Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves NGL Energy Partners LP and NGL Energy Holdings LLC (collectively, "NGL") and LCT Capital, LLC ("LCT"). NGL, entities in the energy sector, engaged LCT, a financial advisory services provider, for services related to NGL's 2014 acquisition of TransMontaigne Inc. However, the parties failed to agree on payment terms, leading LCT to file a lawsuit in 2015. The Superior Court held a jury trial in July 2018, which resulted in a $36 million verdict in LCT's favor.NGL appealed the Superior Court's decision, challenging the $36 million final judgment and a set of evidentiary rulings. LCT cross-appealed, contesting the Superior Court's methodology for computing post-judgment interest. NGL argued that the Superior Court erred by admitting evidence and arguments about the value/benefit supposedly gained by NGL in the Transaction, asserting that such evidence is prejudicial and irrelevant to a quantum meruit claim. NGL also argued that the Superior Court erred by admitting evidence of benefit-of-the-bargain or expectancy damages when assessing the quantum meruit value of LCT’s services.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the Superior Court’s evidentiary rulings and rejected NGL's contention that the Superior Court incorrectly allowed LCT to recover benefit-of-the bargain/expectancy damages. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Superior Court’s post-judgment interest determination. The Supreme Court held that prejudgment interest is part of the judgment upon which post-judgment interest accrues under Section 2301(a). Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court as to this issue and remanded the case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with its opinion. View "NGL Energy Partners LP v. LCT Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

Five employees of The Mayo Clinic, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, filed a lawsuit alleging that the organization failed to accommodate their religious beliefs under Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The employees claimed that they were terminated for refusing to comply with Mayo's Covid-19 vaccination or testing policies. The plaintiffs sought religious accommodations for the vaccination requirement, citing their Christian religious beliefs. Mayo denied the accommodations for three plaintiffs who refused to get the vaccine. It granted vaccination exemptions to two plaintiffs, but required them to test for Covid-19 weekly, which they refused.The district court dismissed the claims, ruling that two plaintiffs did not exhaust their administrative remedies under Title VII, the other plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead religious beliefs that conflict with Mayo’s Covid-19 policies, and the MHRA fails to provide relief for not accommodating religious beliefs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case. The appellate court found that the district court erred in finding that two plaintiffs did not exhaust their administrative remedies under Title VII. The court also found that all plaintiffs adequately pled a conflict between their Christian religious beliefs and Mayo Clinic’s Covid-19 policy. Furthermore, the appellate court disagreed with the district court's finding that the MHRA does not provide a cause of action for failure to accommodate religious beliefs. The appellate court held that the MHRA, being a remedial act, should be construed liberally to secure freedom from discrimination for persons in Minnesota, and thus provides protection against failures to accommodate religious beliefs. View "Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic Ambulance" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of California, Another Planet Entertainment, LLC, a live entertainment venue operator, sued its insurer, Vigilant Insurance Company, for denying its claim for coverage of pandemic-related business losses. The plaintiff argued that the actual or potential presence of the COVID-19 virus at its venues constituted "direct physical loss or damage to property," triggering coverage under its insurance policy. The district court dismissed the case, and the plaintiff appealed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals then asked the Supreme Court of California to clarify whether the presence of the COVID-19 virus could constitute "direct physical loss or damage to property" under California law.The Supreme Court of California concluded that allegations of the actual or potential presence of COVID-19 on an insured’s premises do not, without more, establish direct physical loss or damage to property within the meaning of a commercial property insurance policy. Under California law, direct physical loss or damage to property requires a distinct, demonstrable, physical alteration to property. The physical alteration need not be visible to the naked eye, nor must it be structural, but it must result in some injury to or impairment of the property as property. The court found that Another Planet’s allegations did not satisfy this standard. While Another Planet alleges that the COVID-19 virus alters property by bonding or interacting with it on a microscopic level, Another Planet does not allege that any such alteration results in injury to or impairment of the property itself. Its relevant physical characteristics are unaffected by the presence of the COVID-19 virus. View "Another Planet Entertainment, LLC v. Vigilant Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The case involves Capital Advisors, LLC, and Danzig, Ltd., minority shareholders of Cam Group, Inc. (CAMG), who filed a shareholder derivative action against nine CAMG officers and directors. The defendants included Wei Heng Cai (Ricky) and Wei Xuan Luo (Tracy), who were the only ones to proceed to trial. The plaintiffs alleged that Ricky arranged for a $1.85 million unsecured loan at zero-percent interest to a company called Parko Ltd., and Tracy, as CFO, failed to