Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Three individuals who worked as precious metals futures traders at major financial institutions were prosecuted for engaging in a market manipulation scheme known as spoofing. This practice involved placing large orders on commodities exchanges with the intent to cancel them before execution, thereby creating a false impression of market supply or demand to benefit their genuine trades. The traders’ conduct was in violation of both exchange rules and their employers’ policies, and the government charged them with various offenses, including wire fraud, commodities fraud, attempted price manipulation, and violating the anti-spoofing provision of the Dodd-Frank Act.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, presided over separate trials for the defendants. In the first trial, two defendants were convicted by a jury on all substantive counts except conspiracy, after the court denied their motions for acquittal and a new trial. The third defendant, tried separately, admitted to spoofing but argued he lacked the requisite criminal intent; he was convicted of wire fraud, and his post-trial motions were also denied. The district court made several evidentiary rulings, including admitting lay and investigator testimony, and excluded certain defense exhibits and instructions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the convictions and the district court’s rulings. The appellate court held that spoofing constitutes a scheme to defraud under the federal wire and commodities fraud statutes, and that the anti-spoofing statute is not unconstitutionally vague. The court found sufficient evidence supported all convictions, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary or jury instruction decisions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and the district court’s denial of post-trial motions for all three defendants. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between a Hawai‘i corporation and one of its directors after the director questioned the validity of a conflict-of-interest clause in the corporation’s articles. The corporation filed a declaratory judgment action against the director, seeking a ruling that the clause was valid. The director moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing there was no actual controversy. The Circuit Court of the First Circuit granted the motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, retaining jurisdiction to hear a motion for attorneys’ fees. The director then sought indemnification from the corporation for his legal expenses, relying on both the corporation’s articles and Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 414-243, which mandates indemnification for directors who are “wholly successful, on the merits or otherwise,” in defending proceedings brought against them due to their role as directors.The corporation partially indemnified the director for his defense costs but disputed his entitlement to further fees, particularly those incurred in seeking indemnification itself (“fees on fees”). The Circuit Court denied the director’s motion for additional fees, finding he was not “wholly successful” under the statute because the dismissal was without prejudice. The director appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), which affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision. The ICA concluded that fees on fees were only available when indemnification was court-ordered, which was not the case here, and declined to address whether the director was “wholly successful” under HRS § 414-243.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case and reversed both lower courts. It held that a director whose case is dismissed without prejudice and who incurs no liability is “wholly successful” under HRS § 414-243 and thus entitled to mandatory indemnification. The court further held that this statutory indemnification includes reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining indemnification, such as fees on fees. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court to determine the reasonable amount of such expenses. View "Loyalty Development Company, LTD. v. Ching" on Justia Law

Investors in a major drug-development company alleged that the company and two of its officers misled them about the integrity of the company’s overseas supply chain for long-tailed macaques, which are essential for its business. After China halted exports of these monkeys due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the company shifted to suppliers in Cambodia and Vietnam, some of which were later implicated in a federal investigation into illegal wildlife trafficking. Despite public signs of the investigation and seizures of shipments, the company’s CEO assured investors that its supply chain was unaffected by the federal indictment of certain suppliers, and that the indicted supplier was not one of its own. However, evidence suggested that the company was, in fact, sourcing macaques from entities targeted by the investigation, either directly or through intermediaries.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the investors’ class action complaint, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege any false or misleading statements or scienter (intent or recklessness), and therefore did not reach the issue of loss causation. The court also dismissed the derivative claim against the individual officers.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the investors plausibly alleged that the company and its CEO knowingly or recklessly misled investors in November 2022 by assuring them that the company’s supply chain was not implicated in the federal investigation, when in fact it was. The court found these statements actionable, but agreed with the lower court that other statements about “non-preferred vendors” were not independently misleading. The First Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal as to the November 2022 statements and remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of loss causation. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs on appeal. View "State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio v. Charles River Laboratories International, Inc." on Justia Law

