Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Karen L. Willis, operating as Harlem West Entertainment and married to Victor Willis, the original lead singer of the Village People, alleged that the Walt Disney Company and related entities engaged in unfair competition and fraud. The dispute arose after Disney hired the reconstituted Village People, led by Victor Willis, for performances at Walt Disney World in 2018. Following these events, Willis claimed Disney instituted a secret ban on booking the Village People for future concerts and made misleading statements to the band’s agents about potential future engagements. Willis asserted that Disney’s actions, including evasive communications and refusal to consider booking proposals, constituted unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices.The Superior Court of San Diego County reviewed Disney’s special motion to strike the complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16). The trial court denied Disney’s motion, finding that Disney failed to meet its initial burden of showing that the conduct alleged in Willis’s complaint was protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute’s catchall provision. The court concluded that, although the conduct implicated a public issue, it did not further or participate in a public conversation about that issue. As a result, the trial court did not address Disney’s evidentiary objections or whether Willis’s claims had minimal merit.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case and reversed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that Disney’s selection of musical acts for public concerts and its related communications with the Village People’s agents were protected conduct under the anti-SLAPP statute’s catchall provision. The court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether Willis’s claims have minimal merit, as required by the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis. View "Willis v. The Walt Disney Company" on Justia Law

Two individuals, Kellogg and Mathiesen, formed a limited liability company (LLC) to provide in-home personal care services. Over time, disputes arose regarding ownership interests, capital contributions, and management of the company. The parties executed several agreements, including a 2017 contract transferring Mathiesen’s ownership to Kellogg due to his ineligibility as a Medicaid provider, and a 2019 contract in which Kellogg sold Mathiesen a 50% interest in the LLC’s assets. Allegations of mismanagement, misuse of company funds, and inappropriate conduct by Mathiesen led to litigation between the parties, including derivative claims and counterclaims. Kellogg also sought judicial dissolution of the LLC, citing unlawful conduct and irreconcilable differences.The District Court for Douglas County held a bench trial and found both Kellogg and Mathiesen to be 50-percent co-owners or managers of the LLC. The court denied all derivative claims and counterclaims, citing unclean hands by both parties. However, the court granted Kellogg’s application for dissolution, finding Mathiesen’s conduct oppressive and fraudulent, and ordered the appointment of a receiver to oversee the dissolution and possible sale of the company. Mathiesen appealed both the judgment and the receiver’s appointment.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the consolidated appeals, limiting its review to plain error due to deficiencies in Mathiesen’s appellate briefing. The court determined it had jurisdiction over both appeals and addressed Mathiesen’s argument that Kellogg lacked standing. The court held that Kellogg remained a member of the LLC at the time of filing her derivative action and thus had standing. Finding no plain error in the record, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment and the order appointing a receiver. View "Kellogg v. Mathiesen" on Justia Law

Two psychiatrists challenged the practices of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN), alleging that ABPN unlawfully tied its specialty certification to its maintenance of certification (MOC) product, thereby violating antitrust law and causing unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs argued that ABPN’s monopoly over specialty certifications forced doctors to purchase the MOC product, which includes both activity and assessment requirements, in order to maintain their professional standing and employment opportunities. They claimed that the MOC product functioned as a substitute for other continuing medical education (CME) products required for state licensure, and that this arrangement harmed competition in the CME market.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint with prejudice. The district court found that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege an illegal tying arrangement under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, specifically because they did not show that ABPN’s MOC product was a viable substitute for other CME products. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs had multiple opportunities to amend their complaint and had not demonstrated how further amendment would cure the deficiencies.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that psychiatrists and neurologists view ABPN’s MOC product as reasonably interchangeable with other CME offerings. The court found that, even if MOC participation could partially or fully satisfy state CME requirements, the additional time, cost, and effort required by the MOC program made it implausible that doctors would choose MOC over other CME products. The court also upheld the district court’s decision to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, finding no abuse of discretion. View "Lazarou v. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology" on Justia Law

