When an employee quits his or her job, unemployment benefits aren’t available unless there was "good cause" for leaving the job. Today, the North Carolina Supreme Court answered the question whether an employee who quits in the face of a downsizing, accepting a "voluntary" retirement package, can show the good cause necessary to receive unemployment
August 2009
Business Court Is Getting More Expensive
If you are getting ready to designate a case to the North Carolina Business Court, you might want to go ahead and do that in the next few days. That’s because starting September 1, 2009, it’s going to cost your client a bunch more money to have a case heard in the Business Court.
Effective…
Forced Out Minority Shareholder Gets Past Motion to Dismiss
A minority shareholder who said he was forced to resign as an officer and director of the company got past a Motion to Dismiss challenging his claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, conspiracy, and punitive damages in the Business Court’s opinion last Friday in Oakeson …
McKinnon v. CV Industries, Inc., April 20, 2009 (Tennille)(unpublished)
The Court had mandatory jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint because it involved the interpretation of a shareholders agreement, and also because it involved the rights to manufacture certain products and use certain processes covered by patents.
Business Court Jurisdiction Is Forever
Once the Business Court takes jurisdiction over a case, that jurisdiction remains in place for the life of the case, regardless of dismissals of parties or changes in the nature of the claims.
That was the ruling of the Court last week in Mattress Now, Inc. v. KS Bank, Inc. in response to the Plaintiff’s…
Stream Of Commerce, Legal Malpractice, And More: North Carolina Court Of Appeals Rulings Today
The Court of Appeals issued today a number of opinions worth a mention, running the gamut from two personal jurisdiction rulings to a significant legal malpractice decision.
Personal Jurisdiction
The opinion in Brown v. Meter contains a thorough discussion of personal jurisdiction based on product sales in the "stream of commerce," with a mention of…
Disenfranchised Shareholders Had Individual Claims For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
The alleged efforts of a board of directors to entrench itself – which included refusing to permit dissent shareholders to vote at a shareholders meeting and issuing additional shares to give the board majority control of the company – were the subject of the Business Court’s opinion last Friday in Green v. Condra, 2009…
Law Firm’s Client Didn’t Have First Amendment Right To Be Anonymous
We’ll probably never know the identity of the Appellant in Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., decided yesterday by the Fourth Circuit. Whether anyone, including the Defendant, was entitled to know that person’s name was the whole point of the appeal by the party referred to by the Fourth Circuit as the "Doe Client."
The Doe Client had accused Jos. A. Bank, a publicly traded company, of serious accounting fraud. That individual, who claimed a constitutional right to anonymity, appealed a ruling of a trial judge in the District of Maryland ordering his or her identity to be disclosed to the Defendant.
The Fourth Court’s ruling touches both deposition and subpoena procedure under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as issues of freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
Background
You’ll need more than a little bit of background, as the case has elements of a John Grisham novel. Lefkoe is a securities class action. Plaintiffs assert fraud based on a sharp drop in the clothing company’s share price when it delayed an earnings report.
The delay occurred because Bank’s Audit Committee had received, shortly before the report’s due date, a letter from the law firm of Foley & Lardner making detailed charges of accounting improprieties.The letter was sent by the law firm on behalf of a shareholder who it said "held several hundred thousand shares" of Bank stock. The shareholder was not identified in the letter.
Bank hired lawyers and accountants to investigate the charges. The conclusion of the investigation was that the charges were "without substance." In the securities lawsuit, filed in federal court in Maryland, Bank sent a subpoena to the law firm seeking to require it to present a witness to testify as to the identity of its client. The subpoena was issued from the Massachusetts district court.
The law firm objected there to the subpoena, asserting that its client had "a right of anonymity as protected by the First Amendment." The Massachusetts judge permitted the deposition to take place. The law firm presented the Doe Client as the witness. The Court ordered the deposition sealed and entered a protective order stating that the lawyers for Bank couldn’t tell their client the name of the Doe Client.
The lawyers for Bank investigated the Doe Client, and found facts suggesting it had taken "deliberate and successful actions to drive down the market price" of Bank stock, and furthermore that it was a short seller who held a substantial quantity of puts on Bank stock. The Doe Client therefore stood to profit from the decline in Bank stock.
The clothing company’s lawyers then asked the Maryland judge to permit them to provide the name of the Doe Client to Bank. The Maryland judge agreed to a wider disclosure, but only to Bank’s in-house counsel.
The Doe Client appealed to the Fourth Circuit, arguing that the Maryland court didn’t have the authority to modify the Massachusetts’ court’s ruling, and furthermore that the ruling violated the Doe Client’s First Amendment rights.Continue Reading Law Firm’s Client Didn’t Have First Amendment Right To Be Anonymous
The NC Business Court Now Has Jurisdiction Over Utility Poles
The Business Court now has jurisdiction over utility pole disputes between communications providers and municipalities. That surprising expansion of the Court’s jurisdiction is thanks to a new law passed at the just concluded session of the North Carolina Legislature.
New section 62-55 of the General Statutes requires a municipality that "owns or controls poles, ducts…
Mattress Now, Inc., v. KS Bank, Inc., August 12, 2009 (Tennille)(unpublished)
Once the Business Court takes jurisdiction over case, that jurisdiction remains in place for the life of the case, regardless of dismissals of parties or changes in the nature of the claims.
In this case, the Plaintiff moved to remand the case to Superior Court, arguing that it had settled its claims with the party…