Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

A company that provides employee training filed suit against a client, claiming breach of contract based both on alleged failure to pay a gain sharing fee and breach of confidentiality provisions.It sought an accounting for disclosures or uses of its materials inconsistent with the copyright license provided by the agreement. The court granted summary judgment for the client. The First Circuit affirmed, finding that the training company did not support its figures with respect to the fee or the breach of confidentiality.

Debtor, a waste disposal firm, borrowed from FFC, giving FFC a security interest before filing a Chapter 11 petition in 2003. In 2005 a trustee, appointed to run the business, moved to convert to a Chapter 7 proceeding and assented to having Allied service debtor's customers. The court granted the motion and lifted the equitable stay to allow FFC to sell secured equipment. FFC later foreclosed against additional property, which it sold to City Sanitation. A consultant who had been retained by the trustee to assist in operating the business went to work for Allied. In 2007 City Sanitation sued Allied and the consultant, purportedly as the debtor's successor in interest, alleging conversion. The bankruptcy court reopened the bankruptcy case to allow the trustee to take over the case against Allied. The district court and First Circuit affirmed. The right to pursue commercial tort claims cannot be passed to a secured creditor as proceeds of original collateral. The court rejected an argument that FFC's security interest conferred the right to prosecute claims arising from interference with the collateral. The alleged wrongdoing occurred while the consultant was in debtor's employ; any harm was to debtor and belongs to the estate.

ALC filed suit against Lamex in commonwealth court under Puerto Rico's Dealers' Contract Act (Law 75), which prohibits a principal from terminating a business relationship with a dealer without just cause. Before service of process, Lamex filed suit in federal court. The federal district court denied Lamex's requests to pierce the corporate veil and for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, but granted Lamex's request for a declaratory judgment absolving it from liability under Law 75, ordered ALC to pay, and ordered the Superior Court of San Juan to release the money ALC consigned. The First Circuit affirmed the imposition of sanctions against ALC and the monetary judgment in favor of Lamex, but vacated the judgment with respect to Lamex's claims for a declaratory judgment and to pierce ALC's corporate veil. The district court erred in failing to provide indisputably clear notice of its intent to consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2) and, in so doing, abrogated ALC's right to a jury trial.

Plaintiff financed an ice cream hardening system. The lender held title and leased the equipment to plaintiff, but refused to set an end-of-lease purchase price. The final agreement did not refer to an estimate in a side letter or conversations concerning the lease price. Two years after the equipment was installed, plaintiff suggested an early buy-out. When the parties were unable to agree to a price, plaintiff filed suit alleging breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Utah Unfair Practices Act, promissory estoppel and fraud. The district court rejected other claims, but held that the lender had fraudulently professed, in a side letter, to have estimated 12 percent as the price when, in fact, it had no estimate. The court ordered the lender to convey the equipment and refund to plaintiff part of the payments made under the agreement. The First Circuit affirmed the award of title, but remanded for recalculation of the refund. The transfer of title was an expected outcome of the contract and the evidence supported a finding of fraud.

Defendant is a valet parking business and executed a letter of intent to buy a competing company for $16 millions. An outline of a financing agreement under negotiation with a private equity group contained exclusivity and confidentiality provisions. While that agreement was in effect, the defendant's founder negotiated financing from a company that owned 24.9 % of defendant company. The private equity company sued. The district court entered judgment in favor of defendant. The First Circuit affirmed. The district court properly declined to instruct the jury on the lost opportunity theory of causation and damages; at most, the equity group was deprived of a contractually guaranteed right to prevent defendant from negotiating financing with others. The court properly instructed the jury that the exclusivity provision reference to discussing financing with "any person or entity" was ambiguous.

Franchisees, operating gas stations in Puerto Rico, alleged violations of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), 15 U.S.C. 2801, based on the Esso's plan to leave the market and terminate their contracts. Esso sold its assets to Total and most of the franchisees eventually contracted with Total. The district court found some of the terms of the Total franchise contract invalid, but severable, and denied injunctive relief and damages against Esso. The First Circuit affirmed, first holding that PMPA does not require that terms offered by a substitute franchisor be identical for each franchisee and that there was no evidence that Total acted other than in good faith or intended that its offers would be rejected. That Total's franchise contract, consisting of more than 100 pages, contained five provisions found partially invalid under state law, did not render it "per se" in violation of PMPA.