Plaintiff had settled up with a co-defendant, who had been dismissed from the action. A remaining defendant sought discovery of the settlement agreement, but the plaintiff objected on the grounds of Rule 408. The Court ordered production of the settlement agreement, noting that many courts allow discovery of settlement agreements when they are relevant to
Ray v. Deloitte & Touche, L.L.P., 2006 NCBC 5 (N.C. Super. Ct. Apr. 21, 2006)(Diaz)
This case concerned the right of a limited partner to bring a derivative action against two partnerships. As one partnership was a North Carolina entity, and the other a Delaware entity, the Court considered the law of both states. The law of both states excuses demand in the event of futility in the case of
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
Banc of America Securities, LLC v. Evergreen International Aviation, Inc., 2006 NCBC 2 (N.C. Super. Ct. Jan. 25, 2006)(Diaz)
The Court addressed the "at issue" exception to the attorney-client privilege in this case. The Court held that the advice of counsel becomes at issue "where the client asserts a claim or defense, and attempts to prove that claim or defense by disclosing or describing an attorney client communication." It held that the defendant had
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.
Maurer v. Slickedit, Inc., 2005 NCBC 4 (N.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 12, 2005)(Tennille)
Plaintiff’s former employer had violated the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act by failing to pay her bonuses when due. The Court granted summary judgment on this claim in favor of the plaintiff.
The Court granted summary judgment against plaintiff on her slander claims, finding that she had neither pled nor proven the alleged slander