Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Congress enacted a law requiring certain business entities to report information about their beneficial owners to the Department of the Treasury, aiming to address financial crimes facilitated by anonymous corporate ownership. The law applies to corporations, LLCs, and similar entities, excluding certain organizations like banks, nonprofits, and large businesses. Reporting companies must disclose identifying information about their owners and applicants. The law contains several exemptions for inactive or specific types of entities and allows for regulatory exemptions. The plaintiffs, a business association and a small business owner, challenged the law, arguing it exceeded Congress’s powers and violated constitutional rights.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, asserting that the law was not justified under the Commerce Clause, Taxing Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, or Congress’s national security and foreign affairs powers. The district court agreed, finding that the law regulated the act of incorporation—a noncommercial activity—and that the connection to interstate commerce was too remote. As a result, the court held the law exceeded Congress’s enumerated powers and did not address the constitutional rights claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and reversed the district court’s decision. The Eleventh Circuit held that the law facially regulates economic activity by targeting the ownership and operation of business entities, which are inherently commercial. The court found that Congress had a rational basis for concluding that anonymous business dealings have a substantial aggregate effect on interstate commerce. Additionally, the court held that the law’s uniform reporting requirements do not facially violate the Fourth Amendment, as they are reasonable, limited, and accompanied by privacy protections. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "National Small Business United v. U.S. Department of the Treasury" on Justia Law

A distributor of television programming alleged that three groups of broadcasters, including two that were so-called “sidecar” entities of a larger broadcaster, engaged in a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy. The distributor claimed that the broadcasters coordinated through a common negotiator to demand supracompetitive retransmission fees during contract renewal talks. When the distributor declined to pay the demanded rates, it lost access to the broadcasters’ stations in certain markets, resulting in blackouts for subscribers and subsequent lost profits.Prior to this appeal, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the case. The district court granted the broadcasters’ motion to dismiss the federal antitrust claims, concluding that the distributor lacked antitrust standing. Specifically, the district court found that there was no antitrust injury because the distributor did not actually pay the alleged supracompetitive prices, and that the distributor was not an efficient enforcer since its injuries were indirect and speculative. Consequently, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the distributor’s remaining state law claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the distributor plausibly alleged an antitrust injury, as lost profits from a reduction in output (subscriber losses caused by blackouts resulting from price fixing) are a cognizable form of antitrust injury. The court further held that the distributor is an efficient enforcer because it was the direct target of the alleged conspiracy and had a preexisting course of dealing with the broadcasters. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the federal antitrust claims, vacated the decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "DirecTV, LLC v. Nexstar Media Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Several individuals who were former partners at Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., BGC Holdings L.P., and Newmark Holdings L.P. separated from those partnerships and were entitled to receive certain payments after their departure. These payments included an initial amount plus four annual installment payments, but the partnership agreements allowed the partnerships to withhold the annual payments if the former partners engaged in broadly defined “Competitive Activity.” The partnerships exercised this right and withheld payments from the plaintiffs after determining they had engaged in such activity. The plaintiffs alleged that these provisions constituted unreasonable restraints of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and, for two plaintiffs, a violation of Delaware’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to plead an “antitrust injury,” which is necessary to assert a claim under the Sherman Act, and further held that the implied covenant claims failed because the partnership agreements gave the partnerships express contractual discretion to withhold the payments when a former partner competed, leaving no contractual gap for the implied covenant to fill. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The court held that the plaintiffs’ pecuniary injuries, stemming from the withholding of payments, were not antitrust injuries because they did not result from anticompetitive conduct affecting their status as market participants, nor were their injuries inextricably intertwined with any anticompetitive scheme. Regarding the implied covenant claims, the Third Circuit found that the relevant agreements expressly permitted withholding the payments under the circumstances, and there was no plausible allegation that the partnerships exercised their discretion in bad faith. View "McLoughlin v. Cantor Fitzgerald L.P." on Justia Law

