Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Corelle, a company that sold Instapot multifunction cookers, entered into a 2016 master supply agreement (MSA) with Midea, the manufacturer. Under this arrangement, individual purchase orders (POs) were used for each transaction, detailing specific terms such as price and quantity. Each PO typically included Corelle’s own terms, including indemnity provisions. In 2023, Corelle filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and, as part of its reorganization plan, sold its appliances business and assigned the MSA to the buyer. However, Corelle sought to retain its indemnification rights for products purchased under completed POs made before the assignment.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Midea’s objection to this arrangement, finding that the POs were severable contracts distinct from the MSA. This meant the indemnification rights related to completed POs remained with Corelle. Midea appealed, contending that the MSA and all related POs formed a single, indivisible contract that should have been assigned in its entirety. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision, emphasizing that the structure of the MSA and the parties’ course of dealing supported the divisibility of the POs from the MSA.On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the standards applied by the lower courts, the interpretation of the contracts, and the application of 11 U.S.C. § 365(f). The appellate court held that the bankruptcy court did not err in finding the POs were divisible from the MSA, that Corelle’s retention of indemnification rights did not violate bankruptcy law, and that the lower courts applied the correct standards of review. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "GuangDong Midea v. Unsecured Creditors" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on a series of complex financial transactions involving a Wyoming family and their businesses, a local bank, and a commercial lender. The plaintiffs, including a married couple and their closely held LLC, entered into various loans and mortgages related to their commercial property and business operations. When financial difficulties arose—exacerbated by a downturn in the oil and gas industry—the parties restructured their debt, resulting in a 2017 mortgage and, after the operating company filed for bankruptcy, a 2019 settlement agreement. The plaintiffs later alleged that the bank and lender’s actions and omissions caused them to lose equity in both their home and commercial property, and the defendants counterclaimed for breach of the settlement agreement and sought attorney fees.The District Court of Natrona County dismissed or granted summary judgment for the bank and lender on all claims and counterclaims, finding the mortgage unambiguously secured two loans and the bank had no duty to release it after only one was repaid. It also concluded the plaintiffs could not establish justifiable reliance on any alleged misrepresentations, interpreted the settlement agreement as permitting (but not requiring) the lender to record the quitclaim deed after a sale period, and found no breach by the lender. The district court further ruled the plaintiffs breached the agreement by filing suit, thus entitling the bank and lender to attorney fees.On review, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s decisions dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims, holding the mortgage secured both loans and the bank acted within its rights. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the grant of summary judgment to the bank and lender on their counterclaims, finding that filing the lawsuit was not a breach of the settlement agreement or its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Consequently, the award of attorney fees and costs to the bank and lender was also reversed. View "Adams v. ANB Bank" on Justia Law

An investment fund specializing in gems and minerals filed for bankruptcy in October 2019. Prior to this, one of the fund’s managing members, through his own companies, had engaged a law firm to represent him and his separate business interests in connection with federal investigations and anticipated arbitration involving the fund and its leadership. The law firm’s engagement letters were addressed to the individual and his other company, not the fund itself, and did not state that the fund was responsible for payment. Some of the legal work benefited all respondents, including the fund, and the fund issued two checks to the law firm. However, a significant balance remained unpaid.During the bankruptcy proceedings, the law firm filed a claim against the fund for unpaid legal fees. The Official Committee of Equity Security Holders, appointed to represent the fund’s equity holders, objected, arguing the fund was not liable for the debt. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to the Equity Committee, finding the fund had no obligation to pay the law firm based on the evidence presented. The law firm appealed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s affirmance de novo. The Seventh Circuit held that the law firm had not provided sufficient evidence of an enforceable promise by the fund to pay the legal fees, either as a primary obligor or under promissory estoppel. Additionally, the court found that neither Wisconsin’s statutory indemnification provision for LLC managers and members nor the fund’s operating agreement extended indemnification rights to the individual who had retained the law firm. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Ballard Spahr LLP v Official Committee of Equity Security Holders" on Justia Law

