Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

In 2003, Richard Howell invented a binding that has a “special, patented heel release designed to mitigate knee injuries . . . that are common in downhill skiing.” Howell formed a business relationship with John Springer-Miller, and the two signed transaction documents, which included an employment agreement, a stock-purchase agreement, an investor-rights agreement, and an amended certificate of incorporation. Howell and Springer-Miller’s working relationship “began to deteriorate almost immediately,” and the KneeBinding board voted to terminate Howell as president in September 2008. In prior proceedings, the Vermont Supreme Court in large part affirmed an August 2016 trial court decision, but reversed a decision to dissolve a March 2009 permanent injunction, and remanded the court’s award of attorney’s fees to KneeBinding, Inc. with directions to consider additional evidence of legal fees. On remand in August 2019, the trial court: (1) awarded additional attorney’s fees to KneeBinding; (2) issued a sanction for a May 23, 2018 finding that Richard Howell violated an August 10, 2017 injunction that was in place while "KneeBinding II" was pending; and (3) found Howell in contempt for violating the March 2009 permanent injunction that the Supreme Court restored in KneeBinding II. On appeal, Howell challenged the May 23, 2018, finding that he violated the August 2017 injunction and the August 2019 finding that he violated the March 2009 permanent injunction. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kneebinding, Inc. v. Howell" on Justia Law

The trial court found defendants Peng Xufeng and Jia Siyu filed a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion against Changsha Metro Group Co., Ltd. (Changsha). Changsha sued defendants for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) constructive fraud; (3) aiding and abetting; (4) unjust enrichment; and (5) a constructive trust. Defendants responded with an anti-SLAPP motion. The trial court ordered defendants to pay Changsha $61,915 for Changsha’s attorney’s fees in opposing the anti-SLAPP motion. Defendants contended the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to Changsha because: (1) defendants were not given a 21-day safe harbor period; and (2)Changsha requested attorney’s fees in its opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion, rather than in a separate motion. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court. View "Changsha Metro Group Co. v. Xufeng" on Justia Law

In this action pleading claims for suit on account and account stated the Supreme Court reversed and vacated the judgment of the circuit court in favor of DiGregorio Food Products, Inc., holding that the circuit court erred in declaring the law in determining that Mo. Rev. Stat. 516.110(1)'s ten-year statute of limitations applied to the underlying claims.DiGregorio was an ingredient supplier for John Racanelli, who operated pizza restaurants. When Racanelli stopped making payments, DiGregorio ended its business relationship with Racanelli and his restaurants. DiGregorio later brought this action, asserting claims for suit on account and account stated. The circuit court declared that the ten-year statute of limitations contained in section 516.110(1) applied and that Racanelli was responsible for the amount of unpaid invoices as damages. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) even assuming that DiGregorio proved its claims, this case was governed by the five-year statute of limitations contained in Mo. Rev. Stat. 516.120(1); and (2) therefore, DiGregorio's lawsuit was time barred. View "Di Gregorio Food Products, Inc. v. Racanelli" on Justia Law

Defendants Garrett Reed, Reilly Reed, Element Services, LLC, Jhenna Reed, Reedesign Concepts, and Robert Kubistek appealed a district court order remanding this case from federal district court to Colorado state court due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff Elite Oil Field Enterprises, Inc. (Elite) moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Plaintiff Elite was a Colorado corporation formed in March 2012 to provide roustabout services for the oil field industry. Immediately after its formation, Elite formed two subsidiaries: Elite Oil Field Services, Inc. and Elite Oil Field Equipment, Inc. At some point after the formation, Reilly Reed (Reilly) became upset that he only had a 25% ownership interest in Elite and believed that he was entitled to a 50% share. Reilly and his brother Garrett Reed (Garrett), allegedly devised a scheme for Reilly to form, surreptitiously, a competing company known as Element Services, LLC (Element), and for Element to improperly lure away Elite’s customers and employees with the intent of economically harming Elite and rendering Elite unable to continue its operations. As part of the scheme, Reilly filed a civil lawsuit in Colorado federal district court against Elite, its two subsidiaries, his former business partner Dustin Tixier, and business manager Jason Whisenand, alleging in pertinent part, Elite's corporate documents were altered such that Reilly owned only 25% of the total outstanding corporate stock rather than the originally agreed upon 50%. Plaintiffs moved to transfer and consolidate the multiple civil suits and counterclaims to Colorado state court. The Tenth Circuit determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal, thereby granting Elite's motion to dismiss this appeal. View "Elite Oil Field Enterprises v. Reed" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting judgment in favor of an accountant and his new firm on his claims against his former firm, holding that the judgment was not in error.After Plaintiff left one firm to join another, he sued Defendant, his former firm, with whom he was a shareholder and officer. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to perform a mandatory provision in the shareholder agreement to buy out a departing shareholder's corporate shares at a price that accounted for lost billings by virtue of clients following a departing shareholder. Defendant brought counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of confidential information and third-party claims against Plaintiff's new firm, including tortious interference with business expectations. All claims presented to the jury were determined in favor of Plaintiff and his new firm. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that all claims were correctly decided in favor of Plaintiff and his new firm. View "Dick v. Koski Professional Group, P.C." on Justia Law

