Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

A closely held Kentucky corporation, operated by members of the Tarter family, experienced a transfer of shares from the third generation (David, Donald, and Joy) to their children in December 2012. Despite this transfer, the corporation failed to observe corporate formalities such as holding annual shareholder or board meetings, leaving the composition of the board unclear. This ambiguity became significant when three shareholders sought to sue a family member, Josh Tarter, for alleged misconduct during his tenure as president. The plaintiffs attempted to have the board authorize the corporation to sue, and, alternatively, brought a derivative action on behalf of the corporation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky initially dismissed the complaint, finding the plaintiffs lacked standing for direct claims and failed to make a demand or show futility for derivative claims. After the plaintiffs attempted to cure these defects by calling a special board meeting and authorizing the suit, the district court first allowed the claims to proceed, then later granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the board vote was invalid because the third-generation members had resigned by transferring their shares. Upon reconsideration, the court vacillated, at one point accepting a theory that Anna Lou was the sole board member, but ultimately reinstated summary judgment for the defendants, reasoning that the plaintiffs had not properly pleaded this theory.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that under Kentucky law and the corporation’s bylaws, the third-generation board members did not effectively resign by merely transferring their shares, as resignation required written or oral notice. Therefore, the board remained as constituted before the share transfer, and the special meeting authorizing the direct suit was valid. The court vacated the district court’s judgment, allowing the direct suit by the corporation to proceed, but affirmed dismissal of the derivative claims where demand was made and refused. View "C-Ville Fabricating, Inc. v. Tarter" on Justia Law

A publicly traded reinsurance company experienced significant financial losses over a two-year period due to adverse developments with its largest client, which led to higher-than-expected claim payouts and a dramatic drop in its stock price. Investors, represented by a pension trust and a bank, alleged that the company committed securities fraud by making misleading statements about the adequacy of its reserve funds. Specifically, they claimed the company failed to disclose historical data indicating that its reserves were insufficient, even though it knew of this adverse information.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey initially denied the company’s motion to dismiss, allowing limited discovery focused on whether the company intentionally omitted the historical loss ratio information. The Magistrate Judge restricted discovery to a narrow scope, declining to require production of all underlying data, and the District Court affirmed this limitation. After this limited discovery, the District Court granted summary judgment for the company, holding that the reserve statements were not misleading as a matter of law because the company had considered the historical data and the omitted information did not “totally eclipse” other factors in the reserve calculations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the District Court erred in its application of the materiality standard and in denying further discovery. The Third Circuit found that there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the omission of adverse historical data was material to investors, given the company’s dependence on its largest client and the significance of historical trends in its reserve-setting process. The court vacated the summary judgment and remanded for full discovery and further proceedings, clarifying that materiality is a context-specific inquiry and that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to proceed. View "Boilermaker Blacksmith National Pension Trust v. Maiden Holdings Ltd" on Justia Law

A pharmaceutical company developed a sublingual opioid painkiller, DSUVIA, which could only be administered in medically supervised settings due to safety concerns and was subject to a strict FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS). The company marketed DSUVIA with the slogan “Tongue and Done” at investor conferences, accompanied by additional disclosures about the drug’s limitations and REMS requirements. After the FDA issued a warning letter objecting to the slogan as potentially misleading under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, several shareholders filed suit, alleging that the slogan misled investors about the complexity of administering DSUVIA and the drug’s limited market potential.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the shareholders’ complaint, finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead facts supporting a strong inference of scienter, but did not rule on whether the statements were false or misleading. The plaintiffs were given two opportunities to amend their complaint, but the court ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead falsity because a reasonable investor would not interpret the “Tongue and Done” slogan in isolation, but would consider the context provided by accompanying disclosures and other available information. The court also held that the FDA’s warning letter did not establish falsity under securities law, as the standards and intended audiences differ. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs did not plead a strong inference of scienter, as the facts suggested the company’s officers acted in good faith. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. View "Sneed v. Talphera, Inc." on Justia Law

