Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

LJM Partners, Ltd. and Two Roads Shared Trust, both involved in options trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, experienced catastrophic losses on February 5 and 6, 2018, when volatility in the S&P 500 surged unexpectedly; LJM lost approximately 86.5% of its managed assets and the Preservation Fund (managed by Two Roads) lost around 80%. The plaintiffs alleged that eight defendant firms, acting as market makers, manipulated the VIX index by submitting inflated bid-ask quotes for certain SPX Options, which artificially raised volatility and resulted in inflated prices on the plaintiffs' trades, causing over one billion dollars in combined losses.After initially filing complaints against unnamed "John Doe" defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the plaintiffs pursued extensive discovery to identify the responsible parties. The cases were swept into a multidistrict litigation proceeding (VIX MDL), which delayed discovery. Eventually, after several rounds of amended complaints, the plaintiffs identified and named eight defendant firms. The defendants moved to dismiss. The district court found that LJM lacked Article III standing because it failed to allege an injury in fact, as the losses belonged to its clients, not LJM itself. For Two Roads, the district court held that its claims were time-barred under the Commodity Exchange Act’s two-year statute of limitations, and equitable tolling was denied due to lack of diligence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held that LJM’s complaint failed to establish Article III standing, as it did not allege that LJM itself—not just its clients—suffered actual losses. The court further held that Two Roads’s complaint was untimely and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing equitable tolling. Both dismissals were affirmed. View "LJM Partners, Ltd. v. Barclays Capital, Inc." on Justia Law

On February 5, 2018, an abrupt spike in market volatility led to a sharp decline in the S&P 500 and a rapid increase in the VIX index. LJM Partners, Ltd. and Two Roads Shared Trust pursued trading strategies on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange that assumed low volatility and suffered catastrophic losses when volatility soared. They alleged that several market makers manipulated the VIX by quoting inflated bid-ask prices for certain options, which artificially increased volatility and caused losses exceeding one billion dollars in managed assets over two days.Both LJM and Two Roads filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, initially naming “John Doe” defendants. The cases were coordinated into multidistrict litigation, and the plaintiffs sought expedited discovery to identify the defendants. After extensive litigation, they amended their complaints to name eight firms as defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss. The district court found that LJM lacked Article III standing, as its complaint only alleged injuries suffered by its clients, not by LJM itself. The court denied LJM’s request for leave to substitute the real party in interest and dismissed its complaint without prejudice. For Two Roads, the court found that its claims were barred by the Commodity Exchange Act’s two-year statute of limitations, declined to apply equitable tolling, and also dismissed for failure to state a claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Seventh Circuit held that LJM did not allege a concrete injury in fact sufficient for Article III standing, as its complaint failed to distinguish between its own losses and those of its clients. The court also held that Two Roads’s complaint was untimely and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying equitable tolling. The court declined to reach the merits of the underlying Commodity Exchange Act claims. View "Two Roads Shared Trust v. Barclays Capital Inc." on Justia Law

An individual who founded a Michigan biomedical research company sold a majority stake in 2019 to four defendants but retained a minority interest, later becoming dissatisfied with the company’s management and moving out of state. The new owners aimed to expand the company but withheld information from the plaintiff about their efforts to secure financing, including discussions with Avista Capital Partners, a venture capital firm that ultimately made a large investment. The plaintiff sold his shares in December 2020 for a price based on an annual valuation, prior to Avista’s capital infusion that significantly increased the company’s value. The plaintiff later sued, alleging violations of federal and state securities laws, breach of fiduciary duty under Michigan law, and various fraud and contract claims based on the defendants’ failure to disclose material facts about the company’s pursuit of equity financing and Avista’s interest.The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. That court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss but, following discovery, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all counts. The court concluded that the omissions were not material under federal securities law and, applying Delaware law and a federal standard, also found no materiality for the breach of fiduciary duty claim under Michigan law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment as to the federal securities law claims, the Michigan Uniform Securities Act claim, and the contract-based claims, holding that the omissions were not material under the applicable federal standards. However, the Sixth Circuit reversed the summary judgment for the Michigan common-law fiduciary duty and fraud claims, finding the district court had applied an incorrect legal standard and that genuine disputes of material fact remained. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the fiduciary duty and fraud counts. View "Boyd v. Northern Biomedical Research Inc." on Justia Law

