Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Occidental Petroleum Corporation acquired Anadarko Petroleum Corporation in 2019, resulting in a trust holding a significant amount of Occidental stock. Wells Fargo, acting as trustee, agreed via email to sell the stock between January 6 and January 10, 2020. However, Wells Fargo failed to execute the sale until March 2020, by which time the stock's value had significantly decreased, causing a loss of over $30 million. Occidental sued Wells Fargo for breach of contract based on the email chain and the Trust Agreement.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Occidental, finding that Wells Fargo breached the Trust Agreement by failing to sell the stock as planned. The court also dismissed Wells Fargo’s counterclaim and affirmative defenses and awarded damages and attorney’s fees to Occidental.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the 2019 email chain did not constitute a contract due to lack of consideration. However, Wells Fargo was judicially estopped from arguing that the Trust Agreement was not a contract, as it had previously asserted that the relationship was contractual to dismiss Occidental’s fiduciary-duty claim. The court affirmed that Wells Fargo breached the Trust Agreement by failing to prudently manage the Trust’s assets.The Fifth Circuit also upheld the district court’s calculation of damages, rejecting Wells Fargo’s argument that reinvestment should have been considered. The court found that reinvestment was speculative and unsupported by the record. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of Wells Fargo’s counterclaim and affirmative defenses, as Wells Fargo failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact. Finally, the court upheld the award of attorney’s fees, finding no basis for segregating fees based on Wells Fargo’s different capacities. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Occidental Petroleum v. Wells Fargo" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Robert and Stephen Samuelian (the Samuelians) and Life Generations Healthcare, LLC (the Company), which they co-founded along with Thomas Olds, Jr. The Samuelians sold a portion of their interest in the Company, and the new operating agreement included a noncompetition provision. The Samuelians later challenged this provision in arbitration, arguing it was unenforceable under California law.The arbitrator found the noncompetition provision invalid per se under California Business and Professions Code section 16600, as it arose from the sale of a business interest. The arbitrator also ruled that the Samuelians did not owe fiduciary duties to the Company because they were members of a manager-managed limited liability company. The Company argued that the arbitrator had legally erred by applying the per se standard instead of the reasonableness standard. The trial court reviewed the arbitrator’s ruling de novo, found no error, and confirmed the award.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that the arbitrator had applied the wrong standard under section 16600. The court concluded that noncompetition agreements arising from the partial sale of a business interest should be evaluated under the reasonableness standard, not the per se standard. The court reasoned that a partial sale leaves the seller with some ongoing connection to the business, which could have procompetitive benefits. Therefore, such restraints require further scrutiny to determine their reasonableness.The court reversed the trial court’s judgment confirming the arbitration award and directed the trial court to enter an order denying the Samuelians’ petition to confirm the award and granting the Company’s motion to vacate the entire award, including the portion awarding attorney fees and costs. View "Samuelian v. Life Generations Healthcare, LLC" on Justia Law

A business dispute arose between M&M Creative Laminants, Inc. (M&M), a Pennsylvania company, and Cambria Company, LLC (Cambria), a Minnesota company. Cambria manufactures and sells quartz surface products, while M&M sells custom countertops and cabinetry. In 2009, the two companies entered into a business relationship where M&M would purchase finished quartz products from Cambria. In 2017, Cambria terminated the relationship, claiming M&M owed over $180,000 for delivered products. Cambria sued for the unpaid amount, and M&M counterclaimed under the Minnesota Franchise Act, alleging unfair termination practices.The district court granted summary judgment for Cambria on M&M’s counterclaim, ruling that M&M did not pay a franchise fee, a requirement under the Act to qualify as a franchise. The court noted that payments for goods at a bona fide wholesale price are excluded from the definition of a franchise fee. The court of appeals affirmed, agreeing that M&M did not pay a franchise fee and additionally concluded that M&M, being an out-of-state company, was precluded from bringing a claim under the Act.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the Minnesota Franchise Act does not categorically preclude an out-of-state company from enforcing a claim for unfair practices. However, the court agreed with the lower courts that M&M did not pay a franchise fee. The court found that M&M’s payments to Cambria for finished quartz products were at a bona fide wholesale price and did not include a hidden franchise fee. Therefore, the relationship between M&M and Cambria did not constitute a franchise under the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for Cambria. View "Cambria Company, LLC vs. M&M Creative Laminants, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the enforcement of a partnership agreement following the death of a partner. Mary Ann Caruso and her sons, Peter and John, formed a partnership in 1983 to operate Hays Land Company (HLC). After Mary Ann's death, Peter and John continued the business until John's death in 2003. John's wife, Geraldine, became the executrix of his estate. Peter did not exercise the buy-out provision in the partnership agreement after John's death, and he continued to operate HLC with Geraldine, who received 50% of the business proceeds.The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County initially granted summary judgment in favor of Sandra, Peter's daughter and executrix of his estate, ruling that the Dead Man’s Act precluded Geraldine from proving the partnership agreement's continued applicability. The Superior Court reversed, finding sufficient evidence that Peter and Geraldine intended to continue the partnership under the original agreement. On remand, the trial court ordered specific performance of the buy-out provision, which the Superior Court affirmed.