Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

37celsius Capital Partners, a Milwaukee-based firm specializing in healthcare-related businesses, sought to acquire Care Innovations, a subsidiary of Intel Corporation. The parties entered into a nondisclosure agreement containing a “Hold Harmless” clause that limited damages, and subsequently executed a term sheet outlining the proposed transaction. The term sheet required 37celsius to contribute $12 million by a specified closing date and granted it an exclusivity period during which Intel could not negotiate with other parties regarding Care Innovations. The term sheet expressly limited legal obligations, stating that no binding contract would exist until a definitive agreement was executed, except for certain provisions such as confidentiality and exclusivity.After 37celsius failed to provide proof of the required funds by the closing date, Intel sold Care Innovations to another buyer. 37celsius filed suit in Wisconsin state court, alleging breach of contract based on Intel’s communications with third parties during the exclusivity period. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which ruled that 37celsius was not entitled to expectation damages under the NDA and subsequently granted summary judgment for Intel, finding no reliance damages and no evidence of causation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment de novo. It held that the term sheet was not a binding “Type II” preliminary agreement under Delaware law, as its language did not obligate the parties to negotiate in good faith. Further, even if a binding obligation existed, 37celsius could not show that Intel’s alleged breach was the but-for cause of the failed transaction, as 37celsius did not have the required funds. The court also concluded that the NDA barred expectation damages and 37celsius did not appeal the denial of reliance damages. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for Intel. View "37celsius Capital Partners, L.P. v Intel Corporation" on Justia Law

Two companies, Gulf Coast Investments, LLC and Trigger Energy Holdings, LLC, sold their membership interests in Blueprint Energy Partners, LLC to TCU Holdings, LLC. Blueprint, formed in 2017 for shale oil operations in Wyoming, originally had three equal members: Gulf Coast, Trigger, and TCU, with Aladdin Capital, Inc. as the manager and primary creditor. After financial struggles and interpersonal conflicts, the parties negotiated the buyout in 2019. TCU’s principal, Kent Stevens, threatened to leave and take staff and clients unless Gulf Coast and Trigger agreed to a set price, known as the “dynamite option.” Despite these threats, the plaintiffs were represented by counsel who advised them of alternatives, and negotiations spanned several months, culminating in a signed purchase agreement.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha County, South Dakota, reviewed the plaintiffs’ post-sale lawsuit alleging economic duress, breach of operating agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, shareholder oppression, unjust enrichment, and sought accounting and injunctive relief. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all counts, reasoning that the plaintiffs voluntarily entered the agreement, had legal alternatives, and that the contract itself contained a waiver of further claims. The court also addressed each substantive claim on its merits, finding no legal basis for recovery.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment. The Supreme Court held that, under either the three-part or two-part test for economic duress, the plaintiffs failed to show involuntary acceptance or lack of reasonable alternatives. The court also found no breach of the operating agreement or fiduciary duties, no tortious interference or shareholder oppression, and no basis for unjust enrichment or usurpation. The holding confirms the validity and enforceability of the purchase agreement and disposes of all claims against the defendants. View "Trigger Energy Holdings v. Stevens" on Justia Law

Two entities formed a limited liability company in 2012 to operate a high-end hair salon in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. One party contributed financial resources and business expertise, while the other, an established stylist, provided day-to-day management and became the public face of the business. In 2016, they amended their operating agreement to clarify their roles, contributions, and restrictions, including a provision that neither member could transfer their interest in the company without majority approval from disinterested members. The agreement required the stylist to devote all her business time to the company and prohibited competition during membership but was silent on withdrawal by a member.In 2022, after unsuccessful buyout negotiations, the stylist gave notice of her withdrawal from the company. The remaining members sued for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and sought a declaratory judgment requiring the stylist to continue dedicating her business time to the company. The Superior Court for Rockingham County granted in part and denied in part the stylist’s motion to dismiss, ruling her withdrawal was valid under the operating agreement and the New Hampshire Limited Liability Company Act. As a result, claims relying on her continued membership were dismissed, though the breach of contract claim for pre-withdrawal conduct was initially preserved. The plaintiffs withdrew the remaining contract claim, and the dismissal orders were finalized for appeal.Upon review, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the lower court’s decision. It held that the operating agreement did not prohibit member withdrawal and that withdrawal was not a “transfer” requiring approval under the agreement. The court determined that the stylist retained her economic interest but lost membership rights upon withdrawal, consistent with the statute. The court further found no viable claim for damages or wrongful conduct, as the withdrawal did not breach the agreement or applicable law. View "Peregrine Interests LLC v. Todd" on Justia Law

