Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Jerome and Shaun Cohen operated a Ponzi scheme through their companies, EquityBuild, Inc. and EquityBuild Finance, LLC, from 2010 to 2018. They solicited funds from individual investors and institutional lenders, promising high returns secured by real estate, primarily in Chicago. In reality, the Cohens used new investors’ funds to pay earlier investors and overvalued properties to retain excess capital. By 2018, the scheme collapsed, leaving over $75 million in unpaid obligations. The Securities and Exchange Commission intervened, obtaining a temporary restraining order and having a receiver appointed to liquidate assets and distribute proceeds to victims.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois oversaw the receivership and determined how proceeds from the sale of two properties—7749 South Yates and 5450 South Indiana—should be distributed. Both a group of individual investors and Shatar Capital Partners claimed priority to the proceeds, with Shatar arguing its mortgages were recorded before those of the individual investors. The district court found that Shatar was on inquiry notice of the individual investors’ preexisting interests and thus not entitled to priority, limiting all claimants’ recoveries to their contributed principal, minus any amounts previously received.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s distribution order. The appellate court affirmed, holding that under Illinois law, Shatar was on inquiry notice of the individual investors’ interests in both properties at the time it invested, given multiple red flags about the properties’ financing and EquityBuild’s business model. As a result, the individual investors were entitled to priority in the distribution of proceeds. The court also found Shatar’s challenge to the distribution plan moot, as there were insufficient funds to benefit Shatar after satisfying the investors’ claims. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Duff" on Justia Law

A nonprofit research foundation affiliated with a state university entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the university in 2007, becoming a statutorily regulated direct-support organization (DSO). The MOU provided that the foundation’s board would include two appointees from the university but was otherwise silent on board approval and on budget approval processes. In 2018, the Florida Legislature enacted a law requiring all DSO board appointments to be approved by the university’s board of trustees. Around the same time, a regulation by the Board of Governors (BOG) required university boards of trustees to approve DSO budgets. The foundation challenged these requirements, arguing that they impaired its contractual rights under the MOU.The Circuit Court conducted a trial and found that the MOU limited the university’s involvement to only the two appointees and that the statutory board approval requirement impaired the MOU. It concluded that the university failed to show a significant and legitimate public purpose for the statute. However, regarding the budget approval dispute, the court held that the MOU did not address budget approval, so there was no contractual impairment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed both findings, concluding that the statutory board approval requirement rewrote the parties’ contract, while the regulation on budget approval did not impair the MOU.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the case. It held that the MOU only addressed the university’s power to appoint two board members and was silent on approval of other appointments or on budget approval. Therefore, the statutory and regulatory changes did not impair any specific contractual obligations. The court reversed the Fourth District’s ruling on the board appointment issue and otherwise affirmed, holding that neither the statute nor the regulation unconstitutionally impaired the MOU. View "Florida Atlantic University Board of Trustees v. Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute Foundation, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff was an employee who brought claims for wrongful termination, Labor Code violations, and breach of contract against two defendants: the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the Public Transportation Services Corporation (PTSC). MTA had created PTSC, a nonprofit public benefit corporation, to provide retirement and employment benefits to certain workers and to manage employees who support MTA’s transportation functions. The plaintiff did not file a prelitigation claim under the Government Claims Act (GCA) before suing these entities.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County first granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of both defendants, finding that the plaintiff had not alleged compliance with the GCA’s claim presentation requirements. The plaintiff was given leave to amend but continued to argue that PTSC was not a public entity subject to the GCA, and that even if it was, the claims presentation requirement should not apply because PTSC had not registered as required by statute. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, finding both defendants to be public entities and that PTSC was not required to register separately from MTA. The court entered judgment for both defendants.On appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, the plaintiff did not challenge the judgment in favor of MTA but contested the ruling as to PTSC. The appellate court held that PTSC qualifies as a public entity for purposes of the GCA’s claims presentation requirement, given its creation and control by MTA. However, the court found that if PTSC failed to register properly on the Registry of Public Agencies—including with county clerks where it maintains offices—this would excuse the plaintiff’s noncompliance with the GCA. The judgment for MTA was affirmed, but the judgment for PTSC was reversed and remanded to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint. View "Black v. L.A. County Metropolitan Transp. Authority" on Justia Law

