Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Grand Canyon University (GCU), a private university in Arizona, applied to the U.S. Department of Education to be recognized as a nonprofit institution under the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA). The Department denied GCU’s application, despite GCU having obtained 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) recognition from the IRS as a tax-exempt organization. The Department concluded that GCU did not meet the operational test’s requirement that both the primary activities of the organization and its stream of revenue benefit the nonprofit itself.The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted summary judgment in favor of the Department, upholding the denial of GCU’s application. The court found that the Department’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law. GCU appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the Department applied the wrong legal standards in evaluating GCU’s application. Specifically, the Department incorrectly relied on IRS regulations that impose requirements beyond those of the HEA. The correct HEA standards required the Department to determine whether GCU was owned and operated by a nonprofit corporation and whether GCU satisfied the no-inurement requirement. The Department’s failure to apply these correct legal standards necessitated that its decision be set aside.The Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the case with instructions to set aside the Department’s denials and to remand to the Department for further proceedings consistent with the correct legal standards under the HEA. View "GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY V. CARDONA" on Justia Law

Major Brands, Inc., a Missouri-licensed liquor distributor, had been the exclusive distributor of Jägermeister in Missouri since the 1970s. In 2018, Mast-Jägermeister US, Inc. (MJUS) terminated this relationship and appointed Southern Glazers Wine and Spirits, LLC (Southern Glazers) as the new distributor. Major Brands sued MJUS and Southern Glazers, alleging wrongful termination under Missouri franchise law, conspiracy to violate Missouri franchise law, and tortious interference with the franchise relationship.The case was initially brought in state court but was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. After dismissing additional defendants, the case proceeded to a jury trial. The jury awarded Major Brands $11.75 million, finding in its favor on five counts, including violation of Missouri franchise law and tortious interference. The district court denied the defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial and awarded attorney’s fees to Major Brands.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court had prejudicially erred in instructing the jury on the essential element of a "community of interest" under Missouri franchise law. The appellate court held that the jury instructions failed to require consideration of whether Major Brands made substantial investments that were not recoverable upon termination, which is necessary to establish a community of interest. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, vacated the jury’s verdict and the award of attorney’s fees, and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Major Brands, Inc. v. Mast-Jagermeister US, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, Four Thirteen, LLC filed a complaint against three corporate entities and several individuals, including Joshua Wearmouth, Larry Stephens, Edmond X. Moriniere, Ronald G. Meyers, and David C. Norton. The complaint alleged that Wearmouth and Stephens solicited funds from Four Thirteen for a business venture involving Brazilian carbon credits, which turned out to be fraudulent. Four Thirteen claimed that the corporate entities did not own the carbon credits and that Wearmouth and Stephens made numerous misrepresentations. The complaint included claims of breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and other related allegations.The District Court of Laramie County reviewed the case and rejected the affidavits of non-involvement filed by Moriniere, Meyers, and Norton, who sought dismissal from the suit. The court found that there were factual issues regarding their involvement in the alleged fraud. Additionally, the district court imposed discovery sanctions and entered a default judgment against all defendants, including the individual appellants, for failing to comply with discovery orders.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision regarding the affidavits of non-involvement. The Supreme Court determined that the district court correctly found that there were factual disputes about the involvement of Moriniere, Meyers, and Norton, which precluded their dismissal from the case.However, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision to impose discovery sanctions against the individual appellants. The Supreme Court found that the appellants were not given proper notice that they were subject to sanctions under Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) and that there was no evidence they violated any prior discovery order. The court held that the sanctions against the individual appellants were not justified and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Stephensv. Four Thirteen, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves an interlocutory appeal arising from a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement action against Michael Young and others, alleging a fraudulent investment scheme. The SEC claimed that the defendants raised over $125 million from investors by falsely representing the use of a profitable algorithmic trading strategy, misappropriating funds for personal gain, and misrepresenting the profitability of their trading scheme. The parties agreed to a preliminary injunction freezing the defendants' assets, with the defendants retaining the right to request relief from the freeze.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied the Youngs' motions to unfreeze assets on three occasions. In April 2020, the court denied their first motion. In November 2020, the court denied their second motion, and the Youngs appealed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Youngs had forfeited their arguments by not raising them properly in the lower court. In March 2023, the Youngs filed a third motion to unfreeze assets, which the district court also denied, citing the law of the case doctrine and improper reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the appeal and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the March 2023 motion was a successive motion raising the same issues that could have been raised in the November 2020 motion. The court emphasized that there was no change in circumstances, evidence, or law since the prior motion that would warrant jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The court concluded that the Youngs failed to demonstrate a close nexus between any change and the issues raised on appeal, thus affirming the district court's denial of the motion to unfreeze assets. View "USSEC v. Mediatrix Capital" on Justia Law

