Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Two brothers, who are co-founders, directors, and major shareholders of a company, were involved in a business arrangement with a venture capital investor who was also a director and significant shareholder in the same company. The parties executed two option agreements and a partnership agreement related to the creation of a venture capital fund, which was to be capitalized with company shares. The brothers signed option agreements giving a corporate entity managed by the investor the right to acquire a portion of their shares. These agreements were twice amended, with the second amendment doubling the shares to be transferred—an action the brothers allege was done without their knowledge. Separately, a partnership agreement established the venture fund as a limited partnership under Delaware law, with all partners being corporate entities associated with the brothers and/or the investor. The partnership agreement included an arbitration clause governed by JAMS rules.When the investor’s entity tried to exercise its right to purchase shares, the brothers refused, disputing the validity of the second amendment. The investor and his entities initiated arbitration under the partnership agreement, prompting the brothers to sue for injunctions to stop arbitration. The defendants responded by moving to compel arbitration. The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied all motions, including the motion to compel arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial de novo. It held that the district court properly decided the question of arbitrability because the brothers, as non-signatories to the partnership agreement, were not bound by its arbitration clause. The appellate court further found that principles of equitable estoppel and agency law under Delaware law did not require the brothers to arbitrate, as they had not directly benefited from the agreement nor acted as agents of the signatories. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "Schlacks v. Chheda" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between a credit union and borrowers who defaulted on a retail installment contract for a vehicle. After the borrowers defaulted, the credit union repossessed and sold the vehicle, then sued the borrowers for the remaining balance. The borrowers responded with a counterclaim alleging that the credit union failed to provide proper notice before and after repossession and sale, in violation of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9 and the Retail Installment Sales Financing Act (RISFA). The borrowers sought statutory damages under both statutes and also moved to certify their counterclaim as a class action.The Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury, granted summary judgment to the credit union on the borrowers’ counterclaim, reasoning that both the UCC and RISFA claims were subject to the one-year statute of limitations for penal statutes found in Connecticut General Statutes § 52-585. The court found the claims time-barred because they were filed more than one year after the alleged violations. Based on this conclusion, the court also denied the borrowers’ motion for class certification.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Connecticut concluded that the trial court applied the wrong statute of limitations. The Supreme Court held that both the UCC Article 9 and RISFA provisions at issue are remedial, not penal, and are thus not governed by the one-year limitation for penal statutes. Instead, it determined that the three-year statute of limitations for tort actions under § 52-577 applies, because the borrowers’ counterclaims arose from statutory violations rather than breach of contract. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to apply the three-year limitation and reconsider class certification. View "Connex Credit Union v. Madgic" on Justia Law

A manufacturer of specialized products for road construction and a supplier had a longstanding business relationship, with the supplier relying heavily on the manufacturer’s goods for government paving projects. In 2021, the manufacturer faced supply chain disruptions and increased material costs due to the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to missed deliveries and eventually an ultimatum: the supplier must accept significant price increases on existing contracts or the business relationship would end. The supplier rejected the increases, deemed the manufacturer in breach, and procured substitute products from other vendors at prevailing market rates, which were significantly higher than the manufacturer’s proposed increased prices.The Iowa District Court for Cedar County held a bench trial, finding that contracts existed and were breached by the manufacturer when it refused to honor the original prices. The court awarded damages to both parties for breaches but offset the sums, ultimately finding the supplier’s cover purchases reasonable under the circumstances. Both parties appealed. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s findings regarding contract formation, breach, and damages, including the reasonableness of the supplier’s cover purchases, but remanded for correction of prejudgment interest calculations.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed only the question of whether the supplier’s procurement of substitute goods constituted reasonable “cover” under Iowa Code section 554.2712, given the manufacturer’s post-breach offer to fill the orders at a higher price. The court held that a buyer is not obligated to accept a breaching seller’s new terms to mitigate damages and that “cover” does not require dealing with the breaching seller. Substantial evidence supported the lower court’s finding that the supplier’s cover purchases were reasonable, even though they cost more than the manufacturer’s increased prices. The district court’s judgment was affirmed in relevant part, except regarding double prejudgment interest, which was remanded for correction. View "CMT Highway, LLC v. Logan Contractors Supply, Inc." on Justia Law

