Plaintiffs were not entitled to pursue a derivative action, because they were not shareholders of the company at the time of the acts complained of. One of the defendants was a trust, to which a shareholder of the company had transferred shares. The Court held that the trust, as transferee, could not maintain the action because it had not become a shareholder through operation of law. A voluntary transfer is not a transfer through operation of law. Also, the trust had never made a demand, which barred its claim.

In a related case, the Court held that a diminution in value of a shareholder’s shares is an injury to stockholders generally, and therefore a derivative claim. It further held that a derivative claim could not be maintained against directors who had not been mentioned in the shareholder’s demand letter.

Full Opinion

Plaintiff’s counsel violated the Rules of Professional Responsibility by contacting a former employee of the defendant, who had participated substantially in the legal representation of the defendant before his termination.  The Court struck the affidavit from the witness proferred by the plaintiff, and ruled that he could not be presented by the plaintiff as a witness going forward.  The Court denied, however, the motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel.

Full Opinion

This Motion to Intervene before the Court in this class action case against Microsoft was filed not by a potential party, but by a group of lawyers seeking to share in any fee award to plaintiff’s counsel. The Court refused to allow the lawyers to intervene, because lawyers who have never been counsel of record cannot have an interest in a settlement. Allowing intervention, which would have led to a fee dispute, would have delayed implementation of the settlement.

Full Opinion

The Court denied the Motion to Intervene by a shareholder of the defendant, a Delaware corporation, by which the proposed intervenor sought to compel an inspection of books and records and to compel an annual meeting. The Court held that "appropriate and efficient remedies" were available under Delaware law.

Full Opinion

In what County should a lawsuit seeking the final distribution of the assets of a limited liability company which has already been dissolved be filed? The answer is in the county where the LLC’s principal office is or was located. The Court therefore transferred venue in this case from Mecklenburg County to Forsyth County, finding that the change of venue was mandatory pursuant to N.C.G.S. §57C-6-02.1, which deals with "a proceeding to dissolve a limited liability company."

The Court held, in the alternative, that the change of venue was appropriate for the convenience of the witnesses and the ends of justice.

Full Opinion

There is no limitation on the Business Court’s jurisdiction when it comes to cases involving the Internet and e-commerce. "The legislature specifically included cases relating to those subjects without any limitation on the nature of the legal issues involved. . . .It did so in order to provide a court with expertise in these areas and to see that the law was developed consistently. The Internet and e-commerce generally involve new, novel, and complex technologies. Those technologies impact business in innumerable ways."

Full Opinion

The Court declined to award attorneys’ fees under the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Statute. It found that there was no unwarranted refusal to fully resolve the matter, the case involved unique issues of law, and the defendant had valid reasons to refuse to settle this matter and to litigate it to conclusion.

Full Opinion

The individual defendants were personally liable for the judgment obtained by plaintiff under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. The Court refused to award liquidated damages, however, finding that the defendant had acted in good faith and had a reasonable basis for believing that their refusal to pay bonuses was not in violation of the Act.

Full Opinion

The Court granted a preliminary injunction on a covenant not to compete even though defendant denied that he had signed the agreement and presented a handwriting expert who testified that his signature had been forged. The Court found that New York law applied to the covenant, that New York law permitted blue pencilling, and that it therefore could modify the scope of the restriction.

Full Opinion

Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Brief in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction