Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff sued defendant asserting claims of breach of contract and various business torts in connection with defendant's alleged wrongful termination of plaintiff's employment affiliation with defendant. Plaintiff appealed from summary judgment in favor of defendant on one of its counterclaims against plaintiff for nonrepayment of the outstanding balance of a loan for which he had given a promissory note. The court held that the district court's order of summary judgment was inappropriate and dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction where the determination that the promissory note was independent of the promises made by defendant in the Affiliation Agreements would involve consideration of defendant's promises underlying plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and wrongful termination and of the relationships among those promises. Therefore, the court would be required to consider many of the same issues that would need to be considered in any appeal from a final judgment adjudicating plaintiff's claims.

Plaintiffs claimed they were fraudulently induced to sell their ownership interests in a company they co-owned with one of the defendants, and fraudulently induced to release defendants from claims arising out of that ownership. At issue was whether the appellate court erred in finding that plaintiffs' claims were barred by the general release they granted defendants in connection with the sale of their interest. The court held that the release was intended to bar the very claims that plaintiffs have brought and that plaintiffs failed to allege that the release was induced by any fraud beyond that contemplated in the release. The court also held that the fraudulent statements plaintiffs point to could not support a conclusion that the release was fraudulently induced, since plaintiffs alleged that they released defendants from claims relating to the sale of their Telmex Wireless Ecuador LLC units without conducting minimal diligence to determine the true value of what they were selling. The court further held that the appellate division majority was therefore correct in concluding that, fully crediting plaintiffs' allegations, they would not be able to prevail as a matter of law. Accordingly, the order of the appellate division was affirmed.

Petitioner Timothy Gognat appealed an appellate court's decision that awarded summary judgment to Respondent Chet Ellsworth, Steven Smith and MSD Energy, Inc. In his suit, Mr. Gognat alleged that Respondents misappropriated certain trade secrets he disclosed to them. In the late 1990s, Mr. Gognat developed information relating to "probable" oil and natural gas reserves in the Western Kentucky Area. This information included technical, geographical, geological and business maps, charts, plans, interpretations, calculations, summaries, and other documents. Mr. Gognat shared this information with Mr. Ellsworth, and the two created a joint venture, MSD Energy, to eventually develop the reserves. Mr. Gognat maintained that Respondents misappropriated the trade secrets in the documents by acquiring leases in Western Kentucky without adequately compensating him pursuant to the joint venture. The district court found that the statute of limitations barred Mr. Gognat's claim, and the appellate court affirmed that decision. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Mr. Gognat argued that his claim against Respondents was premised solely on activities dating from 2005. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision. The Court found that the undisputed facts demonstrated that all of the proprietary information alleged to have been misappropriated constituted a single trade secret and this was known to Mr. Gognat more than three years prior to filing his complaint. Therefore, Mr. Gognat's claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

This matter involved a stockholder challenge to a merger in which a third-party strategic aquiror had agreed to merge with the target corporation for consideration valued at $35 per share. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction and requested that the court delay the target's stockholder vote and enjoin the deal protections for a period of 45-60 days so as to allow the target to seek higher bids. The court first addressed the issue of whether and in what circumstances Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc. applied when merger consideration was split roughly evenly between cash and stock. Based on its analysis, the court held that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their argument that the approximately 50% cash and 50% stock consideration triggered Revlon. Therefore, when the board explored whether to enter into the proposed transaction, which warranted review under Revlon, its fiduciary duties required it to obtain the best value reasonably available to Smurfit-Stone stockholders. The court held, however, that plaintiffs failed to carry their burden to prove they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, would suffer imminent irreparable harm in injunctive relief was not granted, and were favored by the equities. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction was denied.

