Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company (Santa Fe), a New Mexico corporation that sells branded tobacco products to wholesalers, who then sell to retailers in Oregon. The primary issue is whether a federal statutory limit on a state’s ability to impose income tax on out-of-state corporations, 15 USC section 381, precludes Oregon from taxing Santa Fe because its business in Oregon is limited. The Oregon Department of Revenue concluded that Santa Fe’s various actions in Oregon had taken it outside the safe harbor of Section 381, thus rendering Santa Fe liable to pay Oregon tax. The Tax Court agreed with the department that Santa Fe’s actions had made it subject to taxation in this state.The Tax Court agreed with the Oregon Department of Revenue that Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company's actions in Oregon had made it subject to taxation in the state. The court found that Santa Fe's representatives had exceeded the scope of "solicitation of orders" when they obtained "prebook orders" from Oregon retailers. These orders, bolstered by incentive agreements with wholesalers, facilitated sales on behalf of wholesalers, who were effectively committed to accept those sales. This activity went beyond the protections of Section 381(a)(2), which limits a state's ability to impose income tax on out-of-state corporations whose in-state activities are limited to the solicitation of orders.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon affirmed the judgment of the Tax Court. The court concluded that Santa Fe's pursuit of prebook orders in Oregon, invoking incentive agreement contractual provisions used by Santa Fe to ensure that wholesalers treated each one of those orders favorably, exceeded the scope of permitted "solicitation of orders" under Section 381(a)(2). The court further agreed that Santa Fe's activities were not de minimis. Accordingly, Santa Fe was subject to Oregon income tax. View "Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between MAK Technology Holdings Inc. (plaintiff) and Anyvision Interactive Technologies Ltd. (defendant). The defendant, an Israeli company selling facial-recognition software, engaged the plaintiff in 2017 to arrange introductions with potential customers in exchange for referral payments based on revenues generated from any resulting product-license agreements. The parties formalized their agreement in a written Referral Agreement with a defined "Effective Date" of November 23, 2017, and a term of three years. The agreement was amended twice in 2018 to include a compensation arrangement for equity investments in the defendant, separate from their arrangement with respect to product licenses.The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit to recover compensation allegedly owed under the amended Referral Agreement, claiming that a nonparty made an investment in the defendant in July 2021 for which the plaintiff is owed a $1.25 million fee under the Second Amendment. The defendant moved to dismiss this claim on the ground that the transaction occurred eight months after the Term of the Referral Agreement expired in November 2020. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and a divided Appellate Division affirmed, both concluding that the error-infected language in section 2 of the Second Amendment creates an ambiguity with respect to the length of the Term.The Court of Appeals of New York disagreed with the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to a $1.25 million fee for a transaction consummated eight months after the "Term" of the parties' agreement expired. The court found that minor syntactic and spelling errors in the preamble of an amendment to the contract cannot reasonably be read as modifying the length of the Term. The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that the amendment is a separate agreement with a distinct term. Therefore, the court reversed the order of the Appellate Division, granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the first cause of action for breach of contract to the extent based on the July 2021 transaction, and answered the certified question in the negative. View "MAK Tech. Holdings Inc. v Anyvision Interactive Tech. Ltd." on Justia Law

The case revolves around an employment dispute between Nelida Soltero and Precise Distribution, Inc. Soltero, who was placed at Precise Distribution by a temporary staffing agency, Real Time Staffing Services, filed a class action complaint against Precise Distribution for alleged failure to provide required meal periods and rest breaks to employees, among other claims. Precise Distribution sought to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement between Soltero and Real Time. However, Real Time was not a party to the lawsuit.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County denied Precise Distribution's motion to compel arbitration. Precise Distribution argued that it should be able to compel arbitration under the agreement between Soltero and Real Time, despite not being a party to it, based on theories of equitable estoppel, third-party beneficiary, or agency.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One State of California, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court concluded that Precise Distribution was not a party to the arbitration agreement between Soltero and Real Time and could not compel arbitration based on the theories it proposed. The court found that Soltero's claims against Precise Distribution were not dependent upon or founded in the underlying contractual obligations of the agreement containing the arbitration clause. Furthermore, Precise Distribution was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement, and there was no evidence of an agency relationship between Precise Distribution and Real Time. Therefore, the court affirmed the order denying Precise Distribution's motion to compel arbitration. View "Soltero v. Precise Distribution" on Justia Law