stop the loan. The loan allegedly drained approximately 80% of the cash reserves for the consolidated CAM companies. Ricky later resigned from CAMG to focus on developing business opportunities for another company, National Agricultural Holdings Limited (NAHL), and his own company, Precursor Management Inc. (PMI).The district court granted a motion for judgment as a matter of law in favor of Ricky and Tracy, dismissing all causes of action. The court found that officers and directors of a parent company cannot be held liable for actions taken by a wholly owned subsidiary without piercing the corporate veil. The court also awarded Ricky and Tracy over $2 million in attorney fees and costs.The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that officers and directors of a parent company who allow a wholly owned subsidiary to take action adverse to the parent can be held liable without use of the alter ego doctrine. The court also held that shareholders may file derivative suits against officers and directors of a parent company based on wrongful actions that occurred at a wholly owned subsidiary of a wholly owned subsidiary without asserting alter ego. The court concluded that the district court erred by finding that officers and directors of a parent company cannot be held liable for actions taken by a wholly owned subsidiary without piercing the corporate veil. The court also found that the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to defeat a motion for judgment as a matter of law as to some of their causes of action. View "CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC VS. CAI" on Justia Law

Tri-Plex Technical Services, Ltd., an Illinois corporation that develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells commercial-grade carpet cleaning products, filed a complaint against its competitors, including Jon-Don, LLC, alleging violations of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants failed to disclose that their cleaning products contained excessive amounts of phosphorous and volatile organic material, in violation of Illinois environmental laws. The plaintiff argued that this harmed its business because its products complied with Illinois law and the carpet cleaning companies preferred and purchased the defendants’ products because they contained phosphorus and cleaned better, albeit illegally.The circuit court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint on several grounds, including that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim and that the plaintiff lacked standing. The appellate court reversed the judgment of the circuit court and remanded the case for further proceedings.The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois reversed the judgment of the appellate court and affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. The court found that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing its claims under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to plead all the elements of a Consumer Fraud Act claim, as it did not plead that it was the intended recipient of the defendants’ alleged deceptions. The court further held that the plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim, which rested upon the validity of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Consumer Fraud Act claims, also failed. View "Tri-Plex Technical Services, Ltd. v. Jon-Don, LLC" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute concerning a 2018 merger between FanDuel Ltd. and the U.S. assets of nonparty Paddy Power Betfair plc. The plaintiffs, founders and shareholders of FanDuel, alleged that the defendants, including FanDuel's board of directors and certain shareholders, deliberately undervalued FanDuel's assets during the merger negotiations, resulting in the preferred shareholders receiving all the benefits of the merger while the common shareholders received nothing. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to obtain a fair valuation of the merger consideration and by promoting their own interests at the expense of the common shareholders.The Supreme Court of New York County partially granted and partially denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. The court held that New York law applied to the plaintiffs' claims because the internal affairs doctrine was inapplicable where the defendants were not current officers, directors, and shareholders at the time of the lawsuit. The court further held that the plaintiffs adequately stated their claims for breach of fiduciary duty under New York law.The Appellate Division reversed the order of the Supreme Court, holding that Scots law applied to the plaintiffs' claims under the internal affairs doctrine. The court stated that the directors of a company generally owe duties only to the company as a whole rather than to the shareholders, except in special factual circumstances not present in this case. Therefore, the court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under Scots law.The Court of Appeals of New York reversed the order of the Appellate Division, holding that while Scots law applied to the plaintiffs' claims, the plaintiffs' allegations could give rise to a possible inference that special circumstances were present, which could give rise to a cognizable fiduciary duty claim under Scots law. Therefore, the court held that the Appellate Division erroneously granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the first, second, and fourth causes of action. View "Eccles v Shamrock Capital Advisors, LLC" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the University Hospital's decision to award a contract for the design, construction, and operation of an on-site pharmacy to a bidder other than Sumukha LLC. Sumukha challenged the decision, but the hospital's hearing officer denied the protest. Sumukha then appealed to the Appellate Division. While the appeal was pending, Sumukha filed a second protest challenging the decision to change the pharmacy's planned