Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

In 2006, Cabot Oil & Gas Company began fracking in Dimock Township, Pennsylvania. By 2009, their operations caused a residential water well explosion, leading to methane gas contamination in local water supplies. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) found Cabot in violation of environmental laws, resulting in the 2009 Consent Order, which mandated corrective actions and a $120,000 penalty. Cabot violated this order by 2010, leading to another consent order and additional fines. Over the next decade, Cabot received numerous violation notices and faced lawsuits, including a 2020 grand jury finding of long-term indifference to remediation efforts, resulting in criminal charges and a nolo contendere plea.Shareholders filed a derivative suit against Cabot’s directors, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, including failure to oversee operations, issuing misleading statements, and insider trading. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the claims, finding no serious oversight failure or bad faith by the directors, and insufficient particularized allegations to support claims of material misrepresentation or insider trading.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, agreeing that the directors had implemented and monitored compliance systems, and that the shareholders failed to demonstrate bad faith or conscious disregard of duties. The court also found that the statements in Cabot’s disclosures were not materially misleading and that the shareholders did not adequately plead demand futility regarding the insider trading claim. Thus, the court upheld the dismissal of all claims with prejudice. View "Ezell v. Dinges" on Justia Law

Petitioners were defrauded by a now-defunct corporation that sold them long-term health care and estate planning services they never received. Unable to obtain compensation directly from the corporation, petitioners secured a federal bankruptcy court judgment against the corporation and applied for restitution from the Victims of Corporate Fraud Compensation Fund. The Secretary of State, who administers the Fund, denied their applications, leading petitioners to file a verified petition in the superior court for an order directing payment from the Fund. The superior court granted the petition, and the Secretary appealed.The superior court found that the bankruptcy court judgment was a qualifying judgment for compensation under the Fund. The court noted that the complaint contained allegations of fraud and requested a judgment finding the elements of fraud under California law were satisfied. The superior court also found that the administrative record contained ample evidence supporting the bankruptcy court’s default judgment against the corporation for fraud.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court’s final judgment, which expressly adjudged petitioners as victims of intentional misrepresentation, met the Fund’s requirement for a judgment based on fraud. The court affirmed the superior court’s judgment regarding petitioners' entitlement to payment from the Fund. However, it reversed and remanded the case for the superior court to specify the amount the Secretary shall pay each petitioner, as the original order did not account for the statutory limit of $50,000 per claimant and the need to consider spouses as a single claimant. View "Alves v. Weber" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, representing nine closed-end mutual funds, sued Ocean Capital LLC and several individuals and firms for allegedly committing securities violations. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants misled their shareholders by failing to make complete and accurate disclosures, violating Sections 13(d), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and other applicable SEC rules. The district court granted the defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss, leading the plaintiffs to appeal.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico initially reviewed the case. U.S. Magistrate Judge Giselle Lépez-Soler recommended dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint on grounds of failure to state a claim and mootness. The district court adopted this recommendation, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims but retaining jurisdiction over the defendants' counterclaims. The plaintiffs then moved for a stay of the proceedings on the counterclaims, which was denied. The district court granted the defendants' requested relief on their counterclaims, ordering the plaintiffs to seat the defendants' nominees for the board of directors of three funds. The plaintiffs timely appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' Sections 13(d), 14(a), and 20(a) claims. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to state a Section 13(d) claim for the non-PRRTFF IV funds and did not demonstrate irreparable harm for PRRTFF IV. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs' Section 14(a) claims were insufficient, as the statements in question were not materially misleading. Consequently, the court upheld the district court's judgment on the defendants' counterclaims, ordering the plaintiffs to seat the defendants' nominees. View "Tax-Free Fixed Income Fund for Puerto Rico Residents, Inc. v. Ocean Capital LLC" on Justia Law

