In 2009, Hoffman executed a $1.5 million tax‐increment finance (TIF) note for a development project by Fyre Lake Ventures, backed by a TIF bond, a mechanism for local governments to finance real estate development. Hoffman was not personally liable on the loan. In 2010, Fyre signed a $9 million loan, with the same lender; Hoffman acted as a co‐guarantor for $900,000. Separately, Hoffman borrowed $157,300 from the lender with his wife; the note was secured by mortgages on three lots in a Milan, Illinois housing development. By October 2011, all of the loans were in default. After negotiations, the FDIC (as receiver for the lender) and the Hoffmans signed a settlement agreement. In exchange for titles to the Milan lots, the Hoffmans were released of their obligations. Less than three months later, the FDIC sued Hoffman and other guarantors of the Fyre loan, $900,000 of which he personally guaranteed. The district judge found the settlement agreement ambiguous and concluded that parole evidence supported the bank’s interpretation of the settlement: Hoffman was only released from his obligation on the $157,300 loan. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, interpreting the agreement's general language in light of the specific language referring to the smaller loan. View "Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Hoffman" on Justia Law

In 2007, plaintiff Innovation Ventures, LLC engaged defendants Andrew Krause and K & L Development of Michigan (K & L Development) to design, manufacture, and install manufacturing and packaging equipment for the production of "5-Hour ENERGY" at Liquid Manufacturing’s bottling plant. The issue this case presented for the Michigan Supreme Court's review centered on whether agreements between sophisticated businesses were void for failure of consideration and whether the noncompete provisions in these agreements were reasonable. Innovation Ventures alleged a variety of tort and breach of contract claims against Liquid Manufacturing, LLC, K & L Development of Michigan, LLC, Eternal Energy, LLC, LXR Biotech, LLC, Peter Paisley, and Andrew Krause based on the defendants’ production of Eternal Energy and other energy drinks. Contrary to the determination of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court concluded that the parties’ Equipment Manufacturing and Installation Agreement (EMI) and Nondisclosure Agreement were not void for failure of consideration. The Court nevertheless affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants for the claims against Krause, because there was no genuine issue of material fact on the question whether Krause breached the EMI or the Nondisclosure Agreement. Likewise, there was no issue on the question whether K & L Development breached the EMI. The Court concluded the Court of Appeals erred in failing to evaluate the noncompete provision in the parties’ Termination Agreement for reasonableness. The Court therefore reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for consideration of those questions of fact remaining regarding whether K & L Development breached the Nondisclosure Agreement and whether Liquid Manufacturing breached the Termination Agreement with respect to its production of products other than Eternal Energy. View "Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Liquid Manufacturing, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a negligence action against Nucor after sustaining injuries while working at Nucor's steel mill. The district court granted summary judgment to Nucor, finding that the third-party waiver's (TPW) language and the circumstances of its execution met the standard for enforcement of exculpatory contracts under Arkansas law and that the agreement was not unconscionable. The court agreed with the district court that the TPW was enforceable where the parties stipulated that plaintiff had the opportunity to read the TPW, that he did not ask the trainer any questions concerning the meaning of the TPW, and that he had the ability to read and understand the contract. The court also concluded that the contract provision at issue is not unconscionable where there is no evidence rebutting Nucor's affidavit showing the availability of other work in the region at that time, plaintiff had the opportunity to read and understand the TPW, and there is no evidence of fraud, duress, misrepresentation, or any other inequitable conduct on the part of Vesuvius or Nucor. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Stewart, Jr. v. Nucor Corp." on Justia Law