Plaintiff filed a suit against defendant alleging claims of wrongful termination ("Count I"), trade disparagement ("Count II"), breach of contract for failure to negotiate in good faith ("Count III"), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing ("Count IV"), and fraud ("Count V") arising out of a Creative Services Agreement ("Agreement") entered into between the parties. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed the five counts asserted by plaintiff's complaint with prejudice and granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Count III against defendant for failure to negotiate in good faith an alleged agreement to develop and launch a Todd Oldham branded line of merchandise to be sold exclusively at defendant's stores where plaintiff alleged three plausible bases for the claim. The court also held that the district court erred in dismissing Count I for declaratory judgment that defendant wrongfully terminated the parties' Agreement, by failing to give notice of plaintiff's alleged breaches and 30 days' opportunity to cure, under which plaintiff's principal, Todd Oldham, was to provide design services to defendant. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the trade disparagement, common law fraud, and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

In 1992, Appellant Wendell Baugh, III acquired Precision Services, Inc. from Ronald and Gayla Miller. The Millers agreed to finance the transaction. Mr. Baugh and his wife personally guaranteed a note executed by the corporation that purchased Precision's assets and the right to use its name. Appellee Herman Novak and his wife were friends and neighbors of the Baughs. In 1995, Messrs. Baugh and Novak bought a company together (Penske Plastics, Inc.), and by contract, were jointly and severally liable for the company's debts and obligations. Both gentlemen agreed to share equally in the company's profits. Mr. Baugh offered to sell one-half of Precision to Mr. Novak. Before he could sell any interest in Precision, Mr. Baugh had to obtain permission from the Millers. Because Mr. Baugh found the Millers difficult to deal with, he asked his attorney to draft an arrangement so that Mr. Novak could purchase an interest in Precision without the Millers' involvement. The document drafted by the attorney included an indemnity agreement by which the Novaks would agree to indemnify the Baughs for fifty percent of any payments they were required to make on the Millers' note and Precision's other debts. Mr. Baugh kept an office at Penske Plastics. Fire destroyed Penske's building in 2003. Of import, a banker-box that contained the original signed copies of the Baugh-Novak 1995 purchase agreement was consumed in the fire. The companies' insurance policies were not enough to cover all the damage caused by the fire. In 2005, Messrs. Baugh and Novak sold Penske Plastics to Alcan Baltec. Up until the time of the closing, Precision's loan obligations were paid from the revenue of Penske Plastics. In late 2005, Mr. Novak sent Mr. Baugh a note essentially "washing his hands" of Precision. In 2006, Mr. Baugh began paying Precision's obligation to the Millers from his personal funds. Mr. Baugh filed suit against the Novaks to enforce the terms of the 1995 agreement, arguing that he was entitled to indemnification and reimbursement for Precision's obligations. The trial court ruled in favor of Mr. Baugh. Mr. Novak appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in several of its evidentiary rulings at trial. The appellate court, on its own motion, reversed the trial court, holding that the purchase agreement and indemnity agreements were contrary to public policy and state law. The Supreme Court found that the evidence did not support the appellate court's holding. The Court reinstated the trial court's decision, and dismissed the Novak's appeal.

Plaintiff makes glucose monitors and other diabetes-related products that incorporate software written by defendant, under a contract that entitles it to use the software for two years after the contractâs initial term, 2006-2010, and any extension. It also gives plaintiff a right of first refusal should defendant agree to sell its stock or assets to one of plaintiffâs competitors "during the term of this Agreement." Defendant would not extend the contract after the original expiration date. Plaintiff learned that investors in defendant were negotiating to sell stock to a company that plaintiff considers a competitor. Defendant asserted that, because the transaction would not close until 2011, the right of first refusal did not apply. Plaintiff sought an injunction pending arbitration. Based on concerns about irreparable harm to each party, the district court entered an injunction to allow the sale to proceed, subject to a requirement that plaintiff be allowed to use the software through 2012; the injunction expires when the arbitrator renders a decision. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, modifying to add conditions to ensure that defendant remains a separate firm so that the transaction can be undone if the arbitrator rules in plaintiffâs favor.

