The Court of Appeals today affirmed a trial court’s ruling that Wal-Mart had been properly assessed more than $30 million in taxes, penalties and interest. The case is Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc. v. Hinton.
The tax strategy of Wal-Mart rejected by the Court involved the discounter transferring the ownership of its stores to a
If you are working on a motion to dismiss in a federal case, you should stop right now and read the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today in Ashcroft v. Iqbal. The decision sharpens and refines the heightened standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion articulated by the Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
Can you have a default entered against you if you aren’t a proper party to the lawsuit? The answer is yes, at least on the unique facts before the Business Court in its opinion Friday in the derivative action Regional Property Development Corp. v. Carpenter.
Regional Property, a member of Lancaster Industrial Park, LLC
The Fourth Circuit this week considered the antics of the Sigma Chi fraternity at George Mason University, and it didn’t like what it saw. In Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Patterson, the Court affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the fraternity’s lawsuit asserting that its ten year ban from campus had
The Business Court, relying on the Court of Appeals decision in White v. Thompson, dismissed an unfair and deceptive practices claim brought by an LLC member who claimed that another member and manager had usurped Company opportunities and converted Company assets. It held that there was no assertion that the defendant’s "actions had any
The Business Court today granted a motion to disqualify counsel for Plaintiffs, finding their prior representation of the Defendants involved a matter "substantially related" to the matters at issue in the lawsuit.
The law firm representing the Plaintiffs in The Cottages of Stonehenge Condominium Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Dominion Mid-Atlantic Properties II, LLC had been
The Business Court held today in Armacell v. Bostic that it had personal jurisdiction over an Italian company, L’Isolante, which hired a scientist, Bostic, away from a competitor.
The Plaintiff claimed that the hiring violated Bostic’s non-compete agreement, and that Bostic had also stolen "thousands of data files containing sensitive proprietary information and trade secrets."
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered an opus today on whether a mutual fund investment advisor could be primarily liable under the federal securities laws for allegedly misleading statements in prospectuses issued by the mutual funds.
The case, First Derivative Traders v. Janus Capital Group, involves alleged misrepresentations by the Janus family of
When law firms break up, litigation often follows. The case of Merritt, Flebotte, Wilson, Webb & Caruso, PLLC v. Hemmings, decided Tuesday by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, involved claims between lawyers of defamation and violation of a nondisparagement provision in a settlement agreement.
The Defendants had left the Plaintiff’s firm to start
The Court of Appeals split today 2-1 on whether two partners with claims against a third partner for self-dealing and breach of opportunity could make an unfair and deceptive practices claim. The case is White v. Thompson. Judge Wynn wrote the majority opinion, and Judge Ervin dissented.
The partnership was Ace Fabrication and Welding, the partners were White, Ellis, and Thompson. Ace did several jobs for a large customer, but Thompson then secured a number of jobs from that customer on his own, without performing them with the partnership.
The other partners obtained a jury verdict on a breach of fiduciary duty claim, and were awarded damages of $138,195. The trial court trebled the damages, but the Court of Appeals majority reversed.
Its reasoning was that the claim was for a breach of partnership duties involving matters of internal management of the partnership, so the claim did not make out the "in or affecting commerce" requirement of a Section 75-1.1 claim. It said that the Defendant’s activities had indeed harmed the partnership, "but had no impact in the broader marketplace."
Judge Ervin saw things completely differently. He said:
"Impairing the ability of others to compete for work in this fashion is tantamount to unfair competition, a type of conduct which is clearly actionable" as an unfair and deceptive practice.
"The effect of such conduct was to deprive the partnership of the ability to actually perform certain specialty fabrication jobs . . . a fact which clearly implicates the ‘activities the business regularly engages in and for which it [was] organized.’"
"Depriving the partnership of the opportunity to perform these . . . jobs inevitably affected its financial viability, producing an inevitable impact on competitive conditions in the market for the performance of . . . jobs in the area served by the partnership."
The North Carolina Business Court has faced the issue of what is "in or affecting commerce" on a number of occasions.Continue Reading Court Of Appeals Rules That Partner’s Self-Dealing Isn’t “In Or Affecting Commerce” And Isn’t An Unfair And Deceptive Practice