North Carolina Business Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Mack Sperling : Brooks Pierce Law Firm : Greensboro, Raleigh, Winston-Salem, Charlotte

Business Court Rule 9.2 says that "the movant shall have a good faith basis for requesting any . . . extension of time and, except in extraordinary cases, the movant shall first consult with any opposing party and reflect that party's position in the motion and indicate whether the opposing party wishes to be heard on the motion."

If you don't follow the Rules, you aren't going to get your extension.  In Velocity Fiber Broadband, LLC v. Lang Management, Inc., the required consultation hadn't occurred.  Judge Jolly, in denying the plaintiff's motion to respond to a counterclaim, stated "notwithstanding that the . . . reporting requirements of Rule 9.2 of the Business Court Rules may be viewed by some as merely a technicality and not substantive, the requirements are clear and simple, and compliance with them promotes efficiency in case administration by the court and counsel."

Full Opinion

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Business Court dismissed on a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings an unfair and deceptive practices claim stemming from a dispute between members of a limited liability company.

CDC, a minority member of the LLCs, argued that the member owning a 70% interest, Grimmer, had removed CDC as a manager and had made unnecessary capital calls in order to force CDC out of the LLC.  CDC also alleged that it had been defamed by Grimmer, that Grimmer had taken steps to cause banks to freeze the accounts of the LLCs, favored his son on a contract with the LLCs, and caused an improper $100,000 payment to be made by the LLCs.  CDC claimed these facts made out a claim under Chapter 75. 

The Business Court held that the conduct involving removal and capital calls were "primarily matters of internal corporate governance that do not relate to the day-to-day business activities of the LLCs.  Accordingly, these matters are not sufficiently 'in or affecting commerce' to sustain an UDTPA claim."  Op. at 16.

A defamation claim met with dismissal because Judge Diaz found it had not been described with sufficient particularity, and the other claims were dismissed because they belonged to the LLCs, not to the members.

Claims seeking judicial dissolution of the LLCs survived.  Judge Diaz found that Plaintiffs' allegations of waste and mismanagement were insufficient because they "fail to allege any specific action or conduct on the part of Grimmer that constitutes waste or demonstrates the misapplication of the LLC's assets."  Op. at 11. He ruled, however, that allegations Grimmer was refusing to pay CDC for services provided, badmouthing CDC to vendors and banks, making capital calls, and refusing to provide information regarding the operation of the LLCs might make out a claim for dissolution.  The Court held:

Applying an indulgent standard to Defendants' pleading, these allegations relating to the deteriorating relationship between Grimmer and CDC are sufficient to allow Defendants to pursue their claim that liquidation is reasonably necessary to protect Defendants' rights and interests in the LLCs.

Op. at 12.

The Court also held that CDC's claim for breach of a construction contract could proceed even though CDC was not licensed as a general contractor.  CDC's contract called for some work that required a general contractor's license, and some that didn't.  Judge Diaz held that:

Although the Court's research has not disclosed any binding precedent on point, there is persuasive authority suggesting that the denial of contract remedies to unlicensed general contractors or construction managers should properly be restricted to circumstances where the contractor seeks compensation for work falling within the statutory definition of general contracting or construction management.

Op. at 13.  The contract extended to matters for which a license wasn't necessary, like selling lots in the development, hiring sales managers, developing budgets and implementing marketing plans.

Full Opinion

Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Brief in Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In this legal malpractice action, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant law firm had failed to comply with "standards established by the Rules of Professional Conduct promulgated by the North Carolina State Bar."  The Court granted a Motion to Strike with regard to this language, observing that "the Rules of Professional Conduct of the North Carolina State Bar are not admissible on the issue of the conformity by the Defendants to the applicable standard of care. . . ."

Full Opinion

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Plaintiff sued the Defendant Bank for allegedly allowing improper deposits of company checks into a personal account.  The Bank designated the case to the Business Court based on its jurisdiction over cases involving "the law governing corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, and limited liability partnerships." 

The Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that the case involved nothing more than issues of agency, and that cases involving banking law were not included in the categories of cases over which the Business Court has mandatory jurisdiction.

The Bank contended in its Opposition to the Motion to Remand that the cases involved issues of "corporate governance" and corporate authority, and also unique issues under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code which were of significance to the state's banking community.

