Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

The dispute involves a disagreement between two brothers, Brian and William "Bill" Bento, over the distribution of the assets and liabilities of their joint business, Bento Construction, LLC, following its dissolution. Brian filed a complaint seeking judicial dissociation of Bill as a member of the company, its dissolution, and a declaration of each party's rights and interests in the company. Bill countered, seeking damages and the dissolution of the company. An agreement led to an order that dissolved the company and dissociated Bill as a member.The order assigned contracts for performance of work by Bento Construction to Brian's new company, Brian Bento Construction, LLC. It also tasked the parties with winding down the company's operations. Despite the dissolution, the company continued to operate for the limited purpose of winding up its affairs. The company had several unsettled obligations, based on projects contracted before the dissolution date, and was also involved in several pending lawsuits regarding disputed invoices.The trial court issued an order distributing personal property and accounts in possession of each brother to the respective brother. It also made Brian responsible for all debts and obligations of Bento Construction. However, the order did not address the company's incomplete projects or the ongoing lawsuits. Both brothers appealed the trial court's order.The Supreme Court of Alabama found that the trial court's order was not a final judgment as it did not conclusively determine all the matters presented regarding the distribution of the company's assets. It did not discuss or attempt to allocate any portion of the revenues that may arise from the incomplete projects or the lawsuits. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeals. View "Bento v. Bento" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and the District Court in favor of the City of Des Moines, in a case brought by Lime Lounge, LLC. Lime Lounge, a bar, challenged a city ordinance requiring it to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate. After receiving noise complaints, the City revoked Lime Lounge's CUP, which was upheld in a prior appeal. Lime Lounge then challenged the ordinance arguing it was preempted by Iowa Code, violated equal protection and spot zoning prohibitions. The trial court dismissed Lime Lounge's claims and this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.The Supreme Court of Iowa found that the city's ordinance was not preempted by state law. Rather, it was a proper exercise of the city's zoning authority and did not create a separate local alcohol license. The Court also rejected Lime Lounge's equal protection claim, holding that the city had a legitimate purpose in imposing a CUP on specific businesses selling alcohol. Finally, the Court dismissed the claim of illegal spot zoning, as Lime Lounge failed to prove that the city had engaged in such activity. The Court thus affirmed the dismissal of Lime Lounge's challenge to the ordinance. View "Lime Lounge, Inc. v. City of Des Moines, Iowa" on Justia Law

The case involves a petition by Inhance Technologies, L.L.C. against orders issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Inhance, a company that has been fluorinating plastic containers since 1983, was charged by the EPA for violating a Significant New Use Rule regarding long-chain perfluoroalkyls (PFAS) due to the presence of PFAS in an insecticide stored in a container fluorinated by Inhance. PFAS are long-lasting chemicals found in various products and have been linked to several health issues. The EPA issued two orders under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), prohibiting Inhance from manufacturing or processing PFAS during its fluorination process. Inhance claimed that if the orders were enforced, they would shutdown their fluorination process and bankrupt the company.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Inhance, stating that the EPA exceeded its statutory authority by issuing the orders. The court held that Inhance's decades-old fluorination process could not be deemed a "significant new use" under Section 5 of TSCA. The court vacated the EPA's orders and noted that the EPA could regulate Inhance's fluorination process under Section 6 of TSCA, which requires a cost-benefit analysis for ongoing uses. The court's ruling was based on the interpretation of the term "new" in TSCA, the statutory framework, and the requirement for agencies to provide fair notice of their rules. View "Inhance Technologies v. EPA" on Justia Law

In a divorce case, the Supreme Court of Nevada was asked to consider whether a law firm, established by one spouse before the marriage and incorporated under a different name during the marriage, constitutes that spouse’s separate property. Robert Draskovich, a practicing criminal lawyer since 1997, married Laurinda Draskovich in 2012, at which point he had a 65% ownership stake in a firm. In 2018, that firm dissolved, and Robert incorporated the Draskovich Law Group (DLG) as his wholly owned corporation.During their divorce proceedings in 2022, DLG was the primary asset in dispute. The district court concluded that DLG was community property, based on the fact that DLG was incorporated during the marriage. The district court also rejected Laurinda’s request for alimony, in part because it determined that the share of community assets distributed to Laurinda would provide sufficient support through passive income.Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada held that the district court erred in determining that the law firm was entirely community property. The court found that the law firm was a continuation of the spouse’s original, separate property law practice, and thus, the presumption of community property does not properly apply. Therefore, the Court reversed the portion of the divorce decree pertaining to the DLG interests and remanded for further proceedings. The Court also vacated the district court’s alimony determination to be reconsidered in light of the changed circumstances surrounding DLG. View "Draskovich v. Draskovich" on Justia Law

The case involved a lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly known as Facebook) by a class of advertisers who claimed that Meta misrepresented the "Potential Reach" of advertisements on its platforms. The plaintiffs alleged that Meta falsely claimed that Potential Reach was an estimate of people, when in fact, it was an estimate of accounts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order certifying one class of advertisers (the damages class) who sought compensation for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment. The court stated that the misrepresentation was a common issue for the class and that the district court properly determined that the element of justifiable reliance was capable of classwide resolution.However, the court vacated the district court's order certifying another class of advertisers (the injunction class) who sought injunctive relief. The court asked the lower court to reconsider whether the named plaintiff, Cain Maxwell, had Article III standing to seek an injunction. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "DZ Reserve v. Meta Platforms, Inc." on Justia Law

