Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, domestic producers, sought distributions under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, since repealed, which directed the government to distribute collected duties to domestic producers harmed by dumping, 19 U.S.C. 1675c(a). Plaintiffs also sought to compel assessment and collection of additional anti-dumping duties, claiming that U.S. Customs has failed to collect $723 million $771 million in assessed anti-dumping duties. The U.S. Court of International Trade dismissed. Certain counts were dismissed for lack of standing on the ground that plaintiffs were not intended third-party beneficiaries of bond contracts intended to cover anti-dumping penalties. Other counts were dismissed for for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part, finding alternate grounds for dismissal. The court lacked jurisdiction over claims against the sureties. Plaintiffs do not qualify as intended third-party beneficiaries. View "Sioux Honey Ass'n v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought separate suits alleging unlawful retaliation by their corporate employers, which are private companies that act as contract advisers to and managers of mutual funds organized under the Investment Company Act of 1940. The district court addressed both cases in a single order, holding that the whistleblower protection provision within the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. 1514A extends beyond "employees" of "public" companies to encompass employees of private companies that are contractors or subcontractors to those public companies if the employees report violations "relating to fraud against shareholders." The First Circuit reversed, concluding that the protections are limited to employees of public companies, as defined by the statute. View "Lawson v. FMR LLC" on Justia Law

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681, provides that merchants who accept credit or debit cards shall not print the expiration date of the cards upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale. The district court found no willful violation where a retailer printed the expiration month, but not the year, of the credit card on a receipt. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding that the retailer's interpretation of the law was erroneous, but not objectively unreasonable. View "Long v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, certified by the city as a minority-owned business eligible for favored treatment, sells a variety of products. The city is virtually its only customer. Early in 2005 the city began to suspect that plaintiff was a broker rather than a wholesaler, which would make it ineligible to bid for contracts as an MBE. Plaintiff had only six employees, though it claimed to have a warehouse. The city never completed its investigation, so plaintiff retains its certification. The city also believed that the company had shorted it on a shipment of aluminum sign blanks, and ultimately debarred it from dealing with the city. The company sued immediately and obtained a temporary restraining order; debarment was in effect for only eight days. The city abandoned its attempt to debar the company. The district court then ruled in favor of defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Claims by the principals in the company were frivolous, given that they continued to be employed by the company. The temporary diminution in business did not amount to destruction of the company nor did it constitute retaliation. Plaintiff did not prove breach of contract. View "Chicago United Indus. v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

This case concerned a Railcar Contract with TriMet that required Colorado Railcar to secure a $3 million standby letter of credit, which Colorado Railcar arranged through Collateral II, a bankruptcy remote entity. TrimMet certified Collateral II's default and drew on the Letter of Credit when Colorado Railcar defaulted. At issue was whether Collateral II was a surety to Colorado Railcar, entitled to the defense of discharge. The court held that it was not. Because the standby letter of credit issued by KeyBank required TriMet to certify Collateral II's default, TriMet sought clarification that should Colorado Railcar default, TriMet's authority to certify Collateral II's default would be triggered. In response to TriMet's concern, Collateral II agreed to become a part of the Railcar Contract via Modification No. 1, but it undertook no new obligation nor did it subject itself to any additional liability beyond what it previously undertook by securing the Letter of Credit at Colorado Railcar's direction. Thus, no suretyship was created. Because Collateral II was not entitled to the protections of a surety, it was error for the district court to grant summary judgment in its favor. View "In re: CRM Collateral II, Inc., et al. v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transp, et al." on Justia Law

The owner of retail liquor stores and two consumers challenged the constitutionality of an Indiana state law that prohibits shipment of wine to customers by motor carriers, such as UPS, Ind. Code. 7.1-3-15-3(d). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's rejection of the challenges. The law may prevent the store from enlarging its sales area to encompass parts of Indiana remote from Fort Wayne; that is an effect on intrastate commerce, not interstate commerce. Plaintiffs did not establish even an incidental effect on interstate commerce The court also noted that the law is "within the Twenty-First Amendment's gravitational field," which includes matters relating to transportation of liquor.View "Lebamoff Enter., Inc. v. Huskey" on Justia Law