Strategic Energy Concepts, LLC (Strategic) partnered with Otoka Energy, LLC (Otoka) to develop a biomass power plant in California. The plant faced significant operational and financial issues, accumulating $19 million in debt. State Street Bank & Trust Company (State Street) agreed to invest $25 million to help the project, with Strategic transferring its shares in the plant's holding company to Otoka for a conditional payment of $1.1 million, contingent on the availability of funds from State Street's investment. The plant failed to meet operational deadlines and eventually shut down, leading Strategic to receive no payment.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed some of Strategic's claims and granted summary judgment on the remaining claims, including breach of contract, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment. Strategic's motions to reopen discovery and for reconsideration were denied, prompting Otoka to dismiss its counterclaims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact. The court held that the conditions precedent for the $1.1 million payment were not met, as the funds from State Street were allocated to other obligations. Additionally, the court found no evidence of tortious interference by State Street, as it acted within its contractual rights and had justification for its actions. The unjust enrichment claim also failed, as there was no impropriety in State Street's conduct.The court also upheld the district court's denial of Strategic's motions to reopen discovery and for reconsideration, concluding that any new discovery would have been futile and that the summary judgment was based on facts existing at the time of the original decision. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Strategic Energy Concepts, LLC v. Otoka Energy, LLC" on Justia Law

VFS Leasing Co. ("VFS") leased trucks to Time Definite Leasing, LLC ("TDL"), which insured the trucks with Markel American Insurance Company ("Markel American"). Markel American issued joint checks to VFS and TDL for insurance claims, but TDL cashed the checks without VFS's endorsement and kept the proceeds. VFS sued Markel American for breach of contract, claiming it was owed the funds from the joint checks.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of VFS, holding that Markel American breached the insurance contract by failing to ensure VFS received the funds. The court found that under Florida's Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Markel American's obligation was not discharged because the checks were not properly endorsed by both co-payees.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether Markel American's obligation to VFS was discharged when the drawee bank improperly accepted the joint checks. The court concluded that under Florida Statute § 673.4141(3), a drawer's obligation is discharged when a bank accepts a jointly issued check, regardless of whether both co-payees endorsed it. The court noted that while VFS could pursue a conversion claim against the bank, Markel American's obligation was discharged upon the bank's acceptance of the checks.The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of VFS and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "VFS Leasing Co. v. Markel Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between longtime friends over a failed business venture, resulting in a $20 million judgment against Stanley N. Cohen for negligent misrepresentation. Cohen, a professor at Stanford University, and his colleague discovered a genetic mutation linked to Huntington’s disease and formed a company, Nuredis, with Moshe and Chris Alafi, who invested $20 million. The FDA rejected Nuredis’s request for human clinical trials for the drug HD106 due to its toxicity, leading to the abandonment of the drug. The Alafis sued Cohen and his colleague for failing to disclose the drug’s history of toxicity.The Santa Clara County Superior Court held a bench trial and found in favor of the plaintiffs on the negligent misrepresentation claim against Cohen, awarding $20 million in damages. The court did not address the other causes of action. Cohen appealed, arguing that the claim required an affirmative misrepresentation, that the plaintiffs did not rely on the alleged omission, and that they were aware of the drug’s history. He also contended that the trial court erred by not issuing a statement of decision upon his request.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, found that the trial court’s failure to issue the requested statement of decision was prejudicial error, as it prevented effective appellate review of the trial court’s factual and legal findings. Consequently, the appellate court did not address Cohen’s arguments on the merits and reversed and remanded the case for the trial court to issue the statement of decision. View "Alafi v. Cohen" on Justia Law