Several nonprofit, faith-based organizations that provide pregnancy-related services and oppose abortion initiated an action against the New York State Attorney General. These organizations had made statements regarding abortion pill reversal (“APR”), a protocol intended to counteract the effects of medication-induced abortion. After the Attorney General commenced a civil enforcement action in New York state court against other entities (not parties to this case) for making similar APR-related statements, the plaintiffs alleged they faced a credible threat of sanctions if they continued such speech. As a result, they stopped making APR-related statements and sought declaratory and injunctive relief in federal court, arguing that the regulation of their APR-related speech violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Western District of New York addressed the Attorney General’s argument that the federal court should abstain under the Younger v. Harris doctrine due to the parallel state enforcement action. The district court found abstention unwarranted, noting the federal claims were not inextricably intertwined with the state action and would not interfere with it. On the merits, the district court determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim because the APR-related speech was noncommercial, religiously and morally motivated, involved no financial benefit or remuneration, and did not directly offer APR but instead provided information and referrals. Since the Attorney General did not show the state’s restrictions would survive strict scrutiny, the district court granted a preliminary injunction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The Second Circuit held abstention under Younger was not required, as the plaintiffs’ claims were independent of the state enforcement action. The court found no abuse of discretion in the grant of the preliminary injunction, agreeing that the plaintiffs’ APR-related speech was noncommercial and protected, and the Attorney General failed to meet the strict scrutiny standard. View "Nat'l Inst. of Fam. & Life Advocs. v. James" on Justia Law

A director and former officer of a closely held Delaware corporation engaged in egregious acts of sexual harassment and racist behavior toward two employees. These actions led to the employees’ resignations and prompted successful charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The employees then filed lawsuits in the New York state courts, resulting in judgments totaling over $1.8 million against both the director and the corporation, jointly and individually.After these outcomes, the corporation’s other stockholder and director, who also serves as its president, filed a derivative suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. He alleged that the director’s acts were not only violations of employment law but also constituted a breach of fiduciary duty—specifically, the duty of loyalty. He sought to hold the director liable to the company for the monetary judgments and other losses, arguing that the director’s unlawful, self-interested conduct was per se disloyalty under Delaware law.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware first determined that it had personal jurisdiction over the director under Delaware’s director consent statute. The court then addressed demand futility and found that, given the board’s composition and the nature of the alleged conduct, the plaintiff’s ability to proceed depended on whether the complaint stated a viable claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The court concluded that, under Delaware law, interpersonal workplace misconduct—even when unlawful and reprehensible—does not by itself amount to a breach of the duty of loyalty unless it involves the misuse of corporate power as part of the company’s internal affairs. The court reasoned that employment law, not corporate doctrine, provides the remedy for such conduct. Accordingly, the court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. View "Brola v. Lundgren" on Justia Law

Investors in a major energy company alleged that the company and several executives misled them about involvement in a Florida election-interference scheme. The alleged scheme included tactics such as supporting “ghost” candidates in state and local elections, bribery, covert payments, and manipulating media outlets. These actions were reportedly orchestrated by the company’s main subsidiary and its CEO, with assistance from a political consulting firm. When reports of the scheme began to surface, the company and its executives publicly denied any involvement or wrongdoing, including direct statements to the press and investors. However, after further scrutiny and media coverage, the company’s leadership changed course, abruptly terminating the subsidiary’s CEO and filing updated risk disclosures with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that acknowledged potential legal and reputational risks associated with the allegations. On the same day as these disclosures, the company’s stock price fell sharply, resulting in significant losses for investors.Previously, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the investors’ complaint, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead loss causation—a necessary element of securities fraud. The District Court found that the investors did not identify a sufficient corrective disclosure linking the alleged fraud to the stock price decline.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with the District Court. The Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged loss causation by identifying corrective disclosures—namely, the company’s risk disclosures, the CEO’s abrupt departure, and a unique compensation claw-back provision—that collectively revealed enough truth to the market to undermine prior denials. The court found the alleged sequence of disclosures, price drop, and market analyst reactions sufficient at the pleading stage. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "City of Hollywood Police Officers Retirement Syst v. NextEra Energy, Inc." on Justia Law

A business dispute arose when an individual agreed to sell her furniture and design company to a limited liability company controlled by two individuals for $2.7 million, with payment to be made in installments. The seller also entered into a consulting agreement to assist in the transition but was terminated a few months later. The seller alleged that she did not receive compensation due under the consulting agreement and that the buyer failed to pay the final installment of the purchase price. She asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent inducement, and promissory fraud. The defendants counterclaimed and brought in several third parties, but most of those claims were eventually dismissed, leaving several claims—including for declaratory judgment, conversion, slander, breach of contract, and tortious interference—still pending.The Cullman Circuit Court tried only the seller’s promissory fraud and fraudulent inducement claims against the two individual defendants, entering judgment based on a jury verdict for the seller and awarding over $10 million in damages. The court stayed all claims against the corporate defendants after they filed for bankruptcy. Despite multiple claims and parties remaining, the circuit court certified its judgment against the individuals as final under Rule 54(b) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Alabama determined that the circuit court’s Rule 54(b) certification was improper. The Supreme Court found that closely intertwined and factually overlapping claims, counterclaims, and third-party claims remained unresolved, and that proceeding in piecemeal fashion risked inconsistent results and unnecessary duplication. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the circuit court’s order was not properly certified as final and thus was not appealable at this stage. View "Roberson v. Daniel" on Justia Law