A former CEO of a Delaware corporation, who also founded and controlled the company, entered into a series of employment agreements and amendments with the company’s board. These agreements provided him with substantial severance benefits, including a large special payment of restricted stock units and cash, under specific termination conditions—such as his removal from board leadership or a change in board composition. The agreements also included a forum selection clause requiring that disputes “arising out of or relating to” the contract be litigated exclusively in the Superior Court of California. After an activist hedge fund succeeded in electing new directors and the CEO lost control, he resigned and claimed entitlement to the severance and special payment. He initiated litigation in California to enforce his rights under the agreement.Meanwhile, the company’s newly reconstituted board deemed the CEO terminated for cause and filed suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The company sought to invalidate the employment agreements, alleging they were the product of the CEO’s breaches of fiduciary duty and that their terms improperly entrenched his control and penalized stockholders. The company argued Delaware was the proper forum based on its bylaws and the nature of the claims.The Delaware Court of Chancery reviewed the case. The court held that, because of the recently enacted Section 122(18) of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the forum selection clause in a governance agreement (such as this employment agreement with a controller/stockholder) is enforceable and can validly require internal affairs and fiduciary duty claims relating to the agreement to be litigated outside Delaware. The court found the agreement was covered by Section 122(18) and that all claims “arose out of or related to” the agreement. The court granted the CEO’s motion to dismiss, holding that venue was proper only in California. View "Masimo Corporation v. Kiani" on Justia Law

Shahriyar Bolandian was convicted of insider trading based on allegations that he traded on nonpublic information regarding the mergers of two companies, information allegedly obtained from a friend, Ashish Aggarwal, who worked at J.P. Morgan. Bolandian executed trades in the stocks of PLX Technologies and ExactTarget before their respective acquisitions, ultimately earning substantial profits. These trades occurred while Aggarwal, though not assigned to the deals, worked in the relevant banking group. The case revolved around whether Aggarwal had improperly shared confidential information, and whether Bolandian knowingly traded on it.Initially, the United States District Court for the Central District of California severed Aggarwal’s trial from that of Bolandian and another co-defendant, Sadigh, due to the risk of antagonistic defenses. Aggarwal was ultimately acquitted by a jury. Afterward, a superseding indictment charged only Bolandian and Sadigh, and eventually Bolandian alone proceeded to trial. During Bolandian’s trial, a juror (Juror No. 6) expressed uncertainty about his ability to be impartial due to a family connection to J.P. Morgan. The district court questioned Juror No. 6 briefly, but allowed him to remain on the jury after both parties did not object.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed Bolandian’s conviction and focused on the issue of juror bias. The court held that the district court failed in its independent duty to investigate credible allegations of juror bias after Juror No. 6 expressed doubt about his impartiality. The panel concluded that defense counsel’s agreement to keep Juror No. 6 did not waive Bolandian’s right to challenge for bias, as a proper investigation is a prerequisite to waiver. The Ninth Circuit found plain error, vacated Bolandian’s conviction, and remanded for a new trial. View "USA V. BOLANDIAN" on Justia Law

A business dispute arose when an employee hired to supervise construction projects for a company was found to be diverting workers, who were being paid by the company, to work on personal construction ventures organized jointly with others. This scheme was uncovered after discrepancies in worksite attendance were noticed and investigated. The company then sued the parties involved for theft of services, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment, alleging that the defendants benefited from the misappropriated labor. During the litigation, it was discovered that some potentially relevant business records and emails were unavailable, leading to further disputes about whether these materials were intentionally withheld to prevent discovery.Following a jury trial in the 68th District Court of Dallas County, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff company and awarded damages. The defendants, Copper Creek Distributors, Inc. and Escoffie, appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas. On appeal, they raised several issues, including challenges to the sufficiency and admissibility of damages evidence, liability findings, and procedural matters. However, the court of appeals only addressed the trial court’s decision to give a spoliation instruction to the jury, found it to be erroneous and harmful, and remanded for a new trial, without considering other appellate points that could warrant rendering judgment for the appellants.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that appellate courts must address issues that could require rendition before remanding for a new trial. The court concluded that the court of appeals erred by not first considering other grounds that might have fully resolved the case. The Supreme Court also found the harm analysis regarding the spoliation instruction inadequate. Therefore, it reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "VALK v. COPPER CREEK DISTRIBUTORS, INC." on Justia Law

A group of three major construction firms formed a joint venture to undertake Florida’s largest infrastructure project: the reconstruction and expansion of a major interstate. The venture’s contractual and financial structure was complicated, involving a public-private partnership in which a concessionaire entity financed the project, hired the joint venture to perform the actual construction, and would gain long-term maintenance rights. One member of the joint venture, aware of mounting losses, proposed a strategy for the venture to attempt to exit the project or use the threat of termination as leverage in negotiations. This strategy relied on a contested interpretation of the contract and was opposed by the other members, who considered it dangerously speculative and likely to cause greater harm.As losses increased, the dissenting member stopped contributing required capital to the joint venture, accusing the managing partner of breaching its fiduciary duties by refusing to pursue the proposed termination strategy, and alleging a conflict of interest due to overlapping ownership between the managing partner and the concessionaire. The other members responded by contributing additional funds to keep the project solvent and countersued for breach of contract and indemnity.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held a bench trial and found that the managing partner had not breached any fiduciary duty or acted with gross negligence. The court also found that the dissenting member had materially breached the joint venture agreement by refusing to pay its share of capital calls, and ordered it to reimburse the other members, including prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the managing partner had acted in the best interest of the joint venture by not pursuing the proposed termination, and that there was no actionable conflict of interest under Florida partnership law. The court also concluded that the dissenting member’s failure to fund was a material breach, entitling the other members to indemnification and statutory prejudgment interest. View "The Lane Construction Corporation v. Skanska USA Civil Southeast, Inc." on Justia Law