Stephen Hofer, a licensed attorney and founder of Aerlex Law Group, hired Vicky Boladian as a part-time contract attorney in 2008. In 2013, they formed Aerlex Tax Services, LLC (tax LLC) to provide tax-related services. Hofer held a 55% equity interest, and Boladian held 45%. Their relationship deteriorated in 2017-2018, leading to litigation. In 2020, they settled by executing three agreements, each containing arbitration clauses. In 2023, they dissolved the tax LLC and transferred its assets to Aerlex Tax Services, LLP (tax LLP). Boladian later withdrew, forming her own firm and taking clients and assets.The plaintiffs, including Hofer and the tax LLP, filed a lawsuit against Boladian and her new firm, alleging 13 causes of action and seeking various damages and relief. They did not mention arbitration in their complaint. They sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, both of which were denied. They also engaged in extensive discovery and demanded a jury trial. Boladian and her firm filed a cross-complaint, and three days later, the plaintiffs moved to compel arbitration.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiffs had waived their right to arbitration by substantially litigating the case in court for over six months. The court applied the waiver standard from St. Agnes Medical Center v. PacifiCare of California, which was later overruled by the California Supreme Court in Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo under the new standard set by Quach. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had waived their right to compel arbitration by engaging in extensive litigation conduct inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. The order denying the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "Hofer v. Boladian" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Anthony D’Armiento and Susan Scharpf filed a class action lawsuit against several major shipbuilders and naval-engineering consultancies, alleging a "no-poach" conspiracy to suppress wages by agreeing not to recruit each other’s employees. The plaintiffs, who had not worked for any defendant since 2013, claimed that this conspiracy was concealed through a "non-ink-to-paper" agreement, which they only discovered in April 2023 through an investigation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case, ruling that it was barred by the Sherman Act’s four-year statute of limitations. The court found that the alleged "non-ink-to-paper" agreement did not constitute an affirmative act of fraudulent concealment that would toll the limitations period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that an agreement deliberately kept unwritten to avoid detection could qualify as an affirmative act of concealment. The court emphasized that fraudulent concealment can include acts of omission, such as avoiding the creation of written evidence. The court found that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that the defendants engaged in affirmative acts of concealment by maintaining a secret, unwritten no-poach agreement.The Fourth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs’ allegations met the relaxed Rule 9(b) standard for pleading fraudulent concealment with particularity. The court also determined that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged due diligence, as they were not on inquiry notice of the conspiracy until the investigation in 2023. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Scharpf v. General Dynamics Corporation" on Justia Law

Daniel Flickinger, a full-time litigator at Wainwright, Pope & McMeekin, P.C. (WPM), posted conservative political commentary on his personal social media. In June 2020, he posted a controversial message about George Floyd's death. Lawrence Tracy King, a partner at King Simmons Ford & Spree, P.C. (the King law firm), sent this post to Flickinger's supervising attorney, Lonnie Wainwright, expressing concern. Wainwright and other WPM partners, who were not familiar with social media, reviewed Flickinger's posts and asked him to resign, which he did.Flickinger sued King and the King law firm for defamation, invasion of privacy, and tortious interference with a business relationship. The Jefferson Circuit Court dismissed his claims, but the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the dismissal of the tortious interference claim and remanded the case. The King defendants then moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no substantial evidence that their actions caused Flickinger's damages. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the King defendants, concluding that the WPM partners' decision to terminate Flickinger was based on their independent review of his social media posts.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and affirmed the summary judgment for the King law firm, finding that King's actions were not within the scope of his employment and did not benefit the firm. However, the court reversed the summary judgment for King, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether King's actions were a substantial factor in Flickinger's termination and whether King was justified in sending the post. The case was remanded for further proceedings. The court also upheld the denial of Flickinger's motion to compel King's cellular-telephone records and his motion to continue the summary-judgment hearing. View "Flickinger v. King" on Justia Law

