Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

General Motors was a Delaware corporation engaged in the sale of motor vehicles in Pennsylvania, and subject to Pennsylvania’s corporate income tax. GM contested the calculation of its 2001 Tax Year corporate income tax, after filing a report of change in its federal taxable income in March 2010. In February 2012, GM timely filed a petition for refund with the Department of Revenue’s (“Department”) Board of Appeals. It claimed that the cap on the net loss carryover (NLC) resulted in a “progressive effective tax rate” which violated the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. It explained that “a taxpayer conducting business on a larger scale in Pennsylvania pays a higher effective tax rate than a similarly situated taxpayer conducting business on a smaller scale.” In Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Department of Revenue, 171 A.3d 682 (Pa. 2017), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the NLC deduction applicable to corporate income tax for the tax year ending December 31, 2007 (“2007 Tax Year”), violated the Uniformity Clause. Here, the Court applied Nextel and considered GM's constitutional challenges to the NLC provisions applicable to corporate income tax in the tax year ending December 31, 2001 (“2001 Tax Year”). The Supreme Court agreed with the Commonwealth Court that Nextel applied retroactively to this case, however, it reversed the Commonwealth Court to the extent it remedied the violation of the Uniformity Clause by severing the $2 million NLC deduction cap, which would have resulted in an unlimited NLC deduction. Instead, the Supreme Court severed the NLC deduction provision in its entirety, resulting in no NLC deduction for the 2001 Tax Year. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s order to the extent it directed the Department to recalculate GM’s corporate income tax without capping the NLC deduction and issue a refund for the 2001 Tax Year, which the Court concluded was required to remedy the due process violation of GM’s rights pursuant to McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation of Florida, 496 U.S. 18 (1990). View "General Motors Corp. v. Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a dispute over a Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) formed between Valley Joist BD Holdings, LLC (“VJ Holdings”) and EBSCO, Industries Inc. (“EBSCO”). In December 2017, EBSCO sold all of its stock in Valley Joist, Inc. to VJ Holdings. After closing, VJ Holdings discovered structural defects in one of the buildings acquired as part of the transaction. In July 2018, VJ Holdings sought indemnification from EBSCO through the procedure outlined in the SPA. Two years after receiving no response to the notice, VJ Holdings filed suit in the Superior Court for breach of contract and fraud in the inducement. The Superior Court granted EBSCO’s motion to dismiss the fraud claim for failure to plead sufficient facts to satisfy Superior Court Civil Rule 9(b). The court also dismissed the breach of contract claim as barred under the SPA’s one-year contractual statute of limitations. VJ Holdings appealed: (1) challenging whether it pled sufficient facts to show pre-closing knowledge of fraud; and (2) challenged whether the Superior Court properly relied on a bootstrapping doctrine to dismiss the fraud claim. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, finding that the allegations in the complaint, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, lead to a reasonable inference that EBSCO knew of the structural defects in the building at the time of closing the SPA, contrary to its representation in the SPA that the building was in good operating condition and repair. As for the bootstrapping argument, the Supreme Court determined the Superior Court did not rely on a bootstrapping doctrine to dismiss the fraud claim. View "Valley Joist BD Holdings, LLC v. EBSCO Industries, Inc." on Justia Law

In November 2021, 5he Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the federal agency tasked with assuring a safe and healthful workplace, issued an Emergency Rule on COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing, 86 Fed. Reg. 61402. The rule does not require anyone to be vaccinated but allows covered employers—employers with 100 or more employees—to determine for themselves how best to minimize the risk of contracting COVID-19 in their workplaces. Employers may require unvaccinated workers to wear a mask on the job and test for COVID-19 weekly; they can require workers to do their jobs exclusively from home. Workers who work exclusively outdoors are exempt. The next day, the Fifth Circuit stayed the rule pending judicial review; it renewed that decision in an opinion issued on November 12. Under 28 U.S.C. 2112(a)(3), petitions challenging the rule, filed in Circuits across the nation, were consolidated into the Sixth Circuit, which dissolved the stay issued by the Fifth Circuit. The language of its enabling act plainly authorizes OSHA to act on its charge “to assure safe and healthful working conditions for the nation’s workforce and to preserve the nation’s human resources.” OSHA’s issuance of the rule is not a transformative expansion of its regulatory power, The factors regarding irreparable injury weigh in favor of the government and the public interest. View "In re: MCP No. 165, Occupational Safety and Health Admin., Interim Final Rule: COVID19 Vaccination and Testing, 86 Fed. Reg. 61402" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction this complaint against Defendants, Board and More GmbH (B&M) and Emeram Capital Partners GmbH (Emeram), holding that Plaintiff, North Sales Group, LLC, failed to demonstrate that Defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with Connecticut.B&M was a limited liability company chartered under the laws of Austria, with its principal place of business in Austria. Emeram was a private equity investment limited liability company, with its principal place of business in Germany. Neither company had maintained an agent for service of process in Connecticut, nor did the companies maintain offices or transact business in Connecticut. At issue on appeal was whether Plaintiff advanced sufficient allegations and evidence to establish minimum contacts with Defendants. The Supreme Court held that Plaintiff did not and that the trial court correctly dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. View "North Sails Group, LLC v. Boards & More GmbH" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the business court determining the fair value of shares held by shareholders in Reynolds American Inc. (RAI), holding that the dissenters' challenges to the business court's judgment were without merit.RAI sought judicial appraisal after it was acquired by British American Tobacco. The business court determined that the $59.64 per share plus interest RAI paid the dissenters after they notified RAI of their intent to seek judicial appraisal equaled or exceeded the fair value of RAI shares as of the date of the merger and that no further payments to the dissenters was required. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the business court correctly concluded that the dissenters were paid fair value for their shares. View "Reynolds Am. Inc. v. Third Motion Equities Master Fund Ltd." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals answered questions certified by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the validity of tort claims brought by a judgment debtor against its judgment creditors, holding that a judgment debtor's exclusive avenue for relief under the circumstances set forth in this case is to bring an appropriate action pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 52.In two cases brought in federal court, the judgment debtor asserted tort claims against its judgment creditors and a New York City marshal, alleging violations of the C.P.L.R. article 52 service requirements committed in the execution of valid judgments issued by New York courts. The Second Circuit certified questions as to the validity of such tort claims, particularly with respect to damages the judgment debtor could show under such circumstances. The Court of Appeals held that the better course is to require that such claims be brought pursuant to article 52. View "Plymouth Venture Partners, II, L.P. v GTR Source, LLC" on Justia Law