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and concluded that Geraldine could not enforce the partnership agreement because she was neither an original party to the agreement nor a third-party beneficiary. The court found no evidence that Peter and Geraldine explicitly agreed to be bound by the original partnership agreement after John's death. The court emphasized that the formation of a new partnership between Peter and Geraldine did not automatically incorporate the terms of the original agreement. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's order, holding that Geraldine could not compel specific performance of the buy-out provision against Sandra. View "In Re: Estate of P. Caruso" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of preferred stockholders in Cedar Realty Trust, sued Cedar and its directors, alleging that a series of transactions culminating in Cedar's acquisition by Wheeler Properties devalued their preferred shares. Cedar delisted its common stock and paid common stockholders, but the preferred stock remained outstanding and its value dropped significantly. Plaintiffs claimed Cedar and its directors breached contractual and fiduciary duties by structuring the transactions to deprive them of their preferential rights. They also alleged Wheeler tortiously interfered with their contractual rights and aided Cedar's breach of fiduciary duties.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the complaint. It found that the transactions did not trigger the preferred stockholders' conversion rights under the Articles Supplementary because Wheeler's stock remained publicly traded. The court also ruled that Maryland law does not recognize an independent cause of action for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Additionally, the court held that the fiduciary duty claims were duplicative of the breach of contract claims, as the rights of preferred stockholders are defined by contract. Consequently, the claims against Wheeler failed because they depended on the existence of underlying breaches of contract and fiduciary duty.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. It held that the transactions did not constitute a "Change of Control" under the Articles Supplementary, as Wheeler's stock remained publicly traded. The court also agreed that Maryland law does not support an independent claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Furthermore, the court found that the fiduciary duty claims were properly dismissed because the directors' duties to preferred stockholders are limited to the contractual terms. Finally, the claims against Wheeler were dismissed due to the absence of underlying breaches by Cedar and its directors. View "Kim v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2018, John Burns and Rajeev Arora, representing Moca Financial Inc., engaged in discussions with Manoj Baheti, represented by Yash Venture Holdings, LLC, about a potential investment. The alleged agreement was that Yash would provide $600,000 worth of software development in exchange for a 15% non-dilutable ownership interest in Moca. However, subsequent documents and communications indicated ongoing negotiations and changes in terms, including a reduction of Yash's proposed stake and a shift from software development to a cash investment. Yash eventually refused to sign the final documents, leading to the current litigation.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed most of Yash's claims, including breach of contract, fraud, and securities fraud, but allowed the equitable estoppel and copyright infringement claims to proceed. Yash later voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims, and the district court entered final judgment, prompting Yash to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that Yash did not adequately allege the existence of an enforceable contract, as there was no meeting of the minds on the material term of whether the ownership interest was non-dilutable. Consequently, the breach of contract claim failed. Similarly, the promissory estoppel claim failed due to the lack of an unambiguous promise. The fraud and securities fraud claims were also dismissed because they relied on the existence of a non-dilutable ownership interest, which was not sufficiently alleged. Lastly, the breach of fiduciary duty claims failed as there was no enforceable stock subscription agreement to establish a fiduciary duty. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Yash Venture Holdings, LLC v. Moca Financial, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2019, Ancor Holdings, L.P. (Ancor) and Landon Capital Partners, L.L.C. (Landon) entered into letters of intent to invest in and acquire a majority interest in ICON EV, L.L.C. (ICON). The deal fell through, and Landon and ICON entered into their own agreement. Ancor sued Landon and ICON for breach of contract and tortious interference, respectively. The trial court dismissed Ancor’s tortious interference claim against ICON as a matter of law and denied Ancor’s declaratory judgment claim. The jury found for Ancor on the breach of contract claim against Landon, awarding $2,112,542 in damages.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas initially handled the case. The trial court dismissed Ancor’s tortious interference claim against ICON and denied Ancor’s declaratory judgment claim. The jury found Landon breached the contract and awarded Ancor damages. Ancor appealed the dismissal of its claims, and Landon cross-appealed the jury’s verdict.