Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Overhead Door Company of Indianapolis contracted with Blue Giant Equipment Corporation, a Canadian company, for the purchase of multiple dock levelers. After installation, Overhead experienced issues with the levelers and sued Blue Giant in federal court under diversity jurisdiction for breach of contract and warranty. Blue Giant moved to dismiss, citing a provision in its standard terms requiring arbitration in Ontario, Canada. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the standard terms were not incorporated into the parties' contract.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana reviewed the case and denied Blue Giant's motion to dismiss. The court found that the mere reference to standard terms on a website was insufficient to incorporate those terms into the contract between Overhead and Blue Giant. Blue Giant appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Blue Giant's reference to its Terms and Conditions on its website was sufficient to incorporate those terms into the contract. The court noted that the reference was conspicuous and provided Overhead with reasonable opportunity to take notice of the terms. The court concluded that the parties were obligated to resolve their dispute through arbitration in Ontario, Canada, as specified in the incorporated terms. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Garage Door Systems, LLC v Blue Giant Equipment Corp." on Justia Law

Zyla Life Sciences, LLC (Zyla) sells FDA-approved indomethacin suppositories, while Wells Pharma of Houston, LLC (Wells Pharma) sells compounded indomethacin suppositories that are not FDA-approved but are produced in a registered compounding facility. Zyla filed suit against Wells Pharma under the unfair-competition laws of six states, arguing that Wells Pharma's sales violated state laws that mirror the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) by requiring FDA approval for new drugs.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Wells Pharma's motion to dismiss, holding that the state laws were preempted by federal law. Zyla appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Fifth Circuit held that state laws mirroring federal requirements are not preempted by the FDCA. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in California v. Zook, which established that state laws incorporating federal law do not create a conflict and are not preempted. The court also distinguished this case from Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, noting that Buckman involved state-law claims of fraud on a federal agency, which is a uniquely federal concern, unlike the parallel state regulations at issue here.The Fifth Circuit concluded that the state laws in question do not conflict with the FDCA and do not interfere with federal enforcement discretion. Therefore, the district court's order granting Wells Pharma's motion to dismiss was reversed, Wells Pharma's cross-appeal for attorney's fees was dismissed as moot, and the district court's order denying Zyla's motion for leave to amend was vacated. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Zyla Life Sciences v. Wells Pharma" on Justia Law

Kenneth Tilley sought financing from Malvern National Bank (MNB) for a real estate development project in 2009 and 2010, totaling $350,000. Tilley claimed MNB engaged in unfair dealings and sued for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), tortious interference, negligence, and fraud. The case has been appealed multiple times, with the Arkansas Supreme Court previously reversing decisions related to Tilley's right to a jury trial.Initially, the Garland County Circuit Court struck Tilley's jury demand, which was reversed by the Arkansas Supreme Court. After remand, the circuit court reinstated a bench trial verdict, citing Act 13 of 2018, which was again reversed by the Supreme Court. On the third remand, MNB moved for summary judgment on all claims. The circuit court granted summary judgment, citing Tilley's reduction of collateral as a material alteration of the agreement, a rationale not argued by MNB. Tilley appealed this decision.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the circuit court did not violate the mandate by considering summary judgment. However, it was reversible error for the circuit court to grant summary judgment based on an unargued rationale. The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment on Tilley's ADTPA, tortious interference, and negligence claims, finding no genuine issues of material fact. However, it reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Tilley's breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud claims, determining that there were disputed material facts that required a jury trial. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Tilley v. Malvern National Bank" on Justia Law

Badlia Brothers, LLC, a check-cashing business, cashed 15 checks issued by the State of Maryland. These checks had already been paid by the State before Badlia presented them for payment. Some checks were deposited using a mobile app, creating "substitute checks," and were then fraudulently or negligently presented to Badlia. Others were reported lost or stolen, leading the State to issue stop payment orders and replacement checks, which were also cashed by Badlia. Badlia accepted the checks without knowledge of prior payments and sought payment from the State, which refused.Badlia filed complaints in the District Court of Maryland, claiming the right to enforce the checks as a holder in due course. The court consolidated the cases, ruled that the State enjoyed qualified immunity, and dismissed the cases. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City reversed, holding that a check is a contract, and thus, the State had waived sovereign immunity. On remand, the District Court found that Badlia was a holder in due course entitled to enforce the checks. The Circuit Court affirmed, and the State petitioned for certiorari.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that a check is a contract for purposes of the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity under § 12-201(a) of the State Government Article. The court affirmed the Circuit Court's decision, concluding that the State has waived sovereign immunity for claims by a holder in due course seeking payment on an authorized State-issued check. View "Comptroller v. Badlia Brothers, LLC" on Justia Law