location. When the hospital failed to respond, Sumukha filed a second appeal in the Appellate Division.The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal from Sumukha’s first protest, concluding that University Hospital’s determination was not directly appealable to the Appellate Division. It later dismissed Sumukha’s second appeal. Both dismissals were without prejudice to Sumukha’s right to file an action in the Law Division. The Court granted certification and consolidated the appeals.The Supreme Court of New Jersey found no evidence in University Hospital’s enabling statute that the Legislature intended the Hospital to be a “state administrative agency” under Rule 2:2-3(a)(2). The court held that University Hospital’s decisions and actions may not be directly appealed to the Appellate Division. The court affirmed the dismissal of the appeals, without prejudice to Sumukha’s right to file actions in the Law Division. View "In re Protest of Contract for Retail Pharmacy Design, Construction, Start-Up and Operation, Request for Proposal No. UH-P20-006" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Winston Mar and SierraConstellation Partners, LLC (Sierra) and Lawrence Perkins (collectively, Sierra defendants). Mar, who was a partner in Sierra, sought a buyout of his partnership interest. Sierra defendants moved to compel arbitration of Mar's action, based on an arbitration agreement included in Sierra's employee handbook. Mar had refused to sign the arbitration agreement, stating that he would not be bound by it and that Sierra could terminate his employment if it objected. Sierra argued that Mar's continued employment for 19 months after the introduction of the arbitration agreement constituted assent to the agreement.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Sierra defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The court found that Sierra defendants failed to meet their burden to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement because Mar clearly stated that he refused to sign the arbitration agreement and Sierra could terminate his employment if it objected.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that while an employee's continued employment can generally be taken as assent to an arbitration agreement, this is not the case when the employee promptly rejects the arbitration agreement and makes clear he or she refuses to be bound by the agreement. In this case, Mar promptly and unequivocally rejected the arbitration agreement, and thus, there was no mutual assent to arbitrate. View "Mar v. Perkins" on Justia Law

The case involves BitGo Holdings, Inc. and Galaxy Digital Holdings Ltd., who entered into a merger agreement. BitGo, a technology company, was required to submit audited financial statements to Galaxy, the acquirer, by a specified date. When BitGo submitted the financial statements, Galaxy claimed they were deficient because they did not apply recently published guidance from the Securities and Exchange Commission’s staff. BitGo disagreed, but submitted a second set of financial statements. Galaxy found fault with the second submission and terminated the merger agreement. BitGo then sued Galaxy for wrongful repudiation and breach of the merger agreement.The Court of Chancery sided with Galaxy and dismissed the complaint. The court found that the financial statements submitted by BitGo did not comply with the requirements of the merger agreement, providing Galaxy with a valid basis to terminate the agreement.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Delaware reversed the decision of the Court of Chancery. The Supreme Court found that the definition of the term “Company 2021 Audited Financial Statements” in the merger agreement was ambiguous. The court concluded that both parties had proffered reasonable interpretations of the merger agreement’s definition. Therefore, the court remanded the case for the consideration of extrinsic evidence to resolve this ambiguity. View "BitGo Holdings, Inc. v. Galaxy Digital Holdings Ltd., et al." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a tort action brought by the widow of a deceased worker against various entities, including the employer, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, and others involved in the construction project where the accident occurred. The widow alleged that these entities failed to provide proper supervision and safety protocols, leading to her husband's death. The employer, BJ's Oilfield Construction, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss a third-party petition filed against it by one of the defendants, SunPower Corporation Systems. The District Court sustained the motion to dismiss, leading to an appeal.In the lower courts, the widow's wrongful death claim was initially dismissed, leading to three separate appeals. The dismissals were based on the defendants identifying themselves with "prime contractor" status. The appellate court reversed the dismissals, stating that the defendants' assertions were unsupported. The cases were remanded back to the District Court.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reversed the District Court's order dismissing SunPower's third-party petition against BJ's Oilfield. The court held that the exclusive remedy and liability language in the workers' compensation law does not prevent an employer from creating non-employer legal relationships, capacities, or roles. However, these relationships, capacities, or roles cannot create a negligence tort liability for the same physical injury used by a party for a compensable workers' compensation award. The court also held that the language of the workers' compensation law does not prohibit an employer from creating an indemnity agreement holding others harmless for the employer's intentional conduct not subject to exclusive workers' compensation remedies. The case was remanded for additional proceedings. View "KNOX v. OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC CO." on Justia Law