Justia Corporate Compliance Opinion Summaries

This action involved claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary against an individual defendant, a former investment professional accused of having committed a massive fraud related to a quantitatively-based trading program that he allegedly developed to trade futures contracts. Plaintiffs, as a result of their association with defendant and Paron, the firm they founded with defendant, claimed that they have been stigmatized and thus face dismal prospects of finding employment in the financial services industry. The court found that defendant committed fraud and breached his fiduciary duties to plaintiff and Paron by making false statements of fact about his program, his investment track record, and his personal financial situation. As a result, plaintiffs were entitled to extensive damages against defendant based on their lost future earnings and other costs associated with the formation and operation of Paron. The court also awarded plaintiffs limited injunctive relief requiring defendant to destroy or return copies of Paron's trading program and to stop marketing any versions of that trading program.View "Paron Capital Mgmt., LLC, et al. v. Crombie" on Justia Law

Entities affiliated with ASB sued to reform the capital-event waterfall provisions in a series of agreements governing real estate joint ventures managed by affiliates of The Scion Group. The erroneously drafter provisions called for Scion to receive incentive compensation know as a "promote" even if the joint ventures lost money. Scion sought to enforce the agreements as written, and its affiliates advanced counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of contract. The court found that plaintiffs have proven their entitlement to reformation by clear and convincing evidence and entered a judgment in their favor of defendants' counterclaims.View "ASB Allegiance Real Estate Fund, et al. v. Scion Breckenridge Managing Member, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

This case arose when Martin Marietta sought to purchase all of Vulcan's outstanding shares (Exchange Offer). At issue was the meaning of confidentiality agreements entered into by both parties. The court found in favor of Vulcan on its counterclaims for breach of the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) (Count I), and the joint defense and confidentiality agreement (JDA)(Count II), and against Martin Marietta on its claim that it did not breach the NDA (Count I). Martin Marietta shall be enjoined for a period of four months from prosecuting a proxy contest, making an exchange or tender offer, or otherwise taking steps to acquire control of Vulcan shares or assets. During that period, it is also enjoined from any further violations of the NDA and JDA. Vulcan shall submit a conforming final judgment within five days, upon approval as to form by Martin Marietta.View "Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Vulcan Materials Co." on Justia Law

RAA appealed from a final judgment of the Superior Court that dismissed its complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). RAA's complaint alleged that Savage told RAA, one of several potential bidders for Savage, at the outset of their discussions that there was "no significant unrecorded liabilities or claims against Savage," but then during RAA's due diligence into Savage, Savage disclosed three such matters, which caused RAA to abandon negotiations for the transactions. The complaint contended that had RAA known of those matters at the outset, it never would have proceeded to consider purchasing Savage. Therefore, according to RAA, Savage should be liable for the entirety of RAA's alleged $1.2 million in due diligence and negotiation costs. The court held that, under Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the non-disclosure agreement (NDA), RAA acknowledged that in the event no final "Sale Agreement" on a transaction was reached, Savage would have no liability, and could not be sued, for any allegedly inaccurate or incomplete information provided by Savage to RAA during the due diligence process. The court also held that RAA could not rely on the peculiar-knowledge exception to support its claims. Finally, the court held that, when Savage and RAA entered into the NDA, both parties knew how the non-reliance clauses had been construed by Delaware courts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.View "RAA Management, LLC v. Savage Sports Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a majority group of limited partners of Magic 2 x 52 Limited Partnership appealed their post-judgment motion to pierce the corporate veil of several corporate Defendants and to recover punitive damages. The Limited Partners' investment in the Magic partnership did not go as planned, and they initiated this lawsuit, seeking to remove Magic Corporation as the general partner of the partnership and requesting monetary damages. The Limited Partners also sought to pierce the corporate veil of the corporate Defendants to hold Kenneth Herslip personally liable for the corporate Defendants' conduct and to recover punitive damages. May 2010 amended judgment awarded Magic Partnership $146,153.99 against Magic Corporation, B K Properties, and Herslip Construction; awarded Magic Partnership $144,263.80, and prejudgment interest of $77,783.88, against Magic Corporation and Herslip Construction; and awarded Magic Partnership costs and disbursements of $46,201.47 against Magic Corporation, B K Properties, and Herslip Construction. None of the parties appealed from the May 2010 judgment. The Limited Partners' subsequent efforts to collect on the judgment were unsuccessful. In June 2010, both Herslip Construction and Magic Corporation filed for bankruptcy under chapter 7. The district court denied the Limited Partners' post-judgment motion, concluding they had not shown an appropriate basis for granting their request to pierce the corporate veil and to recover punitive damages. The court stated its prior opinion after trial had specifically denied the plaintiffs' requests to pierce the corporate veil and to recover punitive damages with a detailed analysis. The court concluded the May 2010 amended judgment was final as to all issues decided by the court after trial and refused to revisit piercing the corporate veil and punitive damages.View "Watts v. Magic 2 x 52 Management, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought their Verified Complaint asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against defendant. J.P.Morgan also asserted a claim for attorneys' fees and costs under an option agreement that J.P. Morgan and defendant entered into, which was the contract central to the dispute. Defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6). The court held that J.P. Morgan has failed to state a claim that defendant breached the express terms of the Option Agreement and therefore, defendant's motion to dismiss was granted as to Count I. Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied as to Count II because J.P. Morgan's allegations, taken together, were sufficient to state a claim of the implied covenant. Finally, defendant's motion to dismiss was denied as to Count III where J.P. Morgan could eventually be the prevailing party in this action.View "JPMorgan Chase & Co. v. American Century Co." on Justia Law

