In 2005, Barclays Bank PLC, a major global bank based in the United Kingdom, and BDC Finance LLC, a Connecticut-based hedge fund, entered into a series of transactions that were memorialized in several forms, including a Master Agreement. In 2008, Barclays sent BDC a letter terminating the Agreement due to BDC’s alleged default. BDC filed this action for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. Barclays counterclaimed alleging corresponding causes of action. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The Appellate Division granted BDC’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Barclays breached the agreements and was not entitled to summary judgment on its counterclaims. The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the Appellate Division, holding that material issues of fact existed as to whether Barclays defaulted under the parties’ contract and, thus, neither party was entitled to summary judgment. View "BDC Finance LLC v. Barclays Bank PLC" on Justia Law

Kentucky Spirit Health Care Plan, Inc. brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that it had a right to terminate its Medicaid managed care contract with the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Finance and Administration Cabinet, without penalty, prior to the contract’s expiration. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment for the Cabinet. Both parties appealed. While the appeals were pending, the circuit court stayed Kentucky’s Spirit’s discovery efforts until the resolution of the appeals. Kentucky Spirit petitioned for a writ prohibiting the circuit court judge from enforcing the order imposing the stay of discovery. The court of appeals granted the writ, determining that the trial court’s suspension of discovery amounted to an indefinite stay on discovery without a pressing need to do so. The Supreme Court vacated the writ and remanded for entry of an order denying Kentucky Spirit’s petition for a writ of prohibition, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by temporarily staying discovery pending the resolution of matters in the appellate courts pertaining to the partial summary judgment. View "Commonwealth v. Hon. Thomas D. Wingate" on Justia Law

MRI, on behalf of itself and as successor-in-interest to P&L, filed suit against Alliance for, inter alia, tortious interference with business relations and tortious interference with contract. The district court dismissed Superior's tortious interference claims. The district court concluded that Superior failed to establish that it acquired contractual rights from P&L and that Superior lacked prudential standing to enforce P&L's rights. The court agreed, concluding that Superior submitted no evidence that the contracting hospitals at issue consented to any assignment. Even if P&L did attempt to assign its rights to Superior, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the purported assignment took place before Superior existed as a corporation. Accordingly, Superior failed to prove the existence of prudential standing by a preponderance of the evidence and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Superior MRI Serv. v. Alliance Health Serv." on Justia Law

Pearl Seas filed suit against LRNA under various tort theories regarding LRNA's allegedly inadequate performance in certifying a ship and its alleged misdeeds during arbitration. The district court denied LRNA's motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens (FNC) without written or oral explanation. LRNA petitions for a writ of mandamus to order the district court to vacate its denial and dismiss for FNC. The court granted the petition because the district court clearly abused its discretion and reached a patently erroneous result where it failed to enforce a valid forum-selection clause, and because LRNA has no effective way to vindicate its rights without a writ of mandamus. View "In Re: Lloyd's Register N.A., Inc." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the largely fraudulent lending operations of First United Funding, LLC (First United). After First United collapsed, a court-appointed Receiver commenced this action under Minnesota’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (MUFTA) against several financial institutions, including Alliance Bank and certain Respondent Banks, that had participated in First United’s loan-participation scheme. The district court (1) dismissed the claims against the Respondent Banks for failure to bring the action in a timely fashion, and (2) allowed the claim against Alliance Bank, concluding that that the Receiver had pleaded legally sufficient claims based on a “Ponzi-scheme presumption.” The district court then entered judgment against Alliance Bank. The Receiver and Alliance Bank appealed. The court of appeals (1) divided the Ponzi-scheme presumption into three separate components and concluded that the third component was unfounded in the case of Alliance Bank; and (2) concluded that the district court erred when it dismissed the Receiver’s actual-fraud claims against the Respondent Banks. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) all three components of the Ponzi-scheme presumption lack support in MUFTA; and (2) the Receiver failed to adequately plead constructive fraud, but the district court erred when it dismissed the Receiver’s actual fraud claims. Remanded. View "Finn v. Alliance Bank" on Justia Law

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question of Pennsylvania law to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In August 2007, Appellee Wayne Harrison entered into a lease with Appellant Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, per which Cabot obtained the exclusive right to explore oil-and-gas resources on Harrison's property. In exchange, the company agreed to pay an initial bonus plus a one-eighth royalty on oil or gas successfully produced from the land. Approximately halfway through the primary lease term, Harrison and his wife commenced a civil action against Cabot in a federal district court, seeking a declaration that the lease was invalid. The Harrisons alleged the company had fraudulently induced Mr. Harrison to enter into the lease via an agent's representation that Mr. Harrison would never receive any more than $100 per acre as a threshold bonus payment from a gas producing company. The Harrisons learned of other landowner-lessors receiving higher payments. The Pennsylvania Court accepted certification from the Third Circuit to address whether the primary term of an oil-and-gas lease should have been equitably extended by the courts, where the lessor pursued an unsuccessful lawsuit challenging the validity of the lease. In its counterclaim, Cabot sought a declaratory judgment that, in the event the Harrisons' suit failed, the primary term of the lease would be equitably tolled during the period of time during which the suit was pending, and, concomitantly, the lease would be extended for an equivalent period of time beyond what was provided by its actual terms. The district court awarded summary judgment in Cabot's favor on the suit to invalidate the lease. The court, however, resolved the counterclaim in the Harrisons' favor, concluding that Pennsylvania law does not provide for equitable extensions of oil and gas leases under the circumstances. Cabot appealed, arguing that it would be deprived of the full benefit of the bargained-for terms of its contract with the Harrisons by their "meritless lease challenges." Cabot contended Pennsylvania law provided that a party repudiates a contract, and thus effectuates an essential breach, when he makes an unequivocal statement that he will not perform in accordance with his agreement. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed with Cabot's contention, holding that the Harrisons' lease challenge was not an anticipatory breach of the lease. "Our reluctance, in this respect, is bolstered by the Harrisons' observation that oil-and-gas-producing companies are free to proceed according to their own devices to negotiate express tolling provisions for inclusion in their leases. [. . .] Certainly, in light of the voluminous decisional law, such companies are on sufficient notice of the prospect for validity challenges to warrant their consideration of such protective measures. [ . . .] Our determination is only that, consistent with the prevailing substantive law of this Commonwealth, the mere pursuit of declaratory relief challenging the validity of a lease does not amount to such." View "Harrison v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp." on Justia Law

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question of Colorado law to the Colorado Supreme Court. An insurer issued a policy that provided directors and officers of a company liability coverage. The policy required the insured to give prompt notice of a claim, specifically, notice "as soon as practicable" after learning of the claim. The policy also required the insured to give notice of the claim by a date certain (not later than 60 days after the expiration of the policy). Near the end of the one-year policy, a company officer was sued for alleged misrepresentations he made during a merger. Unaware of the insurance policy, the officer defended himself against the suit. When he learned of the policy, approximately sixteen months after the policy had expired, he contacted the insurer. The underlying suit was settled. The officer then sued the insurer for denying coverage under the policy. The insurer removed the case to the federal district court, and then moved to dismiss on grounds that the officer's claim was untimely. The issue of Colorado law before the Tenth Circuit centered on the "notice-prejudice" rule to claims-made insurance policies: (1) whether the notice-prejudice rule applied to claims-made liability policies in general; and (2) if so, whether the rule applied to both types of notice requirements in those policies. The Colorado Court answered the certified questions more narrowly than originally presented because the parties agreed that the prompt notice requirement of the claims-made policy in this case was not at issue. The Colorado Court's analysis was restricted to the date-certain notice requirement. The Court held that the notice-prejudice rule did not apply to date-certain notice requirement in a claims-made insurance policy. In a claims-made policy, the date-certain notice defines the scope of coverage ("to excuse late notice in violation of such a requirement would rewrite a fundamental term of the insurance contract.") The Court reframed the certified questions as a single question: whether the notice-prejudice rule applies to the date-certain notice requirement of claims-made policies, to which the Colorado Court answered in the negative. View "Craft v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Belasco bought a new Manhattan Beach residence in 2004 from the builder (Wells). In 2006, Belasco filed a complaint with the Contractors State License Board, alleging construction defects. Belasco and Wells settled the dispute in 2006, with Wells paying $25,000 and Belasco executing a release and a Civil Code 15241 waiver of all known or unknown claims. In 2012, Belasco sued, based on an alleged roof defect discovered in 2011. The trial court entered summary judgment, finding the action barred by the settlement. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that: the 2006 general release and waiver for patent construction defects is not a “reasonable release” of a subsequent claim for latent defects under section 929 and the Right to Repair Act (section 895); a reasonable release can only apply to a “particular violation” and not to a latent defect under section 945.5(f), and the 2006 settlement was too vague to be a valid; section 932 authorizes an action on “[s]ubsequently discovered claims of unmet standards;” public policy prohibits use of a general release and section 1542 waiver to bar a subsequent claim for latent residential construction defects; and a genuine issue of fact existed concerning fraud and negligence claims that would void the settlement under section 1668. View "Belasco v. Wells" on Justia Law

