Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, Southwest Airlines filed a suit against Liberty Insurance Underwriters for denial of a claim for reimbursement under its cyber risk insurance policy after a massive computer failure. This computer failure resulted in flight delays and cancellations, causing Southwest to incur over $77 million in losses. Southwest claimed these losses under their insurance policy, but Liberty denied the claim, arguing that the costs incurred by Southwest were discretionary and either not covered under the policy or excluded by certain policy clauses.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed with the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment for Liberty. The court concluded that the costs incurred by Southwest due to the system failure were not categorically barred from coverage as a matter of law. The court found that Southwest's five categories of costs satisfied the policy's causation standard and were thus "losses" that it "incurred."The court also concluded that the district court erred in finding that the claimed costs were consequential damages excluded from coverage and that the term "third parties" did not apply to Southwest’s customers and did not preclude costs related to Southwest’s payments to its customers.The court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Southwest Airlines v. Liberty Insurance" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, the plaintiff, Billy Ann Merila, sought the expulsion of her business partner, Daniel Brian Burke, from their partnership, MBC. MBC is a business entity that owns a single piece of real property and rents it out for income. Merila alleged that Burke engaged in conduct that made it not reasonably practicable for her to carry on the business in partnership with him. Burke, a certified public accountant, was convicted on six charges of aiding and assisting tax fraud, unrelated to MBC, and sentenced to prison. He also unilaterally changed the partnership's depository without Merila's consent, limited her authority over MBC funds, refused to communicate with her directly, and appointed a third-party agent to act on his behalf. He also attempted to amend the partnership's tax returns and capital accounts without Merila's consent or knowledge.The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Merila, finding that Burke's conduct made it not reasonably practicable for her to carry on the business in partnership with him. The court also ordered the parties to negotiate a purchase price for Burke's interest in MBC. Burke appealed the decision.Upon review, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court's decision. The Supreme Court noted that the relevant standard for expelling a partner is whether the partner's conduct has made it not reasonably practicable for the other to carry on the business in partnership, not whether the partnership suffered damages or harm. The Court found that Burke's refusal to interact with Merila, his unilateral decisions affecting the partnership, and his conviction of tax fraud constituted conduct that made it not reasonably practicable for Merila to carry on the business with him as a partner. It affirmed the lower court's decision to expel Burke from the partnership and order him to negotiate a purchase price for his interest in MBC. View "Merila v. Burke" on Justia Law

In a dispute between Ultra Bond, Inc., and its owner, Richard Campfield (collectively "Ultra Bond"), and Safelite Group, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively "Safelite"), both parties operate in the vehicle glass repair and replacement industry. Ultra Bond alleges that Safelite violated the Lanham Act by falsely advertising that windshield cracks longer than six inches could not be safely repaired and instead required replacement of the entire windshield. Safelite counterclaims that Ultra Bond stole trade secrets from Safelite in violation of state and federal law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the district court was incorrect to grant summary judgment to Safelite on Ultra Bond’s Lanham Act claim. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that Safelite's allegedly false statements may have caused economic injury to Ultra Bond, and this issue should go to a jury.The court also affirmed the district court's decision that Safelite's claims for conversion, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference with contract were preempted by the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (OUTSA). However, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Ultra Bond on Safelite’s claim under OUTSA, ruling that Safelite's claim was not time-barred and should be evaluated further in the lower court.Finally, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Ultra Bond on Safelite's unfair competition claim, finding that Safelite hadn't provided enough evidence to support its claim that Ultra Bond's statements were false or that they had led to a diversion of customers from Safelite to Ultra Bond. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Campfield v. Safelite Group, Inc." on Justia Law

This case involves attorney Grant Bursek's departure from Johnson Family Law, P.C. (MFL). When Bursek left MFL, 18 clients chose to continue their representation with him, prompting MFL to enforce an agreement that required Bursek to pay a per-client fee. Bursek argued that this fee violated the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibit attorneys from making employment agreements that restrict the right to practice after the termination of the relationship. The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado agreed with Bursek, holding that while a firm may seek reimbursement of specific client costs when a client leaves the firm to follow a lawyer, a firm cannot require a departing attorney to pay a non-specific fee in order to continue representing clients who wish to retain their relationship with that attorney. The court found that such an agreement constitutes an impermissible restriction on the attorney's right to practice and on the clients' right to choose their counsel. The court also held that this provision of the employment agreement was unenforceable, as it violated public policy as expressed in the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals' decision. It affirmed the decision that the per-client fee was unenforceable but reversed the Court of Appeals' decision to sever and attempt to enforce other parts of the agreement. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Johnson Family Law v. Bursek" on Justia Law