A steel subcontractor was hired to perform work for a university construction project and entered into a subcontract with the general contractor. The general contractor began defaulting on payments, prompting the subcontractor to notify the surety insurance company, which had issued a payment bond guaranteeing payment for labor, materials, and equipment. The surety made partial payment but disputed the remaining amount. The subcontractor then demanded arbitration against the contractor, with the surety notified and invited to participate. The contractor filed for bankruptcy and did not defend in arbitration, nor did the surety participate. The arbitrator awarded the subcontractor damages, including attorneys’ fees and interest, and the award was confirmed in court. The subcontractor sought to enforce the arbitration award against the surety, including attorneys’ fees and prejudgment interest, and also brought a bad faith claim under Pennsylvania’s insurance statute.The Centre County Court of Common Pleas initially excluded evidence of the arbitration award against the surety at trial and ruled the surety was not liable for attorneys’ fees or bad faith damages. A jury found for the subcontractor on the underlying debt, and the court awarded prejudgment interest at the statutory rate. Both parties appealed. The Superior Court held the arbitration award was binding and conclusive against the surety, who had notice and opportunity to participate, and affirmed liability for attorneys’ fees related to pursuing the contractor in arbitration. The court rejected the bad faith claim, holding the statute did not apply to surety bonds, and confirmed the statutory interest rate.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed in all respects. It held that Pennsylvania’s insurance bad faith statute does not apply to surety bonds, based on statutory language. The court also held that the surety is bound by the arbitration award against its principal, and is liable for attorneys’ fees incurred in arbitration and prejudgment interest at the statutory rate. View "Eastern Steel v. Int Fidelity Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who provided subadvisory investment services and loaned $1.5 million to FolioMetrix (personally guaranteed by two individuals), later engaged with defendants involved in a proposed merger of investment firms. Plaintiffs alleged that during merger negotiations, defendant Putnam promised to relieve the original borrowers of their obligations and personally assume the debt. Subsequent communications referenced intentions to transfer the loan liability to the new entity, but when plaintiffs sought a formal promissory note, defendants refused. Ultimately, defendants did not repay any portion of the loan.Plaintiffs filed suit in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco in March 2019, alleging breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. At trial, the central dispute was whether defendants had agreed to assume the loan obligations under the promissory note. Plaintiffs argued that the agreement was formed through emails and conduct, while defendants denied any assumption of liability. The jury found in favor of defendants, determining no contract was formed and no promise was made to repay the loans. Following trial, the court awarded defendants attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717, based on a fee provision in the original promissory note, after reducing the requested amount.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, addressed several issues. It ruled that the automatic bankruptcy stay did not preclude resolution of the appeal because the debtor (NAI) was the plaintiff rather than a defendant. The court rejected plaintiffs’ claims of error regarding jury instructions on contract formation, finding insufficient argument and no prejudice. It affirmed the attorney fee award, concluding the action was “on the contract” containing the fee provision, and held the fee amount was within the trial court’s discretion. The judgment and fee order were affirmed. View "Navellier v. Putnam" on Justia Law

Jet Oilfield Services was formed in 2018 by three individuals, with Brian Owen later acquiring a substantial membership interest. Jet’s governing agreement required Owen to obtain consent from at least one other member before entering transactions on Jet’s behalf. In 2022, Owen signed an agreement with Spin Capital, L.L.C., under which Jet would sell $4,500,000 of future receivables for $3,000,000. Spin attempted to confirm Owen’s authority by reviewing Jet’s bank statements and tax returns, noting Owen’s access to the company’s accounts and his designation as “Partnership Representative” and “General Partner or LLC member-manager,” though the tax return was unsigned by a member-manager. Jet subsequently filed for bankruptcy, and Spin filed a proof of claim based on this agreement and pursued related litigation.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas held a trial on Jet’s counterclaims against Spin. The court found that Owen lacked both actual and apparent authority to bind Jet in the Spin Agreement and that Jet received no consideration for the contract. As a result, the bankruptcy court determined Spin’s claim was unenforceable. Spin appealed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Initially, the district court dismissed the appeal for an insufficient record but later reinstated it, allowing supplemental briefing. When Spin declined to submit further briefing, the district court dismissed the appeal with prejudice.On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applied clear error review to the bankruptcy court’s factual findings and de novo review to its legal conclusions. The Fifth Circuit held that Owen did not have apparent authority to bind Jet, as Jet’s member-managers did not hold him out as an agent, and Spin’s reliance on Owen’s asserted authority was unreasonable. The court thus affirmed the judgment, holding that Spin’s claim against Jet was unenforceable. View "Spin Capital v. Jet Oilfield" on Justia Law