The case concerns a former CEO of a brand-management company who was prosecuted for allegedly orchestrating a scheme to inflate company revenues through secret “overpayments-for-givebacks” deals with a business partner. The government alleged that the CEO arranged for the partner to pay inflated prices for joint ventures, with a secret understanding that the excess would be returned later, thereby allowing the company to report higher revenues to investors. The CEO was also accused of making false filings with the SEC and improperly influencing audits. The central factual dispute was whether the CEO actually made these undisclosed agreements.In 2021, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held a jury trial. The jury acquitted the CEO of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, make false SEC filings, and interfere with audits, but could not reach a verdict on the substantive charges, resulting in a mistrial on those counts. The government retried the CEO in 2022 on the substantive counts, and the second jury convicted him on all charges. The CEO moved to bar the retrial, arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded it because the first jury’s acquittal necessarily decided factual issues essential to the government’s case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the first jury’s acquittal on the conspiracy charge necessarily decided that the CEO did not make the alleged secret agreements, which was a factual issue essential to the substantive charges. Because the government’s case at the second trial depended on proving those same secret agreements, the Double Jeopardy Clause’s issue-preclusion doctrine barred the retrial. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment, vacated the CEO’s convictions, and ordered dismissal of the indictment. View "United States v. Cole" on Justia Law

A married couple owned all shares of a corporation that operated a boat dealership and served as an authorized dealer for a boat manufacturer. After the manufacturer ended its relationship with the dealership, the business failed, leading to foreclosure on its property and the couple’s personal bankruptcies. The couple then sued the manufacturer for intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and promissory fraud, alleging that the manufacturer’s conduct caused the loss of their business and personal assets. A jury awarded them $900,000 in compensatory damages for the loss of equity in the dealership’s real property.Following the verdict, the manufacturer filed post-trial motions and, for the first time at the hearing, challenged the couple’s standing, arguing that the damages related to property owned by the corporation, not the individuals, and that any claims should have been brought derivatively on behalf of the corporation. The Circuit Court for Loudon County agreed, finding the couple lacked “statutory standing” and dismissing the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed, holding that shareholder standing limitations are not jurisdictional and can be waived, and that the manufacturer had forfeited its challenge by raising it too late.The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the Court of Appeals. It held that the couple had constitutional standing to bring their claims, as they alleged injury to their legal rights as shareholders. The Court further held that the trial court erred in applying statutory standing principles, since the claims were not brought as a derivative action. Instead, the issue implicated shareholder standing, which is non-jurisdictional and subject to forfeiture if not timely raised. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Houghton v. Malibu Boats, LLC" on Justia Law

Pro-Mark Services, Inc., a general contracting construction company, obtained payment and performance bonds from Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company as required by the Miller Act. To facilitate this, Pro-Mark and other indemnitors entered into a General Indemnity Agreement (GIA) with Hartford, assigning certain rights related to bonded contracts. Later, Pro-Mark entered into two substantial business loan agreements with Capital Credit Union (CCU), secured by most of Pro-Mark’s assets, including deposit accounts. Recognizing potential conflicts over asset priorities, Hartford and CCU executed an Intercreditor Collateral Agreement (ICA) to define their respective rights and priorities in Pro-Mark’s assets, distinguishing between “Bank Priority Collateral” and “Surety Priority Collateral,” and specifying how proceeds should be distributed.After Pro-Mark filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of North Dakota, CCU placed an administrative freeze on Pro-Mark’s deposit accounts and moved for relief from the automatic stay to exercise its right of setoff against the funds in those accounts. Hartford objected, claiming a superior interest in the funds based on the GIA and ICA. The bankruptcy court held hearings and, after considering the parties’ briefs and stipulated facts, granted CCU’s motion, allowing it to set off the funds. The bankruptcy court found CCU had met its burden for setoff and determined Hartford did not have a sufficient interest in the deposited funds, focusing on the GIA and North Dakota’s Uniform Commercial Code, and not the ICA.On appeal, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit held that while the bankruptcy court had authority to adjudicate the priority dispute, it erred by failing to analyze the parties’ respective rights under the ICA, which governed the priority of distributions. The Panel reversed the bankruptcy court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Capital Credit Union" on Justia Law

Cherry Oil is a closely held corporation in eastern North Carolina, primarily owned and managed by members of the Cherry and Mauck families. Armistead and Louise Mauck, who together own 34% of the company’s shares, became involved in the business after Armistead was invited to join during a period of financial difficulty. In 1998, the families formalized their relationship through a Shareholder Agreement, which included provisions allowing either party to force a buyout of shares at fair market value. Over time, disputes arose regarding management and succession, culminating in the Maucks’ removal from the board and Cherry Oil’s attempt to buy out their shares. The buyout process stalled, leaving the Maucks as minority shareholders no longer employed by the company.The Maucks filed suit in Superior Court, Lenoir County, asserting claims for judicial dissolution under N.C.G.S. § 55-14-30, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and breach of the Shareholder Agreement. The case was designated a mandatory complex business case and assigned to the North Carolina Business Court. The Business Court dismissed most claims, including the judicial dissolution claim for lack of standing, finding that the Shareholder Agreement’s buyout provision provided an adequate remedy. It also dismissed other claims for reasons such as untimeliness and insufficient factual allegations. The court later granted summary judgment to defendants on the remaining claims, concluding that the actions taken by the Cherry family were valid corporate acts and that the Maucks had not demonstrated breach of duty or contract.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the Maucks did have standing to seek judicial dissolution but affirmed the dismissal of that claim under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that the Shareholder Agreement’s buyout provision provided a sufficient remedy and that the complaint did not allege facts showing dissolution was reasonably necessary. The Supreme Court otherwise affirmed the Business Court’s rulings. View "Mauck v. Cherry Oil Co." on Justia Law