The Business Court denied the Motion to Remand "for two reasons. First, it appears from the submissions that questions of authority of corporate officers will be a significant issue. Second, the decisions in this case could provide guidance to businesses and the financial community with respect to banking laws."

Brief Opposing Designation As A Mandatory Complex Business Case

Opposition To Motion To Remand

Full Opinion

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled today on cases involving the statute of repose applicable to legal malpractice actions, fiduciary duties of trustees, and the waiver of the right to arbitration.

On the fiduciary duty issue, the Court affirmed the decision of the Business Court in Heinitsh v. Wachovia Bank on an obscure point of trust law for which it observed there was "surprisingly little guidance." The trustee in Heinitsh was caught between the income beneficiaries and the remaindermen of a substantial trust over a dispute whether millions of dollars from the sale of property should be categorized as income or principal. During the dispute, the trustee took the disputed funds and invested them in a money market account. The plaintiff, an income beneficiary, argued that the trustee's duties required it to maximize income in her favor, and that the trustee had breached its fiduciary duties by placing the funds in a low-yielding money market account. The Court of Appeals held that "holding the retained funds during the pending litigation was reasonable in light of the circumstances and defendant did not breach its fiduciary duty to plaintiff." The Court suggested, however, that "the better practice may be to interplead the funds. . . ."

The legal malpractice case is Goodman v. Holmes & McLaurin Attorneys at Law. The plaintiff had sued outside the four year statute of statute of repose contained in N.C. Gen. Stat. §1-15(c), but contended that the law firm was equitably estopped from asserting the statute given a lawyer's active conduct in trying to hide the fact of his malpractice.  The Court of Appeals found that conduct of concealment to be "particularly egregious," but held that "this Court has consistently refused to apply equitable doctrines to estop a defendant from asserting a statute of repose defense in the legal malpractice context. . . ."  It found plaintiff's claims therefore to be barred by the statute of repose.

In Gemini Drilling and Foundation, LLC v. National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford, the Court found that the defendant had waived its right to arbitration. The defendant had filed a motion to compel arbitration, and lost. Instead of taking an immediate interlocutory appeal, which it had the right to do, it participated in discovery and then a bench trial of the claim. The Court held that the purpose of arbitration "would be defeated if a party could reserve its right to appeal an interlocutory order denying arbitration, allow the substantive lawsuit to run its course (which could take years), and then, if dissatisfied with the result, seek to enforce the right to arbitration on appeal from the final judgment."

There's another case from today's opinions, Odell v. Legal Bucks, LLC, which I'll deal with separately. You can find all of the Court of Appeals opinions today here.

The photo of the Court of Appeals building is from Juliet Sperling.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This post is about three significant business decisions from courts in other jurisdictions.  They involve an issue of attorney-client privilege for limited liability companies, whether an LLC member can waive his statutory right to seek dissolution of an LLC, and board duties in a merger context.

First, if there's litigation between a member-manager of an LLC and the LLC, does the LLC have an attorney-client privilege to assert against its own member-manager? This issue hasn't arisen in any case before the North Carolina Business Court, but it undoubtedly will. 

A federal court in Nevada confronted that question recently and held in Montgomery v. eTreppid Technologies, LLC, 2008 WL 1826818 (D. Nev. 2008), that the LLC should be treated, for privilege purposes, like a corporation.  It determined that the privilege belonged to the entity alone, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to discovery of privileged information even though he was a member of the LLC and a former manager.  Thanks to Peter Mahler and his New York Business Divorce Blog, where I read about this case.

Second, can a member of an LLC waive his or her right to dissolution by an anti-dissolution provision in the Operating Agreement?  The answer is yes, at least under Delaware law, as held by the Delaware Court of Chancery last week in R & R Capital, LLC v. Buck & Doe Run Valley Farms, LLC, 2008 WL 3846318 (Del.Ch., Aug. 19, 2008).  You can read the summary of the case, from the Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog, here.  The Court rejected the argument that a member's agreement not to seek dissolution violated the public policy of Delaware, stressing instead the freedom of contract afforded those forming a limited liability company.

