Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

A privately held Nebraska S corporation had two classes of stock: Class A voting shares and Class B nonvoting shares. In 2023, the corporation sold substantially all its assets to a third party in a transaction structured as a disposition of assets, with proceeds distributed to all shareholders. The board unanimously approved the transaction, and the majority of both classes of shares voted in favor, except for some Class A and Class B shareholders, who opposed or abstained. Following closing, Class B shareholders received their cash proceeds but subsequently notified the corporation of their intent to assert appraisal rights, seeking a higher payment per share.The District Court for Sarpy County was presented with cross-motions for partial summary judgment regarding whether Class B nonvoting shareholders were entitled to appraisal rights under Nebraska’s Model Business Corporation Act (NMBCA) following the asset sale. The district court found that the relevant statute (§ 21-2,172(a)(3)) limited appraisal rights for a disposition of assets to shareholders “entitled to vote on the disposition,” and therefore determined that Class B shareholders lacked such rights. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the corporation and related parties, dismissed certain third-party defendants, and certified the judgment for immediate appeal pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315(1).On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and its certification for abuse of discretion. The court held that only Class A voting shareholders were entitled to appraisal rights in connection with the disposition of assets, as the statute unambiguously limited such rights to voting shareholders. The court also found no express grant of appraisal rights to Class B shareholders in the articles of incorporation. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Streck, Inc. v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Seagate Technology LLC, a California-based manufacturer of hard disk drives, and two of its foreign subsidiaries (in Thailand and Singapore) brought antitrust claims against NHK Spring Co., Ltd., a Japanese supplier of suspension assemblies—critical hard drive components. NHK pleaded guilty in a separate federal criminal proceeding to conspiring with competitors to fix the prices of these suspension assemblies, which were sold both in the United States and abroad. The majority of the price-fixed assemblies purchased by Seagate’s foreign entities occurred outside the United States, with only finished hard drives being imported into the country.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California initially found that the Sherman Act did not apply to Seagate’s claims related to suspension assemblies purchased abroad, ruling that these were “wholly foreign transactions” outside the reach of U.S. antitrust law. The court also determined that the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA) import commerce exclusion did not apply since the assemblies themselves were not directly imported into the United States, and that Seagate could not show the necessary domestic effect giving rise to its foreign injury. The district court granted NHK’s motion for partial summary judgment in full and denied Seagate leave to amend its complaint for indirect purchaser claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment order. The appellate court held that while the import commerce exclusion did not apply, Seagate alleged a viable theory under the FTAIA’s domestic effects exception: NHK’s price-fixing in the United States led to higher prices domestically, which then directly caused Seagate’s foreign entities to pay inflated prices abroad. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for the district court to determine whether Seagate had presented sufficient evidence of proximate cause to survive summary judgment. View "SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC V. NHK SPRING CO., LTD." on Justia Law

AliveCor, a medical-technology company, developed a software feature called SmartRhythm to detect atrial fibrillation (Afib) using the Apple Watch. SmartRhythm depended on heart rate data generated by Apple’s original Workout Mode algorithm, known as HRPO. In 2018, Apple updated its Watch operating system and replaced HRPO with a new algorithm, HRNN, which improved exercise monitoring. Apple shared HRNN data with third-party developers but stopped sharing HRPO data, making SmartRhythm ineffective and leading AliveCor to discontinue the feature. Around the same time, Apple launched its own heart rhythm analysis feature, Irregular Rhythm Notification (IRN), using a different algorithm and shared that data as well. AliveCor alleged that Apple’s conduct intentionally disabled competing software features, thereby monopolizing the market for heart rhythm analysis apps on the Apple Watch.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment for Apple, finding that Apple’s changes constituted a lawful product improvement under Allied Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Group LP. The court held that the update to the Workout Mode was a genuine product improvement and that the associated incompatibility with SmartRhythm was not separate anticompetitive conduct.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment, but on different grounds. The Ninth Circuit held that Apple’s refusal to continue sharing HRPO data with third-party developers constituted a “refusal to deal,” which under antitrust law does not impose a duty to share with competitors unless specific exceptions apply. The court found that AliveCor had not shown that an exception, such as the Aspen Skiing exception or the essential-facilities doctrine, applied. Therefore, AliveCor’s Section 2 Sherman Act claims failed as a matter of law, and summary judgment for Apple was affirmed. View "ALIVECOR, INC. V. APPLE INC." on Justia Law

Three individuals enrolled in a six-month, residential substance abuse rehabilitation program operated by a nonprofit organization in California. During their participation, they performed full-time work in the organization’s warehouses and thrift stores, which the nonprofit termed “work therapy.” In exchange, they received room, board, limited gratuities, and rehabilitation services, but no formal wages. The organization controlled their work schedules and prohibited outside employment. The participants asserted that they often worked over 40 hours weekly and performed tasks similar to paid employees. They disputed the nonprofit’s claim that work therapy was primarily rehabilitative, alleging instead that the arrangement benefitted the nonprofit by reducing costs and replacing paid staff.The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco reviewed cross-motions for summary adjudication focused on whether the plaintiffs were employees entitled to minimum wage and overtime under California law. The trial court ruled that the wage laws did not apply because the participants were volunteers, not employees, emphasizing that a key threshold for employee status was an express or implied agreement for compensation. Because the plaintiffs voluntarily participated without such an agreement, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the nonprofit and entered judgment accordingly.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court held that although volunteers for nonprofit organizations may fall outside wage law coverage, the trial court erred by applying an overly narrow standard focused solely on the existence of an agreement for compensation. Instead, the Court of Appeal established a two-part test: nonprofits must show (1) that individuals freely agreed to volunteer for personal benefit rather than compensation, and (2) that the use of volunteer labor is not a subterfuge to evade wage laws. The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings under this standard. View "Spilman v. The Salvation Army" on Justia Law

A Christian ministry in Washington State, organized as a private nonprofit, operates various social service programs such as shelters, health clinics, and meal services, with a central mission to spread the Gospel. The organization requires all employees to adhere to its religious beliefs and practices, including those regarding marriage and sexuality. When hiring for non-ministerial positions (such as IT technician and operations assistant), it screens applicants for agreement with its religious tenets and only hires co-religionists. Anticipating the need to fill numerous non-ministerial roles, the ministry faced applicants who disagreed with its faith-based requirements.After the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Woods v. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, which interpreted the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) exemption for religious organizations as limited to ministerial positions, the ministry filed a pre-enforcement federal action against the Washington State Attorney General and Human Rights Commission. The Eastern District of Washington initially dismissed the case for lack of standing, but the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding the ministry had standing. On remand, the district court granted a preliminary injunction, holding the ministry was likely to succeed on its First Amendment claim and enjoining the State from enforcing WLAD against it for hiring only co-religionists in non-ministerial positions. The State appealed.Reviewing the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction. The court held that the church autonomy doctrine, rooted in the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses, protects religious organizations’ decisions to hire co-religionists for non-ministerial roles when those decisions are based on sincerely held religious beliefs. The holding does not extend to discrimination on other grounds and is limited to religious organizations. The Ninth Circuit found all preliminary injunction factors favored the ministry and affirmed the injunction. View "UNION GOSPEL MISSION OF YAKIMA WASHINGTON V. BROWN" on Justia Law

A hospital district alleged that a medical device manufacturer used its dominant market share in tip-location systems (TLS) for catheters to manipulate the market for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Bard, the manufacturer, sells PICCs with a proprietary stylet that is necessary to integrate with Bard’s TLS. The hospital claimed this arrangement effectively forced hospitals to buy Bard’s PICCs to use the TLS, resulting in higher prices, and brought suit under the Sherman Act and Clayton Act for unlawful tying and monopolization. The hospital sought class certification for clinics and hospitals that had purchased Bard PICCs.Initially, the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted Bard’s motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding the tying claim, holding that the hospital lacked antitrust standing since it purchased only the tied product (PICCs) and not the tying product (TLS). The court concluded the hospital did not show it was compelled to buy Bard’s PICCs as a result of owning Bard’s TLS. The court allowed the monopolization claim to proceed, but later denied class certification, finding the proposed class did not meet certification requirements. After the Tenth Circuit denied interlocutory review of the class certification denial, the hospital voluntarily dismissed its remaining claim to facilitate an appeal from final judgment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the tying claim, holding that the hospital was not an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws and therefore lacked antitrust standing. The court found that purchasers of the tying product or competitors are generally better positioned to challenge tying arrangements. The Tenth Circuit also dismissed the appeal from denial of class certification, ruling it lacked jurisdiction under circuit and Supreme Court precedent when the underlying claim was voluntarily dismissed. View "North Brevard County Hospital District v. C.R. Bard, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2020, an activist named Sir Maejor Page created and operated a Facebook page for an organization called Black Lives Matter of Greater Atlanta (BLMGA), which he registered as a nonprofit in Georgia and obtained tax-exempt status. After failing to file required tax forms for three years, BLMGA’s tax-exempt status was revoked, but the organization continued to appear as a nonprofit on Facebook and receive donations. Following the death of George Floyd, donations surged to over $490,000. Page assured donors that the money would support protests and related activities, but he instead used the funds for personal expenses, including luxury items, a house, home renovations, firearms, and hiring a prostitute.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio indicted Page on one count of wire fraud and three counts of money laundering, alleging he defrauded donors by misrepresenting the intended use of their contributions. At trial, Page testified in his defense, but the jury found him guilty on all counts. During sentencing, the district court adopted the U.S. Probation Office’s recommendations, overruling Page’s objections regarding obstruction of justice, loss amount, and number of victims. The court imposed a sentence of 42 months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, followed by three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed Page’s convictions and sentence. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the wire fraud and money laundering convictions, finding Page’s misrepresentations induced donations and that the funds were used for personal benefit. The court also upheld the district court’s evidentiary rulings and sentencing enhancements, concluding there was no plain or prejudicial error. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed Page’s convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Page" on Justia Law

