Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Barsanti was delinquent on $1.1 million of senior secured debt it owed to BMO Harris Bank. Barsanti’s owner, Kelly, hired attorney Filer and Gereg, a financing consultant. After negotiations with BMO failed, Filer introduced Gereg to BMO as a person interested in purchasing Barsanti’s debt. Filer created a new company, BWC, to purchase the loans. BWC purchased the loans from BMO for $575,000, paid primarily with Barsanti’s accounts receivable. Barsanti also owed $370,000 in delinquent benefit payments to the Union Trust Fund. Filer, Kelly, and Gereg used BWC’s senior lien to obtain a state court judgment against Barsanti that allowed them to transfer Barsanti’s assets beyond the reach of the Union Fund, using backdated documents to put confession-of-judgment clauses into the loan documents and incorrectly claiming that Barsanti owed BWC $1.58 million. Filer then obtained a court order transferring Barsanti’s assets to BWC, which then transferred the assets to Millwork, another new entity, which continued Barsanti’s business after the Illinois Secretary of State dissolved Barsanti for unpaid taxes. Gereg was Millwork's nominal owner in filings with the Indiana Secretary of State. Barsanti filed for bankruptcy. Filer instructed others not to produce certain documents to the bankruptcy trustee.After a jury convicted Filer of wire fraud 18 U.S.C. 1343., the district court granted his motions for a judgment of acquittal. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts. View "United States v. Filer" on Justia Law

The Boardwalk Master Limited Partnership's (“MLP”) limited partnership agreement (the “Partnership Agreement”) disclaimed the general partner’s fiduciary duties, and included a conclusive presumption of good faith when relying on advice of counsel. At issue in this appeal was whether Boardwalk’s general partner properly exercised a call right to take the Boardwalk MLP private. Under the Partnership Agreement, the general partner could exercise a call right for the public units if it received an opinion of counsel acceptable to the general partner that a change in FERC regulations “has or will reasonably likely in the future have a material adverse effect on the maximum applicable rate that can be charged to customers.” The Boardwalk MLP general partner received an opinion of counsel from Baker Botts that a change in FERC policy met the call right condition. Skadden advised that: (1) it would be reasonable for the sole member, an entity in the Boardwalk MLP structure, to determine the acceptability of the opinion of counsel for the general partner; and (2) it would be reasonable for the sole member, on behalf of the general partner, to accept the Baker Botts Opinion. The sole member followed Skadden’s advice and caused the Boardwalk MLP general partner to exercise the call right and to acquire all the public units through a formula in the Partnership Agreement. The Boardwalk MLP public unitholders filed suit and claimed that the general partner improperly exercised the call right. In a post-trial opinion, the Delaware Court of Chancery concluded the general partner improperly exercised the call right because the Baker Botts Opinion had not been issued in good faith; the wrong entity in the MLP business structure determined the acceptability of the opinion; and the general partner was not exculpated from damages under the Partnership Agreement. After its review, the Delaware Supreme Court agreed with the Boardwalk entities that: (1) the sole member was the correct entity to determine the acceptability of the opinion of counsel; (2) that the sole member, as the ultimate decisionmaker who caused the general partner to exercise the call right, reasonably relied on Skadden’s opinion, and that the sole member and the general partner were therefore conclusively presumed to have acted in good faith in exercising the call right. Thus, the general partner and others were exculpated from damages under the Partnership Agreement. The Court of Chancery’s judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Boardwalk Pipeline v. Bandera Master Fund LP" on Justia Law

Iris, incorporated in 1999, went public in 2007. In 2019, the SEC revoked the registration of Iris’s securities. Since its incorporation, Chin has been chairman of Iris’s three-member board of directors, its president, secretary, CEO, CFO, and majority shareholder. Chin’s sister was also a board member. Farnum was a board member, 2003-2014, and owned eight percent of Iris’s stock. In 2014, Farnum requested inspection of corporate minutes, documents relating to the acquisition of Iris’s subsidiary, and cash flow statements, then, in his capacity as a board member and shareholder, sought a writ of mandate. Before the hearing on Farnum’s petition, Farnum was voted off Iris’s board. The court denied Farnum’s petition (Corporations Code 1602) because Farnum no longer had standing to inspect corporate records due to his ejection from the board, and his request was “overbroad and lack[ed] a statement of purpose reasonably related to his interests as a shareholder.”Weeks later, Farnum served 31 inspection requests on Iris and subsequently filed another mandamus petition. The superior court denied the petition and Farnum’s associated request for attorney fees. On remand with respect to certain records, Farnum sought reimbursement of his expenses in enforcing his rights as a shareholder ($91,000). The court of appeal affirmed the denial of the request. Farnum scored “only a partial victory” given the scope of what he sought; there was no showing that on the whole, Iris acted without justification in refusing Farnum’s inspection demands. View "Farnum v. Iris Biotechnologies Inc." on Justia Law

