Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, American Screening, LLC, a Louisiana company, promised buyers that it would ship personal protective equipment (PPE) more quickly than it actually did. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued American Screening, alleging that its shipping policies and practices violated the FTC Act and the Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule (MITOR). The company's website contained a shipping policy that stated orders would be processed and shipped within 24-48 hours. However, in practice, it took about six weeks for PPE to be shipped after the customer had purchased it.The district court granted the FTC summary judgment and ordered American Screening to return almost $14.7 million to consumers and permanently enjoined it from advertising or selling PPE. American Screening challenged the district court's ordered remedies on appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court rejected American Screening's contention that the court should have considered whether each individual consumer had relied on American Screening's shipping representations and had sustained an injury as a result. The court also disagreed with American Screening's argument that the district court's equitable monetary relief went beyond what was necessary to redress consumers and so amounts to an award of exemplary or punitive damages. The court found that the relief was tailored to ensure that dissatisfied consumers are made whole while also ensuring that American Screening does not have to pay unharmed customers as punishment.Finally, the court rejected American Screening's challenge to the scope of the permanent injunction barring it from advertising or selling PPE. The court agreed with the district court that the egregiousness of American Screening's conduct weighed in favor of the injunction. The court also found that the injunction's effect on American Screening was more modest than its breadth might suggest. View "FTC v. American Screening, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves the National Association of Manufacturers and Natural Gas Services Group, Incorporated (plaintiffs-appellants) against the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Gary Gensler, in his official capacity as Chair of the SEC (defendants-appellees). The dispute arose after the SEC, in 2020, adopted a rule regulating businesses that provide proxy voting advice to institutional shareholders of public corporations. Two years later, the SEC rescinded this rule. The appellants challenged the rescission in district court, arguing that the SEC arbitrarily and capriciously failed to provide an adequate explanation for its abrupt change in policy. The district court rejected the appellants’ contentions and granted summary judgment in favor of the SEC.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The court found that the SEC's explanation for rescinding the 2020 rule was arbitrary and capricious, and therefore unlawful. The court held that the SEC failed to provide an adequate justification for contradicting its prior factual finding that the 2020 Rule did not threaten the timeliness and independence of proxy voting advice. The court also found that the SEC failed to provide a reasonable explanation why these risks were so significant under the 2020 Rule as to justify its rescission. The court vacated the 2022 rescission in part and remanded the case back to the SEC. View "National Association of Manufacturers and Natural Gas Services Group, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission" on Justia Law

The New London Hospital Association, Inc. (NLH), a nonprofit corporation, appealed a decision by the Superior Court dismissing its appeals from denials by the Town of Newport of NLH’s applications for charitable property tax exemptions for tax years 2015, 2017, and 2018. NLH owns a property in Newport where it operates the Newport Health Center (NHC), an outpatient treatment center. NLH applied for a charitable tax exemption for the NHC property, which was denied by the Town. NLH appealed these denials to the superior court. The court ruled that NLH established three of the four factors necessary for the exemption, but not the fourth.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the trial court’s rulings that NLH satisfied the second and third factors for charitable exemption. However, it reversed the trial court's ruling that NLH failed to prove that it satisfied the fourth factor, which required NLH to show that “any of [NLH’s] income or profits are used for any purpose other than the purpose for which [NLH] was established.” The court concluded that the practice of referring patients to Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health (DHH) for “appropriate medical care” that NLH cannot provide, does not confer on DHH a “pecuniary . . . benefit” prohibited under the fourth factor. The court also found that NLH was not required to show that the independent contractors to whom it made payments shared NLH’s charitable mission. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "New London Hospital Association v. Town of Newport" on Justia Law