Third, also from Delaware, is a decision late last month about director duties in a merger context, Ryan v. Lyondell Chemical Co.  The Court of Chancery held that a shareholder could proceed to trial against the directors of Lyondell on a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, even though the action challenged was the consummated sale of the company for a "blowout" market premium.  The Court found a "troubling board process," in the board's determination after only seven days to approve the sale of the company without any market check, without any post-agreement "go shop" period, and their approval of a merger agreement with strong deal protection measures and a substantial breakup fee. 

The Court said it was unable to find on the summary judgment record that that Board had satisfied its Revlon duties, or that the deal protection measures were reasonable and necessary to secure the offer per Unocal.  This case is also courtesy of the Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog.

The picture of the Cook Out hamburger at the top of this post is by my daughter, Juliet, a sophmore at UNC-Chapel Hill.

I've been having trouble recently with the pictures and links on my blog, so if they are not working when you first read this please check back later.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Reid Pointe, LLC v. Stevens, 2008 NCBC 15 (N.C. Super. Ct. August 18, 2008).

The Business Court today threw out, on a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, an unfair and deceptive practices claim stemming from a dispute between members of a limited liability company. The Reid Pointe, LLC v. Stevens case also addresses a question of first impression involving an unlicensed general contractor.  There was a judicial dissolution issue as well.

CDC, a minority member of the LLCs, argued that the member owning a 70% interest, Grimmer, had removed CDC as a manager and had made unnecessary capital calls in order to force CDC out of the LLC.  CDC also alleged that it had been defamed by Grimmer, that Grimmer had taken steps to cause banks to freeze the accounts of the LLCs, favored his son on a contract with the LLCs, and caused an improper $100,000 payment to be made by the LLCs.  CDC claimed these facts made out a claim under Chapter 75. 

Judge Diaz granted the Motion on the unfair and deceptive practices claim, holding that the actions involving removal and capital calls were "primarily matters of internal corporate governance that do not relate to the day-to-day business activities of the LLCs.  Accordingly, these matters are not sufficiently 'in or affecting commerce' to sustain an UDTPA claim."  Op. at 16. (There have been a series of cases from the Business Court reaching similar conclusions in cases involving disputes between members of LLCs or between corporate shareholders.  Those cases are Kaplan, Walters & Zimmerman, Schlieper, and Slickedit.)

The defamation claim met with dismissal because Judge Diaz found it had not been described with sufficient particularity, and the other claims were dismissed because they belonged to the LLCs, not to the members.

Plaintiff's claims seeking judicial dissolution of the LLCs survived, but barely. Judge Diaz found that Plaintiffs' allegations of waste and mismanagement were insufficient because they "fail to allege any specific action or conduct on the part of Grimmer that constitutes waste or demonstrates the misapplication of the LLC's assets."  Op. at 11.He ruled, however, that allegations Grimmer was refusing to pay CDC for services provided, badmouthing CDC to vendors and banks, making capital calls, and refusing to provide information regarding the operation of the LLCs might make out a claim for dissolution.  The Court held:

Applying an indulgent standard to Defendants' pleading, these allegations relating to the deteriorating relationship between Grimmer and CDC are sufficient to allow Defendants to pursue their claim that liquidation is reasonably necessary to protect Defendants' rights and interests in the LLCs.

Op. at 12.

Last but not least, one of CDC's claim was for breach of a construction contract.  CDC, however, wasn't licensed as a general contractor in North Carolina, and our law is pretty clear that an unlicensed general contractor can't recover for its work.  The twist here was that CDC's contract called for some work that required a general contractor's license, and some that didn't.

Grimmer argued that CDC was barred from recovering anything at all on the contract, but Judge Diaz held that:

Although the Court's research has not disclosed any binding precedent on point, there is persuasive authority suggesting that the denial of contract remedies to unlicensed general contractors or construction managers should properly be restricted to circumstances where the contractor seeks compensation for work falling within the statutory definition of general contracting or construction management.

Op. at 13.  Given the "indulgent standard" of inquiry required on a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the Court denied the Motion because the contract extended to matters for which a license wasn't necessary, like selling lots in the development, hiring sales managers, developing budgets and implementing marketing plans.

Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Brief in Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This was a dispute between insurance agents and an insurer for which they had sold policies.