Getty Images Holdings, Inc. became a publicly traded company after merging with CC Neuberger Principal Holdings II, a special purpose acquisition company. Alta Partners, LLC and CRCM Institutional Master Fund (BVI) Ltd., along with CRCM SPAC Opportunity Fund LP, acquired warrants to purchase Getty stock. The warrants’ exercise was governed by a warrant agreement requiring both an effective registration statement and a current prospectus for the underlying shares. After the merger, Getty filed two relevant registration statements: a Form S-4 and a Form S-1. Alta and CRCM attempted to exercise their warrants in August 2022, when Getty’s stock price was significantly higher than the warrant strike price, but Getty refused, claiming the contractual conditions for exercise were unmet.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed breach of contract claims brought by Alta and CRCM. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, finding as a matter of law that the conditions of the warrant agreement had been satisfied. Specifically, it held the Form S-4 was an effective registration statement for the warrant shares and the accompanying prospectus was current at the time the plaintiffs attempted to exercise their warrants. The court awarded damages based on the stock price at the time of the breach but limited Alta’s recovery, denying damages for warrants purchased after Getty’s refusal to honor the redemption.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held that Getty breached the warrant agreement because the required registration statement and prospectus conditions were met on the relevant dates. The court concluded that damages should be calculated using the market price of the shares at the time of breach and upheld the limitation on Alta’s damages for post-breach warrant purchases. The affirmance applies to all aspects of the district court’s rulings challenged on appeal. View "Alta Partners, LLC v. Getty Images Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Two individuals formed a partnership to operate a business, with one contributing property and inventory, and the other providing labor, management, and assuming operational expenses. Disputes arose regarding the dissolution of the partnership and the distribution of remaining assets. The central issues concerned whether the partners had an agreement that would override the statutory default rules for capital accounts and partnership winding up, and whether one partner was entitled to a credit for “sweat equity” or an in-kind distribution of inventory.The District Court of McLean County, South Central Judicial District, initially found that the parties formed a partnership, that property was contributed, and that the partnership’s inventory was partnership property. It dismissed certain tort claims and awarded costs to one party. However, the court did not apply North Dakota’s statutory default rules for partnership dissolution and winding up. On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota in Ziemann v. Grosz, 2024 ND 166, affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding with instructions for the district court to apply the statutory default winding up provisions under N.D.C.C. § 45-20-07 and to enter judgment consistent with its decision.On remand, the district court found no evidence of an agreement to vary the statutory defaults, credited the partner who contributed property with the appropriate capital credit, found no evidence of significant contributions from the other partner outside a small deposit, held that an in-kind distribution of inventory was not required, and ordered dissolution and winding up. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the district court properly followed its mandate, did not clearly err in its factual findings, and correctly applied the statutory provisions regarding partnership dissolution and distributions. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s remand order and judgment. View "Ziemann v. Grosz" on Justia Law

A Mississippi retail pharmacy, Rx Solutions, Inc., sought to join the pharmacy benefit management (PBM) network operated by Caremark, LLC, which is associated with CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Caremark denied Rx Solutions’ application, citing inconsistencies in ownership information and affiliations with Quest Pharmacy, owned by Harold Ted Cain, who Caremark claimed was previously found guilty of violating the False Claims Act. Rx Solutions disputed these reasons, noting acceptance by other PBM networks and asserting that Harold Ted Cain lacked operational control over Rx Solutions and had not been convicted of any relevant criminal offense.Rx Solutions filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging two federal antitrust violations under the Sherman Act and three state law claims: violation of Mississippi’s “any willing provider” statute, violation of the state antitrust statute, and tortious interference with business relations. The district court dismissed the federal antitrust and state statutory claims, concluding that Rx Solutions failed to adequately define relevant product and geographic markets and did not allege antitrust injury. The court also determined there was no diversity jurisdiction to support the remaining state law claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the federal antitrust and Mississippi state antitrust claims, holding that Rx Solutions did not sufficiently plead a relevant market or antitrust injury. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s finding regarding diversity jurisdiction, based on admissions by Caremark and CVS establishing complete diversity between the parties. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the state antitrust claim and remanded the claims under Mississippi’s “any willing provider” statute and for tortious interference with business relations for further proceedings. View "Rx Solutions v. Caremark" on Justia Law

Endure Industries, Inc., a seller of disposable medical supplies, sought to participate as a supplier in Vizient’s group purchasing organization (GPO), which negotiates bulk purchasing contracts for healthcare providers. Vizient is the largest GPO in the United States, serving a majority of general acute care centers and academic medical centers. After Vizient rejected Endure’s bid to supply medical tape in favor of another supplier, Endure filed an antitrust suit against Vizient and related entities, alleging monopolization and anticompetitive conduct in two proposed markets for disposable medical supplies.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted summary judgment to Vizient, finding that Endure failed to define a legally sufficient relevant market under antitrust law. The district court reasoned that Endure’s expert’s market definitions—(1) the sale of disposable medical supplies through GPOs to acute care centers, and (2) sales to Vizient member hospitals—excluded significant alternative sources of supply. Specifically, evidence showed that many hospitals purchase substantial amounts of supplies outside GPO contracts, demonstrating that reasonable substitutes exist and undermining Endure’s theory of market foreclosure.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed only the issue of market definition. The Fifth Circuit held that Endure did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding its proposed markets, as its definitions failed to account for all commodities reasonably interchangeable by consumers. The court found that significant hospital purchasing occurs outside GPOs and that Vizient members are not “locked in” to buying exclusively through Vizient. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Vizient, concluding that neither of Endure’s proposed antitrust markets was legally sufficient. View "Endure Industries v. Vizient" on Justia Law

