Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

A major equity investor contributed $65 million to a joint venture formed to acquire and develop a luxury residential tower in New York City. The project was financed with significant loans, including a $325 million mezzanine loan from Apollo entities. After construction cost overruns put the mezzanine loan in default, Apollo and the joint venture entered a forbearance agreement splitting the loan and securing a portion with the joint venture’s equity. Apollo later assigned the junior mezzanine loan to Spruce Capital Partners, which then initiated a strict foreclosure under the Uniform Commercial Code. This process extinguished the joint venture’s equity—including the plaintiff’s investment—while allegedly allowing the project sponsor to retain a role and equity interest. The investor claimed that Apollo, Spruce, and the sponsor colluded to cut it out of the project’s value through assignment and foreclosure.The Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed the investor’s breach of implied covenant claim against Spruce but allowed the claim against Apollo to proceed, while dismissing tortious interference claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed in part by dismissing the implied covenant claim against Apollo, holding that Apollo’s sole discretion to assign the loan foreclosed such a claim, and otherwise affirmed the dismissal of the tortious interference claims.The New York Court of Appeals held that a party’s sole discretion to assign a loan does not exempt it from the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Court concluded that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that Apollo may have exercised its assignment right as part of a bad faith scheme to deprive the investor of the benefit of its bargain, reviving the implied covenant claim against Apollo. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the tortious interference claims for insufficient pleading. The case was remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the implied covenant claim. View "111 W. 57th Inv. LLC v 111 W57 Mezz Inv. LLC" on Justia Law

Guild Mortgage Company LLC and CrossCountry Mortgage LLC are direct competitors in the residential mortgage industry. Over an 18-month period, several Guild employees in the Kirkland, Washington branch, including the branch manager and other high-level staff, were allegedly recruited by CrossCountry while still employed by Guild. According to the complaints, these employees solicited their colleagues to also move to CrossCountry, diverted customers and loan applications, and accessed Guild’s computer systems to take confidential and proprietary information. The employees had signed agreements with Guild prohibiting such conduct, and Guild subsequently lost nearly its entire Kirkland branch workforce to CrossCountry.After Guild initiated arbitration against the former employees and prevailed, it filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of San Diego County against CrossCountry. Guild’s claims included interference with economic advantage, interference with contract, violation of California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CCDAFA), unfair competition, and aiding and abetting tortious conduct. The Superior Court sustained CrossCountry’s demurrers, finding that the claims were preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) or otherwise failed to state a cause of action, and dismissed the case without leave to amend.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. It held that Guild had adequately alleged actionable duties of loyalty and, for the branch manager, fiduciary duty, that were breached by the employees and aided by CrossCountry. The court found that the claims for interference and violation of the CCDAFA were not displaced by CUTSA because they arose from conduct beyond trade secret misappropriation. The court also held that the unfair competition claim could proceed since the other claims were viable. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in favor of CrossCountry and remanded for further proceedings. View "Guild Mortgage Company v. CrossCounty Mortgage" on Justia Law

An individual who previously worked for a company left his employment in 2015, but in 2016 was invited by the company’s founder and sole owner to consider returning. Before rejoining, the individual drafted a one-page agreement that was signed by both himself and the owner. This document set out employment terms, including salary, vacation, and, crucially, a provision that he would receive a 10% ownership interest in the company after five years of employment, subject to certain conditions. These conditions included the individual’s own decision to accept the ownership, a review of the company’s finances after four years, and an arrangement for the purchase of the remaining ownership interest over a period of five to ten years. The agreement also contained language giving the individual considerable discretion over changes to its terms. The individual resumed employment in 2017 and was terminated in 2022, after more than five years with the company.After his termination, the individual filed suit in Guilford County Superior Court against the company for breach of contract and for a declaratory judgment. During discovery, the owner claimed he had signed the agreement only in his individual capacity, leading the individual to file a separate suit against the owner in Randolph County. Both suits were designated as mandatory complex business cases and were consolidated in the North Carolina Business Court. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the agreement was unenforceable. The Business Court granted summary judgment, finding the agreement was illusory because it gave the individual unlimited discretion over its terms. The individual appealed directly to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the relevant provision of the agreement was void for indefiniteness, not merely illusory. The Court determined that the ownership provision and its sub-provisions were inseparable and lacked essential terms, such as price and payment schedule, rendering enforcement impossible. The Court also rejected the individual's equitable arguments. The decision of the Business Court was modified and affirmed. View "Langley v. Autocraft, Inc" on Justia Law