Appellant Walnut Street Associates (WSA) provides insurance brokerage services and helps employers obtain health insurance for their employees. Appellee Brokerage Concepts, Inc. (BCI) is a third party administrator of employee benefit plans. Procacci retained BCI as administrator of its insurance plans, and BCI paid commissions to WSA based on premiums paid by Procacci. In 2005, Procacci requested BCI reduce its costs, but BCI would not meet Procacciâs proposal. Procacci then notified BCI that it would take its business elsewhere. BCI asked Procacci to reconsider, and in the process, disclosed to Procacci how much it paid to WSA as its broker. The amount was higher than Procacci believed WSA had been earning, but there was no dispute that BCIâs statements about WSAâs compensation were true. As a result of BCIâs letter, Procacci terminated its contract with WSA. WSA sued BCI alleging that BCI tortiously interfered with the WSA/Procacci contract by disclosing the amount of WSAâs compensation. BCI argued that it could not be liable for tortious interference because what it said was true, or otherwise justified and privileged. At trial, the jury found that BCI did interfere in the WSA/Procacci contract. BCI appealed, and the appellate court reversed the trial courtâs judgment. The appellate court adopted a section of the Restatement of Torts, which said that truth is a defense to a claim of tortious interference. WSA maintained that the Restatement was not applicable according to Pennsylvania law. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and adopted the Restatement defense that truth is a defense to claims of tortious interference with contractual relations. The Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court.

This appeal challenged the small employer group health coverage act (Act), which establishes requirements for insurance carriers to offer health insurance benefit plans to small employers in Michigan. Priority Health sought a declaratory judgment from the Office of Financial and Insurance Services (OFIS) so that it could allocate a small portion of insurance premiumsâ costs to employers, lessening the financial burden on employees. Priority Health would not renew contracts with employers who did not agree to pay a portion of the premiums. Both the Court of Appeals and the Commissioner of the Office of Financial and Insurance Services (OFIS) concluded that âminimum employer contribution provisionsâ are inconsistent with the Act. They reasoned that an employerâs failure to pay a minimum percentage of its employeesâ premiums is not among the reasons in the Act that a carrier can use to refuse to renew an insurance plan. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court and OFISâ interpretation of the Act. The Court found that just because the Michigan Legislature did not include an employerâs refusal to pay according to a minimum contribution provision as among the reasons for not renewing a contract for benefits, the [Priority Health] provision was unreasonable or inconsistent with the Act. In general, âunless a provision directly conflicts with the enumerated reasons [of the Act], it may be included in a plan so long as it is reasonable and not inconsistent.â The Court remanded the case to the OFIS for further proceedings.

Appellant Kim Crockett appealed the circuit courtâs order in favor of Appellee C.A.G. Investments, Inc. (CAG). CAG was created as an investment vehicle to provide funds to Omni Holding and Development Corporation (Omni). Omni operated a crop-dusting and farm-equipment export business. CAG purchased equipment and land for Omniâs operations and a house for Omniâs manager. Ms. Crockett became Omniâs sole stockholder, president and chairman of the board in 2005. CAG made a series of loans to Omni. The loans were secured by the property Omni used in the businessâ operation, and by the house in which Ms. Crockett lived. In late summer 2003, Omni suffered numerous financial difficulties, resulting in the deterioration of the business relationship between the management of CAG and Omni. While Omni contemplated filing for bankruptcy protection, CAG sought to recover the collateral pledged for the loans it had made to Omni. CAG asked Omni to remove all personal property Omni owned from the premises, and demanded to take possession of the real property. Omni refused to comply, and CAG sued for possession, believing the property to be unlawfully detained. The circuit court entered an order against Omni for unlawful detainer, and found that CAG was entitled to a writ of possession. Omni did not vacate the premises, and appealed the circuit courtâs order. The appellate court dismissed Omniâs appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the circuit and appellate courts.