Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Little Hearts Marks Family II L.P. ("Little Hearts") was a member of 305 East 61st Street Group LLC, a company formed to purchase and convert a building into a condominium. 61 Prime LLC ("Prime") was the majority member and manager, and Jason D. Carter was the manager and sole member of Prime. In 2021, the company filed for bankruptcy and sold the building to another company created by Carter. The liquidation plan established a creditor trust with exclusive rights to pursue the debtor’s estate's causes of action. Little Hearts sued Prime and Carter for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, seeking damages for lost capital investment and rights under the Operating Agreement.The bankruptcy court dismissed all claims, ruling that they were derivative and belonged to the debtor’s estate, thus could only be asserted by the creditor trustee. The district court affirmed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims, agreeing that these were derivative and could only be pursued by the creditor trustee. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims, determining that these were direct claims belonging to Little Hearts and could proceed. The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed as duplicative of the contract claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "In re 305 East 61st Street Group LLC" on Justia Law

Bradford Wayne Snedeker was convicted of various fraud and theft charges in two separate Boulder County District Court cases. In the first case, he was sentenced to four years in prison for securities fraud and a consecutive one-year term of work release plus twenty years of probation for theft. In the second case, he was sentenced to fifteen years of probation for theft, to run concurrently with the first case's sentence. After serving the prison term, Snedeker argued that his sentences were illegal under the ruling in Allman v. People, which held that a court cannot impose both imprisonment and probation for different offenses in the same case. The district court agreed that the first case's sentence was illegal and ordered resentencing but found the second case's sentence legal.The Colorado Court of Appeals reviewed the Fraud Case and affirmed the district court's resentencing decision. Snedeker then petitioned the Supreme Court of Colorado for review, arguing that reimposing the original probationary sentence after serving the prison term still violated Allman and that imposing concurrent prison and probation sentences in separate cases also violated Allman.The Supreme Court of Colorado held that when a sentence is illegal under Allman and the defendant has already served the prison portion, the court can reimpose a probationary term because probation remains a legal sentencing option. The court also held that it does not violate Allman to sentence a defendant to imprisonment in one case and probation in a separate case. Thus, the court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment in the Fraud Case and the district court's resentencing in the Theft Case. View "Snedeker v. People" on Justia Law

The case involves a business venture between W.R. Cobb Company (Cobb) and V.J. Designs LLC (VJ Designs) to sell diamond products under the Forevermark brand. Cobb, unable to secure a license directly from Forevermark, entered into an agreement with VJ Designs, an existing Forevermark licensee, to form a new company, WR Cobb/VJ LLC (the Joint Entity). The agreement stipulated that the Joint Entity would operate under the Forevermark license. However, VJ Designs could not transfer its Forevermark rights without Forevermark's written consent. The venture quickly fell apart, and Cobb sued VJ Designs and its owner, Benjamin Galili, to recover funds paid under the agreement, alleging breach of contract and misrepresentation.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island held a two-day bench trial and ruled in favor of VJ Designs and Galili on all claims. The court found that VJ Designs did not breach the contract or misrepresent any material facts. Cobb appealed, arguing that the district court erred by not rescinding the agreement and not holding Galili personally liable for fraud and misrepresentation.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that VJ Designs did not breach the contract by failing to assign the Forevermark license to the Joint Entity upon execution of the agreement. The court found no provision in the agreement requiring immediate transfer of the license and noted that the parties understood Forevermark's consent was necessary. The court also rejected Cobb's claims of fraud and misrepresentation, finding no evidence of material misrepresentation by VJ Designs or Galili. Additionally, the court dismissed Cobb's mutual mistake theory as it was not pled in the complaint and was raised too late in the proceedings. View "W.R. Cobb Company v. VJ Designs, LLC" on Justia Law