A man who founded a nonprofit community radio station in Wyoming contributed substantial sums of money to the station over several years. He claimed these were loans intended to support the station’s operations and expected repayment. Although he discussed loan terms with the station’s board and referenced a loan at a board meeting, no written agreement was ever executed, and he did not follow through on drafting a loan contract. Despite the lack of formal documentation, the station’s tax filings, prepared with his assistance, listed the contributions as loans, but other board members were not aware of or had not approved these filings until after he withdrew a significant amount as “repayment” and subsequently left the station.The District Court of Teton County reviewed the claims after the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff alleged breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment, asserting that the station’s tax filings and board members’ awareness supported his claims. The district court found no evidence of a written or oral agreement approved by the board, determined that the statute of frauds barred the implied contract claim, and granted summary judgment to the defendant. The court also found the unjust enrichment claim was barred by the statute of frauds.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the district court’s judgment de novo. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling that the breach of implied contract claim was barred by the statute of frauds, as no definite or certain terms existed to remove the agreement from the statute’s requirements. However, the Supreme Court clarified that Wyoming law does not bar unjust enrichment claims by the statute of frauds. Nevertheless, it held that the plaintiff failed to show the station was reasonably notified that repayment was expected, as required for unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant. View "Tallichet v. Jackson Hole Community Radio, Inc." on Justia Law

Two siblings inherited a ranch and campground from their father. One sibling actively managed the properties, operated the business, and distributed annual payments to the other sibling based on her ownership share. Over time, the managing sibling purchased their mother’s interest, consulted an accountant who advised filing partnership tax returns, and continued to issue payments and tax forms to the other sibling. The siblings discussed formalizing their arrangement into business entities, but never completed operating agreements or transferred property. Later, they negotiated the sale of one sibling’s interest in the cattle herd, and a check was delivered, but not cashed. The non-managing sibling subsequently asserted that she had not agreed to the sale and claimed a partnership existed between them.The Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Lawrence County, South Dakota, held a bifurcated trial on the partnership and partition issues. After hearing testimony and reviewing evidence, it found that the siblings did not intend to jointly carry on a business for profit and had not formed a partnership under South Dakota law. It further determined that an enforceable agreement existed for the sale of the non-managing sibling’s interest in the cattle herd, despite her attempts to disavow the sale after the fact.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the circuit court’s factual findings for clear error and the legal conclusions de novo. It affirmed, holding that no partnership was formed because the siblings lacked the requisite intent and co-ownership control for a partnership under SDCL 48-7A-202. It also upheld the finding that an enforceable contract existed for the sale of the cattle interest. The Supreme Court’s disposition was to affirm the circuit court’s judgment in all respects. View "Sleep v. Steele" on Justia Law

This case involves two individuals who guaranteed loans for their business by executing promissory notes and trust deeds, which conveyed several real properties as security to a bank. After the business defaulted on the loans and entered bankruptcy, the bank sold both the business and the individuals’ properties through judicial foreclosure and trustee sales. The bank subsequently sought a deficiency judgment against the guarantors for the remaining debt, asserting that they owed over $3 million, while the guarantors argued that they should receive credit for the fair market value of the properties sold, in accordance with Nebraska’s antideficiency statute.The District Court for Johnson County granted summary judgment to the bank, finding the guarantors liable under their guarantees without credit for the property values. The court relied on a waiver provision in the guarantees, which stated that the guarantors waived any defense based on the bank not obtaining the fair market value of the collateral. The court also denied the guarantors’ motion for reconsideration or new trial, prompting the guarantors to appeal.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. It held that the antideficiency statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-1013, applies not only to borrowers but also to guarantors when their obligation is secured by a trust deed and a trustee sale occurs. The court determined that the waiver provision in the guarantees was unenforceable as a matter of public policy, given the legislative mandate of § 76-1013. Furthermore, the court found that evidence such as assessed values and appraisals raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the fair market value of the properties at the time of the trustee sales. The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "American Exch. Bank v. Topp" on Justia Law

A hedge fund manager, his personal attorney, and an expert in affordable housing formed a business complex to invest in affordable housing projects. The business was successful and expanded, with the expert, Blodgett, bringing in a new partner, Tatum, and building a tax credit investment arm. Blodgett and Tatum, believing they deserved more equity, devised plans either to restructure the company or to leave and start a competitor. During these efforts, Blodgett shared confidential information with family offices and advisors. When their restructuring plan was rejected, they moved toward departure. An attorney for the business, monitoring internal emails, discovered evidence that Blodgett was preparing to launch a new venture. Blodgett was terminated for cause, and his equity interests were purportedly canceled.Blodgett initiated arbitration, alleging breach of his employment agreement, while two affiliates of the business sued him in the Delaware Court of Chancery for breach of LLC agreements; Blodgett counterclaimed, asserting improper cancellation of his equity. The arbitrator found Blodgett breached his employment agreement’s confidentiality provisions but ruled that only his equity in pending deals could be canceled. Blodgett’s equity in non-pending deals remained protected, as the LLC agreements did not provide an independent right to cancel his interests.In the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, the court held that Blodgett was entitled to summary judgment. The court found that Blodgett’s conduct was in his capacity as an employee, governed by his employment agreement, not as a member under the LLC agreements. The court had previously granted summary judgment to Blodgett on the issue of improper equity cancellation and reaffirmed this, clarifying that the LLC agreements did not provide an independent basis for forfeiture. The court granted summary judgment for Blodgett and directed further proceedings on remedies for the improper cancellation of his equity in non-pending deals. View "Fairstead Capital Management LLC v. Blodgett" on Justia Law