The case pertains to a dispute between the Department of Finance of the City of New York and Brookdale Physicians' Dialysis Associates, Inc. over the revocation of a real property tax exemption. The property in question was owned by Samuel and Bertha Schulman Institute for Nursing and Rehabilitation Fund, Inc., a not-for-profit entity, and was leased to Brookdale Dialysis, a for-profit corporation. The Department of Finance retroactively revoked the property's tax-exempt status in 2013, citing the fact that the property had been leased to a for-profit entity.The Supreme Court initially annulled the Department's determination, arguing that it failed to consider whether Brookdale Dialysis' services were reasonably incidental to the exemption purpose. The Department of Finance reassessed the property for the 2014-2015 tax year and again revoked the exemption after finding that the income from the lease exceeded the expenses for the property. The decision to revoke the exemption was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Division.However, the Court of Appeals reversed these decisions, holding that the property was not exempt under New York Real Property Tax Law § 420-a. The court noted that the law mandatorily exempts from taxation any real property owned by certain not-for-profit entities and used exclusively for beneficial purposes without financial gain. The law does not apply to property leased by a for-profit corporation. Therefore, the court concluded that the property in this case was not exempt under this law, and the Department of Finance's decision to revoke the exemption was justified. View "Matter of Brookdale Physicians' Dialysis Assoc., Inc. v Department of Fin. of the City of N.Y." on Justia Law

In a lawsuit between two competitors in the shipping logistics industry, Project44, Inc. and FourKites, Inc., Project44 alleged that FourKites agents sent defamatory emails to Project44's chief revenue officer and two members of its board of directors. FourKites argued that there was no publication to a third party because the emails were sent to members of the corporation who were, in effect, the corporation itself. The Cook County circuit court agreed with FourKites and dismissed Project44's complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the decision, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois affirmed the decision of the appellate court, holding that there is publication to a third party when an allegedly defamatory statement is communicated to a member of a corporation’s executive leadership team. It was determined that a corporation has a distinct reputation from that of its management-level employees and an interest in protecting that reputation among its employees and the public at large. Therefore, defamatory statements made to corporate employees, even those with the power to act on behalf of the corporation, can harm the corporation’s business reputation among those employees. Communication of a defamatory statement regarding the corporation to these employees establishes the publication element for a defamation action brought by the corporation against the party that publishes the statement. View "Project44, Inc. v. FourKites, Inc." on Justia Law

In the case considered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, employee Michael Ashford sued his former employer, Aeroframe Services, and Aviation Technical Services (ATS), alleging unpaid wages and other damages. The case, which began in Louisiana state court and was later removed to federal court, was complicated by numerous claims and counterclaims among the parties, including third-party defendant Roger Allen Porter, who was Aeroframe's sole principal.Initially, Ashford and other employees pursued claims against Aeroframe and ATS, alleging that negotiations between the two companies led to Aeroframe's insolvency and employees' loss of wages. ATS, in turn, cross-claimed against Aeroframe and Porter, alleging financial losses from its failed attempt to acquire Aeroframe. Porter also cross-claimed against ATS, asserting tortious interference and unfair trade practices.The Court of Appeals previously remanded the case to the district court, finding that the parties were not aligned in their interests at the time of the lawsuit's filing, and the district court lacked jurisdiction due to lack of diversity among the parties. Upon reconsideration, however, the district court found new evidence indicating that the interests of Aeroframe, Porter, and the employees were aligned from the inception of the litigation and that an irrevocable settlement agreement between them existed, allowing removal under the relevant law.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the non-ATS parties' interests were aligned from the litigation's inception. The Court also affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims against ATS and the individual judgments against Aeroframe in favor of the employees. View "Ashford v. Aviation Technical Svc" on Justia Law

The case in question involves a receiver, Burton Wiand, appointed after the collapse of a $78 million Ponzi scheme operated by Oasis, who sued ATC Brokers Ltd. (where Oasis held accounts), David Manoukian (owner of ATC Brokers), and Spotex LLC (which provided software to Oasis). Wiand alleged common-law tort claims against the defendants and fraudulent-transfer claims against ATC Brokers only. The district court dismissed Wiand’s complaint with prejudice, ruling that Wiand lacked standing to sue ATC Brokers and Manoukian and that Spotex was immune under the Communications Decency Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that the district court erred in dismissing the fraudulent-transfer claims for lack of standing. The court explained that a receiver for a Ponzi estate has standing to maintain fraudulent-transfer claims on behalf of the estate. However, the court agreed with the district court that Wiand lacked standing to maintain the tort claims, as the Oasis corporate entities were not separate and distinct from the Ponzi scheme, and Wiand couldn't allege an injury to sustain his tort claims.As a result, the court reversed the dismissal of the fraudulent-transfer claims and remanded for further proceedings, and vacated the dismissal with prejudice of the tort claims and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice. View "Wiand v. ATC Brokers Ltd." on Justia Law

In 2015, Christopher Novinger and ICAN Investment Group, L.L.C. were sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for fraudulently offering and selling life settlement interests in violation of the Securities and Exchange Acts. As part of the settlement, Novinger and ICAN were prohibited from casting doubt on the validity of the SEC’s investigation or enforcement against them or proclaiming their innocence unless they also indicated their lack of innocence.Later, Novinger sought judicial review of the decree, claiming it violated his First Amendment rights. His motion for relief was denied by the district court, and this decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Novinger then moved for a declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57, essentially raising the same claims as in his initial motion. The district court again denied his motion, ruling that it was procedurally improper and that there was no change in the law or facts that called for a modification of the decrees.Novinger appealed this decision, but the Fifth Circuit ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to review a procedurally improper motion that was denied as such. The court stated that the district court's order did not change the status quo or resolve any substantive issues, and thus, it was not a final decision that could be appealed. The court also rejected the assertion that the motion for declaratory judgment could be construed as an appropriate pleading under the DJA, maintaining the distinction between a pleading as an initial filing in a case and a motion as a subsequent filing. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "SEC v. Novinger" on Justia Law