Brothers Robert, Gary, and Richard Hunter, experienced farmers, converted their general partnership into a limited liability company (LLC) named Hunter Three Farms, LLC. Each brother owned twenty voting units, while Hunter of Iowa, Inc. owned forty nonvoting units. The LLC did not have an operating agreement but filed a statement of authority with the Iowa Secretary of State, which allowed a majority of voting members to make ordinary business decisions.In 2018, Richard submitted a claim to the Syngenta Corn Seed Settlement Program on behalf of "Hunter Farms" using the LLC's tax identification number, without informing his brothers. He received a $62,467.91 settlement payment, which he deposited into an account inaccessible to the LLC or his brothers. When Robert and Gary discovered the payment, they demanded Richard distribute the funds, but he refused, claiming entitlement to the entire amount. Robert and Gary then authorized the LLC to sue Richard to recover the settlement proceeds.The Iowa District Court for Greene County granted Richard's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the LLC lacked standing to sue without unanimous consent from all voting members, including Richard. The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed this decision, with a divided panel concluding that the LLC could sue Richard if all disinterested members authorized the litigation. The dissenting judge argued that unanimous consent was required.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and clarified that the issue was one of authority, not standing. The court held that a majority of the voting members could authorize the LLC to file a suit to recover funds owed to the company, as such actions are within the ordinary course of the LLC's activities. Consequently, the court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, reversed the district court's judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hunter Three Farms, LLC v. Hunter" on Justia Law

Dewberry Engineers sued Dewberry Group for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, alleging that Dewberry Group's use of the "Dewberry" name violated their trademark rights. Dewberry Group, a real-estate development company, provides services to separately incorporated affiliates, which own commercial properties. The affiliates generate rental income, while Dewberry Group operates at a loss, surviving through cash infusions from its owner, John Dewberry.The District Court found Dewberry Group liable for trademark infringement and awarded Dewberry Engineers nearly $43 million in profits. The court treated Dewberry Group and its affiliates as a single corporate entity, totaling the affiliates' real-estate profits to calculate the award. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing with the District Court's approach to treat the companies as a single entity due to their economic reality.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the District Court erred in treating Dewberry Group and its affiliates as a single corporate entity for calculating profits. The Court ruled that under the Lanham Act, only the profits of the named defendant, Dewberry Group, could be awarded. The affiliates' profits could not be considered as the defendant's profits since they were not named as defendants in the lawsuit. The Supreme Court vacated the Fourth Circuit's decision and remanded the case for a new award proceeding consistent with its opinion. View "Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued Qualcomm Inc., alleging that its business practices violated state and federal antitrust laws. These practices included Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy, which required cellular manufacturers to license Qualcomm’s patents to purchase its modem chips, and alleged exclusive dealing agreements with Apple and Samsung. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had previously challenged these practices, but the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling in favor of the FTC, holding that Qualcomm did not violate the Sherman Act.The district court in the current case certified a nationwide class, but the Ninth Circuit vacated the class certification order and remanded to consider the viability of plaintiffs’ claims post-FTC v. Qualcomm. On remand, plaintiffs proceeded with state-law claims under California’s Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The district court dismissed the tying claims and granted summary judgment on the exclusive dealing claims. The court found that the Cartwright Act did not depart from the Sherman Act and that plaintiffs failed to show market foreclosure or anticompetitive impact in the tied product market. The court also rejected the UCL claims, finding no fraudulent practices and determining that plaintiffs could not seek equitable relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the tying claims and the summary judgment on the exclusive dealing claims under the Cartwright Act. The court held that Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy was not anticompetitive and that plaintiffs failed to show substantial market foreclosure or antitrust injury. The court also affirmed the rejection of the UCL claims but vacated the summary judgment on the UCL unfairness claim related to exclusive dealing, remanding with instructions to dismiss that claim without prejudice for refiling in state court. View "KEY V. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED" on Justia Law

Pamela Gleichman, a real estate developer, established four affordable housing developments in Pennsylvania as limited partnerships in the 1990s. Gleichman and her company, Gleichman & Co., Inc., served as the general partners, while Metropolitan and U.S.A. Institutional held limited partnership interests. In 2014, Gleichman’s daughter, Rosa Scarcelli, acquired Gleichman & Co. (renamed General Holdings, Inc.) through a foreclosure auction. In 2018, Metropolitan and U.S.A. Institutional transferred their limited partnership interests to Eight Penn Partners, L.P., without the consent of General Holdings.General Holdings and Preservation Holdings filed a complaint in the Superior Court against Eight Penn, Metropolitan, and U.S.A. Institutional, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The case was transferred to the Business and Consumer Docket. The court denied Eight Penn’s motion for summary judgment, finding ambiguity in the partnership agreements regarding General Holdings’ status as a general partner. After a trial, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring that General Holdings remained a general partner with management rights and that the transfer of interests to Eight Penn was invalid without General Holdings’ consent.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The court found that the partnership agreements required the consent of both general partners for a valid transfer of limited partner interests. The court concluded that the transfer of General Holdings’ controlling interest at a foreclosure auction did not require the limited partners’ consent. Therefore, General Holdings remained a general partner with management rights, and the transfer to Eight Penn was invalid. The court upheld the declaratory judgment and denied injunctive relief as unnecessary. View "General Holdings, Inc. v. Eight Penn Partners, L.P." on Justia Law

