Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Appellant Quadrant Structured Products Company appealed the Court of Chancery's dismissal of its complaint. Quadrant holds certain Notes issued by Athilon Capital Corp., an allegedly insolvent Delaware corporation. The Notes are long term obligations covered by two separate trust indentures that are governed by New York law. Defendants EBF & Associates, LP, Athilon Structured Investment Advisors ('ASIA'), an affiliated EBF entity, Athilon's board of directors, and Athilon itself, all which indirectly own 100% of Athilon's equity. The Court of Chancery granted defendants' motion to dismiss Quadrant's complaint on the ground that all claims alleged were barred for failure to comply with the 'no-action' clauses in the Athilon trust indentures. In both cases the cited by the Court of Chancery applied New York law, and held that those bondholder actions were barred by the no-action clauses of the respective trust indentures that governed the bonds at issue. Quadrant appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court. The Delaware Court remanded the case to the Court of Chancery with directions to analyze the significance under New York law (if any) of the differences between the wording of the no-action clauses at issue in the two cited cases and in this case. In its Report, the Court of Chancery held that: (i) 'the language of the Athilon no-action clause distinguishe[d] this case from [the two cited cases],' and (ii) the motion to dismiss should have been denied except as to two (and part of a third) of the ten Counts of the Quadrant complaint. After its re-review, the Delware Supreme Court concluded that the resolution of this case depended on dispositive and unsettled questions of New York law that, in its view, were properly answered in the first instance by the New York Court of Appeals. View "Quadrant Structured Products Co., Ltd. v. Vertin, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Bjorn Myklatun and his company, Plaintiff Oil Innovation, brought claims of tortious interference, fraud, and civil conspiracy against Chemical Equipment and Specialties, Inc. (CESI); its parent company, Flotek Industries; Flotek president Todd Sanner; and former Flotek CEO Jerry Dumas. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the claim of tortious interference and one of Plaintiffs’ two theories of fraud. A jury entered a verdict in favor of all Defendants on the civil conspiracy claim. The jury also found in favor of Sanner and Dumas on the narrowed claim of fraud, but it found for Plaintiffs on the fraud claim against CESI and Flotek. Plaintiffs appealed, also raising various evidentiary and other challenges relating to their damages on the fraud claim, and they contended the jury’s verdict on the civil conspiracy and fraud claims was facially inconsistent and required a new trial. Because the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the Court did not address those other arguments. View "Myklatun, et al v. Halliburton Energy Services, et al" on Justia Law

Sasafrasnet, an authorized distributor of BP products, provided Joseph with notice of its intent to terminate his franchise based on three occasions when Sasafrasnet attempted to debit Joseph’s bank account to pay for fuel deliveries but payment was denied for insufficient funds. The district court denied Joseph a preliminary injunction, finding that Joseph failed to meet his burden for a preliminary injunction under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act 15 U.S.C. 2805(b)(2)(A)(ii). After a remand, the district court found that two of Joseph’s NSFs should count as “failures” under the PMPA justifying termination, at least for purposes of showing that he was not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Joseph’s bank account was not adequately funded for the debit on two occasions because Joseph had decided to change banks, circumstances entirely within Joseph’s control. Given Joseph’s history of making late payments in substantial amounts because of insufficient funds (each was more than $22,000), the delinquent payments were not “technical” or “unimportant.” View "Joseph v. Sasafrasnet, LLC" on Justia Law

James Leach, IDA Marketing Corporation, and IDA of Moorhead Corporation appealed a judgment holding them jointly and severally liable to Reed Danuser for claims involving Danuser's termination as president and chief executive officer of the corporations and Leach's breach of a fiduciary duty to Danuser and requiring IDA Moorhead to pay Danuser for loans he made to IDA Moorhead. Upon careful analysis of the inter-company agreements and facts presented at the district court, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding: (1) James Leach was responsible for freezing out Danuser's interests in the corporations, which, as found by the court, involved more than just the wrongful termination of Danuser's employment; (2) Leach was not a party to a stock buy-sell agreement, and under the circumstances of this case as found by the district court involving the freeze out of Danuser's interests in the intertwined corporations, the court's determination of damages was not a misapplication of the law and was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable; (3) both James Leach and IDA Moorhead gained from James Leach's actions, which were attributable to the corporation. The district court decided James Leach had control of the corporations when he breached his fiduciary duties to Danuser. Therefore, the district court did not misapply the law in deciding James Leach and the corporations were jointly and severally liable for Danuser's damages and the court's decision was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. View "Danuser v. IDA Marketing Corp." on Justia Law

