Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

In this venue dispute, the Supreme Court denied a petition for mandamus relief, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in transferring the case to the parties' agreed venue.This case stemmed from a lawsuit alleging wrongful disposition of a limited partnership's assets. A group of the limited partners (collectively, Fox River) sued William Carlson, who owned and controlled the partnership's general partner, claiming that Carlson fraudulently misappropriated groundwater leases, breached the limited partnership agreement, and violated fiduciary duties. Fox River filed the lawsuit in Washington County where Carlson was domiciled. Carlson moved to transfer venue to Harris County, citing a venue-selection clause in the limited partnership agreement. The trial court granted the motion, enforcing the parties' venue agreement in accordance with Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 15.020. Fox River sought mandamus relief, arguing that Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 65.023(a) mandates venue in a defendant's county of domicile for cases primarily seeking injunctive relief. The Supreme Court denied mandamus relief, holding that section 15.020 requires enforcement of the parties' venue-selection agreement not because it is a "super mandatory" venue provision that supersedes section 65.023(a) but because section 65.023(a) does not apply in suits like this where injunctive relief is not the primary and principal relief requested. View "In re Fox River Real Estate Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court concluding that Petitioners (together, ETP) and Respondents (together, Enterprise) had created a partnership to market and pursue a pipeline project to transport crude oil from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast, holding that Texas law permits parties to conclusively agree that, as between themselves, no partnership will exist unless certain conditions are satisfied.In three written agreements, the parties set forth their intent that neither party be bound to proceed with the project at issue until each company's board of directors had approved the execution of a formal contract and definitive agreements memorializing the terms and conditions of the transactions were executed and delivered. ETP later sued arguing the parties had formed a partnership to market and pursue a pipeline and that Enterprise breached its statutory duty of loyalty. The trial court entered judgment for ETP. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) parties can conclusively negate the formation of a partnership through contractual conditions precedent; and (2) the parties did so as a matter of law in this case, and there was no evidence that Enterprise waived the conditions. View "Energy Transfer Partners, LP v. Enterprise Products Partners, LP" on Justia Law

Luv N’ Care, Ltd. (“LNC”), a Louisiana corporation, filed suit against Jackel International Limited (a corporation established under the laws of England and Wales, having its principal place of business in England) and others, relating to a distribution agreement for child and baby care items. Jackel would be the exclusive distributor of certain LNC products. LNC contended Jackel agreed bot to copy any of LNC's products, their design, prototypes, packaging, methods, or any other proprietary information without LNC's written permission. However, LNC alleged that, on or about October 2009, it learned that Jackel had been selling child and baby products not covered under the terms of the distribution agreement with LNC, but which closely resembled LNC products. Furthermore, in April of 2010, LNC learned that Jackel began to commercialize additional child and baby products, which allegedly incorporated LNC’s products, design, and/or packaging in violation of the contract between the parties. This case presented an issue of first impression for the Louisiana Supreme Court regarding whether La. R.S. 13:4611(1)(g) authorized an award of attorney fees to a party in a contempt proceeding, who had been found not guilty of contempt of court, or whether an award of attorney fees was only authorized in favor of a party who successfully prosecuted a contempt action. The district court awarded, and the appellate court affirmed, attorney fees to Jackel, who was found not to be in contempt, as the “prevailing party.” Having determined that La. R.S. 13:4611(1)(g) only authorized courts to award attorney fees to a party who successfully prosecuted a rule for contempt of court, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in awarding attorney fees in favor of Jackel, and reversed the appellate and district courts holding otherwise. Insofar as the judgment awarded attorney fees, that portion was vacated. View "Luv N' Care, Ltd. v. Jackel International Limited" on Justia Law

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the lower courts correctly ruled an online marketplace was obligated as a "dealer" under La. R.S. 47:301(4)(l) and/or by contract to collect sales tax on the property sold by third party retailers through the marketplace’s website. Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC (“Wal-Mart.com”) operated an online marketplace at which website visitors could buy products from Wal-Mart.com or third party retailers. From 2009 through 2015, Wal-Mart.com reported its online sales in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana of its products and remitted the required sales tax to the Louisiana Department of Revenue and ex-officio tax collector, then Sheriff Newell Normand (Tax Collector). The reported sales amount did not include proceeds from online sales made by third party retailers through Wal-Mart.com’s marketplace. Following an attempted audit for this period, Tax Collector filed a “Rule for Taxes” alleging Wal-Mart.com “engaged in the business of selling, and sold tangible personal property at retail as a dealer in the Parish of Jefferson,” but had “failed to collect, and remit . . . local sales taxes from its customers for transactions subject to Jefferson Parish sales taxation.” In addition, Tax Collector alleged that an audit of Wal-Mart.com’s sales transactions was attempted, but Wal-Mart.com “refused to provide [Tax Collector] with complete information and records” of Jefferson Parish sales transactions, particularly, those conducted on behalf of third party retailers. In connection with online marketplace sales by third party retailers, Tax Collector sought an estimated $1,896,882.15 in unpaid sales tax, interest, penalties, audit fees, and attorney fees. The Supreme Court determined an online marketplace was not a “dealer” under La. R.S. 47:301(4)(l) for sales made by third party retailers through its website and because the online marketplace did not contractually assume the statutory obligation of the actual dealers (the third party retailers), the judgment of the trial court and the decision of the court of appeal were reversed and vacated. View "Normand v. Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC" on Justia Law

