Reporting on Judicial Decisions of Significance to Business & Shareholders
A shareholder who guarantees the debt of a corporation does not have an injury "separate and distinct" from the injury sustained by the corporation itself. The shareholder did not standing to pursue damages for the breach of a contract with the corporation. A shareholder "cannot assert claims against a third party for loss of its equity investment in a corporation."
Full OpinionContinue Reading Griffin Management Corp. v. Carolina Power and Light Co., November 13, 2009 (Jolly)(unpublished)
The Business Court held that an individual taxpayer did not have standing to sue over alleged misuse of taxes paid by residents of the City of Roanoke Rapids to build a music entertainment theater, rejecting his arguments that he was entitled to bring suit individually because the losses from the theater would be borne by all of the taxpayers of the City, and alternatively that he was entitled to sue derivatively on behalf of the City because the proper authorities had refused to act with regard to such losses.
No …
Continue Reading Garrett v. Parton, January 30, 2009 (Jolly)(unpublished)
The Court, again, considered the issue of indirect purchaser standing. It reiterated the factors it looks to in determining whether there is such standing, as articulated in its opinion in Crouch v. Crompton Corp.
Crouch had involved one product, tires, but this case involved ethylene propylene diene monomer, which the Court observed might be used in hundreds of products. The recovery to individual consumers would therefore be miniscule, and the Court observed that "[t]he funds from these settlements are destined to end up in the hands of the lawyers, a…
Continue Reading Teague v. Bayer AG, 2007 NCBC 12 (N.C. Super. Ct. May 7, 2007)(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 were purchasers of automobile tires whose price had been affected by collusion on the price of rubber. In the second, the plaintiffs were credit card holders who claimed they had paid higher prices for goods…
The Court found that an indirect purchaser had standing under North Carolina law to assert an antitrust claim, and denied a motion to dismiss. It certified the issue for immediate appeal.
Full OpinionContinue Reading Adams v. Aventis, S.A., 2003 NCBC 7 (N.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 26, 2003)(Tennille)