Two powerful friends decided to take out significant loans in order to invest in a purported business opportunity overseas. The business opportunity was in reality, a scam. The friends offered as collateral assets which were not theirs to encumber. The third party to whom the assets belonged had no idea the assets were being so encumbered. And the "lender" was another investor in the scam intent on recouping its investment. The opportunity was "a complete bust," and the friends were unable to pay the loans back. The lender sued to collect what was owed and foreclose on its secured interest in the offered collateral. The friends failed to answer the lawsuit, and a default judgment was obtained. The lender then began to execute on its judgment. The issues presented for the Court of Appeal's review centered on two main issues: (1) whether the default judgment was void; and (2) assuming it was valid, whether the trial court should have vacated the default and default judgment under its statutory and equitable powers. The Court determined the order denying the motion to vacate default judgment should have been reversed, and the matter remanded for the trial court to vacate the default, default judgment and an assignment order (entered April 30, 2018). View "Luxury Asset Lending v. Philadelphia Television Network" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants with respect all of Plaintiff's claims except for counts four and five, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment.This litigation arose from Aqreva, LLC's purchase of medical practice management service from Eide Bailly, LLP. Aqreva sued Eide Bailly, Shelly Kampmann, Lee Brandt, and LJB, Inc. claiming breach of contract and various torts, alleging that Defendants violated non-compete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality clauses in several contracts and that Defendants committed, among other torts, civil conspiracy and fraud. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants with respect to all claims except for those concerning Kampmann's employment agreement and the alleged tortious interference with a contract by Brandt and LJB. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the the circuit court properly granted summary judgment on counts one through three and six through nine. View "Aqreva, LLC v. Eide Bailly, LLP" on Justia Law

Insurance providers asked the Delaware Supreme Court whether certain costs incurred in connection with an appraisal action under 8 Del. C. 262 were precluded from coverage under the primary and excess directors’ and officers’ insurance policies (the “D&O Policies”) issued to Solera Holdings, Inc. (“Solera”). An affiliate of Vista Equity acquired Solera in 2016. That transaction gave rise to litigation, including an appraisal action. Solera requested coverage under the D&O Policies for the Appraisal Action. The insurers denied the request. Solera then filed suit against the insurers for breach of contract and declaratory judgment, seeking coverage for pre-judgment interest and defense expenses incurred in connection with the Appraisal Action. However, Solera did not seek coverage for the underlying fair value amount paid to the dissenting stockholders, upon which the pre-judgment interest was based. The issuer of the primary policy settled, and the excess policy insurers moved for summary judgment. The superior court denied the motion, interpreting the policy to hold that: (1) a “Securities Claim” under the policy was not limited to a claim alleging wrongdoing, and the Appraisal Action was for a “violation” under the Securities Claim definition; (2) because the “Loss” definition was not limited by any other language, the policy covered pre-judgment interest on a non-covered loss; and (3) as to defense expenses, Delaware law implied a prejudice requirement in insurance contract consent clauses, and Solera’s breach of the consent clause did not bar coverage for defense expenses absent a showing of prejudice. The Insurers appealed, contending that the superior court erred in holding that the Appraisal Action could be covered under the D&O Policies for a violation of a “Securities Claim.” The Supreme Court disagreed with the superior court's determination the Appraisal Action was for a “violation,” concluding the Appraisal Action did not fall within the definition of a “Securities Claim.” Because the Appraisal Action was not a Securities Claim, the remaining issues were moot. View "In Re Solera Insurance Coverage Appeals" on Justia Law

After a boiler exploded at a refinery, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cited the refinery’s owner, Wynnewood Refining Co., LLC, for violating 29 C.F.R. section 1910.119, which set forth requirements for the management of highly hazardous chemicals. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (the Commission) upheld the violations, noting that the refinery had previously violated section 1910.119, but the prior violations occurred before Wynnewood LLC owned the refinery, and therefore occurred under a different employer. Accordingly, the Commission did not classify the violations as “repeat[] violations” under 29 U.S.C. 666(a), which permitted increased penalties for “employer[s] who willfully or repeatedly violate[]” the regulation. Wynnewood appealed the Commission’s order, arguing that section 1910.119 did not apply to the boiler that exploded. The Tenth Circuit found section 1910.119’s plain text unambiguously applied to the boiler, and affirmed that portion of the Commission’s order upholding the violations. The U.S. Secretary of Labor also appealed the Commission's order, arguing the Commission erred by failing to characterize the violations as repeat violations. To this, the Tenth Circuit agreed Wynnewood was not the same employer as the refinery's previous owner, thus affirming that portion of the Commission's order relating to the repeat violations. View "Scalia v. Wynnewood Refining" on Justia Law

The Court of Chancery granted Defendants' motion to dismiss this derivative action under Rule 23.1 on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to demand that the Facebook board of directors (the Board) pursue the litigation and did not establish that demand was futile.At the request of Mark Zuckerberg, the Board pursued a reclassification of Facebook's shares, the result of which would be to shift two-thirds of Facebook's economic value to the non-voting stock and enable Zuckerberg to transfer the bulk of his economic ownership in Facebook without giving up voting control. After a lawsuit, the Board withdrew the reclassification. Plaintiff then filed a derivative action against Zuckerberg and Board members that approved the reclassification, claiming that the pursuit of the reclassification constituted a breach of duty and that Facebook was harmed as a result. Plaintiff chose not to make a pre-suit demand. Defendants moved to dismiss the action under Rule 23.1. The Court of Chancery granted the motion, holding that demand was not excused on the grounds that the directors were incapable of making an impartial decision regarding whether to institute such litigation. View "United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Zuckerberg" on Justia Law