Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Yellow Corporation, a major trucking company, ceased operations and filed for bankruptcy in 2023. As a result, it withdrew from several multiemployer pension plans, triggering withdrawal liability—an amount owed to the pension plans to cover unfunded vested benefits for employees. The pension plans, which had received substantial federal funds under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) to stabilize their finances, filed claims against Yellow’s bankruptcy estate for withdrawal liability. The dispute centered on how much of the ARPA funds should be counted as plan assets when calculating Yellow’s liability, as well as whether certain contractual terms could require Yellow to pay a higher withdrawal liability than statutory minimums.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware reviewed the claims. It upheld two regulations issued by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC): the Phase-In Regulation, which requires ARPA funds to be counted as plan assets gradually over time, and the No-Receivables Regulation, which bars plans from counting ARPA funds as assets before they are actually received. The Bankruptcy Court found these regulations to be valid exercises of PBGC’s authority and not arbitrary or capricious. It also ruled that two pension plans could enforce a contractual provision requiring Yellow to pay withdrawal liability at a higher, agreed-upon rate, rather than the rate based solely on its actual contributions.On direct appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s order. The Third Circuit held that the PBGC’s regulations were valid under ARPA and ERISA, as Congress had expressly delegated authority to the PBGC to set reasonable conditions on the allocation of plan assets and withdrawal liability. The court also held that pension plans could enforce contractual terms requiring higher withdrawal liability, as the statutory scheme sets a floor, not a ceiling, for such liability. View "In re: Yellow Corporation" on Justia Law

Two business compliance companies entered into a partnership to develop a software product, with one company providing “white-label” services to the other. The partnership was formalized in a written agreement, but disputes arose over performance, payment for out-of-scope work, and the functionality of the software integration. As the relationship deteriorated, the company that had sought the services began developing its own infrastructure, ultimately terminating the partnership and launching a competing product. The service provider alleged that its trade secrets and proprietary information were misappropriated in the process.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania presided over a jury trial in which the service provider brought claims for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation under both state and federal law, and unfair competition. The jury found in favor of the service provider, awarding compensatory and punitive damages across the claims. The jury specifically found that six of eight alleged trade secrets were misappropriated. The defendant company filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and remittitur, arguing insufficient evidence, improper expert testimony, and duplicative damages. The District Court denied these motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s rulings. The Third Circuit held that the defendant had forfeited its argument regarding the protectability of the trade secrets by not raising it with sufficient specificity at trial, and thus assumed protectability for purposes of appeal. The court found sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding of misappropriation by use, and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The court also found no reversible error in the admission of expert testimony. However, the Third Circuit determined that the damages awarded for trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition were duplicative, and conditionally remanded for remittitur of $11,068,044, allowing the plaintiff to accept the reduced award or seek a new trial on damages. View "Harbor Business Compliance Corp v. Firstbase IO Inc" on Justia Law

Two employees of a debt-collection firm, one of whom was out sick with COVID-19, collaborated to resolve an urgent licensing issue for their employer. The employee at home, unable to access her work computer, asked her colleague to log in using her credentials and retrieve a spreadsheet containing passwords for various company systems. The colleague, with express permission, accessed the computer and emailed the spreadsheet to the employee’s personal and work email accounts. Both actions violated the employer’s internal computer-use policies. Separately, the employee at home had, over several years, moved accounts into her workgroup to receive performance bonuses, believing she was eligible for them. Both employees also alleged persistent sexual harassment at work, which led to internal complaints, one employee’s resignation, and the other’s termination.After these events, the employer, National Recovery Agency (NRA), sued both employees in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), federal and state trade secrets laws, civil conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud. The employees counterclaimed for sexual harassment and related employment claims. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court entered judgment for the employees on all claims brought by NRA, finding no violations of the CFAA or trade secrets laws, and stayed the employees’ harassment claims pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the District Court’s judgment in full. The Third Circuit held, first, that the CFAA does not criminalize violations of workplace computer-use policies by employees with authorized access, absent evidence of hacking or code-based circumvention. Second, it held that passwords protecting proprietary business information do not, by themselves, constitute trade secrets under federal or Pennsylvania law. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the state-law tort claims. View "NRA Group LLC v. Durenleau" on Justia Law

