Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

In the case before the Indiana Supreme Court, the defendant, Expert Pool Builders, LLC, appealed a default judgment entered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Paul Vangundy. The default judgment was entered because Expert Pool failed to timely file a response to Vangundy's complaint. Expert Pool had opposed Vangundy's motion for a default judgment three times but a divided Court of Appeals panel concluded Expert Pool waived its challenge to the default judgment. The majority of the Court of Appeals interpreted a previous decision as requiring Expert Pool to reassert its argument in a Trial Rule 60(B) motion to set aside the judgment before it could obtain appellate review and dismissed the appeal.The Indiana Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the Court of Appeals. It held that Expert Pool did not need to file a Trial Rule 60(B) motion to preserve its right to appeal. It reasoned that once a party obtains a final ruling from the trial court, the party has preserved the issue for appellate review. The Court stated that Expert Pool had already presented its argument opposing default judgment before judgment was entered, so there was no need to file a post-judgment motion.On the merits of the case, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's entry of default judgment against Expert Pool. The Court held that Expert Pool's challenge to the default judgment required the Court to reweigh the evidence and rebalance the equities, something that its standard of review does not permit. The trial court concluded that the parties never agreed to extend Expert Pool’s deadline for a responsive pleading and that Expert Pool chose to ignore Vangundy’s complaint. Therefore, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Expert Pool Builders, LLC v. VanGundy" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Joseph Kasiotis filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other similarly situated New York consumers against the New York Black Car Operators’ Injury Compensation Fund, Inc. (the “Fund”). The lawsuit alleged that the Fund improperly collected a surcharge on noncash tips paid by passengers to drivers providing livery or “black car” services from January 2000 until February 1, 2021. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of Kasiotis and the class, granting summary judgment on the unjust enrichment claim. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the Fund was statutorily permitted to collect a surcharge on noncash tips. The court's ruling was based on Article 6-F of the New York Executive Law, which unambiguously authorizes the Fund to impose a surcharge on noncash tips paid in connection with covered black car services. As such, the Second Circuit Court reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Kasiotis and the class, and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim. View "Kasiotis v. N.Y. Black Car Operators' Inj. Comp. Fund, Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose from a dispute between Gregory Garrabrants, the CEO of BofI Federal Bank (BofI), and Charles Matthew Erhart, a former internal auditor at BofI who acted as a whistleblower. Erhart copied, transmitted, and retained various documents he believed evidenced possible wrongdoing, some of which contained Garrabrants' personal and confidential information. Garrabrants sued Erhart for accessing, taking, and subsequently retaining his personal information. A jury awarded Garrabrants $1,502 on claims for invasion of privacy, receiving stolen property, and unauthorized access to computer data.However, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reversed the judgment and remanded the case. The court found that the trial court made prejudicial errors in its jury instructions. Specifically, the trial court erred in instructing the jury that bank customers have an unqualified reasonable expectation of privacy in financial documents disclosed to banks. The trial court also erred in instructing the jury that Erhart's whistleblower justification defense depended on proving at least one legally unsupported element. The instructions given for Penal Code section 496 misstated the law by defining “theft” in a manner that essentially renders receiving stolen property a strict liability offense. Furthermore, the special instruction on Penal Code section 502 erroneously removed from the jury’s consideration the foundational issue of whether Garrabrants “owned” the data about him residing in BofI’s computer systems such that he could pursue a civil action under the statute. The court concluded that, in light of the record evidence, there is a reasonable possibility a jury could have found in Erhart’s favor on each of Garrabrants’ claims absent the erroneous instructions, making them prejudicial. View "Garrabrants v. Erhart" on Justia Law

In the case of a contested divorce between Quin Whitman and Douglas F. Whitman, the founder of a once successful hedge fund, the Court of Appeal of the State of California ruled on several issues. The court affirmed that Doug failed to prove he retained any separate property interest in the hedge fund at the time of dissolution, despite an initial $300,000 investment of his own separate funds. The court also ruled that the community was not financially responsible for any of the legal fees Doug incurred to defend against criminal charges brought against him for insider trading or the $250,000 fine imposed on him in that case. However, the court erred in holding the community responsible for the $935,000 penalty imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission for illegal insider trading. Quin did not demonstrate that the court erred in holding the community responsible for legal fees expended by the hedge fund when it intervened as a third party into these proceedings. The court also concluded that Quin failed to prove her claim that Doug breached his fiduciary duty in connection with the sale of the couple’s luxury home. The court concluded that the couple’s entire interest in the hedge fund is community property, subject to equal division. The court also found that Doug's legal expenses incurred in defending against insider trading charges and the $250,000 fine imposed on him were his separate debts. View "In re Whitman" on Justia Law

The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has selected the Friedlander Team as lead counsel and the NYC/Oregon Funds as lead plaintiffs in a derivative lawsuit against Fox Corporation. After the 2020 presidential election, Fox News broadcasted statements accusing two voting machine companies of facilitating election fraud, leading to defamation lawsuits against the network. Fox Corporation paid $787.5 million to settle one lawsuit, with another still pending. As a result, various stockholders filed derivative complaints, seeking to shift the losses from the corporation to the directors and officers allegedly responsible for the harm. The court was required to choose between two competing teams of attorneys to lead the consolidated actions. After evaluating the teams according to recently amended Rule 23.1, which identifies factors for consideration when resolving leadership disputes, the court selected the Friedlander Team and the NYC/Oregon Funds. The court noted the deliberate, client-driven process through which these entities were chosen, their resources and expertise, and the legitimacy conferred by the involvement of public officials. View "In re Fox Corporation Derivative Litigation" on Justia Law