Several business entities formed two limited partnerships to develop and manage affordable housing complexes in Tampa, Florida. Creative Choice Homes XXX, LLC and Creative Choice Homes XXXI, LLC acted as general partners in these partnerships, with various investor and special limited partners. The partnership agreements required the general partners to follow strict financial protocols, including restrictions on advances to affiliates and requirements for the proper distribution of profits. Over several years, financial audits revealed the general partners had made unauthorized advances to related entities, violating the agreements' terms. Despite repeated warnings from the limited partners, the general partners failed to cure the breaches within the periods specified in the agreements.After the limited partners provided formal notice of default, the general partners did not fully remedy the violations in a timely manner, including continuing improper transfers and attempting to cure by making late and improperly sourced payments. The limited partners consequently removed the general partners from their positions. The general partners filed suit in state court, seeking a declaration that their removal was improper and alleging breach of contract by the limited partners. The limited partners removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and counterclaimed for breach of contract and declaratory relief.Following a bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of the limited partners, finding that the general partners materially breached the partnership agreements, failed to cure, and that removal did not constitute an impermissible forfeiture, waiver, or estoppel. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the general partners’ breaches were material, their cure efforts were insufficient, and that enforcing removal under the partnership agreements was proper and not inequitable. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Creative Choice Homes XXX, LLC v. Amtax Holdings 690, LLC" on Justia Law

Several individuals who were former partners at Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., BGC Holdings L.P., and Newmark Holdings L.P. separated from those partnerships and were entitled to receive certain payments after their departure. These payments included an initial amount plus four annual installment payments, but the partnership agreements allowed the partnerships to withhold the annual payments if the former partners engaged in broadly defined “Competitive Activity.” The partnerships exercised this right and withheld payments from the plaintiffs after determining they had engaged in such activity. The plaintiffs alleged that these provisions constituted unreasonable restraints of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and, for two plaintiffs, a violation of Delaware’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to plead an “antitrust injury,” which is necessary to assert a claim under the Sherman Act, and further held that the implied covenant claims failed because the partnership agreements gave the partnerships express contractual discretion to withhold the payments when a former partner competed, leaving no contractual gap for the implied covenant to fill. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The court held that the plaintiffs’ pecuniary injuries, stemming from the withholding of payments, were not antitrust injuries because they did not result from anticompetitive conduct affecting their status as market participants, nor were their injuries inextricably intertwined with any anticompetitive scheme. Regarding the implied covenant claims, the Third Circuit found that the relevant agreements expressly permitted withholding the payments under the circumstances, and there was no plausible allegation that the partnerships exercised their discretion in bad faith. View "McLoughlin v. Cantor Fitzgerald L.P." on Justia Law

A real estate development dispute arose when three businessmen, each controlling separate entities, formed an LLC to redevelop property in Charlotte. The plaintiff, through one entity, held a minority interest and served as a manager with another member. The operating agreement contained strict requirements for transferring membership interests, including the need for prior written consent from both managers. Tensions developed among the partners, and two of them attempted to transfer their interests to new holding companies and later voted to remove the plaintiff as manager. There was, however, no evidence that the formal requirements for transferring membership interests—such as written consent—were ever met.The case was designated a mandatory complex business case and heard in the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, sitting as the North Carolina Business Court. The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the attempted transfers were valid, rendering the removal of the plaintiff as manager invalid, and further alleged breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud. The Business Court found that the plaintiff failed to show the transfer provisions of the operating agreement were followed, so the original members retained their interests and the removal of the plaintiff as manager was valid. The court also ruled that no fiduciary duty arises among a coalition of minority LLC members absent a single majority member with control, and thus dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case on appeal. It affirmed the Business Court’s order and opinion, holding that the plaintiff failed to show compliance with the operating agreement’s transfer provisions and that there was no basis to impose a fiduciary duty on a coalition of minority LLC members. The summary judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed. View "Gvest Real Est., LLC v. JS Real Est. Invs., LLC" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between two siblings, Wayne Orkin and Lisa Albert, over the operation and ownership of a business called Boost Web SEO, Inc. Orkin managed the day-to-day business and generated all of its revenue, while Albert incorporated the company and was listed as its registered agent and officer. No written agreements clarified their roles, profit sharing, or compensation. In 2014, residual income from a payment processing arrangement was assigned to Boost Web, which both parties treated as company revenue for years. In 2021, after a breakdown in their relationship, Albert cut Orkin’s access to company funds and accused him of fraudulent activities in communications with a third-party vendor. Orkin then redirected company revenues to an account he controlled, prompting legal action.The litigation began in Massachusetts Superior Court, where Orkin (and his father) sued Albert and her son for various state-law claims, and Albert removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Boost Web intervened with a crossclaim against Orkin. After partial summary judgment, the remaining claims—Orkin’s defamation and related claims against Albert, and Boost Web’s conversion claim against Orkin—proceeded to a bench trial. The district court ruled for Albert on the defamation claim, finding her email was not defamatory or was protected as true, and for Boost Web on conversion, awarding it damages for funds Orkin took as personal expenses and for redirected residuals. The court also found Orkin in contempt for interfering with its orders and permanently enjoined him from pursuing related litigation in Florida.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court erred in dismissing Orkin’s defamation claim, finding that Albert’s email could be defamatory per se and remanded for further proceedings on truthfulness. It affirmed the conversion judgment regarding the redirected residuals but vacated the judgment concerning personal expenses, holding that Orkin was entitled to some compensation and remanded to determine the appropriate amount. The court vacated the contempt order and the permanent injunction, finding the previous orders did not unambiguously decide Boost Web’s ownership. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Orkin v. Albert" on Justia Law