GRC, a manufacturer and supplier of refractory products designed to retain strength when exposed to extreme heat, previously included asbestos in its products. GRC was the defendant in 31,440 lawsuits alleging injuries from “exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold, and distributed by GRC” dating back to 1978. GRC’s insurers initially fielded these claims. During the 1970s and ‘80s, GRC had entered into primary liability insurance policies with several different insurers. GRC also secured additional excess insurance policies. In 1994 GRC’s liabilities from thousands of settled claims far exceeded the limits of its primary insurance coverage. In 2002, after years of continued settlements, GRC tendered the underlying claims to its excess insurance carriers. All denied coverage on the basis of a policy exclusion: It is agreed that this policy does not apply to EXCESS NET LOSS arising out of asbestos, including but not limited to bodily injury arising out of asbestosis or related diseases or to property damage. The district court ruled in favor of GRC. The Third Circuit reversed. The phrase “arising out of,” when used in a Pennsylvania insurance exclusion, unambiguously requires “but for” causation. The losses relating to the underlying asbestos suits would not have occurred but for asbestos, raw or within finished products. View "General Refractories Co. v. First State Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In bidding to strip and repaint the Commodore Barry Bridge, the Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA) rejected the lowest bidder, Alpha, as not a “responsible” contractor under its guidelines because Alpha failed to remit accident experience forms (OSHA 300) and insurance data (Experience Modification Factors) in its bid package. DRPA also declared that Corcon was actually the lowest bidder because of a “miscalculation” that DRPA perceived in Corcon’s bid. DRPA awarded the contract to Corcon. After its bid protest was denied, Alpha filed suit, seeking an injunction. The district court held a trial, concluded that DRPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and directed DRPA to award the contract to Alpha. The Third Circuit agreed that DRPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously, but concluded that the court abused its discretion by directing that the contract be awarded to Alpha. DRPA did not establish a rational basis under its policies for labeling Alpha “not responsible” and ”the decision to modify Corcon’s bid appeared out of thin air.” DRPA’s Board of Commissioners gave virtually no attention to Alpha’s protest. Alpha should be restored to competition; DRPA should evaluate Alpha’s bid and affirmatively determine, per its guidelines, whether Alpha, the lowest bidder, is a “responsible” contractor. View "Alpha Painting & Construction Co., Inc. v. Delaware River Port Authority" on Justia Law

In New Jersey, GTL is the sole provider of telecommunications services that enable inmates to call approved persons outside the prisons. Users can open an account through GTL’s website or through an automated telephone service with an interactive voice-response system. Website users see GTL’s terms of use and must click “Accept” to complete the process. Telephone users receive an audio notice: Please note that your account, and any transactions you complete . . . are governed by the terms of use and the privacy statement posted at www.offenderconnect.com.” Telephone users are not required to indicate their assent to those terms, which contain an arbitration agreement and a class-action waiver. Users have 30 days to opt out of those provisions. The terms state that using the telephone service or clicking “Accept” constitutes acceptance of the terms; users have 30 days to cancel their accounts if they do not agree to the terms. Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that GTL’s charges were unconscionable and violated the state Consumer Fraud Act, the Federal Communications Act, and the Takings Clause. GTL argued that the FCC had primary jurisdiction. Plaintiffs withdrew their FCA claims. GTL moved to compel arbitration. The district court denied GTL’s motion with respect to plaintiffs who opened accounts by telephone, finding “neither the knowledge nor intent necessary to provide ‘unqualified acceptance.’” The Third Circuit affirmed. The telephone plaintiffs did not agree to arbitration. View "James v. Global TelLink Corp." on Justia Law

In August 2012, Aliments, a Canadian snack purveyor, contacted its American broker, Sterling, to purchase thousands of pounds of raw pistachios. Sterling contacted Pacific, another broker, which called Nichols, a California pistachio grower, who agreed to the proposed quantity and price. In September, Sterling contacted Pacific with another order from Aliments. Pacific contracted with Nichols again. Sterling sent sales confirmations to Aliments and Pacific. Pacific did not forward the Sterling sales confirmations to Nichols but issued its own confirmations to Nichols and Sterling. Neither Aliments nor Nichols was aware that two confirmations existed, with the same terms, including a 30-day credit term. However, while Sterling’s confirmations contained arbitration clauses, not all of the confirmations generated by Pacific contained arbitration clauses. Aliments believed that the Sterling confirmations, though unsigned by either party, represented binding contracts to purchase pistachios from Nichols, with payment due 30 days from delivery, “as usual.” Nichols thought that the 30-day term was but a placeholder. The parties were unable to agree to payment terms. Despite being notified of an arbitration, Nichols did not attend. Aliments was awarded $222,100 in damages. Nichols refused to pay. The district court denied Aliments’ petition to enforce the award and granted Nichols’s cross-petition to vacate because no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the parties failed to enter into “an express unequivocal agreement” to arbitrate. The Third Circuit vacated, finding multiple issues of fact. View "Aliments Krispy Kernels Inc v. Nichols Farms" on Justia Law

