sales area to the new dealership. Anderson & Koch filed a lawsuit in state court, alleging violations of the Minnesota Motor Vehicle Sale and Distribution Act (MVSDA), specifically sections 80E.13(k) and (p). Ford removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss the claims.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota partially granted Ford’s motion to dismiss, ruling that Anderson & Koch failed to state a claim under sections 80E.13(k) and (p) regarding the establishment of the new dealership. However, the court allowed Anderson & Koch to challenge the proposed change to its designated sales area under the same sections. Anderson & Koch then appealed the dismissal of its claims related to the new dealership.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that Anderson & Koch could not challenge the establishment of the new dealership under sections 80E.13(k) or (p) of the MVSDA. The court held that the establishment of a new dealership did not modify the existing franchise agreement, as required by section 80E.13(k), nor did it arbitrarily change the dealer’s area of sales effectiveness under section 80E.13(p). The court also noted that Anderson & Koch had dismissed its claims regarding the change to its sales area, leaving only the challenge to the new dealership on appeal. View "Anderson & Koch Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company" on Justia Law

Calvin Berwald, operating Sokota Dairy, filed a lawsuit against Stan’s, Inc., a local feed mill, alleging breach of contract and breach of implied warranties. Berwald claimed that Stan’s prematurely canceled a soybean meal purchase agreement and sold him contaminated calf starter, resulting in the death of over 200 calves. Stan’s argued that the contract was canceled due to Berwald’s late payments and that the calf deaths were due to poor facilities and feeding practices.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Jerauld County granted summary judgment in favor of Stan’s on the breach of contract claim, citing accord and satisfaction. The court found that Berwald’s acceptance and deposit of a check from Stan’s, which was intended to settle the dispute, discharged the claim. A jury trial on the breach of warranty claims resulted in a verdict that Stan’s breached the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose but awarded no damages to Berwald. The jury found against Berwald on the claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and barratry.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Stan’s satisfied the requirements for accord and satisfaction under SDCL 57A-3-311. The court found no genuine issue of material fact regarding the good faith tender of the check, the existence of a bona fide dispute, and Berwald’s acceptance of the payment. The court also upheld the denial of Berwald’s motion for a new trial, finding no newly discovered evidence that would likely produce a different result and no prejudicial juror misconduct. The court concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings. View "Berwald V. Stan's, Inc." 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

Sysco Machinery Corporation, a Taiwanese company, accused DCS USA Corporation, a North Carolina company, of business torts related to their manufacturer-distributor relationship. Sysco alleged that after some of its employees left to form a competitor, Cymtek Solutions, Inc., DCS sold machines made by Cymtek using Sysco's confidential information. Sysco claimed these diverted contracts were worth millions of dollars.Sysco first filed suit in Taiwan, where it claims to have won a preliminary injunction against Cymtek. Sysco then filed a suit in the Eastern District of North Carolina, which it voluntarily dismissed, followed by a suit in the District of Massachusetts, which was dismissed. Finally, Sysco returned to the Eastern District of North Carolina, where it brought claims for trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The district court dismissed all claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and denied Sysco's post-judgment leave to amend its complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Sysco's trade secret misappropriation claim, finding that Sysco did not plausibly allege the existence of a valid trade secret or that DCS misappropriated it. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Sysco's other claims, noting that Sysco did not sufficiently develop its arguments for copyright infringement, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. Finally, the court upheld the district court's denial of Sysco's motion to alter or amend the judgment and for leave to amend the complaint, citing Sysco's repeated failure to state a claim and the potential prejudice to DCS. View "Sysco Machinery Corp. v. DCS USA Corp." on Justia Law

Ian Elliot, Cindy Elliot, and their mother, Ada Elliot, were partners in StarFire, a limited partnership owning property in Gallatin County. Cindy managed StarFire and sought to remove Ian as a general partner. Ian was appointed Ada’s guardian, and Joyce Wuertz was appointed as Ada’s conservator. Ian sued Cindy for misappropriation of funds and sought to remove Wuertz as conservator, but his motions were denied. Ada’s will divided her estate equally between Ian and Cindy, but due to their strained relationship, a special administrator was appointed instead of Ian. Ian’s subsequent motions to disqualify the special administrator were also denied.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, appointed Andrew Billstein as the special administrator of Ian’s estate. The Objectors (Jenny Jing, Alice Carpenter, and Mike Bolenbaugh) filed an untimely appeal against this appointment, which was declined. The Objectors also opposed the settlement agreements proposed by the Special Administrator, which aimed to resolve ongoing litigation involving Ian’s estate. The District Court approved the settlements, finding them reasonable under the Pallister factors, and denied the Objectors’ motion for relief under M. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s decisions. The court held that the District Court had subject matter jurisdiction to approve the settlement agreements and did not abuse its discretion in doing so. The court found that the settlements were reasonable, considering the strength of the cases, the risk and expense of further litigation, and the views of experienced counsel. The court also upheld the District Court’s denial of the Objectors’ post-judgment relief motions. View "In re Estate of Elliot" 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