Charter Oak Production Co., LLC paid to settle a property damage claim after a pipeline installed on its easement ruptured, causing a saltwater spill on the property of Jason and Melissa Mills. Charter Oak sought indemnity from JM Eagle, Inc., the manufacturer, and Rainmaker Sales, Inc., the distributor, alleging the pipe was defective. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of JM Eagle and Rainmaker, finding that Charter Oak lacked the necessary legal relationship to assert an indemnity claim and that the claim was barred by the economic loss rule.The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, Division IV, reversed the district court's decision. It found that Charter Oak's non-delegable duty to the Millses created the legal relationship necessary to support an indemnity claim against JM Eagle and Rainmaker. Additionally, it held that Charter Oak's claim was not barred by the economic loss rule.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case. It held that Charter Oak's non-delegable duty as the dominant tenant of the easement established the legal relationship necessary to seek indemnity from JM Eagle and Rainmaker. The court also held that the economic loss rule did not bar Charter Oak's indemnity claim, as it sought reimbursement for damage to property other than the defective product itself. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals' decision, reversed the district court's order, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Mills v. J-M Mfg. Co., Inc." on Justia Law

IonQ, Inc., a public company developing quantum computers, experienced a significant drop in its stock price from $7.86 on May 2, 2022, to $4.34 on May 12, 2022. A group of investors claimed this decline was due to the Scorpion Report, published on May 3, 2022, which alleged that IonQ had been committing widespread fraud regarding the value of its company. The investors filed a securities fraud lawsuit against IonQ, asserting that the report revealed the truth about IonQ's misrepresentations, causing their financial losses.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the investors' first amended complaint for failing to state a claim, particularly for not adequately pleading loss causation. The court found that the Scorpion Report, authored by a short-seller with financial incentives, was not a reliable source of information. The court also noted that the investors failed to show that the report or IonQ's response revealed any new, truthful information to the market. The investors then sought reconsideration and leave to file a second amended complaint, which the district court denied, again citing the failure to plead loss causation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the Scorpion Report, given its disclaimers and the financial motivations of its authors, could not plausibly be seen as revealing the truth about IonQ's alleged fraud. Additionally, IonQ's response to the report did not concede any truth to the allegations but rather dismissed them as inaccurate. Therefore, the investors failed to establish the necessary element of loss causation, making their proposed amendments futile. The court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Defeo v. IonQ, Inc." on Justia Law