In 2003, the government awarded Laguna a contract for Worldwide Environmental Remediation and Construction (WERC). Under the contract, Laguna received 16 cost-reimbursable task orders to perform work in Iraq, and awarded subcontracts to several subcontractors. The physical work under the contract was completed by 2010. Laguna sought reimbursement of past costs, a portion of which the government refused to pay after an audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency. Before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the government alleged that it was not liable because Laguna had committed a prior material breach by accepting subcontractor kickbacks (18 U.S.C. 371, 41 U.S.C. 53), excusing the government’s nonperformance. Three of Laguna’s officers were ultimately indicted for kickbacks. The Board granted the government summary judgment on that ground, The Federal Circuit affirmed. Laguna committed the first material breach by violating the contract’s Allowable Cost and Payment clause because its vouchers were improperly inflated to include the payment, Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.216-7. View "Laguna Constr. Co. v. Carter" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified a question of Washington law to the Washington Supreme Court: "Does a title company owe a duty of care to third parties in the recording of legal instruments?" This certified question arose out of a civil action for money damages. Plaintiffs Centurion Properties Ill LLC (CP Ill) and SMI Group XIV LLC (collectively Plaintiffs) asserted that defendant Chicago Title Insurance Company negligently breached its duty of care and caused damages when it recorded unauthorized liens on CP Ill's property. The Washington Supreme Court answered the Ninth Circuit's question "no," holding that title companies did not owe a duty of care to third parties in the recording of legal instruments. "Such a duty is contrary to Washington's policy and precedent, and other duty of care considerations." View "Centurion Props. III, LLC v. Chi. Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In 2012, GNP Parent, LLC entered into a sales agreement to purchase compressed natural gas from Xpress Natural Gas, LLC as fuel for the Great Northern Paper Mill. Cate Street Capital, Inc., the corporate owner of GNP, guaranteed the amounts payable by GNP up to $1,500,000. GNP failed to make the required payments for natural gas, and an arbitrator found Cate Street liable to Xpress for $1,500,000 on the guarantee. Xpress applied to the superior court to confirm the arbitration award. Cate Street and GNP moved to vacate the award in part, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in awarding Xpress $1,500,000 in damages on the guarantee of payments. The superior court entered a judgment confirming the award and denying the motion to vacate the award. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in this case because his interpretation was rationally derived from the sales agreement. View "Xpress Natural Gas, LLC v. Cate St. Capital, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff's almost-new Toyota Tundra Pickup sustained structural damage, while parked, as a result of a collision between the vehicles of Hollandsworth and Sebastian. Plaintiff had an insurance policy through AAA covering collision-related damages.Hollandsworth also had an AAA insurance policy, covering property damage that he caused through negligence. AAA refused to consider the pickup a “total loss,” had the vehicle repaired at a reported cost of $8,196.06, and provided a rental car during the interim. As a result of the collision and the repairs, the pickup’s future resale value was decreased by more than $17,100. Plaintiff sued Hollandsworth and Sebastian for negligence and sued AAA for breach of contract and bad faith. The trial court dismissed the claims against AAA, finding that plaintiff essentially was seeking reimbursement for the lost market value of his pickup, a loss that specifically was excluded under his insurance policy. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting an argument that the resale value exclusion violated public policy and was void. The court stated that, in the insurance context, courts are not at liberty to imply a covenant (of good faith) directly at odds with a contract’s express grant of discretionary power, View "Baldwin v. AAA N. Cal." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs and Defendants owned real property on a peninsula in Echo Lake. Defendants owned a parcel on the southern end of the peninsula, through which the sole vehicular road granting access to the northern lots owned by Plaintiffs ran. Defendants purchased their property subject to a long-term existing easement allowing Plaintiffs access to their properties. In 1992, the parties entered into a road maintenance agreement setting forth the responsibilities of the parties regarding maintenance of the access road. When a flood damaged the road, Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking declaratory judgment that the maintenance agreement was valid and enforceable and alleging that Defendants breached the agreement. Defendants counterclaimed. The district court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) erred by concluding that the maintenance agreement was unenforceable against Defendants for lack of consideration, but the error was harmless; (2) did not err by ruling that Defendants did not breach the maintenance agreement; and (3) did not err by ordering Plaintiffs to pay Defendants’ counterclaim-related attorney’s fees and costs. View "Low v. Reick" on Justia Law

This case concerns a lease and a purported joint venture agreement entered into between defendant and his now-deceased father, the former president and majority shareholder of a real estate development corporation. The lease granted defendant control over a multi-million-dollar property for a period of 20 years in exchange for a payment of $20. AHC sought damages for defendant's use and occupancy of the property and a judgment declaring the lease and joint venture agreement void. Defendant counterclaimed. The district court granted AHC’s motion for partial summary judgment on its declaratory judgment claims and denied defendant's requests for additional discovery. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's FRCP 56(d) motion seeking more discovery materials where none of the items defendant specifically requested is germane to the issues before the court; the court applied Pennsylvania law to its analysis of the joint‐venture dispute and New York law to the lease dispute; and the district court correctly concluded that the business judgment rule should not apply to the lease and thus the lease was void as a gift or act of corporate waste. As to the joint venture agreement, the court declined to certify the issue of parol evidence to the state court. The court concluded that the parol evidence rule applies in this case and that the integration clause in the lease retains its preclusive effect. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Alphonse Hotel Corp. v. Tran" on Justia Law

Construction Contractors (CC), was formed to perform employment functions for regional construction employers, who would transfer funds into CC’s accounts to cover gross payroll, taxes, benefits, and administrative costs. CC would disburse the funds to satisfy subscribers’ obligations. In 2002, CC outsourced its daily operations to AlphaCare. In 2012, AlphaCare informed CC that there were insufficient assets to meet obligations, although the subscribers had paid enough money to fulfill their respective obligations. An AlphaCare manager (Moon) had been falsifying financial statements. CC terminated its agreement with AlphaCare. An investigation revealed that the IRS had started levying CC accounts in 2011. CC owed more than $1.25 million, plus penalties, in unpaid taxes dating back to 2005. AlphaCare had also failed to remit $715,000 in Ohio unemployment taxes for the first quarter of 2012.CC’s CFO, VanDenBerghe, determined that Moon had committed wire fraud by transferring over $900,000 from CC’s account to AlphaCare’s account from 2009-2012. VanDenBerghe continued investigating; about $1 million was still missing. CC applied for a crime-coverage insurance policy, with coverage for employee theft, from Federal Insurance. After Federal executed the policy, CC determined that Moon had misappropriated the missing $1 million. Federal denied CC’s claim for that loss. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Federal, concluding that any loss caused by one employee is considered a “single loss” under the policy and that CC had “discovered” the loss before the execution of the policy. View "Constr. Contractors Employers Group, LLC v. Fed. Ins. Co." on Justia Law