When Erik Knight sold KnighTek, LLC to Jive Communications, Inc., Jive allegedly agreed to pay Knight $100,000 upfront and a revenue-based payment stream capped at $4.6 million. The continuing payments would convert to a lump sum payment if Jive’s ownership changed. Years later, Jive offered to cash out KnighTek for $1.75 million, a substantial discount from the remaining cap amount. According to Knight, Jive’s representatives told him the buy-out money depended on KnighTek accepting the proposal right away. If it did not, Jive would use the funds for other buyouts. Jive’s representatives also told Knight if he turned down the offer, it would take five years for Jive to make the remaining payments. Two days after KnighTek agreed to accept $1.75 million, Jive announced publicly it was being acquired by LogMeIn for $342 million - a change of control that according to KnighTek would have netted it a $2.7 million immediate payment under their earlier agreement. Believing it had been misled and shorted about $1 million, KnighTek filed suit against Jive, alleging that Jive fraudulently induced KnighTek to take the discounted payout. According to KnighTek, Jive and its representatives knew about the imminent change of control, misrepresented the availability of buyout funds, and duped KnighTek into accepting a discount when KnighTek could have received almost $1 million more and an immediate payment after the LogMeIn transaction. A Delaware superior court dismissed the complaint, finding some of Jive’s alleged misrepresentations lacked particularity and others failed to state a claim under Utah law, the law governing their agreements. The Delaware Supreme Court disagreed, finding that, viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to KnighTek, accepting as true its well-pleaded allegations, and drawing all reasonable inferences that logically flow from those allegations, KnighTek alleged fraud with sufficient particularity and stated a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation under Utah law. Thus the Court reversed the lower court’s dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Knightek, LLC v. Jive Communications, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Germaninvestments Aktiengesellschaft (AG) (“Germaninvestments”) was a Swiss holding company formed to manage assets for the Herrling family. Defendant Allomet Corporation (“Allomet”) was a Delaware corporation that manufactured high-performance, tough-coated metal powders using a proprietary technology for coating industrial products. Defendant Yanchep LLC (“Yanchep”), was also a Delaware limited liability company with Mirta Hereth as its sole member (together, Allomet and Yanchep are referred to as “Appellees”). Allomet struggled with declining performance as early as 2002. In mid-2016, Tanja Hausfelder, an insurance professional who apparently knew or worked with the Herrlings and Hereth, advised Herrling that Hereth was looking for a joint venture partner to join Allomet. After a meeting in Switzerland, Herrling and Hereth discussed a general structure for their joint venture to raise capital for Allomet. The issue this case presented for the Delaware Supreme Court’s review centered on whether the Court of Chancery correctly determined that a provision in a Restructuring and Loan Agreement between the parties was a mandatory, as opposed to a permissive, forum selection clause. The Court of Chancery held that Austrian law governed the analysis of the forum selection provision, and determined that the provision is governed by Article 25 of the European Regulation on Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. Based upon these conclusions, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss in favor of the Austrian forum. The Delaware Supreme Court held that Appellees, who raised Austrian law as a basis for their motion to dismiss, had the burden of establishing the substance of Austrian law, and that the Court of Chancery erred in determining that Appellees had carried that burden. Accordingly, the forum selection provision analysis should have proceeded exclusively under Delaware law. Applying Delaware law, the Delaware Court determined the forum selection provision was permissive, not mandatory. “As such, the forum selection provision is no bar to the litigation proceeding in Delaware.” The Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s holding that 8 Del. C. section 168 was not the proper mechanism for the relief Appellants sought. Therefore, this matter was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the Court of Chancery for further proceedings. View "Germaninvestments AG v. Allomet Corporation" on Justia Law