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought a civil enforcement action against Commonwealth Equity Services, LLC, alleging that from 2014 to 2018, Commonwealth failed to adequately disclose potential conflicts of interest related to its revenue-sharing agreement with National Financial Services, LLC (NFS). The SEC claimed this omission violated Sections 206(2) and (4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and SEC Rule 206(4)-7. Commonwealth's representatives, who provided investment advice to clients, were unaware of the revenue-sharing arrangement, which the SEC argued created a conflict of interest by incentivizing Commonwealth to direct clients to higher-cost mutual fund share classes that generated revenue-sharing income.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the SEC's motion for summary judgment on liability, finding that Commonwealth's disclosures were inadequate as a matter of law and that the firm acted negligently. The court also denied Commonwealth's cross-motion for summary judgment and its motion to reconsider. Subsequently, the district court entered final judgment against Commonwealth, ordering disgorgement of $65,588,906 in revenue-sharing income, $21,185,162 in prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty of $6,500,000. The court struck Commonwealth's expert declaration proposing an alternative disgorgement calculation and adopted the SEC's proposed amount.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment and the disgorgement order, remanding for further proceedings. The appellate court held that the issue of materiality should have been decided by a jury, as reasonable minds could differ on whether the additional disclosures would have significantly altered the total mix of information available to investors. The court also found that the SEC had not adequately shown a reasonable approximation or causal connection between Commonwealth's profits and the alleged violations, and that the district court must consider whether Commonwealth is entitled to deduct its expenses from any disgorgement awarded. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Commonwealth Equity Services, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, plaintiffs in a class action alleged that several corporations in the broiler chicken market violated antitrust laws by engaging in bid rigging and reducing the supply of broiler chickens. The plaintiffs claimed that these actions led to anomalous dips in sales, which they attributed to collusion on price and output. The class action was divided into two tracks: Track 1, which omitted bid-rigging allegations for faster discovery and trial, and Track 2, which included bid-rigging theories and state law claims by indirect purchasers.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois allowed the class to place claims against Simmons Foods, Inc. and Simmons Prepared Foods, Inc. on Track 1. Simmons settled for $8 million, but several class members, including the Boston Market group, objected to the settlement. They argued that the settlement was inadequate and that they should not be included in the class because they had filed their own antitrust suits. However, they missed the deadline to opt out of the class, and the district court approved the settlement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the settlement's release language was broad enough to cover bid-rigging claims and that the $8 million settlement was reasonable. The court noted that the Boston Market group did not provide evidence that the settlement amount was unreasonably low. Additionally, the court observed that the class had lost a related trial and that criminal antitrust prosecutions against some firms had ended in mistrials or acquittals, indicating uncertainty about the plaintiffs' prospects. The court affirmed the district court's approval of the settlement. View "Boston Market Corporation v Mountainaire Farms, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute among members of several limited liability companies, which was arbitrated according to the parties' agreement. The arbitrator issued a series of awards, ultimately granting plaintiff Laurence Rappaport $4.9 million on various claims, offset by an award to defendant Kenneth Pasternak, resulting in a net award of approximately $3.8 million. The arbitrator did not award Rappaport damages for the loss of future distributions of carried interest. Rappaport contended that the issue of carried interest was not presented to the arbitrator and that the arbitrator improperly ruled on it.The Chancery Division confirmed the arbitrator's awards after remanding for clarification that the arbitrator intended to resolve the issue of carried interest. Rappaport appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed the awards for Rappaport’s claims for lost income and future income based on his termination as a manager. However, the Appellate Division ruled that the parties had excluded the question of carried interest from the arbitration and concluded that the arbitrator had raised the issue sua sponte. It modified the awards to exclude any inclusion of Rappaport’s membership interest, including future carried interest, and reversed the Chancery Division’s judgment.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and disagreed with the Appellate Division’s conclusion. The Court found that the issue of carried interest was arbitrable and had been raised by the parties at several stages of the arbitration. The Court held that the remedy of modification under N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-24(a)(2) was not warranted and that the Appellate Division’s review did not conform to the deferential standard governing judicial review of arbitration awards. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and reinstated the Chancery Division’s decision confirming the arbitration award. View "Rappaport v. Pasternak" on Justia Law

Kaiser-Francis Oil Company (KFOC), a Delaware corporation, and its subsidiary Aurora-KF, LLC, sold Aurora Gas, LLC, an Alaska company, to Rieck Oil, Inc., a Delaware corporation formed by Kay Rieck. The sale included an indemnity guarantee from Deutsche Oel & Gas, S.A. (DOGSA), another company owned by Rieck, to cover obligations under a pre-existing guarantee by George B. Kaiser to Cook Inlet Regional, Inc. (CIRI). When Aurora Gas went bankrupt, CIRI called on Kaiser and KFOC to fulfill the obligations, but DOGSA and Rieck Oil did not indemnify them.KFOC sued Rieck Oil, DOGSA, and Kay Rieck in the Alaska Superior Court, seeking to pierce Rieck Oil’s corporate veil to hold Rieck personally liable. The superior court applied Delaware law, reasoning that most jurisdictions apply the law of the state of incorporation for veil-piercing claims. Under Delaware law, the court found that KFOC failed to prove the necessary element of fraud or injustice to pierce the corporate veil and ruled in favor of Rieck.The Supreme Court of Alaska reviewed the case, focusing on whether Alaska or Delaware law should apply to the veil-piercing claim. The court held that Alaska law applies, as veil-piercing is not a matter of internal corporate affairs but involves the rights of third parties. The court reasoned that Alaska has a more significant interest in the matter, given the involvement of Alaska land and an Alaska Native Corporation. Consequently, the court vacated the superior court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings under Alaska law. View "Kaiser-Francis Oil Company v. Deutsche Oel & Gas, S.A." on Justia Law