In 2005, plaintiff began consulting for defendant and signed an agreement prohibiting disclosure of proprietary information to third parties, and a non- competition covenant effective during his employment and for two years thereafter. In July, 2006, he left the company. In January 2007, he began consulting for another company. Defendant sued under the agreement. The company filed for bankruptcy. A purchaser moved to substitute itself as plaintiff, but the state court dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. After the court reinstated the case, plaintiff filed in federal court, alleging that the state court suit constituted abuse of process under Massachusetts law and seeking to enjoin the proceedings. He alleged that the amount in controversy was "at least $1,000,000," based on "emotional distress" and harm to his reputation, emotional tranquility, and privacy. The district court dismissed. The First Circuit affirmed. Plaintiff failed to allege damages with substantial particularity to establish jurisdiction. He provided no substantiation for or valuation of any of the alleged economic, emotional or physical damages and could not meet the "good faith" requirement with respect to his assertions. View "Abdel-Aleem v. OPK Biotech LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant, a Russian citizen, attended graduate school and owns real property, vehicles, and bank accounts in Ohio. He spends some time in Ohio each year, ranging from 40 days in 2007 to a total of 17 days in 2008–2009. He visits under a tourist visa and does not have an Ohio driver's license. After going to Russia to take part in a business venture with defendant, plaintiff filed suit in Ohio. The contract had no connection to the state. The trial court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, noting that defendant was not served with process in a manner that automatically confers personal jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that notions of fair play and substantial justice weigh against jurisdiction in Ohio. The court quoted a Russian proverb, “If you’re afraid of wolves, don’t go into the forest” that could be read, “If you’re afraid of the Russian legal system, don't do business in Russia.” View "Conn v. Zakharov" on Justia Law

Court-appointed receiver brought suit against Wells Fargo for conversion and breach of contract with respect to a cashier's check purchased by W Financial Group that Wells Fargo reaccepted for deposit into an account other than that of the named payee, without the proper endorsement. The district court found Wells Fargo liable for conversion. On appeal, Wells Fargo argued that the district court erred in finding that it converted the check and in rejecting certain defenses. The court held that because Wells Fargo made payment on the cashier's check to CA Houston, an entity that was not entitled to enforce the instrument, Wells Fargo was liable for conversion under Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code 3.3420. The court also agreed that Wells Fargo was liable for conversion because it deposited the cashier's check without the necessary indorsement. The court further held that Wells Fargo could not rely upon the condition precedent in its Account Agreement to void liability for conversion of the cashier's check; the district court did not err in denying Wells Fargo's in pari delicto defense; and the court need not address the breach of contract issue. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Jones, Jr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

The title company provided real estate closing services. From 1984 through 1995, it served as exclusive agent for defendant and managed an escrow account that defendant contractually agreed to insure. The title company was not profitable and its managers used escrow funds in a "Ponzi" scheme. In 1989, there was a $26 million shortfall. To fill the hole, the managers began looting another business, Intrust, to pay defendant's policyholders ($40.9 million) and to pay defendant directly ($27 million), so that defendant was a direct and indirect beneficiary of the title company's arrangement with Intrust. In 2000 the state agency learned that the funds were missing, took control of Intrust and placed it in receivership. In July 2010, the Receiver filed suit for money had and received, unjust enrichment, vicarious liability), aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy. The district court dismissed based on the statute of limitations. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Illinois doctrine of adverse domination does not apply. That doctrine tolls the statute of limitations for a claim by a corporation against a nonboard-member co-conspirator of the wrongdoing board members. View "Indep. Trust Corp. v. Stewart Info. Serv. Corp." on Justia Law