Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around CCA of Tennessee, LLC (CCA), a private prison corporation, and its dealings with the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department (the Department). CCA housed federal prisoners at the Torrance County Detention Center (the Detention Center) and received payments directly from the United States Marshals Service (Marshals Service). CCA sought a refund of gross receipts taxes it believed it had overpaid, which required the Department to issue a nontaxable transaction certificate (NTTC) to Torrance County (the County), which the County would then execute with CCA. CCA's tax advisor misinformed the Department that the receipts for housing the Marshals Service inmates were not coming directly from the Marshals Service to CCA. Based on this misstatement, the Department issued the NTTC.The administrative hearing officer for the Department concluded that CCA did not in good faith accept the NTTC and was not entitled to the deduction from gross receipts it received for housing federal prisoners. The Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed the hearing officer's decision.The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico agreed with the hearing officer's conclusion. The court held that under the plain language of Section 7-9-43(A), CCA did not accept the NTTC in good faith and is therefore not entitled to safe harbor protection from the payment of gross receipts tax. The court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "CCA of Tennessee v. N.M. Tax'n and Revenue Dep't" on Justia Law

In this case, a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV, was formed in 2018 with the goal of merging with a private operating company. In 2019, Hennessy completed its initial public offering (IPO), selling units that included shares of common stock and redeemable warrants. In 2020, Hennessy entered into a merger agreement with Canoo Holdings Ltd., an electric vehicle start-up. The merger was approved by Hennessy's stockholders and closed in December 2020.In the months following the merger, Canoo's new board decided to de-emphasize the company's subscription model and engineering services business line. This decision was announced in March 2021, causing Canoo's stock price to drop. The plaintiff, a Canoo stockholder, filed a lawsuit alleging that Hennessy's sponsor and directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose changes to Canoo's business model prior to the merger.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware dismissed the plaintiff's claims. The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that Hennessy's directors knew or should have known about the changes to Canoo's business model before the merger closed. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's unjust enrichment and aiding and abetting claims, as they were based on the same insufficiently supported allegations. View "In Re Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV Stockholder Litigation" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between limited partners and general partners of MBC Properties, LP and MBC Development, LP, two entities engaged in real estate development, investment, acquisition, and management. The general partners appointed a special litigation committee (SLC) to investigate claims made by one of the limited partners, James W. Miller. The SLC recommended that the partnerships should not pursue any action against the general partner or any other third parties. Miller then filed a demand for arbitration, asserting derivative claims and requesting the arbitrator to determine whether the SLC complied with the Pennsylvania Uniform Limited Partnership Act of 2016 (PULPA).The Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County granted a petition to permanently stay the arbitration, concluding that Miller's challenge to the SLC report arose statutorily and not under the partnership agreements. The Superior Court vacated the trial court's order, finding that the underlying derivative claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreements and that the determination required by PULPA is a prerequisite and defense to those claims, rather than a cause of action.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court's decision, holding that the parties' agreements incorporated the plain language of Section 8694 of PULPA, which mandates court review of a special litigation committee's determination. The court concluded that the dispute over an SLC's determination pursuant to the PULPA is not within the scope of the parties' arbitration agreement. The court remanded the case for proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "MBC Development, LP v. Miller" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the estate of Merle Almer, who passed away in 2016. Almer owned a construction business and a farm, and his will named his daughter, Linda Moe, as the personal representative. The will contained bequests to various individuals, including a life estate in the farm and farming assets to Casey Almer, Merle Almer's grandson. The will also directed the personal representative to use harvested and unharvested grain to pay costs of administration and taxes for the estate. However, at the time of Merle Almer's death, the grain discovered in his grain bins was less than expected, leading to a dispute between the personal representative and Casey Almer.The dispute led to a lawsuit, where the personal representative accused Almer of conversion of grain and other farm assets. Almer counterclaimed with allegations of conversion and breach of fiduciary duty. The counterclaims were dismissed, and a jury found that Almer did not convert property. Almer then filed a petition alleging that the personal representative breached her fiduciary duties. The district court heard testimony and took evidence over five days.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the personal representative did not breach her fiduciary duties while administering the estate. The court also found that the will's abatement provisions were ambiguous due to the will's nonstandard use of the term "specific devise." The court made findings concerning the testator's intent based on testimony from the attorney who prepared the will. The court denied Almer's application for surcharge, granted the personal representative's motion to approve final distribution, and approved approximately $760,000 in attorney’s fees. Almer appealed, challenging the court's interpretation of the will, the court’s findings concerning the personal representative’s conduct during administration, and the court’s approval of attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "In re Estate of Almer" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Patrick Boyle, a trustee and unit owner of the Ocean Club Condominium (OC Condominium), and the Ocean Club Condominium Association (Association). After a disagreement over the Association's financial management, the Board of Trustees (Board) expelled Boyle. Boyle filed a complaint challenging his removal and sought indemnification for his legal fees and costs based on a provision in the Association's bylaws. The trial court reinstated Boyle as a trustee and held that the bylaws entitled Boyle to counsel fees and costs. Boyle later filed an amended complaint, adding additional claims including for indemnification, and a third amended complaint, bringing a derivative claim on behalf of the Association and alleging that the trustee defendants breached their fiduciary duties.The trial court ruled in Boyle's favor, holding that the bylaws entitled him to counsel fees and costs. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision but limited the indemnification to the fees and costs Boyle incurred in his action to be reinstated as trustee, not in his derivative action claim.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division's judgment. The court found the indemnification provision in the Association's bylaws to be ambiguous and, therefore, strictly construed it against Boyle, the indemnitee. The court held that the provision did not cover Boyle's first-party claim for attorneys' fees and costs against the Association. The court clarified that while indemnification may apply to first-party claims if that is the clear intent of the parties, any ambiguity will be construed against the indemnitee. The court encouraged parties seeking to permit indemnification of first-party claims to include express language to do so. View "Boyle v. Huff" on Justia Law

