Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Mark Nelson, operating North Country Weatherization Technologies, provided ice removal services to Pine View First Addition Association, a Minnesota non-profit homeowners' association, in spring 2023. Pine View's property manager, a North Dakota LLC, contacted Nelson for urgent ice removal due to water damage. Nelson completed the work and invoiced Pine View, but payment was delayed, allegedly due to Pine View's attempt to have insurance cover the costs. Nelson filed a lawsuit in North Dakota for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, seeking $79,695 plus interest and attorney’s fees.The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, granted Pine View's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that North Dakota did not have jurisdiction over Pine View, as it is a Minnesota entity and the services were performed in Minnesota. The court also denied Pine View's motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Nelson and his attorney, as well as Nelson's request for prevailing party attorney’s fees.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that North Dakota has specific personal jurisdiction over Pine View because Pine View, through its North Dakota-based property manager, initiated contact with Nelson for the ice removal services. The court found that Pine View's contacts with North Dakota were sufficient to satisfy the state's long-arm provision and due process requirements. The Supreme Court also determined that the district court abused its discretion in denying Nelson's request for prevailing party attorney’s fees under Rule 11(c)(2), as Pine View's motion for sanctions against Nelson violated Rule 11(c)(5)(A). The case was remanded for further proceedings and to determine the amount of attorney’s fees Nelson is owed. View "Nelson v. Pine View First Addition Association" on Justia Law

Coinbase Global, Inc., a trading platform for digital assets, petitioned the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to create rules clarifying the application of federal securities laws to digital assets like cryptocurrencies and tokens. Coinbase argued that the current securities-law framework does not account for the unique attributes of digital assets, making compliance economically and technically infeasible. The SEC denied Coinbase’s rulemaking petition, stating that it disagreed with the petition’s concerns and had higher-priority agenda items. Coinbase’s U.S. subsidiary, Coinbase, Inc., then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to review the SEC’s denial.The SEC’s denial of Coinbase’s petition was challenged on the grounds that it was arbitrary and capricious. Coinbase argued that the SEC’s decision to apply securities laws to digital assets through enforcement actions constituted a significant policy change that required rulemaking. Coinbase also contended that the emergence of digital assets represented a fundamental change in the factual premises underlying existing securities regulations, necessitating new rules. Additionally, Coinbase claimed that the SEC’s explanation for its decision was conclusory and insufficiently reasoned.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and found that the SEC’s order was conclusory and insufficiently reasoned, making it arbitrary and capricious. The court granted Coinbase’s petition in part and remanded the case to the SEC for a more complete explanation. However, the court declined to order the SEC to institute rulemaking proceedings at this stage. The court emphasized that the SEC must provide a reasoned explanation for its decision, considering all relevant factors and providing a discernible path for judicial review. View "Coinbase Inc v. Securities and Exchange Commission" on Justia Law

Payroll Management, Inc. filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy and received $1,070,330.23 from British Petroleum, Inc. for economic losses due to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Sunz Insurance Company claimed a first-priority security interest in these funds, asserting that its security interest attached and perfected before any other creditor. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) contended that its federal tax lien had first priority as it attached and perfected first. Both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment.The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS, determining that Payroll’s BP claim was a commercial tort claim when the IRS filed its tax lien notice. The court found that the IRS’s tax lien attached and perfected first, while Sunz’s security interest did not attach to commercial tort claims. The district court affirmed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that Payroll’s BP claim remained a commercial tort claim in March 2017 when the IRS filed its tax lien notice. The settlement agreement did not automatically convert the tort claim into a contract, as it did not create an automatic obligation for BP to pay Payroll a certain amount. Therefore, the IRS’s tax lien, which attached and perfected first, took priority over Sunz’s security interest. The court concluded that the IRS was entitled to the $1,070,330.23 payment. View "Sunz Insurance Company v. Treasury Department" on Justia Law