A dispute arose among members of a family-owned limited liability company (LLC) established in 1994 with an original dissolution date of December 31, 2024. In 2015, one member, Seth, provided notice of his withdrawal. Shortly after, the remaining members—Horatio (the siblings’ father), Cameron, and Lindsay—held a meeting and, over Lindsay’s objection, voted by supermajority to convert the LLC to a perpetual-term entity. This action was later formalized through an amendment filed with the state. Horatio subsequently passed away, and Cameron became personal representative of his estate, controlling Horatio’s LLC interest.After these events, Lindsay, individually, on behalf of her minor children, and as a derivative plaintiff for the LLC, initiated an action in the Montana Sixth Judicial District Court. She sought a declaratory judgment enforcing the operating agreement’s (OA) dissolution provision and contended that the OA required unanimous written consent for amendment—rendering the 2015 supermajority vote ineffective. Cameron moved to dismiss some claims and later sought to join the LLC as a defendant. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, granted summary judgment to Cameron and the LLC on the validity of the amendment, ordered the LLC joined as a defendant, and required Lindsay to pay fees for a non-party hybrid witness’s deposition.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the OA provided two valid pathways to amendment—by unanimous written consent or by a 67% supermajority, and that the 2015 vote validly converted the LLC to a perpetual entity. The court affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment and its joinder order. However, it reversed the order requiring Lindsay to pay the non-party witness’s fees, limiting compensation to the statutory witness fee unless otherwise agreed. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. View "Barbier v. Burns" on Justia Law

A student athlete who played football at Rutgers University challenged two NCAA Division I bylaws that counted seasons played at junior colleges toward the NCAA’s limit of four seasons of eligibility over a five-year period. The athlete, Jett Elad, had played at Ohio University, Garden City Community College (a junior college), and UNLV, exhausting his eligibility under the rule despite only playing three seasons at NCAA Division I schools. After learning of a favorable ruling for another athlete in a similar situation, Elad sought a waiver from the NCAA, which was denied. He then entered the transfer portal, was recruited by Rutgers, received a lucrative NIL contract, and filed suit seeking an injunction to allow him to play an additional season.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Elad a preliminary injunction, preventing the NCAA from counting his junior college season toward his eligibility limit. The NCAA appealed, arguing that the rule was not subject to antitrust scrutiny and that the lower court had failed to properly define the relevant market for its antitrust analysis.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and applied de novo review to the district court’s legal conclusions and clear error review to factual findings. The appellate court held that NCAA eligibility rules are not categorically exempt from Sherman Act scrutiny and that the challenged “JUCO Rule” had a commercial effect because it restrained participation in the college football labor market. However, the court found that the district court erred by failing to adequately define the relevant market and by relying on outdated market realities that did not reflect changes following NCAA v. Alston. The Third Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to conduct a proper market analysis. View "Elad v. NCAA" on Justia Law

Edward Richard obtained a loan from The County Federal Credit Union to purchase a 2022 Ski-Doo Expedition snowmobile. The credit union took a security interest in the snowmobile and filed a UCC1 Financing Statement with the Maine Secretary of State. Over a year later, Richard sold the snowmobile to Michael Madore Jr., who purchased it as a gift for his father, Michael Madore. Richard did not inform the credit union of the sale and assured Madore Jr. that no liens existed. The Madores did not investigate for liens or UCC filings. After Richard defaulted on the loan and failed to cure, the credit union discovered that Madore possessed the snowmobile.The County Federal Credit Union filed a complaint for recovery of personal property in the District Court (Fort Kent, Maine), naming both Richard and Madore as defendants. Richard declared bankruptcy and received a discharge. Following a hearing, the District Court entered judgment for the credit union, ordering Madore to surrender the snowmobile. Madore then requested additional findings, which the court provided, and subsequently appealed.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the appeal. It held that the credit union had a valid security interest in the snowmobile because the signed loan documents met the statutory requirements: they were authenticated by Richard, created a security interest, and described the collateral. The Court rejected Madore’s argument that the absence of Richard’s signature on a separate “Security Agreement” page rendered the security interest unenforceable. Additionally, the Court found that Madore could not claim status as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice under 11 M.R.S. § 9-1320(2), because the credit union had filed its financing statement before the sale. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed. View "The County Federal Credit Union v. Madore" on Justia Law