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Ancor’s declaratory judgment and tortious interference claims, remanding them for a jury trial. The appellate court affirmed the jury’s finding that Landon breached the contract but reversed the trial court’s judgment on the reimbursement amount, instructing it to determine 80% of all third-party costs incurred. The court held that Ancor was entitled to a jury trial on its declaratory judgment claim and that sufficient evidence supported the tortious interference claim against ICON. The court also found that the trial court did not err in submitting the breach of contract claim to the jury, nor did the jury err in its findings. View "Ancor Holdings, L.P. v. Landon Capital Partners, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Radiance Capital Receivables Twelve, LLC ("Radiance") appealed a judgment from the Henry Circuit Court in favor of Bondy's Ford, Inc. ("Bondy's"). Radiance had garnished the wages of David Sherrill, who worked for Bondy's. Bondy's stopped paying on the garnishment, claiming Sherrill had left its employment, but continued to pay for Sherrill's services through a company created by Sherrill's wife. Radiance argued that Bondy's should still comply with the garnishment by withdrawing funds owed for Sherrill's services.The Henry Circuit Court had initially entered a garnishment judgment in favor of SE Property Holdings, LLC, which was later substituted by Radiance. Bondy's reported Sherrill's employment termination in September 2019, two months after the required notice period. Radiance filed a motion for judgment against Bondy's, arguing that Sherrill continued to provide services to Bondy's through his wife's company, KDS Aero Services, LLC. Bondy's responded with a motion to dismiss, claiming Sherrill was an independent contractor. The trial court granted Bondy's motion to dismiss and denied Radiance's motion.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case de novo. The court found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Bondy's payments to KDS Aero Services were actually owed to Sherrill. The lack of a contract or invoices between Bondy's and KDS Aero Services, coupled with inconsistencies in Sherrill's representations about his employment and residence, suggested potential fraud or misuse of corporate form to hide funds. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing that neither party had met the burden for summary judgment. View "Radiance Capital Receivables Twelve, LLC v. Bondy's Ford, Inc." on Justia Law

Michael R. Rattagan, an Argentinian lawyer, was retained by Uber Technologies, Inc. through its Dutch subsidiaries to assist with launching Uber's ridesharing platform in Argentina. Rattagan also agreed to act as the Dutch subsidiaries' legal representative in Argentina, a role that exposed him to personal liability under Argentinian law. Despite warnings about potential personal exposure, Uber allegedly concealed its plans to launch the platform in Buenos Aires, which led to significant legal and reputational harm to Rattagan when the launch was deemed illegal by local authorities.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Rattagan’s third amended complaint without leave to amend, ruling that his fraudulent concealment claims were barred by the economic loss rule as interpreted in Robinson Helicopter v. Dana Corp. The court concluded that Robinson provided only a narrow exception to the economic loss rule, which did not apply to Rattagan’s claims of fraudulent concealment. The court also found that Rattagan’s negligence and implied covenant claims were time-barred.The Supreme Court of California, upon request from the Ninth Circuit, addressed whether a plaintiff may assert a tort claim for fraudulent concealment arising from or related to the performance of a contract under California law. The court held that a plaintiff may assert such a claim if the elements of the claim can be established independently of the parties’ contractual rights and obligations, and if the tortious conduct exposes the plaintiff to a risk of harm beyond the reasonable contemplation of the parties when they entered into the contract. The court clarified that the economic loss rule does not bar tort recovery for fraudulent concealment in these circumstances. View "Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

Wilfred L. Doll and Cheri L. Doll (Dolls) were members of Little Big Warm Ranch, LLC (LBWR), a business formed to manage water rights in Phillips County. Dolls negotiated a settlement with Finch/Dements for senior water rights, which devalued LBWR’s property. LBWR members consented to the settlement on the day they closed on the Finch/Dement property. Dolls later filed a complaint seeking dissolution of LBWR or a buy-out of their shares. LBWR amended its operating agreement to expel adverse members and seek attorney fees and costs, excluding Dolls from the meeting where these amendments were ratified.The Seventeenth Judicial District Court, Phillips County, ruled that Dolls dissociated from LBWR on February 2, 2018, when they filed their complaint. The court also granted LBWR summary judgment on its counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duties and the obligation of good faith and fair dealing, applying the eight-year statute of limitation for contracts. A jury awarded LBWR $2.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The District Court ordered Dolls to pay LBWR with 11.25% interest and LBWR to pay Dolls $434,000 per share with 7.5% interest.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s ruling that Dolls dissociated on February 2, 2018, and upheld the calculation of Dolls’ distributional interest. The court determined that the eight-year statute of limitation for contracts applied to LBWR’s counterclaims, as the fiduciary duties arose from the operating agreement. However, the court found that punitive damages were improper because they are not allowed in breach of contract actions under Montana law. The case was remanded to the District Court to modify its judgment to exclude punitive damages. View "Doll v. Little Big Warm Ranch, LLC" on Justia Law