Following its decision in Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, the Court found that there was no recognized claim under North Carolina law for aiding and abetting fraud. The Court did allow a claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty to proceed, however.
Maurer v. Slickedit, Inc., 2005 NCBC 1 (N.C. Super. Ct. May 15, 2005)(Tennille)
Plaintiff, a significant (42.5%) minority shareholder of the corporate defendant, filed a derivative action against the corporate defendant. The Court characterized the case as "a domestic case disguised as a derivative action." The Court looked to the law of Virginia, the place of the incorporation of the company, to determine the appropriate prerequisites.
The claims
State v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc., 2004 NCBC 9 (N.C. Super. Ct. Dec. 23, 2004)(Tennille)
This case involved "tobacco law." The Court found that the enactment of the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 ("FETRA") on October 22, 2004 activated the Tax Offset Adjustment provision in the National Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust created as a part of the Master Settlement Agreement, which permitted the Settlors under the Trust
State of North Carolina ex rel. Cooper v. McClure, 2004 NCBC 8 (N.C. Super. Ct. Dec. 14, 2004)(Tennille)
Plaintiff, a state agency, charged that the defendants had engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices for environmental consulting work. The defendants claimed that they were entitled to immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The Court rejected this argument, characterizing defendants’ supposedly protected conduct as involving the submission of false data for the purpose of inflating
Crouch v. Crompton Corp. and Morris v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 2004 NCBC 7 (N.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 26, 2004)(Tennille)
The Court addressed again the issue of indirect purchaser standing under the North Carolina antitrust laws in these consolidated cases. It held that although such purchasers do have standing, there are limitations on that standing which barred the claims of the plaintiffs and it granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.
In the first case, the plaintiffs
Corr Services, Inc. v. Davidson County, 2004 NCBC 6 (N.C. Super. Ct. Sept. 30, 2004)(Tennille)
The Court found that Davidson County had breached its contract to pay for services provided.
Marcoux v. Prim, 2004 NCBC 5 (N.C. Super. Ct. Apr. 16, 2004)(Tennille)
This action sought to enjoin a merger involving a publicly traded company. The Court addressed whether the action was derivative or direct under Delaware law. If it was derivative, the Court held that the complaint suffered from three flaws: it was not verified, the corporation had not been joined as a party, and there were
Sports Quest, Inc. v. Dale Earnhardt, Inc., 2004 NCBC 4 (N.C. Super. Ct. Mar. 12, 2004)(Tennille)
The Court granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for interference with prospective economic advantage. The Court found that there was a "high standard" for such a claim, and that plaintiff was required to show, with specificity, the future contracts that plaintiff would have obtained but for the alleged interference.
Plaintiff’s claim for interference with its
Sports Quest, Inc. v. Dale Earnhardt, Inc., 2004 NCBC 3 (N.C. Super. Ct. Feb. 12, 2004)(Tennille)
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant caused its business to fail. The defendant asserted plaintiff’s business had failed because he used illegal drugs, had extramarital affairs, and because he "had a propensity to sleep and fish during the day."
When the defendant sought to question the owner of the plaintiff about these matters at his
Alexander v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 2004 NCBC 2 (N.C. Super. Ct. Jan. 30, 2004)(Tennille)
The law of North Carolina requires a disclosure by an automobile manufacturer when a repurchased vehicle (a lemon) is re-sold. Failing to do so constitutes "lemon laundering." Plaintiffs claimed that the manufacturer was responsible for policing its dealers to make sure that they made the required disclosures when the dealers sold a car that they