Johnston v. Vincent
The plaintiffs and defendants in this case, upon appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, appealed certain rulings of the Louisiana Court of Appeals. The defendants asserted that the Court of Appeals failed to apply the manifest error standard correctly in reversing the district court’s findings of what constituted trade secrets and their misappropriation. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on this issue. The Supreme Court also reversed the Court of Appeals as to the increase in the amount of lost profits damages. The Supreme Court also affirmed the Court of Appeals in its determination that actual damages must be trebled and that unjust enrichment damages must be awarded in some amount but were not to be trebled.
Louisiana Supreme Court Reverses Appellate Court as to Misapplication of the Correct Manifest Error Standard, Other Damages-Related Issues
The plaintiffs and defendants in this case, upon appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, appealed certain rulings of the Louisiana Court of Appeals. The defendants asserted that the Court of Appeals failed to apply the manifest error standard correctly in reversing the district court’s findings of what constituted trade secrets and their misappropriation. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on this issue. The Supreme Court also reversed the Court of Appeals as to the increase in the amount of lost profits damages. The Supreme Court also affirmed the Court of Appeals in its determination that actual damages must be trebled and that unjust enrichment damages must be awarded in some amount but were not to be trebled.
In re Hettinga
The husband and wife entered into a settlement agreement as to their divorce that was included in the trial court’s judgment of dissolution. The wife thereafter asked the trial court to set the agreement aside due to, among other things, the husband’s failure to disclose his ownership interests in various businesses. The appellate court found the evidence for her motion(s) to be lacking and affirmed the trial court.
California Appellate Court Affirms That the Marital Settlement Agreement Should Not Be Set Aside for Alleged Inadequate Disclosures
The husband and wife entered into a settlement agreement as to their divorce that was included in the trial court’s judgment of dissolution. The wife thereafter asked the trial court to set the agreement aside due to, among other things, the husband’s failure to disclose his ownership interests in various businesses. The appellate court found the evidence for her motion(s) to be lacking and affirmed the trial court.
Gerring Props. v. Gerring
In this shareholder oppression suit appeal, the Minnesota appellate court upheld the prejudicial conduct to an oppressed shareholder and affirmed the disallowance of a marketability discount. Further, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order for dissolution when the appellants failed to exercise the option to pay court-ordered stock-buyout amounts.
Minnesota Appellate Court Upholds Prejudicial Conduct to Oppressed Shareholder and Affirms Disallowance of Marketability Discount
In this shareholder oppression suit appeal, the Minnesota appellate court upheld the prejudicial conduct to an oppressed shareholder and affirmed the disallowance of a marketability discount. Further, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order for dissolution when the appellants failed to exercise the option to pay court-ordered stock-buyout amounts.
Flop film poses unique valuation challenge
A recent bankruptcy-related case in front of the California Court of Appeal raises important questions about how one quantifies the value of a dated piece of art, a film, for which there never was a market in the first place.
Craig Alan Dunn v. Matrix Exhibits, Inc.
The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s decision denying the plaintiff the value of an interest in the defendant because the value was too speculative in this breach of contract action.