Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

Two competing companies in the athleticwear market, both producing bioceramic materials embedded in textiles, became involved in litigation over allegedly false advertising. One company, after settling the initial lawsuit by agreeing to pay $2.5 million and refrain from claiming FDA approval or health benefits for its product, filed for bankruptcy before completing the settlement payments. The plaintiff then brought a new action against the CEO of the defendant company, alleging both tortious interference with the settlement agreement and false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, asserting that the defendant continued to falsely represent the product's health benefits and FDA approval.The United States District Court for the Central District of California presided over a jury trial. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff on the Lanham Act claim and awarded nominal damages. On post-trial motions, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law for the plaintiff on the tortious interference claim, awarded $2.5 million in damages, and further awarded the plaintiff disgorgement of the CEO’s salary (trebled) as "profits" under the Lanham Act, in addition to nearly $600,000 in attorneys’ fees.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings. The Ninth Circuit held that, under California law, a corporate officer acting within the scope of agency and not at the expense of the corporation is immune from tortious interference claims, and reversed the district court’s denial of immunity and its tortious interference damages award. The court also reversed the district court’s disgorgement award, concluding that the CEO’s salary was not equivalent to profits under the Lanham Act. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that the case was “exceptional.” The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "MULTIPLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC V. CASDEN" on Justia Law

Buyers of over-the-counter nasal decongestants containing oral phenylephrine brought numerous class actions against drug manufacturers and retailers, alleging that for years these companies sold and advertised decongestant products they knew to be ineffective. The plaintiffs claimed that scientific studies, particularly since 2016, had shown oral phenylephrine to be no better than a placebo at relieving congestion, yet the companies continued to market their products as effective decongestants and complied with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling requirements. The FDA, despite mounting evidence, did not remove oral phenylephrine’s designation as an effective decongestant under its regulations.The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated nearly one hundred class actions and transferred them to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs filed a complaint asserting New York statutory and common-law claims as well as a federal RICO claim. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) expressly preempted the state law claims because the drugs’ labels complied with FDA requirements, and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the RICO claim. The court also dismissed a Lanham Act claim brought by one pharmacy plaintiff.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the FDCA expressly preempts most of the state law claims because the federal regime requires manufacturers to follow the FDA-approved labeling, but it vacated the dismissal for claims regarding “Maximum Strength” labeling and brand-name drugs approved via the New Drug Application process, remanding those for further proceedings. The court affirmed dismissal of the RICO claim, adopting the indirect purchaser rule, and upheld denial of the pharmacy’s motion for reconsideration regarding its Lanham Act claim. View "Yousefzadeh v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc." on Justia Law

In the aftermath of the 2008 housing crisis, Congress created the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and authorized it to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. The FHFA and the U.S. Treasury entered into agreements whereby the Treasury would provide capital to these companies, initially in exchange for fixed-rate dividends. In 2012, these agreements were amended so that Fannie and Freddie were required to pay the Treasury dividends equal to their net worth above a specified reserve, a change known as the “Net Worth Sweep.” The announcement of this amendment caused the value of Fannie and Freddie shares to drop significantly, and shareholders, including those holding both common and junior preferred shares, filed suit alleging various statutory and contract violations.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially dismissed most claims, but after appellate review and remand, permitted the shareholders’ implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim to proceed to trial. The jury found the FHFA had violated this implied covenant by adopting the Net Worth Sweep, awarding over $612 million in damages, which the district court increased to $812 million with prejudgment interest. The district court denied the FHFA’s post-trial motions and rejected shareholders’ attempts to seek restitution or reliance damages beyond expectation damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court of Appeals held that the implied covenant claim was not foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent or by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, that the claim was available against the FHFA as conservator, and that the Net Worth Sweep violated the reasonable expectations of shareholders. The court also determined that post-Net Worth Sweep purchasers of shares could pursue the claim, and that the denial of restitution and reliance damages was proper. Accordingly, the award of expectation damages was affirmed. View "Fairholme Funds, Inc v. FHFA" on Justia Law