Jake's Fireworks Inc., a large importer and distributor of consumer fireworks, sought judicial review of several warning notices it received from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. The notices were issued after the Commission's staff sampled fireworks imported by Jake's Fireworks and found that about one-third of those samples indicated that the fireworks were dangerously overloaded with explosive material, rendering them "banned hazardous substances" under the agency’s regulations. The Commission's Compliance Office accordingly sent Jake's Fireworks several “Notice[s] of Non-Compliance,” requesting that the distribution of the sampled lots not take place and that the existing inventory be destroyed.Jake's Fireworks first sued the Commission in federal court in 2019, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief from the agency’s enforcement of its fireworks regulations via the Notices. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, determining that the Notices did not constitute final agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act because they did not consummate the Commission’s decisionmaking process. After the dismissal of its first lawsuit, Jake's Fireworks requested an informal hearing with the Compliance Office to contest the Notices. The Compliance Office declined to hold a hearing or to revisit its findings, and Jake's Fireworks filed a second lawsuit, which was also dismissed by the district court on the same grounds as the first lawsuit.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Notices did not constitute final agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court reasoned that the Compliance Office’s Notices of Noncompliance did not mark the consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking process, as it is the Commission itself, not its Compliance Office, that makes final determinations on whether goods are banned hazardous substances. The court also found that the language of the Notices confirmed that they conveyed preliminary findings and advice from agency staff rather than a final determination from the Commission itself. View "Jake's Fireworks Inc. v. United States Consumer Product Safety Commission" on Justia Law

The case revolves around an insurance dispute between the Bradshaw Family Trust Inc., operating as Hunton Office Supply Inc. (Hunton), and Twin City Fire Insurance Company (Twin City). In June 2019, Hunton renewed a business owner’s policy on its office supply store building, which included a building replacement cost of $1,378,000. In April 2020, the building sustained wind damage from a storm. Hunton sought an insurance payout for the building’s repairs, but Twin City only paid a fraction of what was expected. A dispute arose surrounding the effective date of proposed policy changes, leading Hunton to sue Twin City.Twin City moved for summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, arguing that it did not breach the insurance contract. The district court granted Twin City’s motion for summary judgment. Hunton appealed the decision, arguing that the policy endorsement was invalid because there was no meeting of the minds, the endorsement was never delivered to him, and the extent of the insurance agent's authority was a material fact question precluding summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the insurance agent had apparent authority to bind Hunton to the policy endorsement. It also concluded that based on the record, the only reasonable conclusion was that Hunton intended the policy changes to take effect immediately. Lastly, the court ruled that under Arkansas law, Hunton did not have to receive or sign the endorsement because it had requested the policy change. View "Bradshaw Family Trust Inc. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

International Development Solutions, LLC (IDS), a security service contractor, entered into a contract with the Department of State for the provision of personal protection services in Afghanistan. IDS was initially a joint venture between ACADEMI Training Center, Inc. (ATCI) and Kaseman, LLC. However, ATCI later purchased all of Kaseman, LLC’s membership interest in IDS, making IDS a sole member LLC with ATCI as the sole member and owner. IDS then sold and transferred all of its interests in all of its contracts, subcontracts, and all property and assets to ATCI. ATCI requested the State to recognize it as the successor-in-interest to IDS’s contract through a formal novation agreement, but the State denied the request.The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals denied IDS’s consolidated appeal seeking cost-reimbursement of tax payments made by related corporate entities. The Board found no entitlement to reimbursement as IDS did not present evidence that tax amounts paid were costs incurred by IDS, the contractor, rather than by entities higher in IDS’s ownership chain.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s finding that IDS did not present evidence that tax amounts paid were costs incurred by IDS, the contractor, rather than by entities higher in IDS’s ownership chain. Therefore, IDS was not entitled to reimbursement. View "INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC v. SECRETARY OF STATE " on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Zimmer Biomet, a medical-device manufacturer, and six of its former sales distributors. The dispute arose from a compensation agreement that guaranteed the distributors a lifetime of long-term commissions on all sales made within their distributorship after retirement. As the company grew and acquired competitors, a disagreement emerged over which product categories fell within the distributorship and were thus subject to the long-term commission agreement.The district court found the agreement ambiguous and sent the case to trial. The jury returned a split verdict, finding that Biomet owed long-term commissions on some products but not others. Biomet appealed the denials of its motions for summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law, and the distributors cross-appealed the dismissal of two counts of their complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions. The appellate court agreed that the distributorship agreement was ambiguous regarding the specific categories of products it covered. It also found that the trial record supported the jury’s verdict in favor of the distributors on their Indiana breach-of-contract claim. The court rejected Biomet's argument that the agreement unambiguously limited long-term commissions to reconstructive products, finding that the agreement did not provide clear guidance on which product categories were covered. The court also upheld the dismissal of two counts in the distributors’ complaint, finding that they either lacked a