Three individuals who worked as precious metals futures traders at major financial institutions were prosecuted for engaging in a market manipulation scheme known as spoofing. This practice involved placing large orders on commodities exchanges with the intent to cancel them before execution, thereby creating a false impression of market supply or demand to benefit their genuine trades. The traders’ conduct was in violation of both exchange rules and their employers’ policies, and the government charged them with various offenses, including wire fraud, commodities fraud, attempted price manipulation, and violating the anti-spoofing provision of the Dodd-Frank Act.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, presided over separate trials for the defendants. In the first trial, two defendants were convicted by a jury on all substantive counts except conspiracy, after the court denied their motions for acquittal and a new trial. The third defendant, tried separately, admitted to spoofing but argued he lacked the requisite criminal intent; he was convicted of wire fraud, and his post-trial motions were also denied. The district court made several evidentiary rulings, including admitting lay and investigator testimony, and excluded certain defense exhibits and instructions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the convictions and the district court’s rulings. The appellate court held that spoofing constitutes a scheme to defraud under the federal wire and commodities fraud statutes, and that the anti-spoofing statute is not unconstitutionally vague. The court found sufficient evidence supported all convictions, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary or jury instruction decisions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and the district court’s denial of post-trial motions for all three defendants. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between a Hawai‘i corporation and one of its directors after the director questioned the validity of a conflict-of-interest clause in the corporation’s articles. The corporation filed a declaratory judgment action against the director, seeking a ruling that the clause was valid. The director moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing there was no actual controversy. The Circuit Court of the First Circuit granted the motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, retaining jurisdiction to hear a motion for attorneys’ fees. The director then sought indemnification from the corporation for his legal expenses, relying on both the corporation’s articles and Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 414-243, which mandates indemnification for directors who are “wholly successful, on the merits or otherwise,” in defending proceedings brought against them due to their role as directors.The corporation partially indemnified the director for his defense costs but disputed his entitlement to further fees, particularly those incurred in seeking indemnification itself (“fees on fees”). The Circuit Court denied the director’s motion for additional fees, finding he was not “wholly successful” under the statute because the dismissal was without prejudice. The director appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), which affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision. The ICA concluded that fees on fees were only available when indemnification was court-ordered, which was not the case here, and declined to address whether the director was “wholly successful” under HRS § 414-243.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case and reversed both lower courts. It held that a director whose case is dismissed without prejudice and who incurs no liability is “wholly successful” under HRS § 414-243 and thus entitled to mandatory indemnification. The court further held that this statutory indemnification includes reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining indemnification, such as fees on fees. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court to determine the reasonable amount of such expenses. View "Loyalty Development Company, LTD. v. Ching" on Justia Law

Investors in a major drug-development company alleged that the company and two of its officers misled them about the integrity of the company’s overseas supply chain for long-tailed macaques, which are essential for its business. After China halted exports of these monkeys due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the company shifted to suppliers in Cambodia and Vietnam, some of which were later implicated in a federal investigation into illegal wildlife trafficking. Despite public signs of the investigation and seizures of shipments, the company’s CEO assured investors that its supply chain was unaffected by the federal indictment of certain suppliers, and that the indicted supplier was not one of its own. However, evidence suggested that the company was, in fact, sourcing macaques from entities targeted by the investigation, either directly or through intermediaries.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the investors’ class action complaint, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege any false or misleading statements or scienter (intent or recklessness), and therefore did not reach the issue of loss causation. The court also dismissed the derivative claim against the individual officers.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the investors plausibly alleged that the company and its CEO knowingly or recklessly misled investors in November 2022 by assuring them that the company’s supply chain was not implicated in the federal investigation, when in fact it was. The court found these statements actionable, but agreed with the lower court that other statements about “non-preferred vendors” were not independently misleading. The First Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal as to the November 2022 statements and remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of loss causation. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs on appeal. View "State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio v. Charles River Laboratories International, Inc." on Justia Law