A non-medical entrepreneur, Randhir Tuli, helped form a medical business with Dr. Andrew Brooks, creating a group of surgery centers. Tuli, who was initially active, later became inactive but continued to take profits. His colleagues, frustrated by his inactivity, sought to buy him out, but Tuli refused. Tuli then sent a threatening letter to potential investors, suggesting criminal liability, without a good faith basis. In response, the company warned Tuli to rectify the situation within 30 days or face ejection without compensation. Tuli did not comply, and the company ejected him, paying him nothing. Tuli then initiated a decade-long litigation against his former colleagues.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County rejected all of Tuli’s claims. Tuli appealed, and the case was reviewed by the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Eight. The trial court had granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the business judgment rule protected the company’s decision to eject Tuli. The court found that the company acted rationally to protect its interests and that Tuli’s letter was disruptive and baseless.The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s decision. It held that the business judgment rule applied, as the company’s actions were rational and in the best interest of the business. The court found no conflict of interest, bad faith, or improper investigation by the company. It also ruled that Tuli’s claims for declaratory relief, unfair competition, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing were without merit. The court concluded that Tuli’s ejection and the zero-dollar redemption of his shares were not an illegal forfeiture, as Tuli had already received substantial returns on his investment and had disrupted the business. View "Tuli v. Specialty Surgical Center of Thousand Oaks, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a failed business venture between longtime friends, resulting in a $20 million judgment against Stanley N. Cohen for negligent misrepresentation. Cohen, a professor at Stanford University, and his colleague discovered a genetic mutation related to Huntington’s disease and formed a company, Nuredis, with Moshe and Chris Alafi, who invested $20 million. The FDA later rejected Nuredis’s request to conduct human clinical trials for the drug HD106 due to its toxicity. The Alafis sued Cohen and his colleague for negligent misrepresentation and other related causes, alleging they failed to disclose the drug’s history of being withdrawn from the market due to toxicity.The Santa Clara County Superior Court held a bench trial and found in favor of the plaintiffs on the negligent misrepresentation claim against Cohen, awarding $20 million in damages. The court did not reach the other causes of action. Cohen appealed, arguing that the claim failed as a matter of law and that the trial court committed prejudicial error by not issuing a statement of decision upon his request.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, found that the trial court’s failure to issue the requested statement of decision was prejudicial error, as it prevented effective appellate review of the trial court’s factual and legal findings. Consequently, the appellate court did not address Cohen’s arguments on the merits and reversed and remanded the case for the trial court to issue the statement of decision. View "Alafi v. Cohen" on Justia Law

A disabled woman, T.M.B., was sexually assaulted by an employee of West Mont, a nonprofit organization contracted by the State of Montana to provide community-based services for developmentally disabled individuals. T.M.B. sued both the State and West Mont, alleging they owed her a nondelegable duty of care. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants, concluding neither owed a nondelegable duty of care for the employee’s criminal acts. T.M.B. appealed.The District Court of the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County, found that the State had satisfied its statutory obligations by contracting with West Mont to provide services and did not owe a nondelegable duty to T.M.B. because she was not under state custody or control. The court also found that West Mont did not owe a nondelegable duty, as there was no statute or rule explicitly stating such a duty existed for state contractors operating community homes.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It affirmed the District Court’s decision regarding the State, agreeing that the State did not have a close, continuing relationship with T.M.B. that would impose a nondelegable duty. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision regarding West Mont, finding that the relationship between West Mont and T.M.B. was sufficiently close and continuing to impose a nondelegable duty under Restatement (Second) of Agency § 214. The court held that West Mont had a duty to protect T.M.B. from harm due to her dependence on their care and supervision. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "T.M.B v. West Mont" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Shareholder Representative Services LLC, acting as the Equityholder Representative, filed a breach of contract action against Defendant, Renesas Electronics Corporation. The dispute arises from a 2021 Merger Agreement under which Renesas acquired Celeno Communications Incorporated. Plaintiff alleges that Renesas failed to pay two Earn-Out Milestone payments related to the development of a semiconductor chip, the [REDACTED] Product, as stipulated in the Merger Agreement. Plaintiff seeks damages and specific performance of certain contractual provisions.The Court of Chancery assigned the action to the current court on November 6, 2023. Plaintiff filed its Verified Complaint on October 31, 2023, and Renesas moved to partially dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff then filed a Verified Amended Complaint on February 28, 2024, asserting four breach of contract claims. Renesas sought dismissal of Counts One, Two, and Four. Plaintiff opposed the motion, and Renesas replied. A hearing was held on September 5, 2024, after which the court took the motion under advisement.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware reviewed the case. The court granted in part and denied in part Renesas's partial motion to dismiss. The court denied the motion regarding Counts One and Two, finding that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that the Tape-Out Milestone and Mass Production Milestone were met, despite Renesas's arguments to the contrary. However, the court granted the motion regarding Count Four, determining that specific performance of the meeting requirement was not warranted, as monetary damages would provide an adequate remedy. The court found that the contractual provision establishing irreparable harm was sufficient but noted that the ultimate relief sought was payment of the Earn-Out Amounts, not a meeting. View "Shareholder Representative Service LLC v. Renesas Electronics Corp." on Justia Law

