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.
Mekhaya v. Eastland Food Corp.
The plaintiff pleaded a statutory claim for shareholder oppression. In October 2018, Mekhaya was fired from his position at Eastland, where his salary of $400,000 per year included an implied dividend. The implied dividend was also included in the salaries of the other shareholders, all relatives of Mekhaya. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted. The plaintiff appealed. He noted that, after his removal, they paid themselves excessively high salaries and refused to pay him dividends, thus frustrating his expectations as a shareholder. The Appellate Court of Maryland disagreed with the decision of the trial court.
Maryland Court of Appeals Reverses Dismissal of an Oppression Claim—Finds There Could Be Disguised Dividend Issue
The plantiff pleaded a statutory claim for shareholder oppression. In October 2018, Mekhaya was fired from his position at Eastland, where his salary of $400,000 per year included an implied dividend. The implied dividend was also included in the salaries of the other shareholders, all relatives of Mekhaya. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted. The plaintiff appealed. He noted that, after his removal, they paid themselves excessively high salaries and refused to pay him dividends, thus frustrating his expectations as a shareholder. The Appellate Court of Maryland disagreed with the decision of the trial court.
Manbro Energy Corp. v. Chatterjee Advisors, LLC
The primary focus of this case was cross-motions for summary judgment on issues dealing with fiduciary duty and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A final issue, of importance to valuation experts, was a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s valuation expert, which the court denied.
U.S. District Court (New York) Denies Motion to Exclude Expert Witness
The primary focus of this case was cross-motions for summary judgment on issues dealing with fiduciary duty and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A final issue, of importance to valuation experts, was a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s valuation expert, which the court denied.
Simons v. Simons
The Nebraska Supreme Court allowed a fair value determination by the wife’s expert as the appropriate value for a divorce case and did not include any discounts that might apply in a fair market value determination. Much of the opinion dealt with the issue of a constructive trust, which the trial court determined results in a 50% ownership by the wife in the family business.
Nebraska Supreme Court Allows Fair Value Determination for Family-Owned Business and Does Not Allow Discounts
The Nebraska Supreme Court allowed a fair value determination by the wife’s expert as the appropriate value for a divorce case and did not include any discounts that might apply in a fair market value determination. Much of the opinion dealt with the issue of a constructive trust, which the trial court determined results in a 50% ownership by the wife in the family business.
Bankruptcy court KOs transfers from ‘personal piggy bank’
In a bankruptcy case in Illinois, the three tests for insolvency came into play when a dispute arose as to whether transfers the debtor company made totaling $1.72 million were fraudulent.
Stone v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union (In re Int’l Supply Co.)
The trustee of International Supply Company (ISCO) asked for avoidance and recovery of prepetition fraudulent transfers made to Citizens Equity First Credit Union. ISCO was insolvent when the transfers were made, and the transfers were for the benefit of the controlling shareholder. The court disallowed two of the fraudulent transfers. Some complaint counts against certain individuals were dismissed without prejudice.
Bankruptcy Court Sides With Trustee—Disallows (Fraudulent) Transfers
The trustee of International Supply Company (ISCO) asked for avoidance and recovery of prepetition fraudulent transfers made to Citizens Equity First Credit Union. ISCO was insolvent when the transfers were made, and the transfers were for the benefit of the controlling shareholder. The court disallowed two of the fraudulent transfers. Some complaint counts against certain individuals were dismissed without prejudice.
Aureus Holdings, LLC v. Kubient, Inc.
In this civil action, the defendant/counterclaim plaintiff (Kubient) filed a partial motion to dismiss the claims of unjust enrichment and tortious interference with business relations by the plaintiff/counterdefendant (Lo70s). The complaint showed that Kubient took actions not covered in the LOI, such as taking without permission the business and assets of Lo70s and persuading specific customers away from Lo70s and to Kubient. As a result of this and other actions of Kubient, the court did not allow a dismissal at this point in the process. The motions were denied.
Court Denies a Partial Motion by Defendant to Dismiss Claims of Unjust Enrichment and Tortious Interference With Business Relations
In this civil action, the defendant/counterclaim plaintiff (Kubient) filed a partial motion to dismiss the claims of unjust enrichment and tortious interference with business relations by the plaintiff/counterdefendant (Lo70s). The complaint showed that Kubient took actions not covered in the LOI, such as taking without permission the business and assets of Lo70s and persuading specific customers away from Lo70s and to Kubient. As a result of this and other actions of Kubient, the court did not allow a dismissal at this point in the process. The motions were denied.
Richardson v. U.S. News & World Report, Inc.
639 F.Supp. 595 (1986) David B. RICHARDSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, INC., et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 85-2195. United States District Court, District of Columbia. July 7, 1986. E. Roger Frisch, New York City, George A. Bangs and Joseph M. Butler, Rapid City, S.D., and Raoul L. Carroll, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs. Richard J. Leighton and Avis Black, Washington, D.C., for defendant-intervenor Save the Fund. Leslie A. Nicholson, Jr ...