Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

A case involving Lebanon County Employees' Retirement Fund and Teamsters Local 443 Health Services & Insurance Plan, as plaintiffs-appellants, and Steven H. Collis, Richard W. Gochnauer, Lon R. Greenberg, Jane E. Henney, M.D., Kathleen W. Hyle, Michael J. Long, Henry W. McGee, Ornella Barra, D. Mark Durcan, and Chris Zimmerman, as defendants-appellees, was heard by the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. The plaintiffs, shareholders in AmerisourceBergen Corporation, brought a derivative complaint against the directors and officers of the Corporation alleging that they failed to adopt, implement, or oversee reasonable policies and practices to prevent the unlawful distribution of opioids. The plaintiffs claimed that this led to AmerisourceBergen incurring liability exceeding $6 billion in a 2021 global settlement related to the Company's role in the opioid epidemic. The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware initially dismissed the complaint, basing its decision on a separate federal court finding that AmerisourceBergen had complied with its anti-diversion obligations under the Controlled Substances Act. However, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reversed the Court of Chancery's dismissal of the complaint, ruling that the lower court had erred in considering the federal court's findings as it changed the date at which demand futility should be considered and violated the principles of judicial notice. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Lebanon County Employees' Retirement Fund v. Collis" on Justia Law

In 2020, Illumina, a for-profit corporation that manufactures and sells next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms, which are crucial tools for DNA sequencing, entered into an agreement to acquire Grail, a company it had initially founded and then spun off as a separate entity in 2016. Grail specializes in developing multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests, which are designed to identify various types of cancer from a single blood sample. Illumina's acquisition of Grail was seen as a significant step toward bringing Grail’s developed MCED test, Galleri, to market.However, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) objected to the acquisition, arguing that it violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which prohibits mergers and acquisitions that may substantially lessen competition. The FTC contended that because all MCED tests, including those still in development, relied on Illumina’s NGS platforms, the merger would potentially give Illumina the ability and incentive to foreclose Grail’s rivals from the MCED test market.Illumina responded by creating a standardized supply contract, known as the "Open Offer," which guaranteed that it would provide its NGS platforms to all for-profit U.S. oncology customers at the same price and with the same access to services and products as Grail. Despite this, the FTC ordered the merger to be unwound.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the FTC had applied an erroneous legal standard in evaluating the impact of the Open Offer. The court ruled that the FTC should have considered the Open Offer at the liability stage of its analysis, rather than as a remedy following a finding of liability. Furthermore, the court determined that to rebut the FTC's prima facie case, Illumina was not required to show that the Open Offer would completely negate the anticompetitive effects of the merger, but rather that it would mitigate these effects to a degree that the merger was no longer likely to substantially lessen competition.The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the FTC’s conclusions regarding the likely substantial lessening of competition and the lack of cognizable efficiencies to rebut the anticompetitive effects of the merger. However, given its finding that the FTC had applied an incorrect standard in evaluating the Open Offer, the court vacated the FTC’s order and remanded the case for further consideration of the Open Offer's impact under the proper standard. View "Illumina v. FTC" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute that arose after a divorce between Greg Grengs and Lisa Genareo (formerly Lisa Grengs). As part of the divorce settlement, the Supreme Court of North Dakota ordered that property owned by GLG Farms, LLC, a company established by Grengs to hold ownership of his farm property and equipment, be mortgaged to provide Genareo with security for a property settlement payment valued at $1,300,000. Following the court order, two new members were added to GLG Farms, LLC, and the company filed for bankruptcy protection. Grengs and GLG Farms, LLC, then entered into a stipulation agreement in bankruptcy court, agreeing to mortgage terms and payment terms. However, GLG Farms, LLC, later argued that the two new members of the company were not required to execute the mortgage and that the agreement in bankruptcy court had little impact on the court's decision.