In 2010, EFIH borrowed $4 billion at a 10% interest rate, issuing notes secured by its assets; the Indenture states that EFIH may redeem the notes for the principal amount plus a “make-whole premium” and accrued, unpaid interest. It contains an acceleration provision that makes “all outstanding Notes . . . due and payable immediately” if EFIH files for bankruptcy. Interest rates dropped. Refinancing outside of bankruptcy would have required EFIH to pay the make-whole premium. EFIH disclosed to the Securities and Exchange Commission a “proposal [whereby] . . . EFIH would file for bankruptcy and refinance the notes without paying any make-whole amount.” EFIH later filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions, seeking leave to borrow funds to pay off the notes and to offer a settlement to note-holders who agreed to waive the make-whole. The Trustee sought a declaration that refinancing would trigger the make-whole premium and that it could rescind the acceleration without violating the automatic stay. The Bankruptcy Court granted EFIH’s motion to refinance. EFIH paid off the notes and refinanced at a much lower interest rate; the make-whole would have been approximately $431 million. The Bankruptcy Court and district court concluded that no make-whole premium was due and that the noteholders could not rescind acceleration. The Third Circuit reversed. The premium, meant to give the lenders the interest yield they expect, does not fall away because the full principal amount becomes due and the noteholders are barred from rescinding acceleration of debt. View "In re: Energy Future Holdings Corp." on Justia Law

In 2008, the workers’ compensation insurance policy for South Jersey (SJ), a trash-removal business, neared expiration, SJ, through its insurance agent, entered into a three-year Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA) with Applied Underwriters. The RPA stated that any disputes would be arbitrated in Tortola or in an agreed location and indicated that it would be governed by Nebraska law. The RPA and its attachments total 10 pages. SJ claims that it believed the RPA was a workers’ compensation insurance policy; that Applied fraudulently presented it as such; that the RPA is actually a retrospective rating insurance policy under which premiums would be based on claims paid during the previous period; and that it was promised possible huge rebates. SJ acknowledged that Applied is not an insurer and cannot issue workers’ compensation insurance. Applied represented that SJ purchased a primary workers’ compensation policy from Continental, which entered into a pooling agreement with California; all are Berskshire Hathaway companies. The pooling agreement was a reinsurance treaty. According to Applied, the RPA was not insurance, but an investment instrument. For 34 months, SJ paid monthly premiums of $40,000-$50,000, expecting a rebate. Claims paid on its behalf were $355,000 over three years. After the RPA expired, Applied declared that SJ owed $300,632.94. SJ did not pay. Applied filed a demand for arbitration. SJ sought declaratory relief as to the arbitration provision and rescission of the RPA. The district court denied the motion to compel arbitration. The Third Circuit reversed. SJ’s challenges to the arbitration agreement apply to the contract as a whole, rather than to the arbitration agreement alone; the parties’ dispute is arbitrable. View "South Jersey Sanitation Co., Inc v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Jani-King, the world’s largest commercial cleaning franchisor, classifies its franchisees as independent contractors. Its cleaning contracts are between Jani-King and the customer; the franchisee is not a party, but may elect to provide or not provide services under a contract. Jani-King exercises a significant amount of control over how franchisees operate and controls billing and accounting. Two Jani-King franchisees assert that they are misclassified and should be treated as employees. On behalf of a class of Jani-King franchisees in the Philadelphia area (approximately 300 franchisees), they sought unpaid wages under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL), 43 Pa. Stat. 260.1–260.12. The Third Circuit affirmed certification of the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). The misclassification claim can be made on a class-wide basis through common evidence, primarily the franchise agreement and manuals. Under Pennsylvania law, no special treatment is accorded to the franchise relationship. A franchisee may be an employee or an independent contractor depending on the nature of the franchise system controls. View "Williams v. Jani-King of Philadelphia Inc" on Justia Law