Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed a decision holding Allen Crow, a corporate officer, personally liable for unpaid use taxes of his former corporation, Direct Media Marketing, Inc. The court determined that Crow failed to rebut the presumption of correctness of the amount of use taxes assessed against Direct Media. The court further found that Crow was a responsible officer of Direct Media and willfully failed to pay Direct Media's use taxes, making him personally liable for the tax deficiency.Despite the Department of Revenue's significant delay in pursuing proceedings against Direct Media and Crow, the court did not find compelling circumstances or demonstrated prejudice that would warrant equitable relief. The court held that the doctrine of laches, which bars a party from relief due to delay, could not be applied against the government in its efforts to enforce a public right or protect a public interest. The court concluded that the delay did not absolve Direct Media and Crow of their liability. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's order upholding the order of the Tax Commissioner that held Crow personally liable for Direct Media's unpaid taxes. View "Crow v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin was asked to review a decision by the state's Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) and determine whether Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. (CCB) and its four sub-entities were operated primarily for religious purposes, and thus exempt from making contributions to Wisconsin's unemployment insurance system. The Court decided that in determining whether an organization is "operated primarily for religious purposes" according to Wisconsin Statute § 108.02(15)(h)2, both the motivations and activities of the organization must be examined.Reviewing the facts of the case, the court determined that while CCB and its sub-entities professed to have a religious motivation, their activities were primarily charitable and secular. The services provided by the sub-entities, which included job training, placement, and coaching, along with services related to daily living, could be provided by organizations of either religious or secular motivations, and thus were not "primarily" religious in nature.The court also rejected CCB's argument that this interpretation of the statute violated the First Amendment, as it did not interfere with the church's internal governance nor examine religious dogma. Instead, it was a neutral and secular inquiry based on objective criteria. Therefore, the court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals. View "Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. State of Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Kentucky addressed a dispute over the division of proceeds from the sale of a commercial property. The parties involved were business partners who had formed an LLC to manage the property. One of the partners, Allen, had previously asked his partners to sell their interests in the LLC to his children to resolve a tax problem. The partners agreed, but wanted to ensure they would not forfeit potential future profits from the property sale. They decided that proceeds from a future sale of the building would be split according to their ownership interests up to $8 million, and any proceeds above $8 million would be divided equally among them.In 2017, the property sold for $10 million, and a dispute arose over how to distribute the proceeds. One of the partners, Swyers, distributed the proceeds according to the previously agreed upon formula. However, the Allen family contested this, arguing that the entire proceeds should have been distributed according to ownership interests.The trial court ruled in favor of Swyers, finding that the agreement provided for a bifurcated distribution of proceeds, with an $8 million sale price threshold. The Court of Appeals disagreed, concluding that distributions of one-third each were warranted only if the total net proceeds exceeded $8 million.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, agreeing with the trial court's interpretation of the agreement. The court concluded that the parties had intended to split the proceeds on a sale price threshold of $8 million, and that only the sales commission needed to be deducted before calculating the distribution of the final $2 million of the sale price. View "SWYERS V. ALLEN FAMILY PARTNERSHIP #1" on Justia Law

A Puerto Rican company, Caribe Chem, filed a lawsuit against a Florida company, Southern Agricultural Insecticides, and two Puerto Rican entities. The case was initially non-removable to federal court due to lack of complete diversity among parties. After the Puerto Rican defendants were dismissed from the lawsuit based on the statute of limitations, Southern attempted to remove the case to federal court, citing now-complete diversity of parties. Caribe objected, and the district court ruled in Caribe's favor, ordering the case to be remanded to Commonwealth court. Southern appealed the remand order.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's remand order. The court adopted the voluntary/involuntary rule, which states that a lawsuit initially lacking complete diversity can acquire it when all non-diverse parties are dismissed from the action. However, if the non-diverse defendants are dismissed without the plaintiff's acquiescence, the lawsuit is generally not removable. The court ruled that the dismissal of the non-diverse defendants was involuntary since it was over Caribe's objections. The court also stated that the plaintiff's decision not to appeal the dismissal does not make the dismissal voluntary. The court reaffirmed that the voluntary/involuntary rule precludes removal where non-diverse defendants are dismissed without plaintiff's voluntary action. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Southern's motion to set aside the judgment under Rule 60. View "Caribe Chem Distributors, Corp. v. Southern Agricultural Insecticides, Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose from a Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement action against Mohammed Ali Rashid, a former senior partner at the private equity firm Apollo Management L.P. Rashid was accused of breaching his fiduciary duties to the Apollo-affiliated private equity funds he advised by submitting fraudulent expense reports, which were eventually paid by the funds. The district court held that Rashid was not liable under § 206(1) of the Investment Advisers Act because he was not aware that the funds, rather than Apollo, would pay for his expenses. However, the court found Rashid liable under § 206(2) of the Act, concluding he was indifferent and therefore negligent as to which entity would pay for his expenses.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that it was not reasonably foreseeable to Rashid that the funds would pay for his expenses, concluding that Rashid did not breach his duty of care to the funds or proximately cause their harm. The court noted that while Rashid's actions were serious and likely criminal, they did not constitute fraud against the funds as required under § 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act. The court also found that Rashid did not breach his duty of care to the funds, as he could not have reasonably known that the funds would cover his expenses. The court concluded that Rashid did not proximately cause the funds' harm, as Apollo's intervening actions in overbilling the funds were not reasonably foreseeable to Rashid. View "SEC v. Rashid" on Justia Law