A real estate development dispute arose when three businessmen, each controlling separate entities, formed an LLC to redevelop property in Charlotte. The plaintiff, through one entity, held a minority interest and served as a manager with another member. The operating agreement contained strict requirements for transferring membership interests, including the need for prior written consent from both managers. Tensions developed among the partners, and two of them attempted to transfer their interests to new holding companies and later voted to remove the plaintiff as manager. There was, however, no evidence that the formal requirements for transferring membership interests—such as written consent—were ever met.The case was designated a mandatory complex business case and heard in the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, sitting as the North Carolina Business Court. The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the attempted transfers were valid, rendering the removal of the plaintiff as manager invalid, and further alleged breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud. The Business Court found that the plaintiff failed to show the transfer provisions of the operating agreement were followed, so the original members retained their interests and the removal of the plaintiff as manager was valid. The court also ruled that no fiduciary duty arises among a coalition of minority LLC members absent a single majority member with control, and thus dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case on appeal. It affirmed the Business Court’s order and opinion, holding that the plaintiff failed to show compliance with the operating agreement’s transfer provisions and that there was no basis to impose a fiduciary duty on a coalition of minority LLC members. The summary judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed. View "Gvest Real Est., LLC v. JS Real Est. Invs., LLC" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between two siblings, Wayne Orkin and Lisa Albert, over the operation and ownership of a business called Boost Web SEO, Inc. Orkin managed the day-to-day business and generated all of its revenue, while Albert incorporated the company and was listed as its registered agent and officer. No written agreements clarified their roles, profit sharing, or compensation. In 2014, residual income from a payment processing arrangement was assigned to Boost Web, which both parties treated as company revenue for years. In 2021, after a breakdown in their relationship, Albert cut Orkin’s access to company funds and accused him of fraudulent activities in communications with a third-party vendor. Orkin then redirected company revenues to an account he controlled, prompting legal action.The litigation began in Massachusetts Superior Court, where Orkin (and his father) sued Albert and her son for various state-law claims, and Albert removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Boost Web intervened with a crossclaim against Orkin. After partial summary judgment, the remaining claims—Orkin’s defamation and related claims against Albert, and Boost Web’s conversion claim against Orkin—proceeded to a bench trial. The district court ruled for Albert on the defamation claim, finding her email was not defamatory or was protected as true, and for Boost Web on conversion, awarding it damages for funds Orkin took as personal expenses and for redirected residuals. The court also found Orkin in contempt for interfering with its orders and permanently enjoined him from pursuing related litigation in Florida.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court erred in dismissing Orkin’s defamation claim, finding that Albert’s email could be defamatory per se and remanded for further proceedings on truthfulness. It affirmed the conversion judgment regarding the redirected residuals but vacated the judgment concerning personal expenses, holding that Orkin was entitled to some compensation and remanded to determine the appropriate amount. The court vacated the contempt order and the permanent injunction, finding the previous orders did not unambiguously decide Boost Web’s ownership. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Orkin v. Albert" on Justia Law

Epic Games, a developer and operator of the Epic Games Store, sued Apple over its App Store practices, alleging violations of federal and California competition law. The dispute centered on Apple’s rules requiring developers to use Apple’s in-app payment system, which imposed a 30% commission, and its prohibition of developers directing users to other purchasing options outside the App Store. After a bench trial, the district court found Apple’s anti-steering provisions violated California’s Unfair Competition Law by preventing informed consumer choice but upheld Apple’s in-app payment system requirement for digital goods. The court issued an injunction barring Apple from restricting developers from including in their apps buttons, links, or other calls to action that direct users to alternative purchasing mechanisms.Following the injunction, Apple implemented a compliance plan involving a 27% commission on linked-out purchases and a series of restrictions on how developers could present external payment options, including limitations on button design, link placement, and user flow. Epic contested Apple’s compliance, arguing these measures still effectively prohibited alternative purchases. After holding multiple evidentiary hearings, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found Apple in civil contempt for failing to comply with the injunction, citing Apple’s bad faith and pretextual justifications. The district court imposed broad sanctions, including prohibiting any commission on linked-out purchases, restricting Apple’s ability to limit external links, and referring Apple for criminal investigation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s contempt findings and most of the resulting sanctions but found portions of the sanctions—particularly the blanket ban on commissions—overbroad and more punitive than coercive. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded those parts for further tailoring, clarified the scope of permissible developer link prominence, and declined to vacate the injunction or reassign the case. The court otherwise affirmed the district court’s orders. View "EPIC GAMES, INC. V. APPLE INC." on Justia Law

Loews Corporation created a publicly traded master limited partnership, Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, to operate natural gas pipelines. The partnership agreement included a call-right provision allowing the general partner, controlled by Loews, to acquire all public limited partnership units if certain conditions were met. In 2018, following proposed policy changes by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that could affect pipeline profitability, Loews sought legal opinions to justify exercising the call right. Although Boardwalk's internal analysis suggested minimal impact from the FERC changes, Loews’ outside counsel issued an opinion that the policy shift was reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on Boardwalk’s rates, satisfying a key condition for the call right. After obtaining a second law firm’s endorsement of the opinion’s acceptability, Loews exercised the call right, acquiring public units at a price that unitholders alleged was artificially depressed.The Court of Chancery initially found that the legal opinion used to trigger the call right was not rendered in good faith, meaning a contractual condition for exercising the call right had not been fulfilled. As a result, the court held that Boardwalk’s general partner breached the partnership agreement and awarded damages to the unitholders. The court stayed the remaining claims, which included breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware first held that the general partner was exculpated from monetary liability for breach of contract under the partnership agreement, reversing the damages judgment and remanding for consideration of the non-exculpated claims. Upon remand, the Court of Chancery dismissed those remaining claims, concluding that the Supreme Court’s prior decision foreclosed them. On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Delaware held that the lower court misunderstood the scope of its prior ruling; it affirmed dismissal of most claims but reversed as to tortious interference, remanding that claim for further proceedings. View "Bandera Master Fund LP v. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP" on Justia Law