Fifteen individuals who purchased new motorcycles from a major American manufacturer received a limited warranty with their purchases. The warranty provided for free repair or replacement of defective parts for up to 24 months but excluded coverage for defects or damage caused by non-approved or non-manufacturer parts. The plaintiffs, concerned that using non-manufacturer parts would void their warranties, opted to buy higher-priced parts from the manufacturer. They later alleged that the company’s warranty practices unlawfully conditioned warranty coverage on the exclusive use of its own parts, in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and various state antitrust laws.The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the plaintiffs’ lawsuits and transferred them to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The district court dismissed the consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim. It found that the limited warranty did not condition benefits on exclusive use of manufacturer parts and that the risk of losing warranty coverage was insufficient to establish an anticompetitive tying arrangement or economic coercion under state antitrust law. The court also dismissed related state law claims premised on the same conduct.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Seventh Circuit held that the warranty’s terms did not create an express or implied tie prohibited by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, nor did the complaint plausibly allege violations of the Act’s disclosure or pre-sale availability requirements. The court further held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege sufficient market power or anticompetitive effects to support their state antitrust claims, and that the warranty’s terms were available to consumers at the time of purchase, precluding a Kodak-style lock-in theory. The court affirmed dismissal of all claims. View "Heymer v. Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Two individuals who frequently rented hotel rooms on the Las Vegas Strip brought a class action lawsuit, alleging that several major hotel operators and related entities caused them to pay artificially high prices for hotel rooms. The plaintiffs claimed that these hotels each entered into agreements to license revenue-management software from a single provider, Cendyn, whose products generated pricing recommendations based on proprietary algorithms. The software did not require hotels to follow its recommendations, nor did it share confidential information among the hotels. Plaintiffs alleged that, after the hotels adopted this software, room prices increased.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada reviewed the complaint, which asserted two claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The first claim alleged a “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy among the hotels to adopt and follow the software’s pricing recommendations, but the district court dismissed this claim for failure to plausibly allege an agreement among the hotels. The plaintiffs later abandoned their appeal of this claim. The second claim alleged that the aggregate effect of the individual licensing agreements between each hotel and Cendyn resulted in anticompetitive effects, specifically higher prices. The district court dismissed this claim as well, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege a restraint of trade in the relevant market.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act because the independent decisions by competing hotels to license the same pricing software, without an agreement among them or a restraint imposed by the software provider, did not constitute a restraint of trade. The court concluded that neither the terms nor the operation of the licensing agreements imposed anticompetitive restraints in the market for hotel-room rentals on the Las Vegas Strip. View "Gibson v. Cendyn Group, LLC" on Justia Law

A trading company and a base oil manufacturer entered into a sales agreement in 2016, under which the manufacturer would serve as the exclusive North American sales representative for a high-quality base oil product distributed by the trading company. The agreement included noncompete provisions and was set to expire at the end of 2021. In late 2020, suspicions arose between the parties regarding potential breaches of the agreement, leading to a series of letters in which the trading company accused the manufacturer of selling a competing product and threatened termination if the alleged breach was not cured. The manufacturer responded by denying any breach and, after further correspondence, declared the agreement terminated. The trading company agreed that the agreement was terminated, and both parties ceased their business relationship.The trading company then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging antitrust violations, breach of contract, business disparagement, and misappropriation of trade secrets. The manufacturer counterclaimed for breach of contract and tortious interference. After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of the manufacturer on the breach of contract and trade secret claims, awarding over $1.3 million in damages. However, the court determined that the agreement was mutually terminated, not due to anticipatory repudiation by the trading company, and denied the manufacturer’s request for attorneys’ fees and prevailing party costs.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the trading company did not commit anticipatory repudiation and that the agreement was mutually terminated. The Fifth Circuit also affirmed the denial of prevailing party costs under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the appellate court vacated the denial of attorneys’ fees under the agreement’s fee-shifting provision and remanded for further proceedings on that issue. View "Penthol v. Vertex Energy" on Justia Law

A Canadian corporation specializing in industrial heaters sought a new supplier and entered negotiations with a South Dakota manufacturer to custom-build 30 heaters. The parties initially agreed to the purchase and sale of 21 units, with a 20% down payment, and later extended the agreement to include the remaining nine units, for a total of 30 heaters at a set price per unit. The manufacturer began production and delivery as payments were made. However, after partial delivery and payment, the buyer stopped making payments, citing performance issues with the heaters and ultimately notified the manufacturer of its intent to terminate the relationship. Despite complaints about the heaters, the buyer did not reject or return any units but continued to accept and sell them until the manufacturer withheld further shipments due to nonpayment.The Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Day County, South Dakota, granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer, finding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the existence of a contract for 30 heaters and that the buyer breached the agreement by failing to pay and by terminating the contract. The court also found that the manufacturer had taken reasonable steps to mitigate damages and that the buyer had not properly rejected the goods under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case de novo. The Supreme Court held that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a contract for the sale of 30 heaters. However, the Court found that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the alleged defects in the heaters substantially impaired the value of the whole contract, which could excuse the buyer’s nonperformance under the UCC. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s finding of contract formation, reversed the grant of summary judgment on the breach issue, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Anderson Industries v. Thermal Intelligence" on Justia Law