Plaintiff asserted that the Court had personal jurisdiction over a parent company with an indirect subsidiary in North Carolina based on the alter ego doctrine.  The Court held that "if [the parent] has dominated and controlled. . . a second tier subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, to the extent that the corporate veil may be pierced, such action would justify assertion of jurisdiction over the parent."  Although the Court found the allegations of dominance to be somewhat vague and ambiguous, it found that there were questions of fact whether the corporate veil could be pierced, and denied the motion, suggesting that it be renewed at a later date.  The Court observed that "it will not be sufficient for plaintiffs to establish only a parent-subsidiary relationship and some involvement in the subsidiary’s business by the parent. The burden will be much heavier."

The Court dismissed, based on lack of personal jurisdiction, claims against several officers of one of the corporate defenants.  It held "plaintiffs may not assert jurisdictionover a corporate agent without some affirmative act committed in his individual official capacity," which the Court found to be lacking.  The Court found that it did have jurisdiction over one of the officers, who had been alleged to have made misrepresentations to the Plaintiffs while at a meeting in North Carolina. 

Also dismissed was a negligence claim, because the Court found that duties of the parties to be defined by their contract.  The Court noted the narrow circumstances under which North Carolina recognizes a claim for negligent breach of contract, and held that allowing such a claim would "open this particular tort to all parties to a contract."

Claims for tortious interference with contract were also dismissed, because Defendant's conduct in notifying insurance policyholders that Defendant would be exiting the insurance business and that they should find new insurance had a legitimate business purpose. 

The Court found insufficient aggravating circumstances to make out an unfair and deceptive practices claim, and dismissed that claim as well.

Full Opinion

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It was a busy opinion day today in the North Carolina Court of Appeals: there were 44 published opinions, three of which I'm commenting about briefly below.  The three involve a range of issues, including arbitrator immunity, Rule 11 sanctions, and an technical point about subpoenas in state tax refund litigation and also work product privilege.

The arbitrator case, Dalenko v. Collier, addressed an issue of first impression in North Carolina, whether an arbitrator is entitled to judicial immunity.  Plaintiff, a pro se litigant who had been unsuccessful in an arbitration heard by former Judge Collier, sued him for allegedly being personally interested in the case and biased.  The Court of Appeals held (relying on Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991)) that whether a private citizen acting as an arbitrator is entitled to judicial immunity depends upon a "functionality test."  It stated:

defendant was sitting as an arbitrator to resolve a dispute pending in the courts of Wake County. Under the functionality test, defendant was entitled to judicial immunity and was immune from the claims asserted in the instant case. Plaintiff's complaint alleges conduct which was clearly within the course and scope of the arbitration proceeding. Plaintiff's claims were barred by arbitrator immunity, and the trial court correctly found them to be frivolous.

The Dalenko case also affirmed an award of Rule 11 sanctions against the Plaintiff, and also found that Plaintiff was collaterally estopped from pursuing her claims against the arbitrator since she had raised those same claims in seeking a vacation of the arbitration award.

In Ward v. Jett Properties, LLC, the Court affirmed the entry of Rule 11 sanctions against a pro se litigant who had sued his landlord for allowing other tenants to play football "within striking distance of his car" and to "dart around" on "metal skooters." To me, the significant point worth noting about Ward is that one of the reasons the Court found the Complaint to be "legally insufficient" for Rule 11 purposes was that it had been dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.  The Court held "though the mere fact that a cause of action is dismissed upon a Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not automatically entitle the moving party to have sanctions imposed. . . . it is often indicative that sanctions are proper."  The fact that Ward had filed forty two other lawsuits in the past six years, at least one of which was identical to the one before the Court, was undoubtedly a factor in the affirmance.

Last, the work product case is In the Matter of the Summons Issued to Ernst & Young, LLP.  It involves a subpoena issued by the North Carolina Department of Revenue to the accounting firm of Ernst & Young for documents relating to the tax refund lawsuit between the DOR and Wal-Mart.  Wal-Mart intervened and challenged the subpoena. 

Before it got to the work product issue, the Court resolved a threshold issue whether the Rules of Civil Procedure apply to subpoenas issued by the DOR pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-258.  The DOR argued that the Rules didn't apply, the Court of Appeals disagreed and said that they did.  The applicability of the Rules made a difference to Wal-Mart, which was arguing that the Court didn't have subject matter jurisdiction because the DOR hadn't issued a summons and filed a Complaint.  Although Wal-Mart prevailed on its argument about the application of the Rules, the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss because "the statute provides jurisdiction to the Wake County Superior Court upon application by the Secretary of Revenue."