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's order, holding that Grengs acted as an ostensible agent of GLG Farms, LLC, with apparent authority. The court found that Genareo was right to believe that GLG Farms, LLC, consented to Grengs acting as its agent, thus binding the company to the stipulation agreement. The court concluded that GLG Farms, LLC, ratified Grengs' actions by embracing their advantages and using them in judicial proceedings and did not timely disavow Grengs' actions.The court also rejected GLG Farms, LLC's argument that the district court failed to adequately describe the terms of the required mortgage, pointing out that a statutory mortgage form exists and that the amounts due by Grengs were plainly provided in the stipulation. The court further found GLG Farms, LLC's argument that North Dakota law does not provide a standard mortgage to be frivolous, awarding Genareo $1,000 as a sanction. View "Grengs v. Grengs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of North Carolina was required to decide whether a trial court can refuse to hear oral testimony during a summary judgment hearing on the mistaken belief that the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure prohibit the receipt of such testimony. The plaintiff, a corporation, had sued the defendants for breach of a commercial lease, and the defendants counterclaimed for fraud. During the summary judgment hearing, the trial court declined a request by the defendants to introduce live testimony, asserting that it was not permitted during a summary judgment hearing. The defendants appealed, and the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's summary judgment order and remanded the case, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that a trial court errs if it fails to exercise its discretion under the misapprehension that it has no such discretion, referring to Rule 43(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure that allows for the introduction of live oral testimony during a summary judgment hearing at the discretion of the trial court. The court found that the trial court was mistaken in its belief that it could not allow oral testimony, and this error warranted vacatur and remand for reconsideration. The Supreme Court thereby modified and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals to vacate the trial court's summary judgment order and remand the case. View "D.V. Shah Corp. v. VroomBrands, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Plaintiff Kevin Brown, a former employee of Court Square Capital Management, L.P., sued the company for withholding his carried interest payments, alleging breach of contract. Court Square Capital Management counterclaimed, alleging that Brown had violated non-compete and confidentiality provisions in the company's LLC agreements. The issues in question were whether Brown's conduct in relation to two investment opportunities, Zodiac and Hayward, violated the non-compete provisions, and whether his conduct concerning certain internal memos breached the confidentiality provisions.The court found that Brown did not violate the non-compete provisions. Although the companies in question could be considered as "investment opportunities" as per the LLC agreement, Brown did not acquire any interest in these companies during the prohibited period, and his salary from his new employer, MSD, did not constitute an acquired interest.The court also found that Brown did not breach the confidentiality provisions. Court Square argued that Brown breached these provisions by requesting and receiving internal memos (HUMs) from his former colleague at Court Square. The court, however, found that the information in the HUMs was not confidential as it was widely circulated among private-equity firms and would have been easily accessible to anyone in Brown's position. Furthermore, Brown used these memos solely for formatting purposes and did not use the information for competitive purposes.The court therefore entered judgment in favor of Brown. View "Brown v. Court Square Capital Management, L.P." on Justia Law

In the state of Kansas, a number of non-profit groups, including the League of Women Voters of Kansas and the Kansas Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, challenged a law which made it a felony to engage in conduct that gives the appearance of being an election official or that would cause another person to believe a person is an election official. The non-profits argued that the law was overbroad and unconstitutionally vague, as it could criminalize their voter education and registration activities. They also claimed that the law violated their rights to free speech and association. The district court denied their request for a temporary injunction and the Court of Appeals dismissed the non-profits' claims for lack of standing, arguing that they were not at risk of prosecution under the statute. The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reversed these decisions, finding that the non-profits did have standing to challenge the law. The Court held that when a law criminalizes speech and does not clearly demonstrate that only constitutionally unprotected speech is being criminalized, the law is unclear enough to confer pre-enforcement standing on a plaintiff challenging the law. The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas vacated the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. View "League of Women Voters of Kansas v. Schwab" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reversed the decision of the Superior Court of the State of Delaware. The case centered around an insurance dispute involving Verizon Communications, Inc. and several of its insurers. The dispute arose after Verizon settled a lawsuit brought by a litigation trust, which was pursuing claims against Verizon arising out of a transaction Verizon had made with FairPoint Communications Inc. The litigation trust had alleged that Verizon made fraudulent transfers in the course of the transaction, which harmed FairPoint's creditors. After settling the lawsuit, Verizon sought coverage for the settlement payment and defense costs from its insurers.The insurers denied coverage, arguing that the litigation trust's claims did not qualify as a "Securities Claim" under the relevant insurance policies. The Superior Court disagreed, ruling that the litigation trust's claims were brought derivatively on behalf of FairPoint by a security holder of FairPoint, as required to qualify as a Securities Claim under the policies.The Supreme Court of Delaware reversed this decision, finding that the litigation trust's claims were direct, not derivative. The court reasoned that the trust's claims were brought on behalf of the creditors, not FairPoint or its subsidiary, and the relief sought would benefit the creditors, not the business entity. Therefore, the claims did not meet the definition of a Securities Claim under the insurance policies. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the insurers were not obligated to cover Verizon's settlement payment and defense costs. View "In re Fairpoint Insurance Coverage Appeals" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Alabama has reversed an order by the Dale Circuit Court, which held Omni Healthcare Financial, LLC in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena. This case arose from claims asserted by Amy Lee Walker against Eric Irvin Reese and SCP Distributors, LLC, following an automobile collision. Omni, a North Carolina-based factoring company, had purchased certain accounts receivable from a medical provider who had treated Walker. The accounts receivable are secured by an interest in any recovery that Walker obtains from her lawsuit against the defendants. The defendants had served a nonparty subpoena on Omni's registered agent in Alabama, seeking certain documents. Omni later responded with some documents but also asserted objections to the subpoena. The defendants then filed a motion asking the circuit court to hold Omni in contempt of court for failing to comply with the subpoena. The circuit court granted this motion, leading to Omni's appeal. The Supreme Court of Alabama found that the trial court erred by holding Omni in contempt, as the subpoena was invalid. It was determined that the subpoena seeking documents located in North Carolina needed to be issued by a North Carolina court and served in accordance with North Carolina law. As the defendants had not asked a North Carolina court to direct Omni to produce the documents, they had not complied with the requirements to hold Omni in contempt. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re Omni Healthcare Financial, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, a joint venture between Watershed Ventures, LLC and Patrick M. McGrath failed, leading to bankruptcy and litigation. McGrath and two investment vehicles he controlled sought coverage from Watershed's insurer, Scottsdale Insurance Company, under a directors and officers liability policy. Scottsdale denied coverage and sought a declaratory judgment as to its coverage obligations. McGrath countered with claims against Scottsdale and third-party claims against Watershed. The district court issued two summary judgment decisions. The first ruled that McGrath is an insured under the policy, while the second dismissed one of McGrath's counterclaims. The parties agreed to a "Stipulated Conditional Final Judgment Subject to Reservation of Rights of Appeal," which would become void if either of the district court’s two summary judgment rulings were partly vacated or reversed on appeal. The parties appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed both Scottsdale's appeal and McGrath's cross-appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, concluding that the Stipulated Conditional Final Judgment was not a "final decision" under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The court reasoned that the Stipulated Conditional Final Judgment did not resolve all claims of all parties, was not entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and did not finally resolve whether Scottsdale breached its duty to defend under the policy. View "Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. McGrath" on Justia Law

The case involves the district attorneys of Los Angeles and San Francisco (the People) filing a complaint against the law firm Potter Handy, LLP and several of its attorneys (collectively, Potter) for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The People allege that Potter Handy has filed numerous ADA complaints containing false standing allegations as part of a scheme to extract settlements from small business owners in California. The People claim that this conduct constitutes an “unlawful” business practice under California's unfair competition law (UCL).Potter Handy demurred on the ground that the litigation privilege, which generally protects communications made as part of a judicial proceeding, immunizes their alleged conduct. The People argued that the litigation privilege does not bar their UCL claim as it is predicated on violations of a regulatory statute or rule that is itself exempt from the privilege. The trial court sustained Potter’s demurrer without leave to amend, and the People appealed.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that the litigation privilege does apply to the People's UCL claim. The court concluded that carving out an exception to the litigation privilege for the People’s UCL claim would not be proper because the Legislature’s prescribed remedies—prosecution directly under section 6128(a) and State Bar disciplinary proceedings—remain viable. View "People v. Potter Handy, LLP" on Justia Law