After Plaintiff obtained a judgment against Logs Unlimited, Inc., the corporation transferred its assets to Thomas Schramel, Schramel's daughter, and another corporation. Schramel was the sole shareholder, director, and officer of both corporations. Proceeds from the transfer were used to pay some of Logs Unlimited's creditors, but Plaintiff was not among the creditors paid. Plaintiffs sued Logs Unlimited, claiming that it had fraudulently transferred its assets. The circuit court set aside the transfer, concluding that Logs Unlimited fraudulently transferred its assets to prevent satisfaction of Plaintiff's judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, upon consideration of the relevant factors, the transfer was fraudulent under S.D. Codified Laws 54-8A-4(a)(1). View "Nielsen v. Logs Unlimited, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Mastercraft Floor Covering, filed a lawsuit against Charlotte Flooring (CFI), a North Carolina corporation, in Oklahoma. Mastercraft alleged that CFI had hired it to install carpet in a North Carolina casino, but that after the work was completed, CFI failed to pay for the labor, services, and materials. CFI entered a special entry of appearance to object to Oklahoma having jurisdiction to decide the cause because CFI lacked the requisite minimum contacts to be sued in the State of Oklahoma. The trial judge, determined that Mastercraft failed to prove that CFI had sufficient minimum contacts to permit Oklahoma to exercise jurisdiction over CFI without offending conventional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Mastercraft appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that because of the totality of contacts with the Oklahoma-based corporation, the trial court had personal jurisdiction. View "Mastercraft Floor Covering, Inc. v. Charlotte Flooring, Inc." on Justia Law

C.R. Weaver formed Mikart Transport, LLC in January 2011. At that time, the articles of organization named Weaver and Michael Smith as members or managers. In March 2011, Smith submitted a credit application with Tri-County Implement, Inc. After Smith failed to pay Tri-County for work it performed on two vehicles, including a Volvo semi-truck titled in Weaver's name, Tri-County refused to release the Volvo from its possession pursuant to its asserted agisters' lien on the vehicle. Weaver subsequently filed a complaint against Tri-County. In response, Tri-County filed a counterclaim against Weaver and a third-party complaint against Mikart. The district court entered judgment against Mikart, ordering it to pay for the work it performed, and awarded Tri-County attorney fees and costs. The court also held Mikart, Smith, and Weaver jointly and severally liable for these amounts. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the district court's imposition of personal liability on Weaver for the work performed on the two vehicles, as there was no basis to hold Weaver individually liable for the obligations of Mikart to Tri-County. Remanded. View "Tri-County Implement, Inc. v. Weaver" on Justia Law

Bank and Lumber Company had business and financial relationships with Sawmill. A few years into its operation, Sawmill began experiencing serious financial difficulties. Sawmill defaulted on approximately $1.4 million in loan obligations to Bank and owed Lumber Company approximately $900,000. Proceedings were initiated in bankruptcy court and district court. While the cases were pending, Sawmill was destroyed by fire. Bank recovered approximately $980,000 from Sawmill's insurance proceeds. In a subsequent case between Bank and Lumber Company, the jury determined that neither Bank nor Lumber Company was entitled to recover damages from the other. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit into evidence a particular letter written by the Bank president. View "H.E. Simpson Lumber Co. v. Three Rivers Bank of Mont." on Justia Law

A manufacturer or alcoholic beverages (InBev) sold all of its rights relating to a particular brand of alcoholic beverage to a successor manufacturer (Labatt Operating). Under the Ohio Alcoholic Beverages Franchise Act, when there is a transfer of ownership, the successor manufacturer may terminate any distributor's franchise without just cause by giving the distributor notice of termination within ninety days of the acquisition and compensating the terminated franchisee. Appellant in this case was the exclusive distributor of Labatt brand products in a ten-county area of Ohio under a franchise agreement with InBev. After the sale, Labatt Operating notified Appellant that it intended to terminate Appellant's franchise to distribute Labatt brand products and that it intended to compensate Appellant. Appellant sued. The trial court granted summary judgment for Appellant and ordered Labatt Operating to continue to distribute its Labatt products through Appellant. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Labatt's termination of Appellant's franchise met the statutory requirements of the Act, and therefore, the court of appeals erred in granting summary judgment to Appellant. View "Esber Beverage Co. v. Labatt USA Operating Co., LLC" on Justia Law

Gary Hopkins and Randal Burnett formed a LLC and financed the project with a small business administration (SBA) loan. Bank 1 loaned the remainder of the total project costs. Hopkins secured the SBA portion of the loan with third mortgages on his rental properties. Bank 2 subsequently acquired Bank 1. After Burnett bought Hopkins' membership in the LLC, Bank 2 released Hopkins from his loan. However, an agreement entered into by the parties did not mention the third mortgages on the property held by SBA. Burnett subsequently defaulted on his loan obligations, and Bank foreclosed on the mortgage covering the business property. Because Hopkins' third mortgages on his rental properties were not released by SBA, Hopkins was forced to continue to make the payments on the SBA loan. Hopkins and his wife (Plaintiffs) sued Bank 2, Burnett, and the LLC, arguing that, pursuant to the agreement, Bank 2 was supposed to remove Hopkins' liability and the mortgages held on his property. The district court granted summary judgment for Bank 2. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the terms of the contract between the parties were unambiguous, extrinsic evidence was not required to discern the parties' intent, and Bank 2 had abided by the terms of the contract. View "Hopkins v. Bank of the West" on Justia Law