An Iranian citizen, living in the United States, held a credit card account with a large financial institution. Due to United States sanctions against Iran, federal regulations prohibit U.S. banks from providing services to accounts of individuals ordinarily resident in Iran, unless those individuals are not located in Iran. The bank had a compliance policy requiring account holders from such sanctioned countries to regularly provide documents showing they were not residing in those countries. The plaintiff, subject to this policy, submitted various documents as proof of U.S. residency. After the bank mistakenly treated one of his residency documents as temporary rather than permanent, it closed his account when he failed to submit additional documentation.The plaintiff sued in state court, alleging violations of federal and state anti-discrimination and consumer protection statutes, including 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. The defendant bank removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The district court granted summary judgment for the bank on all claims except for an ECOA notice claim and a related UCL claim, both of which the plaintiff later voluntarily dismissed. The plaintiff then appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act’s liability shield provision immunizes the bank from liability for good faith actions taken in connection with compliance with sanctions regulations, even if such actions are not strictly compelled by the regulations. The court found that the bank’s policy was consistent with federal guidance and that the plaintiff failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the bank’s good faith. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the bank. View "NIA V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A." on Justia Law

A Delaware corporation specializing in antenna measurement systems was majority-owned by a parent company, which controlled the board and imposed a services agreement that disproportionately allocated expenses to the subsidiary. An investment fund, having previously rejected buyout offers, became a vocal minority stockholder. In 2018, after a controversial squeeze-out merger at $3.30 per share—approved without effective minority protections—a third-party expressed interest in buying the parent at a much higher valuation, but later withdrew due to concerns over the parent’s transfer pricing practices. The merger closed at a valuation much lower than that suggested by the later private equity investment.A minority stockholder initially filed suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty related to the merger. The court denied a motion to dismiss, and the original plaintiff’s counsel negotiated a proposed $825,000 settlement. The investment fund objected, sought to replace the lead plaintiff and counsel, and ultimately succeeded after the original settlement was rejected and the fund posted security to protect other stockholders’ interests. The fund, with new counsel, filed an amended complaint, pursued broader discovery, and advanced new damages theories, including contesting the services agreement and relying on the arm’s-length valuation from the private equity transaction. The litigation efforts included multiple discovery motions, expert reports, and defeating dismissal attempts, culminating in a mediated settlement for $17.85 million—21.64 times the original settlement and reflecting a 235% premium over the deal price.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in the present opinion, held that the investment fund, as lead plaintiff, was entitled to an incentive award of $730,000. The court found that the award was justified based on the fund’s considerable time, effort, and resources expended, the significant benefit obtained for the class, and the absence of problematic incentives or conflicts. View "In re Orbit/FR, Inc. Stockholders Litig." on Justia Law

A manager of two limited liability companies, after significant ownership changes and internal conflict, was removed from his managerial role and asked to sell his shares. When he refused, other company members and the companies themselves sued him, initially over breach of the operating agreements. During litigation, they discovered that in 2017, he had secured a $275,000 loan against company real estate, transferred the proceeds to company accounts, and then paid off personal debts with the money without authorization or proper disclosure to his co-owners.The Elkhart Superior Court held a bench trial and found for the plaintiffs on claims including breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and, importantly, under the Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act (CVRA) for criminal conversion. The court found that the defendant used company funds to pay personal obligations without authorization, constituting criminal conversion, and awarded treble damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals was divided. The majority concluded that because the funds were commingled, they did not qualify as “special chattel” and thus did not support a conversion claim, but affirmed treble damages under the CVRA on the theory of theft. A concurring judge disagreed with the special-chattel requirement and believed conversion had been established.The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacating the appellate opinion. The Court held that money need not be “special chattel” or segregated to support a criminal-conversion claim or a CVRA action. The statutory elements of conversion are sufficient, and the judicially created special-chattel requirement is not part of the criminal-conversion statute. The Court affirmed the trial court’s award of treble damages under the CVRA but directed the award to be made to the proper company victim. It also affirmed the findings on breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. View "Harper v. S&H Leasing LLC" on Justia Law