In the case before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, plaintiff and counterclaim-defendant Ted D. Kellner sought to challenge certain bylaws adopted by AIM ImmunoTech Inc., defendant and counterclaim-plaintiff, and its board of directors. Kellner, Deutsch, and Chioini sought to nominate themselves as director candidates for AIM's 2023 annual meeting. Kellner claims that AIM's advance notice bylaws, which were amended in 2023, are invalid and inequitable. He also asserts that the Board's rejection of his nomination notice was improper.The court found that four out of six challenged provisions of AIM's amended bylaws were inequitable and therefore invalid. These provisions were found to be overly broad and ambiguous, effectively obstructing the stockholder franchise and providing the Board with undue discretion to reject a nomination. The court also found that Kellner's notice complied with the remaining, valid bylaws and that AIM's rejection of the notice was therefore improper.The court's decision means that Kellner's nominees must be included on the ballot for AIM's 2023 annual meeting. The four invalid provisions of the bylaws have been struck down and are of no force or effect. The remaining provisions of the bylaws, which were not challenged, stand. In essence, the court found that AIM's board of directors overstepped in its efforts to ward off a proxy contest, and in doing so, it infringed on the rights of stockholders. View "Kellner v. AIM Immunotech Inc., et al." on Justia Law

In this case, Robert Sproat was convicted on ten counts of securities fraud. On appeal, Sproat argued that the district court improperly coerced the jurors into reaching a unanimous guilty verdict by instructing them to return the next day after they had reported an impasse in their deliberations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction, rejecting Sproat's argument. The court held that merely instructing a jury that reported an impasse to return the next day is not unconstitutionally coercive. The court found that the district court's instruction to return did not amount to an Allen charge, an instruction encouraging jurors to reach a unanimous verdict. The court explained that no such encouragement was explicit or implicit in the district court's instruction.The court also observed that the district court had not asked the jury to identify the nature of its impasse or the vote count before excusing them for the evening, and that any theoretical risk of coercion was cured by the partial Allen instruction the district court gave the following day, emphasizing the jurors' freedom to maintain their honest beliefs and their ability to be excused if they could not overcome their impasse. The court concluded that the district court's instruction to return the next day and the partial Allen instruction the following day did not coerce the jurors into reaching a unanimous guilty verdict. View "USA V. SPROAT" on Justia Law

The case involved a dispute between Winn-Dixie Stores and the Eastern Mushroom Marketing Cooperative, Inc. (EMMC), its individual mushroom farmer members, and certain downstream distributors. Winn-Dixie accused the defendants of violating antitrust laws by engaging in a price-fixing agreement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the District Court was correct in applying the rule of reason, rather than a "quick-look" review, in assessing the legality of the defendants' pricing policy under the Sherman Act. The court found that the complex and variable nature of the arrangements within the cooperative, involving both horizontal and vertical components, necessitated a careful analysis to determine anticompetitive effects. The court also held that the jury's verdict, which found that the defendants' pricing policy did not harm competition, was not against the weight of the evidence and did not warrant a new trial. The court affirmed the District Court’s judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Winn Dixie Stores v. Eastern Mushroom Marketing Cooperative Inc" on Justia Law

In a putative securities-fraud class action, Union Asset Management Holding AG and Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund (the “Investors”), co-lead plaintiffs, alleged that Philip Morris International Inc. (“PMI”) and several of its current and former executives (the “Defendants”) made false and misleading statements about PMI’s “IQOS” smoke-free tobacco products. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Investors' complaints. The court found that PMI's statements about its scientific studies complied with a methodological standard and were properly analyzed as statements of opinion, rather than fact. The court also determined that the Defendants' interpretation of scientific data, which was ultimately endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), was per se reasonable as a matter of law. Further, the court held that the Investors had either failed to plead material falsity or abandoned their challenges on appeal regarding PMI’s statements about its projections for IQOS’s performance in Japanese markets. Finally, the court concluded that the Investors' claim for control-person liability under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act also failed because they had not established a primary violation by the controlled person. View "In re Philip Morris Int'l Inc. Sec. Litig." on Justia Law

In this case, a group of California wholesale businesses, the plaintiffs, brought a lawsuit against Innovation Ventures, LLC, and Living Essentials, LLC, the defendants, under the Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Act. The plaintiffs accused the defendants of offering less favorable pricing, discounts, and reimbursements to them than to the Costco Wholesale Corporation for the sale of 5-hour Energy drink. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment.The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury that the plaintiffs needed to show that Living Essentials made “reasonably contemporaneous” sales to them and to Costco at different prices and that the price discrimination was not justified by functional discounts compensating Costco for marketing or promotional functions. The court concluded that the functional discount doctrine was available to the defendants, regardless of whether the plaintiffs and Living Essentials were on the same level in the distribution chain.However, the court vacated the district court's ruling on the plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief under section 2(d) of the Robinson-Patman Act. This section prohibits a seller from providing anything of value to one customer unless it is available on proportionally equal terms to all other competing customers. The court found that the district court committed legal and factual errors in determining that Costco and the plaintiffs operated at different functional levels and therefore competed for different customers of 5-hour Energy. The case was remanded for the district court to reconsider whether Costco and the plaintiffs purchased 5-hour Energy from Living Essentials within approximately the same period of time, or if the plaintiffs were otherwise able to prove competition. View "U.S. WHOLESALE OUTLET & DISTR. V. INNOVATION VENTURES, LLC" on Justia Law