The case involves Tammy O’Connor and Michael Stewart (the Sellers) who sold their company, Red River Solutions, LLC, to Atherio, Inc., a company led by Jason Cory, Greg Furst, and Thomas Farb (the Executives). The agreement stipulated that the Sellers would receive nearly half of their compensation upfront, with the rest—around $3.5 million—coming in the form of ownership units and future payments. However, Atherio went bankrupt and the Sellers received none of the promised $3.5 million. The Sellers sued the Executives, alleging fraud under federal securities law, Delaware common law, and the Texas Securities Act.The district court granted summary judgment to the Executives on all claims. The Sellers appealed the decision, arguing that the district court erred in applying the summary-judgment standard to the federal securities law and Delaware common law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on the extracontractual and Texas Securities Act fraud claims, but reversed the summary judgment grants on the federal securities law and Delaware common law claims. The court found that there was a genuine dispute as to whether the Executives' misrepresentation of Farb's role as CFO was a substantial factor in the Sellers' loss. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Cory v. Stewart" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Justin Keener, who operated under the name JMJ Financial. Keener's business model involved purchasing convertible notes from microcap issuers, converting those notes into common stock, and selling that stock in the public market at a profit. This practice, known as "toxic" or "death spiral" financing, can harm microcap companies and existing investors by causing the stock price to drop significantly. Keener made over $7.7 million in profits from this practice. However, he never registered as a dealer with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).The SEC filed a civil enforcement action against Keener, alleging that he operated as an unregistered dealer in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment for the SEC, enjoining Keener from future securities transactions as an unregistered dealer and ordering him to disgorge the profits from his convertible-note business.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Keener appealed the district court's decision. He argued that he did not violate the Securities Exchange Act because he never effectuated securities orders for customers. He also claimed that the SEC violated his rights to due process and equal protection.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. It held that Keener operated as an unregistered dealer in violation of the Securities Exchange Act. The court rejected Keener's argument that he could not have been a dealer because he never effectuated securities orders for customers. It also dismissed Keener's claims that the SEC violated his rights to due process and equal protection. The court upheld the district court's imposition of a permanent injunction and its order for Keener to disgorge his profits. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Keener" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Deutsche Bank AG, sought to recover damages from the defendants, Alexander Vik and his daughter, Caroline Vik, for their alleged interference with a business expectancy. The plaintiff was attempting to collect an approximately $243 million foreign judgment from a company, Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (SHI), which the plaintiff claimed was controlled by Alexander. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had attempted to interfere with a Norwegian court’s order requiring the sale of SHI’s shares in a Norwegian software company, Confirmit, to partially satisfy the foreign judgment. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the litigation privilege because they were based on communications made and actions taken in prior judicial proceedings. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the defendants appealed to the Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded with direction to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the Appellate Court’s judgment and remanded with direction to affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court held that the defendants could not prevail on their claim that the plaintiff’s appeal was rendered moot by virtue of the court’s decision in a previous case. The court also held that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants were barred by the litigation privilege. The court concluded that many of the tactics Alexander allegedly used to disrupt, delay, and otherwise interfere with the sale of Confirmit, including stacking Confirmit’s board of directors with family members and associates, submitting a disingenuous bid to acquire Confirmit, coordinating with his father to have the plaintiff’s execution lien deregistered, and forging and backdating the document purporting to grant Caroline a right of first refusal, occurred outside of the context of any judicial proceeding and, therefore, were not covered by the litigation privilege. View "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik" on Justia Law

The case involves William J. Brown, the former CEO of Matterport, Inc., a technology company that creates 3D digital representations of physical spaces. Brown held almost 1.4 million shares of Matterport stock. In 2021, Matterport became a public company through a merger transaction. Bylaws adopted in connection with the merger included transfer restrictions thought to apply to all legacy Matterport stockholders, including Brown. Brown challenged the lockup in court as illegal and inequitable.In the lower courts, Brown argued that his shares were excluded from the lockup. The court agreed, ruling that the restriction applied only to public Matterport shares held “immediately following” the close of the merger. The court held that Brown never held lockup shares and was free to trade. Brown then sold his shares for total proceeds of approximately $80 million.In the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Brown pursued a recovery of losses caused by his inability to sell sooner. He sought damages under the highest intermediate price method. The court concluded that Brown was entitled to damages, but declined to award them using the highest intermediate price. Instead, the court measured Brown’s damages using the average price of Matterport stock during a reasonable time that Brown would have traded if able. Brown’s net damages were approximately $79 million. View "Brown v. Matterport, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the validity of certain provisions in a governance agreement between BRP Group, Inc. and its founder. The founder sought to maintain control over the company while selling a significant portion of his equity stake. The agreement stipulated that as long as the founder and his affiliates owned at least 10% of the outstanding shares, the corporation had to obtain the founder's prior written approval before engaging in a list of actions. A stockholder plaintiff challenged three of these pre-approval requirements as invalid.The corporation argued that the plaintiff had waited too long to sue and had implicitly accepted the terms of the agreement by purchasing shares. However, the court rejected these arguments, stating that equitable defenses could not validate void acts. The corporation also claimed that a subsequent agreement, in which the founder agreed to consent to any action approved by an independent committee of directors, rendered the plaintiff's claims moot. The court disagreed, finding that the plaintiff's claims were not moot because the corporation had modified but not eliminated the challenged provisions.On the merits, the court found that the challenged provisions were invalid because they contravened sections of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to those provisions and denied the company's cross motion for judgment on the pleadings to a reciprocal degree. View "Wagner v. BRP Group, Inc." on Justia Law