The Court was, once again, called upon to interpret the obligations of the parties under the National Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust.
Case Database
State ex re. Long v. Custard, 2007 NCBC 26 (N.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 8, 2007)(Tennille)
By Mack Sperling on
The North Carolina Insurance Commissioner sued the defendants, shareholders of insurance carriers in liquidation, for breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants moved to dismiss, claiming that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations at the time of the filing of the petition for liquidation. The Court found the statute of limitations for breach of…
Perkins v. Healthmarkets, Inc., 2007 NCBC 25 (N.C. Super. Ct. July 30, 2007)(Diaz)
By Mack Sperling on
Posted in Fraud, Unjust Enrichment
The Court held that plaintiff, an insurance agent who had given up two profitable territories based upon the representations of defendants that he would be given two new territories, stated a claim for fraud. The Court noted that allegations based upon information and belief do not satisfy Rule 9(b), but said there were sufficient facts…
State ex rel. Cooper v. McClure, 2007 NCBC 24 (N.C. Super. July 19, 2007)(Tennille)
By Mack Sperling on
Posted in Antitrust
The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ruling that the defendants had participated in a conspiracy in restraint of trade with regard to public contracts for the remediation of underground storage tanks. The Court found that the defendants had engaged in an orchestrated effort to submit artificially high bids in response to a solicitation…
Digital Recorders, Inc. v. McFarland, 2007 NCBC 23 (N.C. Super. June 29, 2007)(Diaz)
By Mack Sperling on
Posted in Covenants Not To Compete
The Court denied a motion for preliminary injunction on two covenants not to compete. It found that one covenant was overly broad, since it had no geographic scope whatsoever. Another covenant was also overly broad, as it restrained the defendant from working for a competitor in any capacity at all, including as a security guard or…
Burgess v. American Express Company, Inc., 2007 NCBC 22 (N.C. Super. Ct. June 29, 2007)(Diaz)
By Mack Sperling on
Posted in Sanctions
Plaintiff, who was pro se, moved for Rule 11 sanctions based on defendant’s Rule 68 Offer of Judgment of a single dollar. After noting that the purpose of Rule 68 is to "encourage settlements and avoid protracted litigation," the Court found that the $1.00 offer provided little chance of seriously opening negotiations or settling…
Lawrence v. UMLIC-Five Corp., 2007 NCBC 20 (N.C. Super. Ct. June 18, 2007)(Diaz)
By Mack Sperling on
Posted in Fraud, Unfair & Deceptive Practices
The Court held that plaintiffs had failed to plead fraud with particularity, and dismissed their fraud claim pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs had attempted to plead both affirmative misrepresentations and fraud by concealment. With regard to the first, the Court held that the Complaint contained no specific allegations…
Heinitsh v. Wachovia Bank, 2007 NCBC 19 (N.C. Super. June 11, 2007)(Tennille)
By Mack Sperling on
Posted in Fiduciary Duties
This case involved a trustee caught between the income beneficiary and the remainder beneficiaries of a trust. The beneficiaries disputed whether proceeds of the sale of property were income, to be distributed to the income beneficiary, or principal, to be held in trust for the remainder beneficiaries. The trustee elected to put the money in…
Heinitsh v. Wachovia Bank, 2007 NCBC 18 (N.C. Super. June 11, 2007)(Tennille)
By Mack Sperling on
Posted in Case Database
The defendant, the trustee of a trust, hired lawyers to represent it with regard to a dispute between the income beneficiaries and the remaindermen of the trust. In the course of that dispute, the income beneficiary also sued the trustee for maladministration. The issue was the trust’s right to reimbursement for the fees incurred.
The…
Latigo Investments II, LLC v. Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., 2007 NCBC 17 (N.C. Super. Ct. June 8, 2007)(Diaz)
By Mack Sperling on
Posted in Unfair & Deceptive Practices
The only issue before the Court in this case was whether it should dismiss plaintiff’s unfair and deceptive practices claim. Plaintiffs had sought to raise money to recapitalize their business. Defendants had promised to provide the necessary capital, but then reneged on their commitment. Plaintifs suffered a loss as a result, and sued on a…