Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Terrance Fredericks appealed a district court judgment ordering him to pay more than $1,000,000 in damages to McCormick, Inc.; Native Energy Construction, LLC; and Northern Improvement Company. McCormick and Northern Improvement cross-appealed a judgment denying their motion for a judicially supervised winding up of Native Energy. In 2010, McCormick and Fredericks created Native Energy Construction to engage in construction operations related to oil production. McCormick and Fredericks executed a purchase agreement in April 2014 for Fredericks’ purchase of McCormick’s interest in Native Energy. Fredericks was unable to complete the purchase. The parties did not wind up Native Energy and the business was involuntarily dissolved by the North Dakota secretary of state in May 2015. In 2016, McCormick and Northern Improvement sued Fredericks, alleging he breached contractual and fiduciary duties owed to Native Energy, McCormick and Northern Improvement. McCormick alleged Fredericks took distributions from Native Energy without making a corresponding distribution to McCormick, wrongfully converted Native Energy’s assets for his own use, made improper payments to his wife and performed other business activities on behalf of Native Energy without McCormick’s authorization. Fredericks counterclaimed, alleging McCormick breached a fiduciary duty by taking the 5% management fee from Native Energy’s gross revenues. Fredericks requested the judicially-supervised winding up of Native Energy. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The portion of the final judgment ordering Fredericks to pay McCormick $49,795.76 was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The remainder of the final judgment was affirmed. The judgment denying McCormick’s motion for a judicially supervised winding up of Native Energy was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "McCormick, et al. v. Fredericks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated in part and affirmed in part the judgment of the district court valuing of the shares of a closely held corporation, holding that the district court erred in entering judgment against both the shareholder and the corporation, rather than the shareholder alone, and in awarding corporate property rather than solely the value of the shares to be purchased.Randy Anderson and Michael Rafert each owned half the shares of A & R Ag Spraying and Trucking, Inc. (A&R). After Randy died, his interest in A&R was transferred to his wife, Cheryl. Cheryl petitioned the district court for judicial dissolution of the corporation, naming A&R and Rafert as defendants. Rafert filed an election to purchase the corporation. The trial court dismissed the dissolution proceedings due to Rafert's application. After determining the value of Cheryl's shares the trial court entered judgment against both A&R and Rafert and awarded Cheryl two corporate vehicles. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment against A&R and the award of vehicles, holding (1) A&R was not a party to the election-to-purchase proceedings, and therefore, the court lacked statutory authority to enter judgment against A&R once it determined the value of Cheryl's shares; and (2) the court lacked the authority to award corporate assets to Cheryl. View "Anderson v. A & R Ag Spraying & Trucking, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the determination of the district court that a contract entered into by a dissolved partnership was void, holding that the contract was voidable.Two years after the Muir Second Family Limited Partnership was administratively dissolved, the former general partner of the partnership - Nicholas Muir - obtained a loan from the TNE Limited Partnership through a trust deed. Wittingham, LLC, a successor-in-interest to the Partnership, brought suit to declare the trust deed void and recover damages. The district court concluded that the trust deed was void because the Partnership was dissolved prior to the time Muir signed the trust deed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trust deed was voidable because the relevant statutes failed to provide a clear and well-defined public policy indicating that the type of transaction here should be void and because the transaction deed did not harm the public as a whole. View "Wittingham v. TNE Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

Victor Bliss appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Minidoka Irrigation District (“MID”). Bliss filed a complaint against MID in April 2017, alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) trespass; (4) declaratory relief; and (5) wrongful prosecution/infliction of extreme emotional distress. The complaint encompassed multiple events stemming from his decades-long relationship with MID. The district court granted MID’s motion for summary judgment on all claims, dismissing Bliss’s complaint for lack of notice under the Idaho Tort Claims Act, lack of standing, and failure to produce evidence. Bliss timely appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment. View "Bliss v. Minidoka Irrigation District" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying as untimely Kathleen Kerbs' motion to intervene in an action brought by her husband, Scott Kerbs, against Carl, Kip, and Nadene Kerbs for dissolution of the Kerbs Four Bar Ranch Partnership, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to intervene.Carl and Nadene formed the Kerbs Four Bar Ranch Partnership with Scott and Kip. Carl and Nadene gifted Scott, Kathleen, Kip, and Kip's wife, Rebecca an interest in the partnership. Scott later filed an action against the partnership, Kip, Carl, and Nadene seeking dissolution of the partnership. The parties agreed on a procedure to dissolve the partnership, and the agreement was memorialized in a dissolution order. Kathleen later filed a motion to intervene. The district court denied the motion as untimely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances, the district court reasonably concluded that Kathleen's motion to intervene was untimely. View "Kerbs v. Kerbs" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that an independent cause of action exists for breach of fiduciary duty and that, to establish a breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of a fiduciary relationship, breach of the duty owed by the fiduciary to the beneficiary, and harm to the beneficiary.William Plank and Sanford Fisher, both minority members of Trusox, LLC, filed an action alleging direct and derivative claims against James Cherneski, Trusox's president and majority member. Among other relief, Plank and Fischer (together, Minority Members), sought an order dissolving the LLC or appointing a receiver to take over its management. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of Cherneski on most of the Minority Members' claims and in favor of the Minority Members on certain other claims and awarded attorneys' fees in favor of Cherneski and Trusox. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in entering judgment in favor of Cherneski on the breach of fiduciary duty count; (2) did not err in interpreting the contractual language of the fee-shifting provision and concluding that Cherneski and Trusox were the substantially prevailing parties; and (3) did not abuse its discretion by awarding Cherneski and Trusox all of their attorneys' fees. View "Plank v. Cherneski" on Justia Law