The dispute arose from a stock purchase transaction in which RAC PPG Buyer LLC (the buyer) acquired all issued and outstanding shares of PPG Blocker, Inc. and its subsidiaries from PPG Holdco, LLC (the seller) under a Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA) dated August 15, 2024. The company at issue operated in contract food manufacturing and packaging. After closing, the buyer alleged that the seller had intentionally concealed significant labor and employee relations problems, including I-9 record deficiencies, union organizing activity, untimely wage payments, improper timekeeping practices, and unresolved sexual harassment complaints, all of which were not disclosed prior to the transaction.Following the closing, the buyer refused to pay the remaining purchase price and to release escrowed funds, citing alleged breaches of representations and warranties. The seller brought suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and the buyer counterclaimed, asserting fraud and breach of contract claims related to the SPA and the seller’s pre-closing conduct.Previously, the buyer filed counterclaims for breach of contract and fraud. The seller moved to dismiss these counterclaims and also sought judgment on the pleadings for its own claims. The Delaware Court of Chancery considered the SPA’s provisions, including anti-reliance clauses, non-survival clauses, and the definition of “Actual Fraud.” The court found that the breach of contract claim and the fraud claim related to the Pre-Closing Statement were barred by the SPA’s provisions. However, the fraud counterclaim based on misrepresentations and warranties within the SPA itself survived, because the buyer adequately alleged that the seller had actual knowledge of the company’s misrepresentations.The Delaware Court of Chancery held that the SPA barred breach of contract and extra-contractual fraud claims, but allowed the fraud claim based on intentional misrepresentation of contractual representations and warranties to proceed. The court denied judgment on the pleadings due to the surviving fraud claim, which sought rescission and created material factual disputes. The request for attorneys’ fees was also denied as premature. View "PPG Holdco, LLC v. RAC PPG Buyer LLC" on Justia Law

A group of branded gasoline retailers, known as the Old Jericho Plaintiffs, operated gas stations and accepted Visa and Mastercard payment cards during a specified period. Following a long-running federal antitrust class action alleging that Visa and Mastercard imposed unlawfully high interchange fees, a $5.6 billion settlement was reached in 2019 with a class defined as all entities accepting Visa- or Mastercard-branded cards in the United States from January 1, 2004, to January 24, 2019. The Old Jericho Plaintiffs did not opt out of this settlement. However, after the opt-out period ended, they filed a separate class action asserting state-law antitrust claims for damages based on the same alleged conduct, contending that their suppliers were the direct payors of the fees and thus should be the proper class members.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York determined that the Old Jericho Plaintiffs were members of the original settlement class and that the settlement agreement barred their new claims. The district court found the term “accepted” in the settlement ambiguous but, after reviewing extrinsic evidence—such as contracts and how transactions were conducted—concluded that the retailers themselves, not their suppliers, “accepted” payment cards within the meaning of the agreement.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that its prior decision in Fikes Wholesale, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. did not require class membership to be determined solely by identifying the “direct payor.” The court found no clear error in the district court’s factual determination that the Old Jericho Plaintiffs were intended to be class members. Additionally, it held that the claims brought by these plaintiffs were validly released in the settlement because they rested on the same factual predicate as the released claims and the plaintiffs had been adequately represented. View "In Re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation" on Justia Law

A manufacturer of specialized products for road construction and a supplier had a longstanding business relationship, with the supplier relying heavily on the manufacturer’s goods for government paving projects. In 2021, the manufacturer faced supply chain disruptions and increased material costs due to the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to missed deliveries and eventually an ultimatum: the supplier must accept significant price increases on existing contracts or the business relationship would end. The supplier rejected the increases, deemed the manufacturer in breach, and procured substitute products from other vendors at prevailing market rates, which were significantly higher than the manufacturer’s proposed increased prices.The Iowa District Court for Cedar County held a bench trial, finding that contracts existed and were breached by the manufacturer when it refused to honor the original prices. The court awarded damages to both parties for breaches but offset the sums, ultimately finding the supplier’s cover purchases reasonable under the circumstances. Both parties appealed. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s findings regarding contract formation, breach, and damages, including the reasonableness of the supplier’s cover purchases, but remanded for correction of prejudgment interest calculations.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed only the question of whether the supplier’s procurement of substitute goods constituted reasonable “cover” under Iowa Code section 554.2712, given the manufacturer’s post-breach offer to fill the orders at a higher price. The court held that a buyer is not obligated to accept a breaching seller’s new terms to mitigate damages and that “cover” does not require dealing with the breaching seller. Substantial evidence supported the lower court’s finding that the supplier’s cover purchases were reasonable, even though they cost more than the manufacturer’s increased prices. The district court’s judgment was affirmed in relevant part, except regarding double prejudgment interest, which was remanded for correction. View "CMT Highway, LLC v. Logan Contractors Supply, Inc." on Justia Law