A real estate investment trust that specializes in purchasing and leasing properties to cannabis companies was defrauded by one of its tenants, Kings Garden, which submitted fraudulent reimbursement requests for capital improvements. The trust paid out over $48 million based on these requests before discovering irregularities, such as forged documentation and payments for work that was not performed. After uncovering the fraud, the trust sued Kings Garden and disclosed the situation to the market, which led to a decline in its stock price.Following these events, several shareholders filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The shareholders claimed that the trust and its executives made false or misleading statements about their due diligence, tenant monitoring, and the nature of reimbursements, and that these misstatements caused their losses when the fraud was revealed. The District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that while some statements could be misleading, the plaintiffs failed to plead facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter, as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. The Third Circuit held that most of the challenged statements were either non-actionable opinions, not false or misleading, or not sufficiently specific. For the one statement plausibly alleged to be false or misleading, the court found that the facts did not support a strong inference that the statement’s maker acted with scienter. The court also rejected the application of corporate scienter and found no basis for control-person liability under Section 20(a) in the absence of a primary violation. View "Handal v. Innovative Industrial Properties Inc" on Justia Law

Several national securities exchanges challenged a 2024 rule adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that lowered the cap on fees exchanges may charge investors for executing orders. The SEC had previously set a cap of 30 mils ($0.003) per share for stocks priced at or above $1, and 0.3% of the quotation price for stocks below $1. In 2024, after gathering new data and considering market developments, the SEC reduced these caps to 10 mils for stocks priced at or above $1, and 0.1% for stocks below $1. The SEC explained that the changes were necessary to address market distortions and to align fee caps with reduced minimum tick sizes, thereby promoting price transparency and market efficiency.After the SEC adopted the new rule, several exchanges petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review, arguing that the SEC exceeded its statutory authority and acted arbitrarily or capriciously. The SEC agreed to stay the amendment pending judicial review. The exchanges contended that the SEC lacked authority to impose an industry-wide fee cap and that, if it had such authority, it was required to proceed on an exchange-by-exchange basis. They also argued that the SEC’s decision-making was arbitrary, particularly in its assessment of market effects and its choice of the 10-mil cap.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the SEC acted within its statutory authority under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, which grants the SEC broad discretion to regulate the national market system, including the power to set universal access-fee caps. The court further found that the SEC’s rulemaking was not arbitrary or capricious, as the agency reasonably considered relevant issues, explained its decision, and relied on both economic theory and empirical data. The petition for review was denied. View "Cboe Global Markets, Inc. v. SEC" on Justia Law

A group of dentists, who are both members of a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation and parties to provider agreements with that corporation, challenged the corporation’s decision to unilaterally amend its fee schedules and related rules. The provider agreements allowed the corporation to set the fees paid to dentists for services rendered to plan enrollees, and the agreements, as amended by a 2018 settlement, expressly permitted the corporation to make unilateral changes to the fee structure with 120 days’ notice, during which dentists could terminate their agreements if they did not accept the new terms. In 2022, the corporation announced further amendments that, according to the dentists, reduced fees and altered the fee determination process. The dentists alleged that these changes breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in their provider agreements and that certain directors breached fiduciary duties owed to them as members.The Superior Court of San Francisco City and County sustained demurrers by all defendants without leave to amend. The court found that the corporation could not breach the implied covenant by exercising rights expressly granted in the agreements, and that the directors owed no fiduciary duty to the dentists in connection with the corporation’s exercise of its contractual rights to amend fee schedules.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot be used to override or limit a party’s express contractual right to unilaterally amend fee schedules, provided the contract is supported by consideration and the changes are prospective, with adequate notice and an opportunity to terminate. The court also held that directors of a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation owe fiduciary duties to the corporation itself, not to individual members in their capacity as contracting parties. View "California Dental Assn. v. Delta Dental of California" on Justia Law