Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

Edgewater Growth Capital Partners (Edgewater), a private equity firm, invested in several businesses and put them together in one company called Pendum. Soon after the merger, Pendum began to fail to comply with the covenants it made to its creditors. Eventually, a majority of the senior debt was purchased by affiliates of H.I.G. Capital (collectively, HIG). By this time, Pendum was insolvent. Pendum was eventually sold at an open auction by HIG. Edgewater filed suit, claiming that the sale process was commercially unreasonable and thus a violation of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The Court of Chancery rejected Edgewater's UCC claim and its other attacks on the sale process and, because Edgewater's claims were primarily motivated by its desire to avoid its $4 million guaranty, held that Edgewater was contractually obligated to pay HIG's attorneys' fees in defending against Edgewater's claims.View "Edgewater Growth Capital Partners LP v. H.I.G. Capital, Inc." on Justia Law

Consolidated Grain maintains a grain elevator in La Salle County, sold Rogowski’s crops, and gave him the proceeds by checks paid directly to him. The bank had lent money to Rogowski for which he signed a note and granted the bank a security interest in his crops and any proceeds of their sale. The bank notified Consolidated of its lien by two written notices, one covering crop years 2004 and 2005 and the other covering years 2005 and 2006. The notices listed as covered agricultural commodities “all grain on hand, all growing crops,” without listing their amount or location. The bank obtained a deficiency judgment against Rogowski in 2008, which remains unsatisfied, then sought payment from Consolidated. The trial court ruled in favor of the bank. The appellate court reversed and the supreme court affirmed. The Federal Food Security Act of 1985 provides how notices of security interests are to be worded and provides that there must be a statement of “each county or parish in which the farm products are produced or located,” The court rejected a “substantial compliance” argument and held that the notices were insufficient for failing to strictly comply with the Act. View "State Bank of Cherry v. CGB Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

Shipper engaged Common Carrier to transport computer equipment belonging to Company. Company claimed the shipment was damaged on arrival, and Common Carrier refused to pay the amount that Company claimed Common Carrier had agreed to settle the claim for. Company asserted a claim against Shipper, whose Insurer paid Company. As subrogee, Insurer sued Common Carrier for breach of the settlement agreement. Insurer avoided removal to federal court by not asserting a cargo-damage claim, but, on remand, amended its petition to assert one. Common Carrier contended the cargo-damage claim was barred by limitations because Insurer filed it more than four years after Common Carrier rejected Company's claim. Insurer argued the cargo-damage claim related back to its original action for breach of the settlement agreement and thus was timely filed. The trial court agreed and rendered judgment against Common Carrier. The court of appeals held the cargo-damage claim did not relate back and was therefore barred by limitations. The Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment for Insurer, holding that Insurer's cargo-damage claim was not barred by limitations, as the cargo-damage claim and breach-of-settlement claim both arose out of the same occurrence and, therefore, the relation-back doctrine applied.View "Lexington Ins. Co. v. Daybreak Express, Inc." on Justia Law

Alpine Vision entered into loan agreements with Prinsburg State Bank's predecessor in interest. Several individuals (Guarantors) executed personal guarantees for the loans. Knighton Optical subsequently purchased Alpine Vision and defaulted on the loans. Prinsburg sued the Guarantors to recover the balance. Prinsburg then sold the collateral but did not apply the sale's proceeds to the outstanding balance of the loans. The Guarantors objected to the sale. After the district court denied all but one of Prinsburg's claims on summary judgment, the parties stipulated to a list of statements consistent with the district court's findings and conclusions, and additionally to a statement that resolved the remaining claim in favor of the Guarantors. The district court accepted the parties' stipulations and summarily denied all of Prinsburg's claims. The court of appeals declined to consider Prinsburg's arguments on appeal, concluding that the parties' stipulations unambiguously resolved the case and precluded appellate review. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding that, because Prinsburg stipulated to the district court's resolution of this case, it was estopped from challenging that resolution on appeal. View "Prinsburg v. Abundo" on Justia Law

Respondents brought an action against Appellants, alleging breach of contract and fraud- and tort-based claims based on their purchase of two furniture stores from Appellants. The district court entered judgment for Respondents. The court allowed Respondents to rescind the agreement and awarded them damages. Although they appealed the judgment, Appellants did not obtain a stay of execution. Thus, despite the pending appeal, Respondents obtained a writ of execution on the judgment, allowing them to execute against one appellant's personal property. Respondents subsequently purchased Appellants' rights and interests in the district court action. Respondents moved to substitute as real parties in interest and dismiss the appeal on the basis that they acquired Appellants' claims and defenses at the sheriff's sale. The Supreme Court denied Respondents' motion, holding that Nevada's judgment execution statutes do not include the right to execute on a party's defenses to an action, as permitting a judgment creditor to execute on a judgment in such a way would cut of a debtor's defenses in a manner inconsistent with due process principles.View "Butwinick v. Hepner" on Justia Law

MayPort Farmers Co-Op appealed the judgment entered after trial and the district court's order denying MayPort's motion to amend findings of fact and conclusions of law and to amend judgment. MayPort sued St. Hilaire Seed Co., Inc., alleging St. Hilaire owed MayPort money for storage of edible beans St. Hilaire purchased from MayPort. The district court concluded "usage of trade" applied as a gap-filler and found industry custom and standards rendered storage charges inappropriate because MayPort's inability to perform caused the need for storage. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying MayPort's motion to amend.View "MayPort Farmers Co-Op v. St. Hilaire Seed Company, Inc." on Justia Law

In this dispute two companies claimed superior interests in a subdivision property. VCS, Inc. performed work on the subdivision as a general contractor and claimed a valid mechanic's lien on the property. Utah Community Bank (UCB) claimed it acquired an interest in the same property by extending a construction loan, secured by a deed of trust, to the subdivision's owner. VCS sued UCB to vindicate its allegedly superior interest in the property. UCB, in response, asserted that VCS's mechanic's lien was not valid as against UCB's interest because VCS failed to record a timely lis pendens. The district court granted summary judgment for UCB. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) VCS's failure to record a timely lis pendens rendered its mechanic's lien void and unenforceable as against UCB; (2) VCS was not entitled to equitable relief under the doctrine of unjust enrichment because it failed to appropriate exhaust its legal remedies; (3) accordingly, the district court did not err in awarding attorney fees to UCB; and (4) likewise, UCB was entitled to its reasonable attorney fees incurred on appeal.View "VCS, Inc. v. La Salle Dev., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are minority limited partners in Urban Shopping Centers, L.P., in which defendants acquired a majority interest in 2002. Plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary and contractual duties, claiming that, pursuant to the operating agreement, defendants were not to compete with them in business opportunities. They alleged that defendants stopped growing plaintiffs’ business, disregarded partnership agreement terms, and stole plaintiffs’ opportunities. During discovery, plaintiffs moved to compel production of documents concerning business negotiations in which each defendant’s attorney discussed with nonclients liability and obligations as Urban’s general partner and use of a “synthetic partnership” to avoid partnership obligations. Defendants claimed privilege, but plaintiffs argued that, having disclosed legal advice on these subjects with each other outside of any confidential relationship, defendants could not later object that those subjects were privileged. The motion was granted; defendants refused to comply and were held in contempt. The appellate court affirmed. The supreme court reversed, holding that attorney-client privilege had not been waived because the sought-after disclosures had occurred in an extrajudicial context and were not thereafter used by the clients to gain a tactical advantage in litigation. The “subject-matter waiver” doctrine was not shown to be applicable.View "Ctr. Partners, Ltd. v. Growth Head GP, LLC, " on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the good faith requirement of 12A O.S. 2011 section 2-403 extended to third parties and requires that the third party be notified of a debtor's financial condition. The trial court found the interest of Plaintiff-Appellee Bank of Beaver City (Bank) in the livestock of cattle operation and debtor Lucky Moon Land and Livestock, Inc. (Lucky Moon) to be superior to that of another creditor of Lucky Moon, Defendant-Appellant Barretts' Livestock, Inc. (Barretts). The Bank alleged that in 2004 it perfected a security interest in all of Lucky Moon's livestock, including all after-acquired livestock, giving it a superior claim to cattle purchased by Lucky Moon from Barretts to satisfy the debt owed by Lucky Moon to the Bank. Barretts asserted that the Bank did not have priority over it because the Bank was not a good faith secured creditor. The trial court granted the Bank's motion for summary judgment, finding that the Bank's perfected security interest had preference over Barretts' unperfected security interest. Barretts appealed, contending that Bank did not have a superior security interest because: 1) the Bank's security interest never attached; and 2) the Bank had not acted in good faith. The Court of Civil appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The Bank sought certiorari, contending that: 1) the case presents an issue of first impression as to when good faith under 12A O.S. 2011 section 2-403 should be determined; 2) Bank's security interest never attached; and 3) the Court of Civil Appeals' decision was inconsistent with a different decision of the Court of Civil Appeals on which the court relied. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that 12A O.S. 2011 section 2-403 did not extend to third parties nor require that the third party be notified of a debtor's financial condition. View "Bank of Beaver City v. Barretts' Livestock, Inc." on Justia Law

Pielet Brothers Scrap Iron and Metal, was founded Arthur Pielet and his brothers shortly after World War II. Arthur sold his interest to his sons in 1986 through an agreement providing for a lifetime payment to him of a “consulting” fee, and, on his death, for a lifetime fee payment to his wife, Dorothy. The agreement was binding on successors and assigns. In 1994, the then- successor company, P.B.S., dissolved, but payments to Arthur continued until 1998, when its successor, MM, had financial difficulties. It filed for bankruptcy in 1999. Litigation began. The trial court awarded Dorothy almost $2 million. In the appellate court, P.B.S. argued the traditional rule that a cause of action that accrued (1998) after dissolution (1994) cannot be brought against a dissolved corporation. The appellate court rejected the argument, holding that Dorothy’s claim could survive, but remanded for determination of whether the companies could be relieved of liability for the fee under a theory of novation. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the claim of breach of contract against P.B.S. could not survive the corporate dissolution. The issue of novation is relevant as to two other successor corporations and required remand.View "Pielet v. Pielet" on Justia Law