Sterling Development Group Three, LLC, and Sterling Development Group Eight, LLC, appealed a judgment dismissing their action against James Carlson to collect on two personal guarantees, and an order awarding Carlson costs and disbursements. In 1983, Carlson founded PRACS Institute, Ltd., a medical research facility which began operating in East Grand Forks, Minnesota. In 1999, Sterling Development Group Three entered into a 15-year lease agreement with PRACS for a building located in East Grand Forks. Carlson signed the lease agreement as the president of PRACS. Carlson also signed a personal guaranty. When PRACS expanded in 2004, Sterling Development Group Eight built an expansion to the Sterling Three building, and PRACS entered into a lease agreement with Sterling Eight for a term running simultaneously with the Sterling Three lease. Carlson signed a similar personal guaranty for the Sterling Eight lease. In January 2006, Carlson sold PRACS to Contract Research Solutions, Inc., which the parties refer to as Cetero. The Sterling companies consented to this "change of control." Carlson's daily involvement in PRACS ceased at that point. Carlson received Cetero stock in the sale and became a member of Cetero's seven-member board of directors. In 2010, Cetero suspended its East Grand Forks operations, but continued to pay rent to the Sterling companies. In the spring of 2012, Cetero filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee eventually rejected the East Grand Forks Cetero leases with the Sterling companies and stopped paying rent. The Sterling companies then brought this action against Carlson to collect more than $600,000 for unpaid rent under his personal guarantees. Following a bench trial, the district court dismissed the action. The court found Carlson was exonerated from liability under the personal guarantees because the original lease agreements had been altered in three respects by the Sterling companies and Cetero or PRACS without Carlson's knowledge or consent. The Sterling companies argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the district court erred in finding the original lease agreements were contractually altered without Carlson's knowledge or consent, resulting in exoneration of his personal guaranty obligations. Because the district court's finding that the principal's contractual obligations were altered without Carlson's knowledge or consent was not clearly erroneous, and the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs and disbursements, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and order. View "Sterling Development Group Three, LLC v. Carlson" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a dispute over damage to a leased commercial space. The case was tried before a jury, which awarded plaintiff-landlord David Walsh, just under $11,000 in damages attributable to defendant-tenant Frank Cluba. Following the jury verdict, the trial court awarded Walsh over $44,000 in attorney's fees. Cluba appealed, arguing that the court erred by allowing Walsh to testify on the reasonableness of repair work done after Cluba vacated the property and by awarding Walsh an unreasonable amount of attorney's fees under the circumstances. Walsh cross-appealed, arguing that the court erred by dismissing his claims against defendant Good Stuff, Inc., the business that Cluba and his partner incorporated shortly after Cluba signed the initial lease of the subject property. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Walsh v. Cluba" on Justia Law