A Malaysian national who worked as a managing director for Goldman Sachs in Malaysia was prosecuted for his role in a large-scale financial scheme involving 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a Malaysian state-owned investment fund. The government presented evidence showing that, along with other conspirators, he participated in three major bond offerings raising $6.5 billion, from which more than $2.5 billion was diverted for bribes and kickbacks to officials and participants, including himself. The funds were laundered through shell companies, and the defendant received $35.1 million that was deposited in an account controlled by his family members. The defendant’s wife asserted at trial that these funds were legitimate investment returns, not criminal proceeds.Prior to this appeal, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied several motions by the defendant. The court rejected his arguments that the indictment should be dismissed for lack of venue, concluding that acts in furtherance of the conspiracy passed through the Eastern District of New York. The court also found that the government did not breach an agreement regarding his extradition from Malaysia, since the superseding indictments did not charge new offenses. The district court excluded a video recording offered by the defense as inadmissible hearsay, and ultimately, a jury found him guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment and ordered to forfeit $35.1 million.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the defendant argued improper venue, breach of extradition agreement, erroneous exclusion of evidence, and that the forfeiture was an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. The Second Circuit held that the district court had not erred in any respect. Venue was proper, the extradition agreement was not breached, the evidentiary ruling was not an abuse of discretion, and the forfeiture was not grossly disproportionate to the offense. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and forfeiture order were affirmed. View "USA v. NG CHONG HWA" on Justia Law

Two brothers operated a farming and cattle partnership, with one managing the finances and records and the other handling outside operations. The financial brother, assisted by his daughter, maintained control over the partnership’s handwritten ledgers and inventory records, while the other brother relied on the information provided. Over several years, the managing brother made false entries in the ledgers, diverted partnership income into personal accounts, and concealed certain ownership interests in partnership assets from his brother. Suspicious discrepancies surfaced when the outside-operating brother noticed substantial errors affecting his reported net worth, prompting him to seek dissolution of the partnership and to sue for damages.The District Court for Thurston County conducted a bench trial, hearing evidence from the parties and expert witnesses. It found that the managing brother and his daughter had exclusive control over the partnership’s finances and intentionally concealed information. The court concluded that the outside-operating brother could not reasonably have discovered the wrongdoing earlier, given his lack of access to original records and his trust in the managing brother. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff under several theories, including breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract, and imposed joint and several liability on both defendants.Upon appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal questions de novo. It held that the claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment were not barred by the statute of limitations, as discovery of the fraud occurred within the allowed period. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s determinations regarding liability, damages, and the denial of post-trial motions, upholding the judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court specifically affirmed the joint and several liability for both defendants and the calculation of damages, rejecting the appellants’ arguments regarding settlements, contract defenses, and the statute of limitations. View "Sebade v. Sebade" on Justia Law

Two financial advisors entered into two agreements as part of a business transaction: an operating agreement establishing them as members of a wealth management firm and a purchase-and-sale contract under which one advisor would gradually buy out the other's ownership interest. The operating agreement contained a noncompete clause and provisions for mediation and arbitration. After the buyout concluded, the selling advisor remained employed with the company and could only be terminated for cause. In January 2024, he was terminated for cause and immediately began working at a competing firm within the restricted radius specified in the noncompete provision.Following his termination, the company and the buying advisor filed suit in the Circuit Court of Forrest County, alleging breach of contract and seeking, among other relief, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enforce the noncompete clause. The trial court granted the injunction and denied the selling advisor’s motions to dissolve the restraining order, to deny the injunction, and to compel mediation and/or arbitration. The trial court found that the noncompete clause remained binding and that the parties had not shown a clear intent to compel mediation or arbitration for this dispute, given specific contractual language.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed whether the noncompete provision was enforceable, whether the trial court erred in issuing the preliminary injunction, and whether the denial of the motion to compel mediation/arbitration was proper. The Court held that the noncompete provision was binding based on the evidence at the preliminary injunction stage, that the trial court did not err in granting the preliminary injunction, and that the mediation/arbitration provisions were not clearly applicable to this dispute. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the trial court’s order in all respects. View "Wiggins v. Southern Securities Group, LLC" on Justia Law