Sophia Zhou and other investors filed a federal securities fraud class action against Desktop Metal, Inc. and several of its corporate officers after the company's stock price dropped in late 2021. The stock lost value following Desktop Metal's disclosure of an internal investigation that revealed corporate mismanagement and necessitated the recall of two key products. Zhou alleged that the defendants engaged in fraudulent schemes, including manufacturing Flexcera resin at non-FDA-registered facilities and marketing the PCA 4000 curing box for use with Flexcera without FDA certification.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed Zhou's complaint for failure to state a claim. Zhou appealed, arguing that the district court erred in dismissing her "scheme liability" claim and that she adequately stated a securities fraud claim based on material misrepresentations and omissions. The district court had found that Zhou did not preserve her scheme liability claim and that her complaint failed to plead any materially false or misleading statement or omission.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court concluded that Zhou did not preserve her scheme liability claim because she failed to adequately argue it in her opposition to the motion to dismiss or in her supplemental briefing. The court also determined that the district court correctly found that Zhou's complaint did not allege any materially false or misleading statements. Specifically, the court held that statements about Flexcera's FDA clearance, regulatory compliance, and product qualities were not rendered misleading by the alleged omissions. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Zhou's complaint. View "Zhou v. Desktop Metal, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., and Ticketmaster LLC, alleging anticompetitive practices in violation of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs had purchased tickets through Ticketmaster’s website, which required them to agree to Ticketmaster’s Terms of Use. These terms included an arbitration agreement mandating that disputes be resolved by an arbitrator from New Era ADR, using expedited/mass arbitration procedures.The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The court found that the clause delegating the authority to determine the validity of the arbitration agreement to the arbitrator was unconscionable under California law, both procedurally and substantively. The court also held that the entire arbitration agreement was unconscionable and unenforceable. The defendants appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the delegation clause and the arbitration agreement as a whole were unconscionable under California law. The court found that the delegation clause was part of a contract of adhesion and that the terms on Ticketmaster’s website exhibited extreme procedural unconscionability. Additionally, the court identified several features of New Era’s arbitration rules that contributed to substantive unconscionability, including the mass arbitration protocol, lack of discovery, limited right of appeal, and arbitrator selection provisions.The Ninth Circuit also held that the application of California’s unconscionability law to the arbitration agreement was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). As an alternate and independent ground, the court held that the FAA does not preempt California’s prohibition of class action waivers in contracts of adhesion in large-scale small-stakes consumer cases, as established in Discover Bank v. Superior Court. The court concluded that Ticketmaster’s Terms and New Era’s Rules were independently unconscionable under Discover Bank. The decision of the district court was affirmed. View "HECKMAN V. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC." on Justia Law

Boris Bergus and Agustin Florian, both doctors, were colleagues and later co-investors in a company managed by Florian's brother-in-law, Edgardo Jose Antonio Castro Baca. Bergus invested in the company in 2012 and 2014, purchasing stock. Years later, after their relationship deteriorated, Bergus sued Florian, alleging that Florian had omitted material information about the investments, violating the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act (MUSA). The trial featured testimony from Bergus, Florian, and Baca. The district court precluded Florian from cross-examining Bergus about a 2013 state medical board finding that Bergus had misrepresented his medical credentials. The jury found in favor of Bergus regarding the 2012 investment but not the 2014 investment.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor of Bergus for the 2012 investment, awarding him $125,000 plus interest, totaling $202,506.85, and additional attorney's fees and costs, bringing the total judgment to $751,234.86. The court dismissed Florian's counterclaim for abuse of process, suggesting it be litigated in state court.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed several issues, including the district court's limitation on Florian's cross-examination of Bergus. The appellate court found that the district court abused its discretion by precluding cross-examination about Bergus's misrepresentations of his medical credentials, which were probative of his character for truthfulness. The court concluded that this error was not harmless, as the case hinged on the credibility of the witnesses.The First Circuit vacated the judgment regarding the 2012 investment and remanded for a new trial on that issue. The jury's verdict on the 2014 investment remained intact. The appellate court did not address Florian's other arguments due to the need for a new trial. View "Bergus v. Florian" on Justia Law