Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

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

The case involves Havana Docks Corporation, which held a 99-year usufructuary concession at the Port of Havana, Cuba. This concession, granted in 1905, allowed Havana Docks to build and operate piers at the port. The Cuban Government expropriated this concession in 1960, and Havana Docks has not received compensation for this expropriation. The concession was set to expire in 2004. Havana Docks filed a claim with the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, which certified its loss at $9.179 million.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled in favor of Havana Docks, awarding over $100 million in judgments against four cruise lines—Royal Caribbean Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Carnival Corporation, and MSC Cruises—for trafficking in the confiscated property from 2016 to 2019. The court found that the cruise lines had engaged in trafficking by docking their ships at the terminal, using the property to embark and disembark passengers, and using it as a starting and ending point for shore excursions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Havana Docks' limited property interest had expired in 2004, and therefore, the cruise lines did not traffic in the confiscated property from 2016 to 2019. The court affirmed the district court's ruling that Havana Docks is a U.S. national under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act but reversed the judgments against the cruise lines for the 2016-2019 period. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding Havana Docks' claims against Carnival for alleged trafficking from 1996 to 2001. View "Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd." on Justia Law

In November 2023, X Corp. filed a lawsuit against Media Matters, Inc., Eric Hananoki, and Angelo Carusone, alleging interference with X Corp.'s contracts, business disparagement, and interference with prospective economic advantage. X Corp. claimed that Media Matters manipulated images to portray X Corp. as a platform dominated by neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism, which alienated advertisers, publishers, and users. During discovery, X Corp. requested Media Matters to produce documents identifying its donors and communications with them. Media Matters resisted, citing First Amendment concerns.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas initially ordered Media Matters to log documents responsive to X Corp.'s requests as privileged. However, Media Matters did not comply, arguing that the requests overlapped with other discovery requests. The district court then granted X Corp.'s motion to compel production, ruling that Media Matters had waived any First Amendment privilege by not searching for or logging the documents. Media Matters appealed the order and sought a stay pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that it had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, as the discovery order involved important First Amendment issues that were separate from the merits of the case and would be effectively unreviewable on appeal. The court determined that Media Matters was likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal because the discovery requests were not proportional to the needs of the case and posed a significant burden on Media Matters and its donors. Consequently, the court granted Media Matters's motion for a stay pending appeal, staying the district court's order compelling production. View "X Corp v. Media Matters" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an entrepreneur, helped form a medical business with a surgeon. The business, structured as a limited liability company (LLC), operated surgery centers and distributed profits to its members, including the plaintiff. Over time, the plaintiff became inactive but continued to receive substantial profits. Tensions arose when the plaintiff refused buyout offers from other members. The plaintiff then directed his attorney to send a threatening letter to various stakeholders, alleging illegal activities within the company. This letter caused significant concern among the recipients, leading the company to warn the plaintiff that he would be ejected without compensation if he did not retract his statements within 30 days. The plaintiff refused, and the company subsequently ousted him, valuing his shares at zero.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County rejected all of the plaintiff's claims. The court found that the plaintiff's letter constituted a "terminating event" under the company's operating agreement, justifying his ejection without compensation. The court also ruled that the business judgment rule protected the company's decision to remove the plaintiff, as it was made in the best interests of the company. The plaintiff's claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing were all dismissed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The appellate court held that the business judgment rule applied, as the company's decision to eject the plaintiff was rational and made in good faith. The court also found that the plaintiff's loss of his shares was not an illegal forfeiture, as it was reasonably related to the harm his actions could have caused the company. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding procedural irregularities and the valuation of his shares, concluding that the company's actions were justified and lawful. View "Tuli v. Specialty Surgical Center of Thousand Oaks, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves an institutional investor, The Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd., which sued Overstock.com, Inc. and three of its executives, alleging violations of securities laws. Overstock, a publicly traded e-commerce company, announced a digital dividend that would be issued as unregistered securities, which led to a short squeeze, causing Overstock’s stock price to spike. The plaintiff, a short seller, claimed that the defendants manipulated the market to inflate the stock price artificially, allowing the CEO to sell his shares at a high price.The United States District Court for the District of Utah dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, finding that the allegations did not meet the heavy pleading burden required for securities fraud. The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants' actions were deceptive or manipulative under the Securities Exchange Act. The plaintiff then appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege reliance on the defendants' misstatements, as the plaintiff admitted that it bought shares to avoid breaching lending contracts, not because of the defendants' statements. The court also found that the fully disclosed dividend did not constitute manipulative conduct, as it did not deceive investors about the market value of Overstock’s shares. Additionally, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims of material omissions, finding no evidence that the defendants intended to register the dividend all along or that issuing the unregistered dividend was illegal. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s control-person claims and insider trading claims due to the lack of a predicate violation of the Exchange Act. View "In re: Overstock Securities Litigation" on Justia Law