Mesabi Metallics Company LLC (Mesabi) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2016 and emerged successfully in 2017. During the bankruptcy proceedings, Mesabi initiated an adversary proceeding against Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. (Cliffs), alleging tortious interference, antitrust violations, and other claims. Mesabi sought to unseal certain documents obtained from Cliffs during discovery, which had been filed under seal pursuant to a protective order. Cliffs opposed the motion, arguing that the documents should remain sealed under Bankruptcy Code § 107, not the common law right of access.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware applied the common law standard from In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, concluding that Cliffs had not met the burden to keep the documents sealed. The court recognized the potential for a different interpretation and certified the question for direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.The Third Circuit held that the sealing of documents in bankruptcy cases is governed by § 107 of the Bankruptcy Code, not the common law right of access. The court clarified that § 107 imposes a distinct burden for sealing documents, requiring protection of trade secrets or confidential commercial information if disclosure would cause competitive harm. The court vacated the Bankruptcy Court's order and remanded for application of the correct standard.Additionally, the Third Circuit addressed a separate motion by Greg Heyblom to intervene and unseal the documents. The court concluded that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction to grant Heyblom's motions while the appeal was pending, as it would interfere with the appellate court's jurisdiction. The orders granting Heyblom's motions were vacated. View "In re: ESML Holdings Inc v. Mesabi Metallics Company LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) seeking a preliminary injunction to block Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Inc., a major video game developer. The FTC argued that the merger would likely violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act by substantially lessening competition in the U.S. markets for gaming console devices, gaming subscription services, and gaming cloud-streaming services. The FTC's primary concern was that Microsoft would make Activision's popular game, Call of Duty, exclusive to its Xbox console, thereby harming competition.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the FTC's motion for a preliminary injunction. The court held a five-day evidentiary hearing and concluded that the FTC had not raised serious questions regarding whether the proposed merger would likely substantially lessen competition. The court found that Microsoft lacked the incentive to make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox, as doing so would harm its financial interests and reputation. The court also noted that Activision Blizzard had historically resisted putting its content on subscription services, and there was insufficient evidence to show that this would change absent the merger.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's decision and affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction. The appellate court agreed that the district court applied the correct legal standards and did not abuse its discretion or rely on clearly erroneous findings. The Ninth Circuit held that the FTC failed to make a sufficient evidentiary showing to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its Section 7 claim. The court concluded that the FTC had not demonstrated that the merger would likely substantially lessen competition in the relevant markets. View "FTC V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION," on Justia Law

In early 2020, Robert Goodrich liquidated his stock portfolio due to concerns about the financial market's reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in significant financial losses. Goodrich had an investment account with U.S. Trust Bank of America Private Wealth Management, managed by Matthew Lettinga. Despite advice from Lettinga to avoid liquidation, Goodrich insisted on selling his portfolio. Goodrich later sued Lettinga and Bank of America, claiming gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the D.C. Securities Act, arguing that he was not adequately informed of the risks involved in liquidating his portfolio.The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Goodrich's claims of gross negligence and violations of the D.C. Securities Act, finding them implausibly pleaded. The court allowed the breach of fiduciary duty claim to proceed but later granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that Goodrich had explicitly instructed the sale of his portfolio, which precluded liability under the terms of the investment agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decisions. The appellate court held that the investment agreement's exculpatory clauses were enforceable and that Goodrich's explicit instruction to liquidate his portfolio shielded the defendants from liability. The court also agreed that Goodrich failed to plausibly allege scienter, a necessary element for his claims under the D.C. Securities Act, and found no abuse of discretion in the District Court's limitation of discovery to the dispositive issue of whether Goodrich instructed the sale. View "Goodrich v. Bank of America N.A." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute arising from alleged breaches of a partnership agreement between PNC Bank, N.A., Columbia Housing SLP Corporation (collectively, the "PNC Parties"), and Rene O. Campos, along with 2013 Travis Creek GP, LLC, as general partner. The partnership was formed to acquire, construct, develop, and operate an affordable housing apartment complex in Austin, Texas, with anticipated federal tax credits. A mechanic’s lien was placed on the property, leading to a default on the construction loan. The PNC Parties sought to remove the general partner and replace it with Columbia, resulting in a lawsuit.The PNC Parties filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, invoking diversity jurisdiction. The district court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the enforcement of the settlement agreement that resolved the 2017 lawsuit. In 2021, the Eureka Parties moved to re-open the case to enforce the settlement agreement, leading to competing motions to enforce. The district court severed the motions from the original lawsuit, creating a new case, and granted each motion in part, offsetting the balance owed. The Eureka Parties and the Partnership appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the parties failed to establish an independent jurisdictional basis for the severed motions. The court noted that severed claims must have an independent jurisdictional basis and that the record lacked sufficient evidence to establish diversity of citizenship. Consequently, the court remanded the case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether such jurisdiction exists. The panel retained jurisdiction over the limited remand. View "PNC Bank v. 2013 Travis Oak Creek" on Justia Law