The case involves a Florida-based title insurer that suffered significant financial setbacks, prompting a series of business restructurings and asset transfers. In 2009, the company entered a joint venture with another title insurance group, forming a new entity to handle certain business functions. Over subsequent years, the original company retained substantial assets and continued operations, but further financial decline led to a 2015 agreement in which it transferred assets and liabilities to its business partner, in exchange for the assumption of its policy liabilities. The Florida insurance regulator scrutinized and ultimately approved the transaction after requiring additional commitments from the acquiring party.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida later oversaw the company’s Chapter 11 proceedings. The appointed Creditor Trustee brought an adversary proceeding against the acquiring parties and related entities, alleging that the asset transfer constituted a fraudulent transfer under federal bankruptcy law and Florida statutes, and sought to impose successor liability and alter ego claims. The bankruptcy court held a bench trial, excluding portions of the Trustee’s expert valuation as unreliable, and found that the company had received reasonably equivalent value in the transaction. The court also rejected the successor liability and alter ego theories, finding insufficient evidence of continuity of ownership, improper purpose, or harm to creditors.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida affirmed the bankruptcy court’s rulings. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the record and affirmed the district court’s order. The Eleventh Circuit held that the bankruptcy court did not err in excluding the Trustee’s expert, that the asset transfer was for reasonably equivalent value and not fraudulent, and that the successor liability and alter ego claims failed for lack of evidence and legal sufficiency. View "Stermer v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Lewis Patrick and Michele Sivertson owned and managed Laughing Dog Brewing, Inc. (LDB), which faced financial difficulties in 2017. To address these issues, they, along with affiliated entities AHR, LLC and Fetchingly Good, LLC, engaged attorney Ford Elsaesser to restructure their debt. Elsaesser drafted a promissory note and facilitated the transfer of LDB’s assets to AHR and Fetchingly Good, allegedly without disclosing conflicts of interest or legal risks. After the asset transfer, Fetchingly Good assumed LDB’s operations, and LDB filed for bankruptcy. Acorn Investments, LLC, a creditor with a judgment against LDB, sued the Original Plaintiffs under various theories, including the Idaho Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and racketeering statutes.The litigation between Acorn and the Original Plaintiffs was resolved through a settlement agreement. The Original Plaintiffs stipulated to a judgment in favor of Acorn, but Acorn agreed not to execute on the judgment. Instead, Acorn received an assignment of the Original Plaintiffs’ claims against Elsaesser, including legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Acorn substituted as plaintiff in the malpractice case. Elsaesser moved for summary judgment, arguing that the malpractice claim was not assignable. The District Court of the First Judicial District, Bonner County, agreed and dismissed the case without prejudice, finding the assignment did not meet the exception for assignability established in St. Luke’s Magic Valley Regional Medical Center v. Luciani.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court held that the assignment of the legal malpractice claim to Acorn did not fall within the Luciani exception, which allows assignment only when such claims are transferred as part of a larger commercial transaction involving other business assets and liabilities. Here, only the claims were assigned, not any business assets or obligations. The Court also declined to award attorney fees to either party, but awarded costs to Elsaesser. View "Acorn Investments, LLC v. Elsaesser" on Justia Law

Sanchez Energy Corporation, a gas producer, underwent Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019 due to significant debt, with its reorganization plan confirmed in April 2020. The company, later renamed Mesquite Energy, Inc., owned valuable fossil fuel reserves in the Comanche Field, Texas, and had several high-cost contracts for gathering, processing, transporting, and marketing natural gas and natural gas liquids. Carnero G&P, L.L.C., a midstream services provider, had a contract with Sanchez to serve as a backup provider. After Sanchez’s reorganization, Mesquite entered into new agreements with other parties to lower its midstream costs, which Carnero claimed breached its surviving contract.Following the bankruptcy, Carnero filed a state court lawsuit against Mesquite and other parties, asserting state law claims based on the new agreements. The suit was removed to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, which denied Carnero’s request to remand and ultimately dismissed the case on the pleadings, finding it had “related-to” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334. The bankruptcy court reasoned that the dispute pertained to the implementation of the reorganization plan and that Carnero was barred from challenging the new agreements due to its failure to object during the bankruptcy proceedings. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the jurisdictional question de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the bankruptcy court lacked post-confirmation “related-to” jurisdiction over Carnero’s state law contract claims, as the dispute did not pertain to the implementation or execution of the reorganization plan. The court found that the new agreements were not executory contracts under the plan and that Carnero was not barred from pursuing its claims. The Fifth Circuit reversed the lower courts’ judgments and remanded the case with instructions to remand to state court. View "Carnero G&P v. SN EF Maverick" on Justia Law

Pro-Mark Services, Inc., a general contracting construction company, obtained payment and performance bonds from Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company as required by the Miller Act. To facilitate this, Pro-Mark and other indemnitors entered into a General Indemnity Agreement (GIA) with Hartford, assigning certain rights related to bonded contracts. Later, Pro-Mark entered into two substantial business loan agreements with Capital Credit Union (CCU), secured by most of Pro-Mark’s assets, including deposit accounts. Recognizing potential conflicts over asset priorities, Hartford and CCU executed an Intercreditor Collateral Agreement (ICA) to define their respective rights and priorities in Pro-Mark’s assets, distinguishing between “Bank Priority Collateral” and “Surety Priority Collateral,” and specifying how proceeds should be distributed.After Pro-Mark filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of North Dakota, CCU placed an administrative freeze on Pro-Mark’s deposit accounts and moved for relief from the automatic stay to exercise its right of setoff against the funds in those accounts. Hartford objected, claiming a superior interest in the funds based on the GIA and ICA. The bankruptcy court held hearings and, after considering the parties’ briefs and stipulated facts, granted CCU’s motion, allowing it to set off the funds. The bankruptcy court found CCU had met its burden for setoff and determined Hartford did not have a sufficient interest in the deposited funds, focusing on the GIA and North Dakota’s Uniform Commercial Code, and not the ICA.On appeal, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit held that while the bankruptcy court had authority to adjudicate the priority dispute, it erred by failing to analyze the parties’ respective rights under the ICA, which governed the priority of distributions. The Panel reversed the bankruptcy court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Capital Credit Union" on Justia Law