In this case, five former customers of Peregrine Financial Group, Inc., a defunct futures commission merchant, filed a class action lawsuit against various defendants, including JPMorgan Chase Bank and National Futures Association. They claimed that their investments were wiped out due to fraudulent activities by Peregrine's CEO. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the federal claims as time-barred and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The main issue addressed by the Second Circuit was whether a party could compel a district court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction on a theory of jurisdiction that the party raised untimely.The Court held that a party may not do so. The Court distinguished between objecting to a federal court's exercise of jurisdiction, which a party could do at any stage in the litigation, and invoking the district court’s jurisdiction, which can be forfeited if not raised timely. Therefore, although federal courts must ensure they have jurisdiction, there is no corresponding obligation to find and exercise jurisdiction on a basis not raised by the parties. The Court concluded that the district court was within its discretion to decline to consider the untimely raised theory of jurisdiction. View "Behrens v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

The case involves Purpose Built Families Foundation, a Florida nonprofit that received federal grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs to serve veterans and their families. In 2022, the Department notified the Foundation that activities and payments under five grants would be terminated or withheld due to "major fiscal mismanagement activities". The Foundation sued the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under the Administrative Procedure Act and received a temporary restraining order. Subsequently, the Department withdrew the challenged notices and the Secretary moved to dismiss the action as moot. The district court granted the motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court. The court held that the case was moot, as the Department's withdrawal of the notices meant the Foundation's claims could not provide meaningful relief. It also ruled that neither the voluntary-cessation nor the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exceptions to mootness applied. The court stated that the Department's subsequent actions, including a more robust process and new termination notices, were materially different from the original notices. Therefore, a lawsuit challenging the new termination notices would involve materially different allegations and answers. The court concluded that the Foundation would have ample opportunity for judicial review of the legality of the new terminations, once the administrative process was completed. View "Purpose Built Families Foundation, Inc. v. USA" on Justia Law

In a complex and long-running series of legal disputes over attorney fees, two law firms, Shields Law Group and Paul Byrd Law Firm, and another firm, Hossley-Embry LLP, (collectively referred to as the "Objecting Firms") challenged the district court's approval of a settlement agreement among other firms involved in the litigation. The dispute arose from a class action lawsuit against Syngenta, an agricultural company, which was settled for $1.51 billion in 2018. One-third of the settlement was allocated for attorneys' fees, but the distribution of these fees among the numerous law firms involved in the case led to additional litigation.The district court approved a settlement agreement in which a group of firms (the Appellee Parties) agreed to pay $7 million to another firm, Watts Guerra. The Objecting Firms challenged this decision, arguing that it effectively reallocated money among the various pools of attorney fees. However, the Appellate Court concluded that the Objecting Firms lacked standing to challenge the district court's approval of the settlement agreement because they were not affected by it. The court also found that the Objecting Firms' challenges to the disbursement orders were moot. As a result, the court dismissed the appeals. View "SHIELDS LAW GROUP, LLC v. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP" on Justia Law

The case in question is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Abbott Laboratories, Abbvie Inc., Abbvie Products LLC, Unimed Pharmaceuticals LLC, and Besins Healthcare, Inc. These petitioners were involved in a patent and antitrust lawsuit concerning the drug AndroGel 1%. They sought a writ of mandamus after a district judge ruled that the application of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege justified an order compelling the production of certain documents. The Petitioners claimed those documents were privileged.The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied their petition. The court reasoned that the petitioners failed to meet the high standard for granting a petition for writ of mandamus. Specifically, they failed to show a clear and indisputable abuse of discretion or error of law, a lack of an alternate avenue for adequate relief, and a likelihood of irreparable injury.The court also found that the district court did not err in its interpretation of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege as it applies to sham litigation. The court held that sham litigation, which involves a client’s intentional “misuse” of the legal process for an “improper purpose,” can trigger the crime-fraud exception. The court also rejected the argument that a "reliance" requirement must be applied in this context. View "In re: Abbott Laboratories" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard an appeal by Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, from a district court's decision denying its motion to compel arbitration in a class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs, Winifredo and Macaria Herrera, alleged that Cathay Pacific breached their contract by failing to issue a refund following flight cancellations for tickets they purchased through a third-party booking website, ASAP Tickets.The court ruled that when a non-signatory, in this case Cathay Pacific, seeks to enforce an arbitration provision, an order denying a motion to compel arbitration based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel is reviewed de novo. Applying California contract law, the court held that the plaintiffs' allegations that Cathay Pacific breached its General Conditions of Carriage were intimately intertwined with ASAP’s alleged conduct under its Terms and Conditions. Thus, it was appropriate to enforce the arbitration clause contained in ASAP’s Terms and Conditions.Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s denial of Cathay Pacific’s motion to compel arbitration and remanded with instructions to either dismiss or stay the action pending arbitration of the plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract claim. View "HERRERA V. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED" on Justia Law