Bosch, an engineering company, asked J.S.T. to design and manufacture a connector that Bosch could incorporate into a part that it builds for GM. For a time, Bosch retained J.S.T. as its sole supplier of those connectors. Then, according to J.S.T., Bosch wrongfully acquired J.S.T.’s proprietary designs and provided them to J.S.T.’s competitors, who used the stolen designs to build knockoff connectors and eventually to displace J.S.T. from its role as Bosch’s supplier. After filing various lawsuits against Bosch, J.S.T. filed suit in Illinois against the competitors, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and unjust enrichment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The competitors’ only link to Illinois is that they sell their connectors to Bosch, knowing that the connectors will end up in GM cars and parts that are sold in Illinois. For personal jurisdiction to exist, though, there must be a causal relationship between the competitors’ dealings in Illinois and the claims that J.S.T. has asserted against them. No such causal relationship exists. View "J.S.T. Corp. v. Foxconn Interconnect Technology, Ltd." on Justia Law

Two limited partners demanded the books and records of certain limited partnerships. Most of the documents demanded were produced, but one category of documents remains in dispute: the Schedule K-1s (“K-1s”) attached to the partnerships’ tax returns. Although the limited partners were provided with their own K-1s, the limited partners sought the K-1s of the other limited partners for the purpose of valuing their ownership stake in the partnerships and in order to investigate mismanagement and wrongdoing. The partnerships countered that the K-1s were not necessary and essential to the valuation purpose and there was no credible basis to suspect wrongdoing. The Court of Chancery, based upon its history of interpreting 6 Del. C. section 17- 305 in the same manner as 8 Del. C. section 220, held that the K-1s were subject to the requirement that documents sought be “necessary and essential” to the stated purpose, and found they failed the "necessary and essential" test. The Delaware Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the limited partners were entitled to the K-1s under the terms of the partnership agreements. The Court thus reversed the Court of Chancery and remanded for further proceedings. View "Murfey v. WHC Ventures, LLC" on Justia Law

Martin Franklin, the Chief Executive Officer and co-founder of Jarden Corporation, negotiated the corporation’s sale to Newell Brands for $59.21 per share in cash and stock. Several large Jarden stockholders refused to accept the sale price and petitioned for appraisal in the Court of Chancery. The Court of Chancery found that, of all the valuation methods presented by the parties’ experts, only the $48.31 unaffected market price of Jarden stock could be used reliably to determine the fair value. The court placed little or no weight on other valuation metrics because the CEO dominated the sales process, there were no comparable companies to assess, and the parties’ experts presented such wildly divergent discounted cash flow models that, in the end, the models were unhelpful to the court. On appeal, the petitioners argued the Court of Chancery erred as a matter of law when it adopted Jarden’s unaffected market price as fair value because it ignored what petitioners claim is a “long-recognized principle of Delaware law” that a corporation’s stock price does not equal its fair value. They also claimed the court abused its discretion by refusing to give greater weight to a discounted cash flow analysis populated with data selected by petitioners, ignoring market-based evidence of a higher value, and refusing to use the deal price as a “floor” for fair value. Finding no abuse of discretion or other reversible error, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery. View "Fir Tree Value Master Fund v. Jarden Corp" on Justia Law

The underlying lawsuit whose appeal was before the Delaware Supreme Court was filed in 2015 by Plaintiffs Eagle Force Holdings, LLC and EF Investments, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against Stanley Campbell. In 2013, Richard Kay and Campbell formed a business venture to market medical diagnosis and prescription technology that Campbell had developed. The parties outlined the principal terms of the investment through two letter agreements in November 2013 and April 2014: Kay and Campbell would form a new limited liability company and each would be a fifty-percent member. Kay would contribute cash. Campbell would contribute stock of Eagle Force Associates, Inc. and the membership interest of Eagle Force Health, LLC, along with intellectual property. After April 2014, the parties negotiated several key terms of the transaction documents. Kay contributed cash to Eagle Force Associates. Campbell executed a promissory note for these contributions with the agreement that Kay would cancel the note when they closed the deal on the new venture. After months of negotiations, Kay and Campbell signed versions of two transaction agreements: a Contribution and Assignment Agreement and an Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement. A question arose as to whether the parties intended to be bound by these signed documents. Plaintiffs asserted that the parties formed binding contracts; Campbell contended that he signed merely to acknowledge receipt of the latest drafts of the agreements but not to manifest his intent to be bound by the agreements. The Court of Chancery determined that neither transaction document was enforceable. Accordingly, it dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery, finding that the trial court did not properly apply the test set forth in Osborn ex rel. Osborn v. Kemp, 991 A.2d 1153 (Del. 2010). On remand, the Court of Chancery issued an opinion holding that Campbell's conduct and communications with Kay before and during the signing of the transaction documents, did not constitute an overt manifestation of assent to be bound by the documents. Because it concluded that Campbell was not bound by the agreements’ forum selection clauses, and because Plaintiffs failed to identify any other applicable basis for personal jurisdiction, the court dismissed the remainder of the claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed as to plaintiffs' issues raised on appeal. The Court reversed, however, the matter on cross-appeal: if Campbell was not bound by the 2015 trial court order, he could not be held in contempt for violating its terms during the interim appeal period. View "Eagle Force Holdings v. Campbell" on Justia Law