Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in this dispute over whether a property insurance policy providing coverage for "direct physical loss of or physical damage to" covered property provided coverage for business income losses arising from the suspension of business operations during the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that the trial court correctly granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment.Plaintiffs, who suspended their business operations during the COVID-19 pandemic and consequently lost business income and incurred other expenses, filed claims for losses with Defendants. After Defendants denied the claims Plaintiffs brought this actin seeking a judgment declaring that the relevant insurance policies covered their economic losses under the circumstances. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Plaintiffs did not suffer any "direct physical loss" of covered property, there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the policies did not cover Plaintiffs' claims. View "Connecticut Dermatology Group, PC v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Dream purchased university systems with locations across the country: South University, Argosy University, and the Art Institutes. States had recently brought consumer-protection lawsuits against the seller. Dream had to close 30 campuses. Unpaid creditors filed multiple lawsuits. Students at the Illinois Institute of Art brought a class-action fraud suit.Dream feared that filing bankruptcy would cut off its access to federal student loans. In 2019 Digital sued Dream for $252,737. The court appointed a receiver to manage Dream’s property and stayed pending lawsuits. The Receiver decided that potential claims greatly exceeded potential assets. The federal government had discharged the student-loan debts of many of Dream's students.Existing suits had already depleted the payout available from Dream's insurance policies covering its directors and officers. The policies did not protect Dream itself. The Receiver believed that Dream had legal claims against the directors and officers and eventually brought the proceeds from the policies into Dream’s receivership estate ($8.5 million). The settlement hinged on the entry of an order that would “bar” third parties (including the Art Students) from pursuing claims against Dream, its parent, the directors and officers, and the insurer. The district court approved the settlement and Bar Order. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The district court lacked authority to issue the bar order. Historical principles of equity do not allow a court to issue an injunction that protects the non-receivership assets of non-receivership parties; that type of non-debtor relief amounts to a remedy “previously unknown to equity jurisprudence.” View "Digital Media Solutions, LLC v. South University of Ohio, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2010, the City of Irvine adopted a plan to guide development of the Irvine Business Complex (the IBC), which covered roughly 2800 acres in the City. It also prepared and approved a program environmental impact report (the 2010 PEIR) that studied the effects of the development plan under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Several years later, real party in interest and appellant Gemdale 2400 Barranca Holdings, LLC (Gemdale), submitted a plan to redevelop a 4.95-acre parcel in the IBC. The City determined all the environmental effects of the proposed project had been studied in the 2010 PEIR, and it found the project would have no further significant environmental effects. It approved the project over the objections of Hale Holdings, LLC, the managing member of plaintiff IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development (petitioner). Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of mandate. The trial court granted the writ and entered judgment in favor of petitioner. The City and Gemdale appealed, arguing the City correctly approved the project. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the contentions made on appeal: (1) there was insufficient evidence showing the project’s greenhouse gas emissions were within the scope of the 2010 PEIR; and (2) no exemption applied because the project involved unusual circumstances which could cause significant environmental effects. As such, the Court affirmed the judgment. View "IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court calculating the fair value of certain shares following the Supreme Court's remand in an earlier appeal and setting forth a payment plan, holding that there was no merit to the minority shareholder's assigned errors.A minority shareholder filed a petition for judicial dissolution of Benes Service Co. (BSC), after which BSC exercised its right to purchase the minority shareholder's stock. Following remand, the district court calculated the fair values of the shares at issue and set forth a payment plan. The minority shareholder appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no basis to conclude that the district court's payment plan was an abuse of discretion; and (2) there was no error in the failure to require BSC to pay interest. View "Bohac v. Benes Service Co." on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a district court’s decision denying a motion for sanctions and attorney fees against Roy Gilbert’s former attorney, William Mitchell. The underlying litigation giving rise to the sanctions request stemmed from a dispute over a medical transport business and the business relationship between Gilbert and Richard Radnovich. Gilbert was the sole member of two LLCs: Resilient Transportation Leasing, LLC, and Resilient Transport LLC. According to Gilbert’s complaint, Radnovich was allegedly the owner of two business entities: Injury Care Emergency Medical Services (ICEMS) LLC and “Injury Care EMS,” as well as other entities not at issue in this appeal. In 2017, Gilbert executed an agreement purporting to sell Resilient Transport, LLC, to Injury Care EMS, LLC. According to Gilbert, Injury Care EMS, LLC, was never formed. Gilbert alleged that this “fictitious” LLC was an alter ego of Radnovich. The parties signed a supplement to the agreement which amended the business name for ICEMS, LLC to ICEMS, P.C, and clarified that Resilient Transport, LLC, would be subsumed by ICEMS, P.C. into another fictitious business called “Resilient Transport Operated by Injury Care EMS,” and that Resilient Transport, LLC would later be dissolved. Following a breakdown in both the agreement and the relationship, Gilbert sued Radnovich and the business entities. Mitchell filed the initial and amended complaint on behalf of Gilbert against Radnovich. Later in the proceedings, a second attorney substituted for Mitchell and soon after, both sides stipulated to dismiss the case with prejudice. A few weeks later, Radnovich filed a motion for sanctions and attorney fees against Mitchell. The district court denied the motion. Radnovich appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion in denying sanctions and attorney fees against Mitchell. Finding no reversible error or abuse of discretion, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision. View "Gilbert v. Radnovich" on Justia Law