The case involves Green Plains Trade Group, LLC, who appealed the district court's dismissal of their claim for tortious interference with contract against Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM). Green Plains alleged that ADM unlawfully manipulated the price of ethanol, causing Green Plains to receive less money for the ethanol it sold to third parties. The district court dismissed the case, saying Green Plains hadn't specified the contracts ADM interfered with or shown a breach of contract. Green Plains argued that under Nebraska law, tortious interference doesn't always require a breach and that ADM's actions made its performance under its contracts "more expensive or burdensome."The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals found that while the district court was correct to require Green Plains to plead more than general allegations about its contracts, it may have required too much specificity. The Court of Appeals also found that the district court erred in not recognizing section 766A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts as part of Nebraska's law, which allows a plaintiff to bring a successful tortious interference with contract claim even if the contract was not breached. The Court of Appeals held that the district court must apply the law as it believes the highest court of the state would apply it if the case were now before it, and it should not fear adopting the less restrictive approach if it believes the state's highest court would adopt that approach. View "Green Plains Trade Group, LLC v. Archer Daniels Midland Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Washington found that the initiation fees charged by Royal Oaks Country Club, a nonprofit corporation, are fully deductible from the business and occupation (B&O) tax under RCW 82.04.4282. The statute permits taxpayers to deduct "bona fide" initiation fees, among other things, from their B&O tax. The court held that these initiation fees were "bona fide" as they were paid solely for the privilege of membership, and did not automatically entitle a member to use any service or facility of the club. The court differentiated between dues and initiation fees, noting that the statute treats these two terms separately. The court rejected the Washington Department of Revenue's argument that a portion of the initiation fee was for access to facilities and thus not subject to the exemption, stating that there is a difference between access and use. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that Royal Oaks' initiation fees qualify as bona fide initiation fees and are therefore wholly deductible. View "Royal Oaks Country Club v. Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in a case brought by the State of Missouri against several Chinese entities, including the government of the People's Republic of China, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and others. Missouri accused the defendants of negligence in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, alleging that they allowed the virus to spread worldwide, engaged in a campaign to keep other countries from learning about the virus, and hoarded personal protective equipment (PPE). The court decided that most of Missouri's claims were blocked by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally protects foreign states from lawsuits in U.S. courts. However, the court allowed one claim to proceed: the allegation that China hoarded PPE while the rest of the world was unaware of the extent of the virus. The court held that this claim fell under the "commercial activity" exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, as it involved alleged anti-competitive behavior that had a direct effect in the United States. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this claim. View "The State of Missouri v. The Peoples Republic of China" on Justia Law

This case involves a pharmaceutical manufacturer, Gilead Life Sciences, Inc., and its development and sale of a drug, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), to treat HIV/AIDS. The approximately 24,000 plaintiffs allege that they suffered adverse effects from TDF, including skeletal and kidney damage. Gilead developed a similar but chemically distinct drug, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF), which could potentially treat HIV/AIDS with fewer side effects. The plaintiffs claim that Gilead delayed the development of TAF to maximize profits from TDF.The plaintiffs do not claim that TDF is defective. Instead, they assert a claim for ordinary negligence, arguing that Gilead's decision to delay the development of TAF breached its duty of reasonable care to users of TDF. They also assert a claim for fraudulent concealment, arguing that Gilead had a duty to disclose information about TAF to users of TDF.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, partially granted Gilead's petition for a writ of mandate and held that the plaintiffs could proceed with their negligence claim. The court concluded that a manufacturer's legal duty of reasonable care can extend beyond the duty not to market a defective product. However, the court reversed the trial court's decision denying Gilead's motion for summary adjudication of the plaintiffs' claim for fraudulent concealment. The court held that Gilead had no duty to disclose information about TAF to users of TDF, as TAF was not available as an alternative treatment at the time. View "Gilead Tenofovir Cases" on Justia Law

In a dispute between Jonathan H. Paul and Rockpoint Group, LLC, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied Rockpoint's motion to dismiss Count III and granted Paul's cross-motion for partial summary judgement. The case stemmed from a disagreement about how to divide the proceeds from a transaction involving the investment fund complex that Paul co-founded and later left. After Paul's departure, he and his former partners agreed to an amendment to the company’s limited liability agreement, which stipulated Paul would receive a share of the proceeds from certain future transactions. A dispute arose over the calculation of Paul’s share when a qualifying transaction occurred. The court determined that the dispute resolution mechanism in the agreement called for an expert determination, not a plenary arbitration. The court also affirmed that the third amended and restated LLC agreement, not the first, governed the dispute. The court ruled that the appraiser could not consider extrinsic evidence, such as legal arguments and affidavits, presented by Rockpoint in its valuation. The court further directed that Rockpoint's appraisal must be redacted to omit the offending material. View "Paul v. Rockpoint Group, LLC" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated parts of a judgment against EOX Holdings, L.L.C., and Andrew Gizienski ("Defendants") in a case initiated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC"). The CFTC had accused the defendants of violating a rule that prevents commodities traders from "taking the other side of orders" without clients' consent. The court ruled that the defendants lacked fair notice of the CFTC's interpretation of this rule. The case revolved around Gizienski's actions while working as a broker for EOX, where he had discretion to make specific trades on behalf of one of his clients, Jason Vaccaro. The CFTC argued that Gizienski's actions violated the rule because he was making decisions to trade opposite the orders of other clients without their knowledge or consent. The court, however, ruled that the CFTC's interpretation of the rule was overly broad, as it did not provide sufficient notice that such conduct would be considered taking the other side of an order. The court reversed the penalty judgment against the defendants, vacated part of the injunction against them, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Commodity Futures v. EOX Holdings" on Justia Law