Between 2017 and 2020, a major energy company and its senior executives allegedly orchestrated a large-scale bribery scheme, funneling approximately $60 million to key Ohio political figures and regulators through a network of shell companies and political action committees. In exchange, the company secured favorable legislation (Ohio House Bill 6), which provided substantial financial benefits, including a $2 billion bailout for its nuclear power plants. The scheme was concealed from shareholders and the public, with the company issuing public statements and regulatory filings that failed to disclose the true nature and risks of its political activities. When the bribery was exposed in 2020, the company’s stock and debt securities plummeted, resulting in significant losses for investors.After the scheme was revealed, investors filed multiple class actions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, which were consolidated. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, specifically section 10(b) and SEC Rule 10b-5, claiming that the company and its executives made material misstatements and omissions that artificially inflated the value of its securities. The district court denied motions to dismiss and later certified a class of investors, holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to a presumption of reliance under Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, and that their damages methodology satisfied the predominance requirement for class certification.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the class certification order. The court held that the district court erred in applying the Affiliated Ute presumption of reliance because the case was primarily based on misrepresentations, not omissions. The Sixth Circuit established a framework for distinguishing between omission- and misrepresentation-based cases and clarified that the Affiliated Ute presumption applies only if a case is primarily based on omissions. The court also found that the district court failed to conduct the required “rigorous analysis” of the plaintiffs’ damages methodology under Comcast Corp. v. Behrend. The Sixth Circuit vacated the class certification order to the extent it relied on the Affiliated Ute presumption and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Owens v. FirstEnergy Corp." on Justia Law

Shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, acting derivatively on behalf of these entities, challenged the federal government’s actions following the 2008 financial crisis. After the housing market collapse, Congress passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), creating the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and authorizing it to act as conservator for the Enterprises. The FHFA placed both entities into conservatorship, and the U.S. Treasury entered into agreements to provide financial support in exchange for senior preferred stock and other rights. In 2012, a “net worth sweep” was implemented, redirecting nearly all profits from the Enterprises to the Treasury, effectively eliminating dividends for other shareholders. The plaintiffs, as preferred shareholders, alleged that this arrangement constituted an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.The United States Court of Federal Claims previously reviewed the case and granted the government’s motion to dismiss. The Claims Court relied on the Federal Circuit’s prior decision in Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, which held that, under HERA, the Enterprises lost any cognizable property interest necessary to support a takings claim because the FHFA, as conservator, had broad authority over the Enterprises’ assets. The Claims Court found the plaintiffs’ claims indistinguishable from those in Fairholme and dismissed them accordingly.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court affirmed the Claims Court’s decision, holding that claim preclusion barred the plaintiffs’ derivative takings claims because the issues had already been litigated in Fairholme. The court rejected arguments that the prior representation was inadequate or that the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County fundamentally changed takings law. The Federal Circuit concluded that Fairholme remained binding precedent and affirmed the dismissal. View "FISHER v. US " on Justia Law

A group of employees at a wealth management firm in Richmond, Virginia, decided to leave their employer and establish a competing business. These employees, who had access to proprietary client information, had signed employment agreements with their former employer that included non-solicitation and confidentiality clauses. The agreements also addressed the industry-wide Protocol for Broker Recruiting, which generally allows departing financial advisors to take certain client information and solicit former clients if specific procedures are followed. However, the agreements stated that their terms would control over the Protocol in the event of any conflict. After resigning, the employees formed a new firm and began contacting their former clients, resulting in the loss of hundreds of accounts and significant assets for their previous employer.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the former employer, barring the former employees and their new firm from contacting former clients or using confidential information. The district court found a strong likelihood of success on the merits of the trade secrets claims against all defendants, reasoning that even under the Protocol, the defendants’ conduct constituted impermissible “raiding.” The court also found that the employer would likely suffer irreparable harm and that the balance of equities and public interest favored injunctive relief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s interpretation of the Protocol and the employment agreements. The Fourth Circuit held that the Protocol’s “raiding” exception applies only to actions by outside firms targeting another firm’s employees, not to employees leaving to form their own business. The court concluded that the employment agreements, not the Protocol, governed the former employees’ conduct and supported the injunction against them. However, because the new firm was not a party to those agreements, the injunction as to the new firm was vacated. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the injunction against the former employees but vacated it as to the new firm. View "Salomon & Ludwin, LLC v. Winters" on Justia Law