Mashallah sells handcrafted jewelry at its Chicago store. Ranalli’s operates a bar and restaurant. Both purchased West Bend all-risk commercial property insurance policies. In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Illinois Governor Pritzker ordered all individuals to stay at home except to perform specified “essential activities” and ordered “non-essential” businesses to cease all but minimum operations. Restaurants were considered essential businesses and permitted to sell food solely for off-premises consumption. Ranalli’s was restricted to filling takeout and delivery orders. Mashallah was not classified as an essential business and had to cease its retail activities. Both businesses sustained heavy financial losses. Their West Bend policies are materially identical. West Bend agreed to pay for actual business income lost and necessary extra expenses incurred if they were caused by “direct physical loss of or damage to” the businesses’ properties. Both policies contain virus exclusions. West Bend denied their claims.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of contract and bad faith claims and a claim that West Bend’s retention of full premiums—despite decreased risks occasioned by the reduction in insureds’ business operations—constituted unjust enrichment, requiring rebates. The virus exclusions barred coverage for the purported losses and expenses and the businesses failed to allege viable legal bases for rebate of premiums. View "Mashallah, Inc v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In March 2020, in response to the rapidly expanding COVID-19 pandemic, Illinois Governor Pritzker issued an order mandating the temporary closure to the public of restaurants, bars, and movie theaters; a subsequent order required all non-essential businesses to shut down partially and temporarily. Bradley operates a Quality Inn & Suites with a restaurant, bar, and general event space and suspended in-person dining at the restaurant and bar, and canceled previously scheduled weddings and meetings.Bradley’s general business property insurance policy from Aspen requires “direct physical loss of or damage to” covered property; its loss of use exclusion bars coverage for “loss or damage caused by or resulting from … [d]elay, loss of use or loss of market” and another exclusion bars coverage for “loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by … [t]he enforcement of or compliance with any ordinance or law: (1) Regulating the construction, use or repair of any property; or (2) Requiring the tearing down of any property.”Affirming the district court, the Seventh Circuit held that the term “direct physical loss of or damage to” property does not apply to a business’s loss of use of the property without any physical alteration. The loss of use exclusion and the ordinance or law exclusion in this policy provide separate bars to coverage. View "Bradley Hotel Corp. v. Aspen Speciality Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In March 2020, the Dallas County government issued orders restricting the operations of local businesses in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hotels were permitted to continue to provide lodging, and delivery and take-out food services, subject to social-distancing rules. Crescent owns the Dallas Ritz-Carlton hotel, which offers guest rooms, a restaurant and bar, general event space, a salon, spa, and fitness center. Crescent alleges that COVID-19 rendered the air in the hotel unsafe and diminished the functional space available, causing significant losses of income. Crescent also alleges that it incurred expenses to install plexiglass partitions and hand sanitizer stations, to display signs throughout the hotel, and to move furniture to permit social distancing. Crescent’s Zurich insurance policy requires “direct physical loss or damage” to covered property and includes an exclusion for losses attributable to any communicable disease, including viruses, and a microorganism exclusion, which bars coverage for losses “directly or indirectly arising out of or relating to mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganisms of any type, nature, or description, including but not limited to any substance whose presence poses an actual or potential threat to human health.”The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Crescent’s suit against Zurich. The phrase “direct physical loss or damage” requires either “a permanent [dispossession] of the property due to a physical change … or physical injury to the property requiring repair.” The microorganism exclusion independently bars coverage for the hotel’s claimed losses. View "Crescent Plaza Hotel Owner, L.P. v. Zurich American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

On March 15, 2020, in response to the rapidly expanding COVID-19 pandemic, Illinois Governor Pritzker issued an order mandating the temporary closure to the public of restaurants, bars, and movie theaters. On March 20, another order required all non-essential businesses to shut down partially and temporarily. As a result of these orders, the plaintiffs (businesses) were each required to close or dramatically scale back operations. The businesses held materially identical commercial-property insurance policies, issued by Cincinnati Insurance Company, providing coverage for income losses sustained on account of a suspension of operations caused by “direct physical loss” to covered property. The policies also provided coverage for income losses sustained as a result of an action of civil authority prohibiting access to covered property, when such action was taken in response to “direct physical loss” suffered by other property. Cincinnati denied their claims.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of each suit. The businesses did not adequately allege that either the virus that causes COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, or the resulting closure orders caused “direct physical loss” to property; the loss of use, unaccompanied by any physical alteration to property, does not constitute “direct physical loss” under the relevant insurance policies. View "Sandy Point Dental, P.C. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co." on Justia Law