In this dispute, an Argentine construction company issued dollar-denominated convertible debt notes to two trusts as part of a capital-raising effort. The parties entered into an indenture agreement, later amended in December 2019, which authorized the company’s Board of Directors to convert the notes into equity if certain financial thresholds were met. Section 1301 of the indenture vested the Board with authority to determine if these conditions were satisfied, provided their determination was free from “manifest error.” In 2020, the Board concluded that the threshold for conversion had been reached, relying on the company’s increased net equity following the issuance of new preferred shares. The trusts disagreed, contending the Board’s calculation was manifestly erroneous and that the actual value of equity sold did not meet the $100 million threshold required by the indenture.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York presided over a bench trial. The court dismissed the trusts’ claims regarding improper amendment and bad faith, focusing solely on the manifest error claim. After reviewing the evidence, the District Court concluded that the Board had manifestly erred by using metrics not contemplated by the indenture—specifically, shareholder equity changes and liquidation preferences—rather than the actual value of shares sold. The court found that the threshold for mandatory conversion had not been met, and GCDI breached the agreement by ceasing interest payments on the notes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the District Court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment, holding that the Board’s determination constituted a manifest error under New York law because it failed to value the equity sold as required by the indenture’s plain terms. The judgment awarding damages to the trusts was affirmed. View "Tennenbaum Living Tr. v. GCDI S.A." on Justia Law

A truck dealership and a manufacturer entered into a contract permitting the dealership to sell and service the manufacturer’s trucks in specified regions, with the manufacturer holding the right to appoint additional dealers in those regions at its sole discretion when it determined such appointments were warranted. The manufacturer appointed a new dealer within the dealership’s area, citing customer support needs and concerns about the dealership’s performance. Internal documents revealed the manufacturer had a plan to consolidate its dealer network for efficiency and improved sales, and had previously denied the dealership’s request to expand its franchise. Despite the appointment of the new dealer, the original dealership retained its nonexclusive right to sell trucks in its area.Prior to the current suit, the dealership protested before the Rhode Island Dealer Board, alleging statutory notice failures and bad faith denial of expansion, but the Board dismissed the protest as extraterritorial application of Rhode Island law. The dealership sought reversal in Rhode Island Superior Court, and the case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, which granted summary judgment to the manufacturer. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed summary judgment on certain claims and certified a question to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which clarified statutory interpretation. Based on that, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on the statutory-notice claim.Upon de novo review, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the manufacturer acted within its contractual discretion in appointing a new dealer, as the contract only required the manufacturer to have a reason related to its business objectives, not to market conditions. The court also held there was no breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as the manufacturer’s actions were consistent with the contract’s objectives. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer. View "Rhode Island Truck Ctr., LLC v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC" on Justia Law

A founder of a Delaware start-up, after personally paying a consultant for services due to lack of company funds, negotiated with the consultant to resolve claims for unpaid fees. The consultant agreed to accept a reduced cash payment and a warrant entitling her to purchase one percent of the company's common stock, with the percentage measured at the time of exercise. The founder, acting as CEO, executed this warrant, though he had not fully read the revised terms provided by the consultant’s lawyer. Later, when the consultant needed funds for a personal legal issue, the founder loaned her $20,000, secured by her only company warrant. The security agreement described the collateral as "a warrant to purchase Common Stock...for one million shares," even though the warrant was in fact for a percentage, not a fixed number of shares.When the loan matured and the consultant defaulted, the founder caused the warrant to be transferred into his name without the consultant’s notice, and later partially exercised it. Following a merger, the founder converted some of the resulting shares and retained the rest, selling them after a lock-up period for significant proceeds. The consultant disputed the validity of the transfer and exercise, arguing that the collateral description in the pledge agreement was insufficient and that the founder’s actions constituted conversion.The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware held the warrant was valid and enforceable as a contract for one percent of the company’s stock at exercise, but found the collateral description insufficient under the Delaware UCC, ruling that no security interest attached and the founder’s actions constituted conversion, resulting in a large damages award.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed that the warrant was valid and enforceable, but reversed the finding that no security interest attached. The Court held that, despite the inaccurate description of "one million shares," the security agreement reasonably identified the collateral because the consultant had only one such warrant, satisfying the UCC’s requirements. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Patterson v. Cannon," on Justia Law

A commercial meat supplier delivered frozen meat products to a distributor over a series of transactions, each accompanied by an invoice. The distributor did not pay all of the invoices, claiming that some of the meat was spoiled, while the supplier insisted that the distributor simply failed to pay what was owed and invented the spoiled-meat justification later. The supplier sued for breach of contract and, alternatively, for quantum meruit (an equitable claim for the value of goods or services provided), seeking payment for the unpaid invoices. The distributor counterclaimed for breach of contract, alleging damages from the spoiled meat.At trial in a Texas district court, the jury was asked whether the distributor failed to comply with the agreements to pay for the meat and answered no. However, the jury found in favor of the supplier on its quantum meruit claim and awarded damages. The jury found that a reasonable attorney’s fee for the supplier’s attorneys was $0. The trial court entered judgment for the supplier on the quantum meruit claim and awarded the supplier its requested attorney’s fees, disregarding the jury’s finding. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment on both quantum meruit and attorney’s fees.The Supreme Court of Texas concluded that the supplier’s provision of meat was covered by express agreements between the parties and, as a matter of law, quantum meruit recovery is barred when a valid contract governs the subject matter. Because the supplier was not entitled to recover in quantum meruit, it also could not recover attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the relevant portions of the court of appeals’ judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of the distributor. View "CHAMPION FOOD SERVICE, INC. v. PROALAMO FOODS, L.L.C." on Justia Law