A nonprofit corporation, Moving Oxnard Forward (MOF), challenged campaign finance limitations in the Oxnard City Code, alleging they violated the First Amendment. The limitations, adopted by the City of Oxnard, California, primarily affected Aaron Starr, MOF's President, who had a history of receiving large contributions and challenging the City Council's policies. Starr had previously led recall efforts against the City Council and ran for Mayor, relying on larger-dollar contributions.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the City, upholding the campaign finance limitations. MOF appealed the decision, arguing that the limitations were designed to target and suppress Starr's political activities rather than to prevent corruption.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and found significant "danger signs" of invidious discrimination against Starr. The court noted that the legislative record and the practical impact of the limitations disproportionately affected Starr, who had been a vocal critic of the City Council. The court also found that the City's justification for the limitations, based on a 2010 corruption scandal, was tenuous and unrelated to campaign contributions.The Ninth Circuit concluded that the contribution limits were not narrowly tailored to the City's interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption. Instead, the limits appeared to be more closely drawn to suppress Starr's political activities. As a result, the court reversed the district court's decision and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment in favor of MOF, holding that the per-candidate aggregate contribution limitations in the Oxnard City Code violated the First Amendment. View "MOVING OXNARD FORWARD, INC. V. ASCENSION" on Justia Law

Teradata Corporation sued SAP SE, alleging that SAP illegally conditioned sales of its business-management software (S/4HANA) on the purchase of its back-end database engine (HANA) in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and misappropriated Teradata’s trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Teradata claimed that SAP’s tying arrangement forced customers to buy HANA, harming competition in the enterprise data warehousing (EDW) market. Teradata also alleged that SAP used its confidential batched merge method, a technique for efficient data aggregation, without authorization.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of SAP. The court excluded Teradata’s expert testimony on market definition and market power, finding the methodology unreliable. Without this testimony, the court concluded that Teradata failed to create a material dispute on its tying claim. The court also ruled against Teradata on the trade secret claim, stating that Teradata did not properly designate the batched merge method as confidential and that the agreements between the parties gave SAP the right to use the method.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment. The appellate court held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the expert’s testimony, which was based on reasonable methodologies. The court found that Teradata raised a triable issue regarding SAP’s market power in the tying market and the anticompetitive effects in the tied market. The court also determined that there were material factual disputes regarding whether Teradata properly designated the batched merge method as confidential and whether the agreements allowed SAP to use the method. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "TERADATA CORPORATION V. SAP SE" on Justia Law

LKQ Corporation, a Delaware corporation in the auto salvage and recycled parts business, designated certain employees as "Key Persons" eligible for Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) through RSU Agreements. These agreements included non-competition clauses and provisions for forfeiture of RSUs and any stock issued if the employee competed with LKQ within nine months post-departure. Robert Rutledge, a plant manager at LKQ, signed these agreements and received stock under them. In April 2021, Rutledge resigned and joined a competitor shortly after.LKQ sued Rutledge in Illinois federal court for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, seeking to enjoin him from working for a competitor and to recover proceeds from the sale of LKQ stock. The district court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim and granted summary judgment for Rutledge on the contract claims, holding that the non-competition provisions were unreasonable restraints of trade under Illinois law and unenforceable under Delaware law, based on the Court of Chancery's decision in Ainslie v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim and the summary judgment ruling on the Restrictive Covenant Agreements. However, it was uncertain about the enforceability of the RSU Agreements' forfeiture-for-competition provisions under Delaware law, especially after the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery's decision in Cantor Fitzgerald. The Seventh Circuit certified two questions to the Delaware Supreme Court regarding the applicability of Cantor Fitzgerald outside the limited partnership context.The Delaware Supreme Court held that the principles from Cantor Fitzgerald, which endorse the employee choice doctrine and prioritize freedom of contract, apply beyond the limited partnership context, including to RSU agreements. The court emphasized that forfeiture-for-competition provisions do not restrict competition or an employee's ability to work and should be treated as enforceable terms subject to ordinary breach of contract defenses. View "LKQ Corp. v. Rutledge" on Justia Law