Justia Corporate Compliance Opinion Summaries

The Everetts formerly operated a PDRI franchise. After that franchise was terminated, they violated a non-compete clause. Only Mr. Everett and the Everetts’ corporation actually signed the franchise agreement. PDRI sought to bind Ms. Everett to an arbitration award pursuant to the franchise agreement. Although Everett was a non-signatory to the franchise agreement, PDRI asserted she was subject to arbitration under the doctrine of direct benefits estoppel. The district court determined that the benefits Everett received were filtered through her ownership interest in their corporation or through her husband and were therefore indirect. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that Everett did receive a direct benefit. It is clear that the Everetts’ corporation was formed to gain the benefit of the franchise agreement and was used only to conduct the business of the franchise; Ms. Everett had a 50% ownership and played an active role in running the corporation. View "Everett v. Paul Davis Restoration, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a shareholder derivative action on behalf of Deckers to recover damages he claimed it suffered because of misconduct by Deckers' officers and directors. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer with leave to amend but plaintiff elected not to file an amended complaint. The trial court subsequently dismissed the complaint and plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that discovery is not available to a person seeking to qualify as a plaintiff in a shareholder derivative action involving a Delaware corporation. Plaintiff must comply with the particularized pleading requirement of Rule 23.1 without the assistance of Deckers, its officers, or board of directors. Plaintiff, instead, should consult and use the "tools at hand," such as an inspection demand or taking the steps necessary to obtain the facts from publicly available SEC filings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal. View "Jones v. Martinez (Deckers Outdoor Corp.)" on Justia Law

Columbus Cheer Company ("CCC") entered into a rental contract for the use of school facilities. Subsequently, CCC was informed that Columbus Municipal School District ("CMSD") would not honor the contract with CCC. CCC filed a complaint against CMSD. The complaint read in part: "[p]laintiff Columbus Cheer Company is a profit corporation licensed to due [sic] business in the state of Mississippi . . . ." The prayer sought judgment for plaintiff (CCC). Defendants filed their motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, asserting that CCC was an administratively dissolved corporation; therefore, CCC could not have entered into a valid contract with CMSD, and CCC did not possess the requisite legal status to initiate suit. The trial court entered an order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment. CCC appealed, and the issues on appeal were: (1) whether a dissolved corporation could pursue a legal action; and if not, (2) could the corporation's shareholders pursue the same action in their own name? The Supreme Court answered both questions "no." View "Columbus Cheer Company v. City of Columbus" on Justia Law

The Meisters were preferred shareholders in Sesame, a now-dissolved software company. Mensinger was Sesame’s chief financial officer and Koppel was its chief executive officer. Sesame experienced financial difficulties, and its assets were sold to ExtraView, which was formed and owned by Mensinger. Sesame then dissolved, rendering the Meisters’ preferred shares valueless. The Meisters sued, alleging Mensinger and Koppel colluded to secure a preferential sale of Sesame’s assets and business to ExtraView, violating their fiduciary duties to the Meisters. The trial court found that Mensinger and Koppel had breached their fiduciary duties to the Meisters, but that the Meisters had failed to prove damages. The appeals court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in refusing to frame an appropriate remedy and in conducting an in camera post-trial review of ExtraView’s electronic financial records, rather than ordering an accounting of ExtraView’s net worth and profit/loss status, View "Meister v. Mensinger" on Justia Law

This case came before the Supreme Court on appeal of a jury verdict which found that ev3, Inc., the buyer of Appriva Medical, Inc., breached its contractual obligations to Appriva’s former shareholders, who gave up their shares in the merger. The merger agreement between ev3 and Appriva provided for the bulk of the payments to the Appriva shareholders to be contingent upon the timely accomplishment of certain milestones toward the approval and marketability of a medical device that Appriva was developing. After it became clear that the milestones were not going to be achieved, the former Appriva shareholders sued. At many points during the trial, ev3 attempted to convince the Superior Court that a non-binding letter of intent should not be used to interpret or contradict the clear terms of the merger agreement, but the Superior Court adhered to the contrary view advocated by Appriva. Appriva was permitted to argue to the jury that ev3 not only failed to act in good faith under the agreement, but that it breached a “promise” to honor the Funding Provision contained in the non-binding letter of intent. The jury agreed that ev3 had breached its contractual obligations and determined that ev3 owed Appriva the full amount of the milestone payments, $175 million. On appeal, ev3 argued that the Superior Court erred by permitting Appriva to argue that the Funding Provision in the non-binding letter of intent continued to bind ev3, and also that the non-binding letter of intent modified the “sole discretion” standard set forth in the agreement. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Superior Court erred by accepting Appriva’s position that the non-binding Funding Provision within the letter of intent was admissible to affect the meaning of the merger agreement. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "EV3, Inc. v. Lesh, M.D., et al." on Justia Law