ResCap Liquidating Trust (“ResCap”) pursued indemnification claims against originator Primary Residential Mortgage, Inc. (“PRMI”), a Nevada corporation. ResCap asserted breach of contract and indemnification claims, seeking to recover a portion of the allowed bankruptcy claims for those holding units in the liquidating trust. The district court concluded that ResCap had established each element of its contractual indemnification claim. The district court awarded ResCap $10.6 million in attorney’s fees, $3.5 million in costs, $2 million in prejudgment interest, and $520,212 in what it termed “post-award prejudgment interest” for the period between entry of judgment and the order awarding attorney’s fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. Defendant appealed.   The Eighth Circuit remanded for a recalculation of postjudgment interest but otherwise affirmed. The court explained that the district court held that, as a matter of Minnesota law governed by Section 549.09, a final judgment was not “finally entered” until its Judgment in a Civil Case resolving attorney’s fees, costs, and interest was entered on April 28, 2021, and therefore Minnesota’s ten percent prejudgment rate applied in the interim period. But Section 1961(a) does not say “final judgment,” it says “money judgment.” The district court, on August 17, 2020, entered a “money judgment.” Thus, the district court erred in applying Minnesota law to calculate interest after August 17, 2020, rather than 28 U.S.C. Section 1961(a). View "ResCap Liquidating Trust v. Primary Residential Mortgage" on Justia Law

In 2014, EMS entered into a payment processing agreement with Procom, a business owned by Gaal that sold historical tours. The Agreement was executed by Gaal, who signed a personal-guaranty provision. It contained terms relating to “chargebacks,” which occurred when a Procom customer’s transaction was declined or canceled after EMS had credited Procom’s account for the purchase; EMS repaid the money to the Procom customer, then charged Procom for that money plus a fee. In 2019, EMS and Procom executed a second agreement, which contained an explicit integration clause; the guaranty provision was not signed by Gaal but by another Procom employee. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many customers canceled purchases with Procom, resulting in $10 million in chargebacks. Procom is involved in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. EMS filed a creditor’s proof of claim and sued Gaal. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, finding that the 2019 Agreement superseded the 2014 agreement “in all material respects,” including replacing Gaal’s guaranty.The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part, upholding the district court’s consideration of the bankruptcy filing for purposes of determining when chargebacks occurred and its finding that the 2019 Agreement replaced the 2014 Agreement rather than merely supplementing it. The court reversed in part, holding that any chargeback related to transactions occurring before the execution of the 2019 Agreement arose under the 2014 Agreement. View "Electronic Merchant Systems LLC v. Gaal" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court determining that this case could not be adjudicated and dismissing the suit, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff, a foreign counterterrorism corporation, brought this lawsuit seeking an order freezing some of its Massachusetts assets based on allegations that a former government official misappropriated billions of dollars from the corporation. Defendants argued that the funds were lawfully received in connection with clandestine operations that were sometimes undertaken alongside the United States government. The United States government then asserted the state secrets privilege and successfully got state secrets and other information excluded from the case. The district court dismissed the suit, concluding that it could not examine the claims and defenses or award the preliminary equitable relief sought without weighing the privileged information and risking disclosure of state secrets. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to any of the relief it requested. View "Sakab Saudi Holding Co. v. Aljabri" on Justia Law

The Federal Trade Commission (the “Commission”) alleges that Defendant and his six companies engaged in unfair or deceptive business practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Relying on its authority under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, the Commission obtained a preliminary injunction that included an asset freeze and the imposition of a receiver. Defendant argued that the preliminary injunction must be dissolved because a recent Supreme Court decision undermines the Commission’s Section 13(b) authority.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the order denying Defendant’s emergency motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. The court explained that Defendant urged the court to read AMG Capital as a signal to interpret the FTC Act with a view to “reigning in the FTC’s power.” But, the court wrote, that AMG Capital teaches the court to read the FTC Act to “mean what it says.” 141 S. Ct. at 1349. In AMG Capital, that meant limiting Section 13(b)’s provision for a “permanent injunction” to injunctive relief. Here, that means recognizing the broad scope of relief available under Section 19. When the Commission enforces a rule, Section 19 grants the district court jurisdiction to offer relief “necessary to redress injury to consumers.” To preserve funds for consumers, the Commission sought to freeze Defendant’s assets and impose a receivership over his companies. Section 19 allows such relief. View "Federal Trade Commission v. Steven J. Dorfman" on Justia Law

The Court of Chancery denied Defendant's motion to dismiss this action brought by stockholders of McDonald's Corporation (the Company) claiming breach of the duty of oversight and breach of the duty of loyalty, holding that Plaintiffs stated a claim sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss.From 2015 until his termination in 2019, Defendant served as the Company's executive vice president and global people officer. Defendant was disciplined in 2018 for sexual harassment then terminated after he committed another act of sexual harassment. Plaintiffs sued Defendant derivatively on the Company's behalf, alleging (1) as human resources officer, Defendant breached his fiduciary duties by ignoring red flags regarding sexual harassment and misconduct at the Company; and (2) Defendant's own acts of sexual harassment constituted a breach of duty in themselves. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Delaware law does not impose on officers a duty of oversight. The Court of Chancery denied the motion to dismiss, holding (1) corporate officers owe the same fiduciary duties as corporate directors, which includes a duty of oversight; (2) Plaintiffs stated a claim against Defendant for breach of his oversight duties; and (3) Plaintiffs' claim against Defendant for his acts of sexual harassment stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. View "In re McDonald's Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation" on Justia Law