contractual basis or were duplicative of another count. View "Hess v. Biomet, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2020 and 2021, two plaintiffs, identified as Jane Doe WHBE 3 and Jane Doe LSA 35, filed separate lawsuits against Uber Technologies, Inc. and its subsidiary, Raiser, LLC, alleging they were sexually assaulted by their Uber drivers in Hawaii and Texas, respectively. These cases, along with hundreds of others, were coordinated before a single judge of the San Francisco Superior Court. Uber moved to stay the cases on the ground of forum non conveniens, arguing that the cases should be heard in the jurisdictions where the alleged incidents occurred. The trial court granted Uber's motions, staying the cases and providing for tolling of the statute of limitations.The trial court's decision was based on a comprehensive 21-page order that considered whether the alternate forums (Hawaii and Texas) were suitable for trial, the private interests of the litigants, and the public interest in retaining the action for trial in California. The court concluded that the alternate forums were suitable, and that the public interest factors weighed heavily in favor of transfer. The court also found that the cases should be viewed as individual sexual assault/misconduct cases in which the plaintiffs claimed Uber was vicariously liable due to its deficient safety practices, rather than as corporate misconduct cases.The plaintiffs appealed both the trial court’s forum non conveniens order and the agreed-upon order applying it to the non-California cases. They argued that the trial court erred in failing to ensure that a suitable alternative forum existed for all the affected cases, failing to require Uber to demonstrate that California was a “seriously inconvenient” forum, and failing to “accord the coordination order proper deference.” The Court of Appeal rejected all of these arguments and affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves the United States Department of Labor (DOL) and Ascent Construction, Inc., its CEO Bradley Knowlton, and the Ascent Construction, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the Plan). The DOL investigated Ascent and Knowlton for potential breaches of their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The DOL found that Knowlton had deposited over $311,000 of the Plan’s cash into Ascent’s checking accounts and used it to pay Ascent’s business expenses. The DOL also discovered that a former Ascent employee had requested a distribution from his retirement account but never received it, even though the Plan’s custodian had issued a distribution check at Knowlton’s request.The DOL filed a lawsuit alleging that Knowlton and Ascent had violated ERISA’s fiduciary-duty standard and prohibited-transaction rules. The DOL sought a preliminary injunction to remove Knowlton and Ascent as Plan fiduciaries and appoint an independent fiduciary to prevent further ERISA violations and dissipation of the Plan’s assets. The district court granted the DOL’s motion, and the defendants filed an interlocutory appeal.While the appeal was pending, the case proceeded in the lower court. The DOL filed an amended complaint and discovery commenced. The district court later entered a default judgment against the defendants due to their willful failure to engage in the litigation process and comply with the court’s orders. The court also issued a permanent injunction that superseded the preliminary injunction, permanently barring Knowlton and Ascent from serving as trustee and administrator of the Plan.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the defendants' appeal as moot. The court reasoned that the preliminary injunction dissolved automatically with the entry of the final judgment, regardless of whether the final judgment was issued on the merits or by way of default judgment. The court concluded that granting the defendants’ requested relief—vacatur of the preliminary injunction—would have no “effect in the real world.” View "Su v. Ascent Construction" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Brad Packer, a shareholder of 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. (FLWS), who alleged that Raging Capital Management, LLC, Raging Capital Master Fund, Ltd., and William C. Martin (collectively, the Appellees) violated Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This section requires owners of more than 10% of a company's stock to disgorge profits made from buying and selling the company's stock within a six-month window. Packer claimed that the Appellees, as 10% beneficial owners of FLWS, engaged in such "short-swing" trading and failed to disgorge their profits. After FLWS declined to sue the Appellees, Packer filed a shareholder derivative suit on behalf of FLWS.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Packer's suit, reasoning that he lacked constitutional standing because he did not allege a concrete injury. The District Court concluded that the Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, which elaborated on the "concrete injury" requirement of constitutional standing, abrogated the Second Circuit's previous decision in Donoghue v. Bulldog Investors General Partnership. In Donoghue, the Second Circuit held that a violation of Section 16(b) inflicts an injury that confers constitutional standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disagreed with the District Court's interpretation. The Appeals Court held that TransUnion did not abrogate Donoghue, and the District Court erred in holding that it did. The Appeals Court emphasized that a District Court must follow controlling precedent, even if it believes that the precedent may eventually be overturned. The Appeals Court found that nothing in TransUnion undermines Donoghue, and thus, the District Court erred in dismissing Packer's Section 16(b) suit. The Appeals Court reversed the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Packer v. Raging Capital Management, LLC" on Justia Law