The Court denied a motion for a preliminary injuction and for appointment of a receiver, where the plaintiff claimed that transfers would be in violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act. The Court determined that plaintiff was not a creditor and therefore could not obtain an injunction under the UFTA. Plaintiff’s alleged equity interest did
Case Database
Adams v. A.J. Ballard Jr. Tire and Oil Co., 2006 NCBC 9 (N.C. Super. Ct. June 20, 2006)(Tennille)
As the Court framed the issues, this case concerned: (a) whether refiners may be held liable for underground storage tank leaks or spills at sites they do not own (it held they could not), (b) what causes of action and statutes of limitation and repose apply to leaks or spills that contaminate drinking water under…
Wachovia Bank v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, 2006 NCBC 8 (N.C. Super. Ct. June 2, 2006)(Diaz)
The Court granted the defendant’s motion to stay the action so that a related action pending in New York could proceed, pursuant to N.C.G.S. §1-75.12. The Court considered the following factors: "(1) the nature of the case, (2) the convenience of the witnesses, (3) the availability of compulsory process to produce witnesses, (4) the relative…
Media Network, Inc. v. Mullen Advertising, Inc., 2006 NCBC 7 (N.C. Super. Ct. May 24, 2006)(Diaz)
The Court refused to allow the defendant to amend its answer to add counterclaims. It found that the defendant had known of the facts relating to the counterclaim for nearly a year before seeking leave to amend, and that defendant had unduly delayed in seeking an amendment. It found that the plaintiff would be prejudiced…
Egelhof v. Szulik, 2006 NCBC 4 (N.C. Super. Ct. Mar. 13, 2006)(Tennille)
The Court considered yet another derivative action plaintiff who had failed to make the demand required under Delaware law. The Court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish demand futility based on his claim that the outside directors were insufficiently disinterested to have properly considered a demand.
Plaintiff’s claim that one of the outside…
Flick Mortgage Investors, Inc. v. The Epiphany Mortgage, Inc., 2006 NCBC 3 (N.C. Super. Ct. Feb. 1, 2006)(Diaz)
Defendant’s counsel had formerly been a lawyer at the law firm of the plaintiff. Plaintiff moved to disqualify him as counsel. Although the firm-changing lawyer had only been minimally involved in the matter before his departure, the Court held that an important factor to be considered was the subjective belief of the client whether the…
Maurer v. Slickedit, Inc., 2006 NCBC 1 (N.C. Super. Ct. Feb. 3, 2005)(Tennille)
The Court began this final installment of the Maurer (2005 NCBC 1; 2005 NCBC 4) saga with a bit of ominous poetry: "O, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive."
The first issue it addressed was whether bonus payments which the company had withheld from a terminated shareholder/employee were "wages"…
In re Pozen Shareholders Litigation, 2005 NCBC 7 (N.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 10, 2005)(Tennille)
The Court dismissed a series of shareholder derivative actions due to plaintiffs’ failure to make the required demand under Delaware law. Since the shareholders did not attack a specific action of the board, the Court undertook to determine "whether any of the directors were rendered ‘interested’ by any of the conduct alleged and, if so…
State of North Carolina ex rel. Cooper v. McClure, 2005 NCBC 6 (N.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 28, 2005)(Tennille)
The Court refused to reconsider its decision that plaintiffs were not entitled to make an unfair and deceptive practices claim. It had previously found that such claims could not be made due to the extensive regulatory scheme surrounding the matters at issue.
The Court did reconsider, however, its determination that the plaintiffs were not entitled…
State v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc., 2005 NCBC 5 (N.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 19, 2005)(Tennille)
This case returned to the Business Court following the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision reversing the Business Court’s determination that no further payments were due to the National Tobacco Settlement Trust. The Court ordered the defendants to make payment.