The case involves PB Legacy, Inc., a Texas-based shrimp breeding company, and American Mariculture, Inc., a Florida-based company that operated a shrimp breeding facility. PB Legacy had a contract with American Mariculture to breed shrimp. However, PB Legacy failed to fulfill its contractual obligations, including removing its shrimp from the facility on time. When American Mariculture threatened to harvest the abandoned shrimp, PB Legacy sued in state court. After a failed attempt to resolve the dispute, American Mariculture used the shrimp to launch a competing company, American Penaeid, Inc. PB Legacy then sued American Mariculture, Penaeid, and their CEO, Robin Pearl, in federal court, alleging conversion, defamation, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment.The case proceeded to a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. During the trial, the district judge had to leave before the jury returned its verdict. The parties agreed to have a magistrate judge receive the verdict. However, the magistrate judge also responded to several jury questions and rejected a request for clarification about the verdict. The jury awarded $4.95 million in damages to PB Legacy on each of their federal and state trade secret claims. Post-trial motions were filed and denied.The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The defendants argued that the magistrate judge lacked authority to preside over the last three days of trial because the parties did not consent to the magistrate judge’s exercise of Article III authority. The court agreed, stating that while the parties had consented to the magistrate judge receiving the verdict, they had not consented to the magistrate judge performing non-ministerial duties such as responding to jury questions and rejecting a request for clarification about the verdict. The court vacated the judgment, remanded for a new trial, and dismissed the cross-appeal as moot. View "TB Foods USA, LLC v. American Mariculture, Inc." on Justia Law

Insulet Corp. and EOFlow are medical device manufacturers that produce insulin pump patches. Insulet began developing its OmniPod product in the early 2000s, and EOFlow started developing its EOPatch product after its founding in 2011. Around the same time, four former Insulet employees joined EOFlow. In 2023, reports surfaced that Medtronic had started a process to acquire EOFlow. Soon after, Insulet sued EOFlow for violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to enjoin all technical communications between EOFlow and Medtronic in view of its trade secrets claims.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts temporarily restrained EOFlow from disclosing products or manufacturing technical information related to the EOPatch or OmniPod products. The court then granted Insulet’s request for a preliminary injunction, finding strong evidence that Insulet is likely to succeed on the merits of its trade secrets claim, strong evidence of misappropriation, and that irreparable harm to Insulet crystallized when EOFlow announced an intended acquisition by Medtronic. The injunction enjoined EOFlow from manufacturing, marketing, or selling any product that was designed, developed, or manufactured, in whole or in part, using or relying on alleged trade secrets of Insulet.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s order. The court found that the district court had failed to address the statute of limitations, lacked a tailored analysis as to what specific information actually constituted a trade secret, and found it hard to tell what subset of that information was likely to have been misappropriated by EOFlow. The court also found that the district court had failed to meaningfully engage with the public interest prong. The court concluded that Insulet had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits and other factors for a preliminary injunction. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "INSULET CORP. v. EOFLOW, CO. LTD. " on Justia Law

The case revolves around a sexual harassment claim brought by Nicole Harris against her former employer, Fossil Group, Inc. Harris alleged that she was sexually harassed by an assistant store manager, Leland Brown, during her employment at a Fossil store in Frisco, Texas. The harassment primarily occurred through social media and included obscene and sexually explicit videos, photos, and messages. Harris claimed that she sent an email reporting the harassment through Fossil's anonymous reporting system in late April 2019, but received no response. She resigned from her position in early May 2019.The trial court granted Fossil's motion for summary judgment, ruling in favor of the company. The court found that there was no evidence that Fossil knew or should have known about the harassment but failed to remedy the situation. Harris appealed this decision.The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court held that Harris's testimony about her email was some evidence that Fossil knew or should have known about Brown's misconduct. The court also stated that Fossil took no remedial action after Harris sent the email.The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that even if Fossil had received Harris's email, there was no evidence that its subsequent actions were not prompt and remedial. The court noted that mere days after Harris sent the email, she voluntarily resigned, and she did not identify any instances of interim harassment. The following week, the store manager reported the matter to human resources after learning about the harassment from another source. By the end of the month, Fossil had fired Brown. The court also held that Harris did not raise a fact issue that Fossil knew or should have known about the harassment before the date of the email. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and reinstated the trial court's judgment in favor of Fossil. View "Fossil Group, Inc. v. Harris" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the rights of parties holding certain revenue bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority ("PREPA") before it entered reorganization proceedings under Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act ("PROMESA"). The Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico ("the Board") filed an adversary proceeding within the Title III restructuring proceeding to define the rights and remedies that bondholders had against PREPA. The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico held that the bondholders only had a secured claim on moneys deposited into the Sinking and Subordinate Funds, and that the bondholders had an unsecured claim on PREPA's Net Revenues.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit disagreed with the district court's findings. The appellate court held that the bondholders have a lien on PREPA's present and future Net Revenues, and that the bondholders' lien is not avoidable. The court also held that the proper amount of the bondholders' claim is the face value (i.e., principal plus matured interest) of the Revenue Bonds. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the bondholders' breach of trust claim, but reversed the dismissal of the bondholders' accounting claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Financial Oversight and Management Board v. U.S. Bank National Assn." on Justia Law