Jeffrey Horn, a former registered stockbroker, was convicted by a jury in April 2022 of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and securities fraud. The district court sentenced him to 100 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release, and ordered him to pay restitution of $1,469,702. Horn appealed his convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and alleging cumulative error. He also raised objections regarding the calculation of his loss, restitution, and offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida initially reviewed the case. The jury found Horn guilty on all counts, and the district court sentenced him accordingly. Horn's co-defendant, Omar Leon Plummer, was also convicted and sentenced. Horn's appeal followed, raising several issues related to the trial and sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support Horn's convictions. The court held that Horn acted with the requisite intent to defraud, as evidenced by his distribution of materially false information to investors and his role in the fraudulent scheme. The court also rejected Horn's arguments regarding cumulative error, finding no merit in his claims.Regarding sentencing, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court found no clear error in the district court's determination that Horn was an organizer or leader of the criminal activity, justifying a four-level enhancement. The court also affirmed the use of intended loss rather than actual loss for sentencing purposes, consistent with the Guidelines and relevant case law. The court concluded that the district court's loss calculation and restitution order were supported by reliable and specific evidence. View "USA v. Horn" on Justia Law

Joseph Cammarata and his associates, Eric Cohen and David Punturieri, created Alpha Plus Recovery, LLC, a claims aggregator that submitted fraudulent claims to securities class action settlement funds. They falsely represented that three entities, Nimello, Quartis, and Invergasa, had traded in securities involved in class action settlements, obtaining over $40 million. The fraudulent claims included falsified trade data and fabricated reports. The scheme unraveled when a claims administrator, KCC, discovered the fraud, leading to the rejection of the claims and subsequent legal action.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania charged the defendants with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and money laundering. Cohen and Punturieri pled guilty, while Cammarata proceeded to trial and was found guilty on all counts. The District Court sentenced Cammarata to 120 months in prison, ordered restitution, and forfeiture of certain property.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld most of the District Court's rulings but found issues with the restitution order and the forfeiture of Cammarata's vacation home. The court held that the restitution order did not fully compensate the victims, as required by the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), and remanded for reconsideration. The court also found procedural error in the forfeiture process, as Cammarata was deprived of his right to a jury determination on the forfeitability of his property. The court vacated the forfeiture order in part and remanded for the Government to amend the order to reflect that the property is forfeitable as a substitute asset under 21 U.S.C. § 853(p). View "USA v. Cammarata" on Justia Law

A Texas attorney, Robert M. Roach, claimed to have an oral agreement with Fred Schrader, the former owner of Schrader Cellars, LLC, regarding the creation of another company, RBS LLC, which Roach asserted had an ownership interest in Schrader Cellars. After Fred Schrader sold Schrader Cellars to Constellation Brands, Roach sued Fred and Constellation in Texas state court, claiming the sale was improper. Schrader Cellars then filed the current action, seeking declaratory relief that Roach had no ownership interest in Schrader Cellars, and Roach counterclaimed.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Schrader Cellars on its claim for declaratory relief and dismissed Roach’s counterclaims. The court concluded that the oral agreement violated California Rule of Professional Responsibility 3-300 and that Roach did not rebut the presumption of undue influence. The case proceeded to trial on Schrader Cellars’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty, where the jury found that Roach’s breach caused harm but did not award damages due to the litigation privilege defense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Schrader Cellars on its claim for declaratory relief and Roach’s counterclaims, finding triable issues of fact regarding whether Roach rebutted the presumption of undue influence. The appellate court also held that the district court erred in concluding and instructing the jury that Roach breached his fiduciary duties. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment after trial, concluding that the erroneous jury instruction had no effect on the outcome because the jury found that the gravamen of the breach of fiduciary duty claim was based on Roach’s filing of the Texas lawsuit, which was barred by the California litigation privilege. View "SCHRADER CELLARS, LLC V. ROACH" on Justia Law