A New York owner of a fast-food property in Illinois, which was rented by an Arizona tenant, sold the property to buyers in California (Abellan). The tenant declared bankruptcy and never paid rent to its new landlord. Abellan sued. A jury found the purchase agreement rescindable for mutual mistake and the sellers liable for fraud and breach of contract and awarded damages of more than $2 million. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The sellers warranted to Abellan that there was “no default by Seller, or to Seller’s knowledge ... under the Lease.” A critical provision of the lease required the tenant to operate its restaurant business continuously. the jury had sufficient evidence to find a breach of the no-default warranty “to Seller’s knowledge” and Abellan reasonably relied on the no-default warranty. The court rejected claims of waiver and that the jury’s findings on damages and reliance were contrary to the weight of the evidence. View "Abellan v. Lavelo Property Management, LLC" on Justia Law

Dylan Devore appealed summary judgments dismissing his negligence and gross negligence claims against defendants American Eagle Energy Corporation, Integrated Petroleum Technologies, Inc. (“IPT”), and Brian Barony. Devore was a crew supervisor for Fort Berthold Services (“FBS”), which provided water transfer services for hydraulic fracturing operations at oil wells. In February 2014, American Eagle Energy Corporation began hydraulic fracturing operations on an oil well in Divide County, North Dakota and contracted with FBS to provide water. American Eagle also contracted with IPT, a consulting company. Though IPT coordinated American Eagle’s independent contractors, American Eagle authorized any contractor to stop work at any time if a work condition was unsafe. IPT had no contractual relationship with FBS. FBS took direction from IPT, but FBS controlled its own day-to-day activities, including how it performed its work. On the morning of March 2, 2014, ice had formed in a hose between a pond near the well site and a tank. While the hose was still pressurized from the compressed air, at least one FBS crew member struck it with a sledgehammer in an attempt to dislodge the ice obstruction. The sledgehammer blows caused the hose to break apart and uncontrollably jump and whip around. The flailing hose struck and injured Devore. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the facts, viewed in a light most favorable to Devore, did not support a conclusion that American Eagle, IPT, or Barony owed Devore a duty of care or proximately caused his injuries. Therefore the Court affirmed the summary judgments. View "Devore v. American Eagle Energy Corporation, et al." on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, garnishees N.Starr, LLC; Lee Finstad; and Jeff Trosen appealed from a Grand Forks County, North Dakota district court order dismissing their counterclaims in a garnishment proceeding, and Johnston Law Office, P.C. appealed from a Cass County district court order dismissing its action. Both orders dismissed their respective claims in each case against PHI Financial Services, Inc. (“PHI”) and Jon Brakke and the Vogel Law Firm, Ltd. (collectively, “Vogel Law”). Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed dismissal as to all claims. View "PHI Financial Services v. Johnston Law Office, et al." on Justia Law

Minn-Kota Ag. Products, Inc. appealed a district court order dismissing Minn-Kota’s appeal of findings of fact, conclusions of law and order issued by the North Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC) for lack of standing and affirming an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) order denying Minn-Kota’s petition to intervene. In 2017, Minn-Kota began construction of a large, $20 million grain handling facility near the municipalities of Barney and Mooreton, North Dakota. During construction of the facility, Minn-Kota received proposals to provide electric power to the facility from Otter Tail Power Co., an electric public utility, and Dakota Valley Electric Cooperative, a rural electric cooperative. Minn-Kota determined Otter Tail would provide cheaper and more reliable electric service and chose Otter Tail as its preferred provider. Dakota Valley protested Otter Tail’s application and requested a hearing. Otter Tail and Dakota Valley were represented at the hearing, and each offered evidence and testimony. Minn- Kota was not a formal party represented at the hearing and, other than the testimony offered by Schuler, Minn-Kota did not contribute to the hearing. In December 2017, the PSC held a work session to contemplate and discuss Otter Tail’s application. The concerns expressed by the PSC at the work session made it clear the PSC was likely going to deny Otter Tail’s application. As a result, Minn-Kota submitted a petition to intervene, which an ALJ determined Minn-Kota submitted after the deadline to intervene had passed, and denied it. Minn-Kota argued it has standing to appeal the PSC’s decision because it participated in the proceedings before the PSC, and the PSC’s decision should be reversed because it was not supported by the facts or law. In the alternative, Minn-Kota argued the case should have been remanded to the PSC and it should have been allowed to intervene and introduce additional evidence into the record. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined Minn-Kota had standing, but did not provide a compelling argument on how Otter Tail did not adequately represent its interests at the administrative hearing or throughout the entirety of the proceedings. Therefore, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and thus affirmed the PSC's order. View "Minn-Kota Ag Products, Inc. v. N.D. Public Service Commission, et al." on Justia Law