Two employees of a publicly traded company raised concerns internally that the company had overstated its earnings by not accounting for slower-than-expected drilling speeds. Subsequently, an article in The Wall Street Journal reported similar allegations, and within three months, the company terminated both employees. The employees then filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, claiming their termination violated whistleblower protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). An administrative proceeding resulted in a preliminary order for their reinstatement, which the company ignored.The employees sought to enforce the reinstatement order in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District Court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, interpreting the relevant statute as not granting it the power to enforce the preliminary order. The employees appealed this decision.While the appeal was pending, the employees chose to abandon the administrative process and filed a separate civil action in federal court. Consequently, the administrative proceedings were terminated. The company then moved to dismiss the appeal on mootness grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the employees' request to enforce the preliminary reinstatement order no longer satisfied the redressability requirement for Article III standing. The preliminary order was extinguished with the dismissal of the administrative proceedings, and a federal court cannot enforce a non-existent order. Therefore, the employees lost Article III standing during the litigation, and no exception to mootness applied. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it on mootness grounds. View "Gulden v. Exxon Mobil Corp" on Justia Law

Texas Truck Parts & Tire, Incorporated, a wholesaler and retailer of truck parts and tires, purchased tires from Chinese manufacturers between 2012 and 2017. These manufacturers shipped the tires to Texas Truck in Houston, Texas. Texas Truck did not file quarterly excise tax returns or pay excise taxes on the tires, believing the Chinese manufacturers were the importers responsible for the tax. Following an IRS audit, Texas Truck was assessed approximately $1.9 million in taxes. Texas Truck paid a portion of the taxes and filed for a refund, which the IRS did not act upon, leading Texas Truck to file a lawsuit seeking a refund. The Government counterclaimed for the remaining taxes owed.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Texas Truck, determining that the Chinese manufacturers were the importers and thus liable for the excise tax. The court based its decision on the interpretation that Texas Truck did not "bring" the tires into the United States under the applicable Treasury regulation, and did not consider whether Texas Truck was the beneficial owner of the tires.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that Texas Truck was the beneficial owner of the tires and therefore liable for the excise tax. The court found that the district court erred by not considering whether Texas Truck was the beneficial owner under the Treasury regulation. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the Chinese manufacturers were nominal importers and that Texas Truck, as the beneficial owner, was responsible for the excise tax. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Texas Truck, rendered judgment for the Government, and remanded the case to the district court to determine the damages. View "Texas Truck Parts & Tire v. United States" on Justia Law

Eileen Cure, a licensed investment advisor, entered into agreements with LPL Financial LLC (LPL) to act as a registered representative under LPL’s broker-dealer umbrella. These agreements included arbitration provisions. Cure, along with her companies, Cure & Associates, P.C. and Premier Wealth & Retirement Management, LLC, filed claims against LPL after LPL terminated its relationship with Cure, alleging she violated LPL’s policies. Cure’s companies, which were not signatories to the arbitration agreements, also alleged business disparagement and other claims against LPL.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted LPL’s motion to compel arbitration for Cure but denied it for her companies, stating that the companies were not signatories to the arbitration agreements. The court also denied LPL’s request to stay the litigation pending arbitration. LPL appealed, arguing that under California and Texas law, equitable estoppel principles should compel Cure’s companies to arbitrate their claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that Cure’s companies, although nonsignatories, were bound by the arbitration provisions due to equitable estoppel. The court found that the companies received direct benefits from Cure’s agreements with LPL, making them subject to the arbitration clauses. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of LPL’s motion to compel arbitration for the companies and vacated the order denying a stay of the litigation. The case was remanded for the district court to compel arbitration of the companies’ claims and to stay the action pending arbitration. View "Cure & Associates, P.C. v. LPL Financial" on Justia Law