This case arose from a business venture that was established by plaintiff Brendan Allen and defendant Asnel Diaz Sanchez. The venture was operated through plaintiff ADS Associates, Inc. (ADS), a corporation fully owned by Sanchez. Allen and Sanchez opened a business checking account in the name of ADS at a branch of Oritani Savings Bank where ADS had preexisting accounts. By agreement between ADS and Oritani, the new ADS account required the signatures of both Allen and Sanchez to appear on each check drawn on the account. Despite that limitation, Sanchez linked the new ADS account to other ADS accounts within his control and, through a series of internet transactions, transferred a substantial sum of money from the ADS account he had established with Allen to his other ADS accounts. After learning of these transfers, Allen sued Oritani and Sanchez. Although it dismissed Allen’s claims, the trial court permitted Allen to assert claims on ADS’s behalf against Oritani, notwithstanding Sanchez’s issuance of a resolution denying Allen the authority to maintain an action on ADS’s behalf. A jury returned a verdict in favor of ADS. The trial court, however, entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Oritani premised on an indemnification provision in the agreement governing ADS’s account with Oritani. An Appellate Division panel reversed the trial court’s determination. It found that the ADS resolution signed by Sanchez deprived Allen of authority to assert a claim on behalf of ADS. The panel held, however, that Allen could assert a common law negligence claim against Oritani despite the fact that he was not Oritani’s banking customer. It concluded that Allen had a “special relationship” with Oritani, and that Oritani had a duty to advise Allen of its internet banking policies when he and Sanchez opened the ADS account. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governed the wire transfers at the center of this case, and that Allen could not assert a claim under Article 4A against Oritani because he did not meet the statutory definition of a bank “customer.” Furthermore, the Court held that Allen could not assert a negligence claim based upon an alleged special relationship with Oritani. Accordingly, the Appellate Division was reversed and the trial court's judgment was reinstated. View "ADS Associates Group, Inc. v. Oritani Savings Bank" on Justia Law

On May 10, 2013, CAG MLG, L.L.C. sued Bart Smelley and Smelley Family Investments, L.L.C., alleging six counts of misrepresentation and/or fraud and a single count of unjust enrichment. Smelley responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing that CAG was a foreign limited-liability company formed and organized in the State of Florida in 2010 and that it was "not registered or qualified to do business in the State of Alabama." Smelley also alleged that CAG had domesticated in Wyoming as Oceans, LLC, in March 2011 and that CAG was subsequently dissolved as a Florida entity in April 2011. Smelley argued that CAG "failed to state the jurisdictional element establishing its ability to maintain an action in its initial pleading." Accordingly, Smelley argued, the circuit court lacked "subject matter jurisdiction and/or personal jurisdiction over the matters contained in the [c]omplaint." CAG amended its complaint to add an eighth count requesting that the circuit court issue an injunction preventing Smelley from selling a piece of real property. Smelley amended its motion to dismiss to include the additional claim. CAG filed a motion to strike the paragraphs of Smelley's motion to dismiss that alleged that CAG was a foreign entity that was not registered to transact business in Alabama and the exhibits attached in support thereof. The circuit court held a hearing on the motions, and, the next day, issued an order granting CAG's motion to strike the objected to paragraphs of Smelley's motion. The court dismissed the request for an injunction as moot, and instructed the parties to file briefs regarding the remainder of Smelley's motion. Later that year, the circuit court granted Smelly's motion. CAG appealed. On review, the Supreme Court found that the circuit court granted Smelley's motion to dismiss without considering the exhibits attached thereto (having struck those exhibits pursuant to CAG's motion). Accordingly, Smelley's motion was not converted to a motion for a summary judgment. The the circuit court's dismissal of CAG's complaint would have only been proper if CAG's alleged lack of capacity was evident from the face of CAG's complaint. The Court concluded that it was not. Therefore, the circuit's court's dismissal of the complaint was reversed. View "CAG MLG, L.L.C. v. Smelley" on Justia Law

Aleynikov is a computer programmer who worked as a vice president at GSCo in 2007 through 2009. After accepting an employment offer from another company, Aleynikov copied source code developed at GSCo into computer files and transferred them out of GSCo. He was convicted of violations of the National Stolen Property Act, 18 U.S.C. 2314, and the Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. 1832. The Second Circuit reversed the conviction. He was then indicted by a New York grand jury and that case remains pending. Aleynikov filed a federal suit, seeking indemnification and advancement for his attorney’s fees from Goldman Sachs. He claims his right to indemnification and advancement under a portion of Goldman Sachs Group’s By-Laws that applies to non-corporate subsidiaries like GSCo, providing for indemnification and advancement to, among others, officers of GSCo. The district court granted summary judgment in Aleynikov’s favor on his claim for advancement but denied it on his claim for indemnification. The Third Circuit vacated with respect to advancement. The meaning of the term “officer" in GS Group’s By-Laws is ambiguous and the relevant extrinsic evidence raises genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. The court otherwise affirmed. View "Aleynikov v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc" on Justia Law

Allergan, the pharmaceutical manufacturer of Botox, settled several qui tam suits concerning allegations that it had acted illegally in marketing and labeling Botox, and pled guilty in a criminal case. Plaintiffs, all Allergan shareholders, subsequently filed a derivative action alleging that Allergan's directors are liable for violations of various state and federal laws, as well as breaches of their fiduciary duties to Allergan. Plaintiffs failed to make a demand on Allergan's board requesting that Allergan bring the derivative claims in its own name. The court concluded that the district court misapplied governing Delaware law and improperly drew inferences against plaintiffs rather than in their favor when the district court dismissed the action on the ground that plaintiffs failed to allege particularized facts showing that demand was excused under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1. The court concluded that demand was excused where plaintiffs' particularized allegations established a reasonable doubt as to whether the Board faces a substantial likelihood of liability and as to whether the Board is protected by the business judgment rule. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Rosenbloom v. Pyott" on Justia Law

This dispute arose from violations issued by the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration. At issue was whether the word "corporation" includes limited liability companies (LLCs) for purposes of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq. The court concluded that the terms "corporation" and "corporate operator" in the Mine Act are ambiguous. Applying Chevron deference, the court concluded that the Secretary's interpretation is reasonable where, most importantly, construing section 110(c) to include agents of LLCs is consistent with the legislative history. Therefore, the court held that an LLC is a corporation for purposes of the Mine Act and that section 110(c) can be used to assess civil penalties against agents of an LLC. Because substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision to hold petitioners personally liable for the order at issue, the court affirmed on this issue. Finally, the order underlying their civil penalties was not duplicative. Accordingly, the court affirmed the ALJ's decision. View "Sumpter, et al. v. Secretary of Labor, et al." on Justia Law