Microsoft asserted a total of eight claims, derivatively or directly, against defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, usurpation of corporate opportunity, rescission, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting. Defendants, various companies and an individual associated with the restructuring of Vadem, a computer technology company formed under the laws of the British Virgin Islands, contended that Microsoft lacked standing to bring derivative claims on behalf of Vadem. Defendants also argued, among other things, that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants and that Microsoft's claims were untimely. The court concluded that Microsoft was required to, but did not, seek leave from the High Court of the British Virgin Islands before bringing a derivative suit on behalf of Vadem. As a result, Microsoft lacked standing as to the six derivative claims it asserted. The court also found that, as to the two remaining counts in the complaint, those claims were time-barred. Therefore, the court granted the motion to dismiss.View "Microsoft Corp. v. Vadem, Ltd., et al." on Justia Law

This matter involved allegations of breach of duty made by a common stockholder of a Delaware statutory trust against the trustee of that trust, as well as claims by the stockholder against those entities she alleged aided and abetted the breach. Plaintiff failed to make a pre-suit demand against defendant trustees, who she conceded were independent and disinterested when they took the actions complained of. The court found that plaintiff's claims were derivative and not direct. To survive a motion to dismiss in these circumstances under Section 3816 of the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (DSTA), 12 Del. C. 3816, a plaintiff must plead particularized facts raising a reasonable doubt that the actions of the trustees were taken honestly and in good faith. Because a careful reading of the complaint disclosed that plaintiff failed to so plead, her complaint must be dismissed.View "Protas v. Cavanagh, et al." on Justia Law

Gary Fordham, David Thompson, and Venture Sales, LLC appealed a chancery court order that dissolved Venture Sales pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 79-29-802 (Rev. 2009). Walter Ray Perkins owned 27.7 acres of land. Sometime in the late 90s, he was approached by Fordham and Thompson about a potential business venture involving his land. Perkins, Fordham, and Thompson eventually agreed that Fordham and Thompson would acquire the 438 acres of land that adjoined Perkins's land; the parties would combine their respective land, along with some cash, and form a venture to develop the land. Following the contributions, the operating agreement of Venture Sales was revised to reflect the arrangement. The parties signed the new operating agreement in 2000. In February 2010, Perkins filed an application for judicial dissolution of Venture Sales. Following a trial, the chancellor found that, based on the property's history, the company's inability to get funding for development, and the uncertainty regarding the economic climate in the area, it was not reasonably practicable to carry on the business of Venture Sales. The chancellor therefore ordered the company dissolved. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the chancellor's decision to order the dissolution of Venture Sales was not an abuse of discretion: substantial evidence existed supporting the chancellor's determination that it was not reasonably practicable for Venture Sales to carry on business in conformity with its operating agreement.View "Venture Sales, LLC v. Perkins" on Justia Law

This case involved a challenge to certain issuances of preferred units and convertible debt by a start-up medical products company. The founder, former CEO, and current common member of the company challenged the issuances, claiming they were self-interested transactions designed to benefit the company's directors and venture capital sponsors by unfairly diluting its common members. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts. The court found that plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference that defendants' actions in approving the challenged issuances were grossly negligent or reckless. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff's duty of care claims. As for the duty of loyalty claims, the court found that defendants failed to establish that the transactions were not self-interested or that they warranted protection under the safe harbor provisions of the company's operating agreement. Therefore, the court denied summary judgment on these claims. Finally, because the court found the operating agreement ambiguous on the issue of whether defendants were permitted to authorize additional common units or new series of units without approval by a majority of the common members, the court denied summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of contract claim under Count VI.View "Zimmerman v. Crothall and Adhezion Biomedical LLC" on Justia Law