Iron Triangle, LLC significantly increased its presence in the Malheur National Forest after winning a 2013 competitive bidding process by the U.S. Forest Service, securing an exclusive ten-year stewardship contract and right of first refusal on 70% of federal timberland. Iron Triangle also regularly won bids for the remaining 30% of timber sales. In 2020, it entered a contract with Malheur Lumber Company to supply pine sawlogs and provide logging services. Plaintiffs—loggers, landowners, and a competing sawmill—claimed that Iron Triangle and other defendants used anticompetitive tactics to monopolize and restrain trade across four related product markets in the region.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed the antitrust claims with prejudice, finding that plaintiffs failed to allege monopoly power, anticompetitive conduct, or antitrust injury in any of the identified markets. The court also held that federal regulations governing government contracting and timber sales precluded findings of monopoly power. Plaintiffs amended their complaint twice, but each time, the district court found the allegations insufficient and eventually denied further leave to amend.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. While disagreeing that federal regulations categorically preclude monopoly power, the appellate court held that plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead monopoly or monopsony power, anticompetitive conduct, or antitrust injury in any market. The court also found plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege an illegal tying arrangement under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as logging services and sawlogs were not distinct products and there was no coercion. The Ninth Circuit further affirmed denial of leave to amend, concluding additional amendments would be futile. View "MALHEUR FOREST FAIRNESS COALITION V. IRON TRIANGLE, LLC" on Justia Law

Johnson & Johnson acquired Auris Health, a medical robotics company, in a transaction where Auris’s shareholders could earn up to $2.35 billion in additional payments if certain regulatory and sales milestones were met for Auris’s surgical devices. These milestones required Johnson & Johnson to use “commercially reasonable efforts,” defined by the contract as efforts comparable to those used for its own priority devices. All regulatory milestones were expressly conditioned on achieving specific FDA “510(k) premarket notification” approvals. After none of the milestones were met, Fortis Advisors, representing Auris’s former shareholders, sued, alleging that Johnson & Johnson failed to meet its efforts obligations and fraudulently induced Auris into accepting a contingent payment for one milestone by misrepresenting its likelihood.The Delaware Court of Chancery held a trial and found largely in Fortis’s favor. The court ruled that Johnson & Johnson breached the contract by not applying the required level of effort to Auris’s iPlatform system and acted with the intent to avoid earnout payments. For the first milestone, the court relied on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to require Johnson & Johnson to pursue an alternate FDA pathway when the original 510(k) process became unavailable. The court also found that Johnson & Johnson fraudulently induced Auris to accept a contingent payment for the Monarch lung ablation milestone by portraying its achievement as almost certain, despite knowing of a recent patient death and an ongoing FDA investigation.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Delaware agreed with Johnson & Johnson regarding the implied covenant, holding that the merger agreement did not contain a contractual gap and that the risk of an unavailable 510(k) pathway was foreseeable and allocated by the contract. The court reversed the Chancery’s ruling that Johnson & Johnson was required to pursue an alternative regulatory pathway for the first milestone and vacated the related damages. The Supreme Court otherwise affirmed the findings on breach of contract for the remaining milestones, upheld the damages calculation for those, and affirmed the fraud finding and the conclusion that the contract did not bar extra-contractual fraud claims. The case was remanded for recalculation of damages consistent with this opinion. View "Johnson & Johnson v. Fortis Advisors LLC" on Justia Law

Several senior financial advisors resigned from a national investment advisory firm’s Des Moines branch to join a competitor that was opening a new local office. After their departure, nearly all remaining advisors at the branch also resigned en masse and joined the competitor, which offered substantial incentives. The resignations occurred despite restrictive covenants in the former advisors’ employment contracts, which limited their ability to solicit clients, disclose confidential information, and recruit other employees. The competitor and the departing advisors soon began servicing many of their former clients, resulting in a substantial loss of business for their previous employer.Following these events, the original firm filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, alleging breach of contract, tortious interference, and theft of trade secrets. The district court initially denied a temporary restraining order but later granted a broad preliminary injunction. This injunction prohibited the former advisors from servicing or soliciting covered clients, using confidential information, or recruiting employees, and it barred the competitor from using confidential information or interfering with employment agreements. The defendants sought a stay but were denied by both the district court and the appellate court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the preliminary injunction. The appellate court determined that the record did not show a likelihood of irreparable harm that could not be compensated by money damages, as required for preliminary injunctive relief. The court found that the alleged financial harms were calculable and that the claimed destruction of the Des Moines branch had already occurred, rendering injunctive relief ineffective for preventing future harm. The Eighth Circuit therefore vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Choreo, LLC v. Lors" on Justia Law