The case involves Dr. Peter Bolos, who was convicted of mail fraud, conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, and felony misbranding as part of a complex scheme. Bolos purchased an interest in Florida-based pharmacy Synergy Pharmacy Services in 2013 and became the managing partner. Synergy signed an agreement with HealthRight, a telemarketing firm, to generate business. HealthRight used social media advertisements and large phone banks to generate potential clients for Synergy. The information collected from potential clients was forwarded to a licensed doctor in the patient’s home state for review. Most of these decisions were made without the doctor ever seeing or speaking to the patient. The doctors then sent the prescriptions to Synergy for filling.The District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee convicted Bolos on all counts after a four-week trial. Bolos appealed, arguing that his actions were not unlawful and that he was being unfairly held criminally culpable for contractual violations and others’ misconduct.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit disagreed with Bolos and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Bolos and Synergy leadership knew of the deficiencies in their business practices and either actively facilitated and furthered them or turned a blind eye, all in an effort to induce Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) to pay Synergy. The court also held that the federal healthcare-fraud statute requires the government to prove that Bolos knowingly devised a scheme or artifice to defraud a health care benefit program in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items, or services. The court found ample evidence in the record to support the jury’s finding that Bolos conspired to create a scheme with the intent to defraud the PBMs of their money. View "United States v. Bolos" on Justia Law

The case involves Illinois Casualty Company (ICC) and thirty-three models who contested whether arbitration was appropriate based on the assignment of several business insurance policies that ICC issued to B&S of Fort Wayne, Inc., Showgirl III, Inc., and Reba Enterprises, LLC (collectively, "Insured Clubs"). The models alleged that the Insured Clubs used their images for social media advertisements without their consent. The Insured Clubs had insurance policies with ICC, which they tendered for defense and indemnification. ICC denied coverage, leading to a settlement agreement between the Insured Clubs and the models, assigning the Insured Clubs’ rights against ICC to the models.The trial court compelled arbitration between ICC and the models. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, finding that none of the models’ claims fell within the provision of the arbitration agreement. The models sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court.The Indiana Supreme Court held that an agreement to arbitrate in accordance with American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules constitutes “clear and unmistakable” intent to delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator. However, the court found that because no agreement to arbitrate existed between ICC and the Insured Clubs before 2016, the models could not compel arbitration for claims deriving from this period. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, ruling that models with claims from 2016 and later could compel arbitration, but those with pre-2016 claims could not. View "Illinois Casualty Co. v. Burciaga" on Justia Law

Carlos Ramirez, an employee, filed a class action lawsuit against his former employer, Golden Queen Mining Company, alleging various violations of the Labor Code and unfair competition. The employer moved to compel arbitration, but the trial court denied the motion, stating that the employer failed to demonstrate the existence of an executed arbitration agreement. The employer appealed, arguing that it had made a prima facie showing that a written arbitration agreement existed and that Ramirez’s statements that he did not recall being presented with or signing an arbitration agreement were insufficient to rebut its initial showing.The Superior Court of Kern County had initially denied the employer's motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that the employer failed to demonstrate the existence of an executed arbitration agreement. The court found that the employer's evidence, which included an unsigned arbitration agreement and a handbook acknowledgement purportedly signed by Ramirez, was insufficient to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court concluded that Ramirez did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the employer’s initial showing that an arbitration agreement existed. The court found that Ramirez's failure to recall signing the document did not create a factual dispute about the signature’s authenticity. The court also noted that Ramirez’s declaration did not state whether he had reviewed the arbitration agreement or other documents purportedly signed by him, nor did it address whether he recalled signing the handbook acknowledgement, which included a statement that he agreed to the terms of the arbitration agreement. The court therefore reversed the order denying the motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings to address Ramirez’s unconscionability defense. View "Ramirez v. Golden Queen Mining Co." on Justia Law