Fifteen individuals who purchased new motorcycles from a major American manufacturer received a limited warranty with their purchases. The warranty provided for free repair or replacement of defective parts for up to 24 months but excluded coverage for defects or damage caused by non-approved or non-manufacturer parts. The plaintiffs, concerned that using non-manufacturer parts would void their warranties, opted to buy higher-priced parts from the manufacturer. They later alleged that the company’s warranty practices unlawfully conditioned warranty coverage on the exclusive use of its own parts, in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and various state antitrust laws.The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the plaintiffs’ lawsuits and transferred them to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The district court dismissed the consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim. It found that the limited warranty did not condition benefits on exclusive use of manufacturer parts and that the risk of losing warranty coverage was insufficient to establish an anticompetitive tying arrangement or economic coercion under state antitrust law. The court also dismissed related state law claims premised on the same conduct.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Seventh Circuit held that the warranty’s terms did not create an express or implied tie prohibited by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, nor did the complaint plausibly allege violations of the Act’s disclosure or pre-sale availability requirements. The court further held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege sufficient market power or anticompetitive effects to support their state antitrust claims, and that the warranty’s terms were available to consumers at the time of purchase, precluding a Kodak-style lock-in theory. The court affirmed dismissal of all claims. View "Heymer v. Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Two individuals who frequently rented hotel rooms on the Las Vegas Strip brought a class action lawsuit, alleging that several major hotel operators and related entities caused them to pay artificially high prices for hotel rooms. The plaintiffs claimed that these hotels each entered into agreements to license revenue-management software from a single provider, Cendyn, whose products generated pricing recommendations based on proprietary algorithms. The software did not require hotels to follow its recommendations, nor did it share confidential information among the hotels. Plaintiffs alleged that, after the hotels adopted this software, room prices increased.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada reviewed the complaint, which asserted two claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The first claim alleged a “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy among the hotels to adopt and follow the software’s pricing recommendations, but the district court dismissed this claim for failure to plausibly allege an agreement among the hotels. The plaintiffs later abandoned their appeal of this claim. The second claim alleged that the aggregate effect of the individual licensing agreements between each hotel and Cendyn resulted in anticompetitive effects, specifically higher prices. The district court dismissed this claim as well, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege a restraint of trade in the relevant market.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act because the independent decisions by competing hotels to license the same pricing software, without an agreement among them or a restraint imposed by the software provider, did not constitute a restraint of trade. The court concluded that neither the terms nor the operation of the licensing agreements imposed anticompetitive restraints in the market for hotel-room rentals on the Las Vegas Strip. View "Gibson v. Cendyn Group, LLC" on Justia Law

A trading company and a base oil manufacturer entered into a sales agreement in 2016, under which the manufacturer would serve as the exclusive North American sales representative for a high-quality base oil product distributed by the trading company. The agreement included noncompete provisions and was set to expire at the end of 2021. In late 2020, suspicions arose between the parties regarding potential breaches of the agreement, leading to a series of letters in which the trading company accused the manufacturer of selling a competing product and threatened termination if the alleged breach was not cured. The manufacturer responded by denying any breach and, after further correspondence, declared the agreement terminated. The trading company agreed that the agreement was terminated, and both parties ceased their business relationship.The trading company then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging antitrust violations, breach of contract, business disparagement, and misappropriation of trade secrets. The manufacturer counterclaimed for breach of contract and tortious interference. After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of the manufacturer on the breach of contract and trade secret claims, awarding over $1.3 million in damages. However, the court determined that the agreement was mutually terminated, not due to anticipatory repudiation by the trading company, and denied the manufacturer’s request for attorneys’ fees and prevailing party costs.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the trading company did not commit anticipatory repudiation and that the agreement was mutually terminated. The Fifth Circuit also affirmed the denial of prevailing party costs under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the appellate court vacated the denial of attorneys’ fees under the agreement’s fee-shifting provision and remanded for further proceedings on that issue. View "Penthol v. Vertex Energy" on Justia Law

A Canadian corporation specializing in industrial heaters sought a new supplier and entered negotiations with a South Dakota manufacturer to custom-build 30 heaters. The parties initially agreed to the purchase and sale of 21 units, with a 20% down payment, and later extended the agreement to include the remaining nine units, for a total of 30 heaters at a set price per unit. The manufacturer began production and delivery as payments were made. However, after partial delivery and payment, the buyer stopped making payments, citing performance issues with the heaters and ultimately notified the manufacturer of its intent to terminate the relationship. Despite complaints about the heaters, the buyer did not reject or return any units but continued to accept and sell them until the manufacturer withheld further shipments due to nonpayment.The Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Day County, South Dakota, granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer, finding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the existence of a contract for 30 heaters and that the buyer breached the agreement by failing to pay and by terminating the contract. The court also found that the manufacturer had taken reasonable steps to mitigate damages and that the buyer had not properly rejected the goods under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case de novo. The Supreme Court held that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a contract for the sale of 30 heaters. However, the Court found that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the alleged defects in the heaters substantially impaired the value of the whole contract, which could excuse the buyer’s nonperformance under the UCC. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s finding of contract formation, reversed the grant of summary judgment on the breach issue, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Anderson Industries v. Thermal Intelligence" on Justia Law