Joneca Company, LLC, and InSinkErator, LLC, are direct competitors in the garbage disposal market. InSinkErator alleged that Joneca marketed its disposals using horsepower designations that misrepresented the actual output power of the motors, thereby misleading consumers. InSinkErator claimed that industry and consumer standards understood horsepower to refer to the motor’s mechanical output, not merely the electrical input, and that Joneca’s advertising was causing it to lose sales and goodwill. InSinkErator tested Joneca’s products and found the output horsepower to be substantially less than advertised, prompting it to seek injunctive relief.The United States District Court for the Central District of California reviewed these allegations in the context of a motion for a preliminary injunction. After considering expert declarations and industry standards, the district court found that Joneca’s horsepower claims were literally false by necessary implication, as consumers would interpret horsepower designations as referring to output. The court also found that these claims were material to consumer purchasing decisions and that InSinkErator was likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction. As a result, the court ordered Joneca to place disclaimers on its packaging and sales materials and required InSinkErator to post a $500,000 bond. Joneca appealed, challenging the district court’s findings on falsity, materiality, irreparable harm, balancing of hardships, and public interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction. The court held that the district court did not err in finding that InSinkErator was likely to succeed on the merits of its Lanham Act false advertising claim, that Joneca’s horsepower claims were materially misleading, and that InSinkErator faced irreparable harm. The Ninth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s balancing of equities, bond requirement, or determination that the injunction served the public interest. View "INSINKERATOR, LLC V. JONECA COMPANY, LLC" on Justia Law

Two siblings, Ryan and Nancy, disputed the administration of their father Hal’s estate and the status of his ownership interest in Tautphaus Park Storage, LLC (TPS), an Idaho storage facility business. Hal, who suffered from progressive dementia before his death, was TPS’s sole voting member and manager, with Nancy assisting in legal and management matters. Several amendments to TPS’s operating agreement changed ownership and management, culminating—after Hal’s death—in Nancy executing further amendments that retroactively transferred Hal’s economic interest to herself and changed accounting records. Nancy, an attorney, served as both Hal’s lawyer and later as personal representative of his estate. Ryan questioned whether Hal’s interest in TPS remained an estate asset and sought access to business records, which Nancy resisted.The siblings litigated issues in two related cases in Bonneville County: a probate case in the Magistrate Court regarding Hal’s estate, and a separate TEDRA (Trust and Estate Dispute Resolution Act) civil action in District Court initiated by Ryan. Both courts and parties at times treated the cases as consolidated. Ryan’s TEDRA complaint sought judicial determination of estate assets, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and appointment of a receiver, naming Nancy in both her individual and representative capacities and TPS as defendants. The magistrate court dismissed Ryan’s claims and removed Nancy and TPS as parties, finding that estate matters should be decided exclusively in probate. The district court affirmed, denying Ryan’s motions and dismissing his amended complaint, reasoning that Ryan’s claims were matters for probate only.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho vacated both lower courts’ judgments. It held that Ryan’s claims for judicial determination of estate assets and breach of fiduciary duty fall within TEDRA’s definition of “matters” and may be raised in a separate civil action, not only in probate. The Court reversed the orders dismissing claims and parties, remanded the case for further proceedings, and awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees to Ryan against Nancy personally. View "Monson v. Monson" on Justia Law

37celsius Capital Partners, a Milwaukee-based firm specializing in healthcare-related businesses, sought to acquire Care Innovations, a subsidiary of Intel Corporation. The parties entered into a nondisclosure agreement containing a “Hold Harmless” clause that limited damages, and subsequently executed a term sheet outlining the proposed transaction. The term sheet required 37celsius to contribute $12 million by a specified closing date and granted it an exclusivity period during which Intel could not negotiate with other parties regarding Care Innovations. The term sheet expressly limited legal obligations, stating that no binding contract would exist until a definitive agreement was executed, except for certain provisions such as confidentiality and exclusivity.After 37celsius failed to provide proof of the required funds by the closing date, Intel sold Care Innovations to another buyer. 37celsius filed suit in Wisconsin state court, alleging breach of contract based on Intel’s communications with third parties during the exclusivity period. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which ruled that 37celsius was not entitled to expectation damages under the NDA and subsequently granted summary judgment for Intel, finding no reliance damages and no evidence of causation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment de novo. It held that the term sheet was not a binding “Type II” preliminary agreement under Delaware law, as its language did not obligate the parties to negotiate in good faith. Further, even if a binding obligation existed, 37celsius could not show that Intel’s alleged breach was the but-for cause of the failed transaction, as 37celsius did not have the required funds. The court also concluded that the NDA barred expectation damages and 37celsius did not appeal the denial of reliance damages. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for Intel. View "37celsius Capital Partners, L.P. v Intel Corporation" on Justia Law