A major equity investor contributed $65 million to a joint venture formed to acquire and develop a luxury residential tower in New York City. The project was financed with significant loans, including a $325 million mezzanine loan from Apollo entities. After construction cost overruns put the mezzanine loan in default, Apollo and the joint venture entered a forbearance agreement splitting the loan and securing a portion with the joint venture’s equity. Apollo later assigned the junior mezzanine loan to Spruce Capital Partners, which then initiated a strict foreclosure under the Uniform Commercial Code. This process extinguished the joint venture’s equity—including the plaintiff’s investment—while allegedly allowing the project sponsor to retain a role and equity interest. The investor claimed that Apollo, Spruce, and the sponsor colluded to cut it out of the project’s value through assignment and foreclosure.The Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed the investor’s breach of implied covenant claim against Spruce but allowed the claim against Apollo to proceed, while dismissing tortious interference claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed in part by dismissing the implied covenant claim against Apollo, holding that Apollo’s sole discretion to assign the loan foreclosed such a claim, and otherwise affirmed the dismissal of the tortious interference claims.The New York Court of Appeals held that a party’s sole discretion to assign a loan does not exempt it from the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Court concluded that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that Apollo may have exercised its assignment right as part of a bad faith scheme to deprive the investor of the benefit of its bargain, reviving the implied covenant claim against Apollo. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the tortious interference claims for insufficient pleading. The case was remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the implied covenant claim. View "111 W. 57th Inv. LLC v 111 W57 Mezz Inv. LLC" on Justia Law

This case involves two individuals who guaranteed loans for their business by executing promissory notes and trust deeds, which conveyed several real properties as security to a bank. After the business defaulted on the loans and entered bankruptcy, the bank sold both the business and the individuals’ properties through judicial foreclosure and trustee sales. The bank subsequently sought a deficiency judgment against the guarantors for the remaining debt, asserting that they owed over $3 million, while the guarantors argued that they should receive credit for the fair market value of the properties sold, in accordance with Nebraska’s antideficiency statute.The District Court for Johnson County granted summary judgment to the bank, finding the guarantors liable under their guarantees without credit for the property values. The court relied on a waiver provision in the guarantees, which stated that the guarantors waived any defense based on the bank not obtaining the fair market value of the collateral. The court also denied the guarantors’ motion for reconsideration or new trial, prompting the guarantors to appeal.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. It held that the antideficiency statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-1013, applies not only to borrowers but also to guarantors when their obligation is secured by a trust deed and a trustee sale occurs. The court determined that the waiver provision in the guarantees was unenforceable as a matter of public policy, given the legislative mandate of § 76-1013. Furthermore, the court found that evidence such as assessed values and appraisals raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the fair market value of the properties at the time of the trustee sales. The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "American Exch. Bank v. Topp" on Justia Law

An Ohio resident and an Illinois wine retailer challenged two Ohio laws regarding wine importation. The first law prohibits out-of-state retailers from shipping wine directly to Ohio consumers, while permitting in-state retailers to do so. The second law bars Ohio residents from personally bringing more than six bottles of wine purchased outside Ohio into the state within any thirty-day period, though it allows up to 288 bottles if purchased inside Ohio. The plaintiffs argued that both laws discriminate against out-of-state businesses and consumers, violating the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. That court found the shipping restriction constitutional under the Twenty-first Amendment and concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the transportation limit. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, clarifying that the appropriate test comes from Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas, and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, after additional discovery, the district court again granted summary judgment to the defendants, evaluating the restrictions as part of Ohio’s three-tier alcohol regulatory system and finding the restrictions justified.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the plaintiffs had standing. The court found that the challenged restrictions were not essential components of Ohio’s three-tier system and must be evaluated independently under the Tennessee Wine test. The court concluded that Ohio’s justifications for the restrictions—public health, safety, price control, and temperance—were speculative or undermined by evidence that Ohio allows similar activities by other out-of-state entities. The court held that both laws are unconstitutional because their predominant effect is economic protectionism, not the protection of public health or safety. The district court’s judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Block v. Canepa" on Justia Law