A landlord leased a commercial building to two tenants who operated an automotive repair business on the property. The landlord refused to adhere to provisions in the lease requiring him to maintain and repair the property and to cover the property insurance, so the tenants paid for the property insurance and for substantial repairs that were needed after the roof failed. The landlord initiated a forcible entry and detainer action after the tenants held over at the end of the lease term; the tenants counterclaimed for breach of contract. After trial, the superior court ruled that the landlord had breached the lease and awarded the tenants damages. The superior court also awarded the tenants attorney’s fees. The landlord appealed, arguing: (1) the tenants did not file their counterclaim within the applicable statute of limitations; (2) the evidence did not support the damages award; and (3) the attorney’s fees award was an abuse of discretion. Seeing no error, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decisions. View "Griffith v. Hemphill, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Lindsay Buero brought a class action against defendants Amazon.Com Services, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. in Oregon state court, alleging, among other things, that defendants had violated Oregon’s wage laws by failing to pay employees for time spent in mandatory security screenings at the end of their work shifts. Defendants removed the case to federal court and moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the time spent in the security screenings was not compensable. In support of that argument, defendants cited Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, (574 US 27), a case involving a similar claim against defendants, in which the United States Supreme Court held that, under federal law, time spent in the security screenings at issue in that case was not compensable. The district court agreed with defendants, noting the similarities between Oregon administrative rules enacted by the state’s Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) and federal law. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit and filed a motion asking that court to certify a question to the Oregon Supreme Court on whether time spent in security screenings is compensable under Oregon law. The Ninth Circuit granted the motion. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded Oregon law aligned with federal law regarding what activities were compensable. Therefore, under Oregon law, as under federal law, time that employees spend on the employer’s premises waiting for and undergoing mandatory security screenings before or after their work shifts is compensable only if the screenings are either: (1) an integral and indispensable part of the employees’ principal activities or (2) compensable as a matter of contract, custom, or practice. View "Buero v. Amazon.com Services, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2006, Price approached Marcone about using e-commerce in the appliance parts industry. Price and Marcone entered into a non-disclosure agreement while evaluating the concept, but no partnership resulted. Price then created PartScription. Both companies sell appliance replacement parts online. In 2017, Price restarted talks with Marcone. In 2018, Marcone’s CEO proposed that PartScription and Marcone form a “50-50” partnership. Price accepted, and they shook hands on the idea. Price drafted a term sheet for the contemplated partnership. The first line sheet states “PartScription and Marcone (PSM) have agreed to form a partnership/joint venture to serve the independent hardware industry.” Negotiations continued. During a conference call, Marcone representatives purportedly “stated that they approved of the terms,” and offered one change regarding a joint bank account. Days later Price sent a follow-up email saying that his notes indicated “Marcone ha[d] approved the terms outlined in the draft PSM term sheet” and asking whether they needed to memorialize the agreement. No further memorialization took place. Marcone's representatives became unresponsive.In 2021, PartScription filed suit. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. PartScription’s complaint fails to plausibly allege a valid contract; any amendment would be futile. The only documentation speaks of general goals— not obligations—and fails to identify definite and certain binding terms. View "KAP Holdings, LLC v. Mar-Cone Appliance Parts Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court in favor of Appellee on his claims for conversion and unjust enrichment, holding that the trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion for a directed verdict on the conversion and unjust enrichment claims.Appellee filed suit against Appellant and others, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment. During trial, Appellant moved for a directed verdict on Appellee's conversion and unjust-enrichment claims. The trial court denied the motion. Thereafter, the jury returned verdicts against Appellant on the conversion and unjust enrichment claims. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) there was insufficient evidence as a matter of law to support Appellee's claims of conversion and unjust enrichment against Appellant; and (2) therefore, the trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion for a directed verdict on these claims. View "Bunta v. Superior VacuPress, LLC" on Justia Law

Scotty Fain, Sr., Scotty Fain, Jr., and Kris Durham appealed a district court judgment entered following findings that there was no contract between the parties, no transfer of ownership interest in Integrity Environmental, LLC, and no violation of fiduciary duties as alleged in the complaint against Integrity Environmental, LLC, Andrea Vigen, Lewis Vigen, and Kelly Harrelson. They also challenged the court’s findings that a substitute arrangement agreed upon by all parties led to an accord and satisfaction, novation, and waiver of contractual rights. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Fain, et al. v. Integrity Environmental, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, cross-defendant, and appellant Tufeld Corporation (Tufeld) is the landlord. Defendant, cross-complainant, and cross-appellant Beverly Hills Gateway L.P. (BHG) is the tenant. The subject lease, as amended, has a term greater than 99 years. This contravenes Civil Code section 718,1, which provides in the relevant part: “No lease or grant of any town or city lot, which reserves any rent or service of any kind, and which provides for a leasing or granting period in excess of 99 years, shall be valid.” The main issue on appeal is whether a lease that violates section 718 is void or voidable.   The Second Appellate District affirmed in part and reversed in part and the matter is remanded for the trial court to consider whether to grant BHG prejudgment interest on restitution. The court held that the part of the lease exceeding 99 years is void. The court reasoned that here contrary to BHG’s assertion, section 718 does not only protect tenants; it protects landlords too. Moreover, the legislative purpose of section 718 serves to promote a public benefit. The private benefit exception does not apply to section 718. View "Tufeld Corp. v. Beverly Hills Gateway, L.P." on Justia Law

TURSS provided background and credit screening services to property management professionals and landlords through its online platforms and undertook to build an online platform to sell customizable electronic lease forms. TURSS sent Helix a letter of intent that the platform would be completed in 2009. The companies entered into a five-year marketing agreement that required TURSS to provide the platform and Helix to provide the product. TURSS would receive 35% of the revenue generated from sales and Helix would receive 65%. The agreement was not exclusive. Helix provided electronic forms and supporting materials to TURSS but the platform was still not completed in 2015.Helix sued TURSS for“willful and intentional” breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel. The court ultimately granted TURSS summary judgment. The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court reversed, finding that Helix failed to present proof of its damages with reasonable certainty. Helix did not present evidence of revenues of a similar product or a similar business in a similar market. Where a plaintiff seeks lost profits for a new company, "without a track record of profit, attempting to sell a new and untested product to a new market,” the specter of impermissible speculation arises. View "Ivey v. Transunion Rental Screening Solutions Inc." on Justia Law