Loews Corporation created a publicly traded master limited partnership, Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, to operate natural gas pipelines. The partnership agreement included a call-right provision allowing the general partner, controlled by Loews, to acquire all public limited partnership units if certain conditions were met. In 2018, following proposed policy changes by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that could affect pipeline profitability, Loews sought legal opinions to justify exercising the call right. Although Boardwalk's internal analysis suggested minimal impact from the FERC changes, Loews’ outside counsel issued an opinion that the policy shift was reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on Boardwalk’s rates, satisfying a key condition for the call right. After obtaining a second law firm’s endorsement of the opinion’s acceptability, Loews exercised the call right, acquiring public units at a price that unitholders alleged was artificially depressed.The Court of Chancery initially found that the legal opinion used to trigger the call right was not rendered in good faith, meaning a contractual condition for exercising the call right had not been fulfilled. As a result, the court held that Boardwalk’s general partner breached the partnership agreement and awarded damages to the unitholders. The court stayed the remaining claims, which included breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware first held that the general partner was exculpated from monetary liability for breach of contract under the partnership agreement, reversing the damages judgment and remanding for consideration of the non-exculpated claims. Upon remand, the Court of Chancery dismissed those remaining claims, concluding that the Supreme Court’s prior decision foreclosed them. On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Delaware held that the lower court misunderstood the scope of its prior ruling; it affirmed dismissal of most claims but reversed as to tortious interference, remanding that claim for further proceedings. View "Bandera Master Fund LP v. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP" on Justia Law

Two brothers operated a farming and cattle partnership, with one managing the finances and records and the other handling outside operations. The financial brother, assisted by his daughter, maintained control over the partnership’s handwritten ledgers and inventory records, while the other brother relied on the information provided. Over several years, the managing brother made false entries in the ledgers, diverted partnership income into personal accounts, and concealed certain ownership interests in partnership assets from his brother. Suspicious discrepancies surfaced when the outside-operating brother noticed substantial errors affecting his reported net worth, prompting him to seek dissolution of the partnership and to sue for damages.The District Court for Thurston County conducted a bench trial, hearing evidence from the parties and expert witnesses. It found that the managing brother and his daughter had exclusive control over the partnership’s finances and intentionally concealed information. The court concluded that the outside-operating brother could not reasonably have discovered the wrongdoing earlier, given his lack of access to original records and his trust in the managing brother. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff under several theories, including breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract, and imposed joint and several liability on both defendants.Upon appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal questions de novo. It held that the claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment were not barred by the statute of limitations, as discovery of the fraud occurred within the allowed period. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s determinations regarding liability, damages, and the denial of post-trial motions, upholding the judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court specifically affirmed the joint and several liability for both defendants and the calculation of damages, rejecting the appellants’ arguments regarding settlements, contract defenses, and the statute of limitations. View "Sebade v. Sebade" on Justia Law

Two financial advisors entered into two agreements as part of a business transaction: an operating agreement establishing them as members of a wealth management firm and a purchase-and-sale contract under which one advisor would gradually buy out the other's ownership interest. The operating agreement contained a noncompete clause and provisions for mediation and arbitration. After the buyout concluded, the selling advisor remained employed with the company and could only be terminated for cause. In January 2024, he was terminated for cause and immediately began working at a competing firm within the restricted radius specified in the noncompete provision.Following his termination, the company and the buying advisor filed suit in the Circuit Court of Forrest County, alleging breach of contract and seeking, among other relief, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enforce the noncompete clause. The trial court granted the injunction and denied the selling advisor’s motions to dissolve the restraining order, to deny the injunction, and to compel mediation and/or arbitration. The trial court found that the noncompete clause remained binding and that the parties had not shown a clear intent to compel mediation or arbitration for this dispute, given specific contractual language.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed whether the noncompete provision was enforceable, whether the trial court erred in issuing the preliminary injunction, and whether the denial of the motion to compel mediation/arbitration was proper. The Court held that the noncompete provision was binding based on the evidence at the preliminary injunction stage, that the trial court did not err in granting the preliminary injunction, and that the mediation/arbitration provisions were not clearly applicable to this dispute. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the trial court’s order in all respects. View "Wiggins v. Southern Securities Group, LLC" on Justia Law