On the work product side of things, the issue was whether some of the documents prepared by E&Y had been done "in anticipation of litigation."  Wal-Mart argued that the documents had been prepared by the accountants specifically for its restructuring, not for tax return purposes and not for purposes of its audit; that it had been billed separately for the work; that the partner who had done the work anticipated that there might be litigation from various tax authorities; and that the documents were not prepared in the ordinary course of business.  The Court found this insufficient to determine the applicability of the privilege, and remanded the case for an in camera review by the trial court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court overruled an objection to its mandatory jurisdiction in this case involving a software license agreement.  It held, in affirming Defendant's Notice of Designation of the case as one involving "intellectual property law," that:

Software licensing has become an integral part of economic life. Decisions concerning software licensing can have an impact beyond the confines of a particular case and development of a body of case law in this area of law will be beneficial to the bar and business. See Smart Online, Inc. v. OpenSite Technologies, Inc. 2003 NCBC 5 (N.C. Super. Ct. June 17, 2003).  For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Objection to Designation is OVERRULED.

Full Opinion

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court dismissed the derivative claim of a minority shareholder who alleged that the majority shareholders of the corporation had breached their fiduciary duty to the minority shareholders by failing to make distributions, failing to investigate allegations on that subject, and terminating the minority shareholder's employment. 

The Court held that this was not a proper derivative claim, because the shareholder had not alleged a cause of action belonging to the corporation or a remedy to which the corporation would be entitled.

The Court further found that even if the claim was derivative, that the minority shareholder did not fairly represent the corporation as required by North Carolina General Statute § 55-7-41(2).  The Court held:

The North Carolina Court of Appeals has applied the federal standard for determining when a shareholder “may fairly and adequately represent a corporation.” Robbins v. Tweetsie R.R., 126 N.C. App. 572, 579, 486 S.E.2d 453, 456, rev. denied, 347 N.C. 402, 494 S.E.2d 418 (1997). The federal standard uses a case by case analysis of whether a shareholder qualifies to represent the corporation. Id. (citations omitted). In Robbins, the court discussed the facts surrounding the plaintiff to conclude that plaintiff was not a suitable shareholder to bring a derivative suit. Id. at 579–80. Before the court addressed the facts of Robbins, it specifically set out that “a minority shareholder, who has uppermost a personal agenda rather than the best interests of the corporation, would [not] have standing to file and maintain a shareholder derivative action.” Id. at 578.

The Court held that the minority shareholder had a personal agenda that affected his ability to adequately represent the bests interests of the corporation. 

The Court also dismissed the shareholder's unfair and deceptive practices claim because the shareholder was a physician and the Court found the learned profession exception to applied.

Full Opinion

Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of a Shareholders' Agreement requiring the Defendant, a terminated employee, to tender his shares back to the Plaintiff.  The repurchase was ordered even though the Defendant claimed that his termination was wrongful. 

The Court granted a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and held:

Specific performance is appropriate when monetary damages are inadequate. Whalehead Properties v. Coastland Corp., 299 N.C. 270, 282, 261 S.E.2d 899, 907 (1980) (citing In Trust Co. v. Webb, 206 N.C. 247, 250, 173 S.E. 598, 600 (1934)). Viewing the material facts in the light most favorable to Defendant, the Court finds that Defendant’s employment was terminated (Compl. ¶ 9; Def.’s Ans. ¶ 9) regardless of the alleged wrongful or proper nature of the termination, Plaintiff tendered an amount to Defendant to purchase Defendant’s shares (Compl. ¶ 11; Def.’s Ans. ¶ 11), and Defendant failed to tender those shares to Plaintiff (Compl. ¶ 12; Def.’s Ans. ¶¶ 10, 12). If Defendant Barnette has a cause of action for wrongful termination, his damages may include losses resulting from his forced sale of shares. He therefore has an adequate remedy. Plaintiffs do not have an adequate remedy at law for his failure to sell his shares and are entitled to equitable relief. Only transfer of the shares at issue pursuant to the Shareholder Agreement would be an adequate remedy for breach of the Shareholder Agreement.

Full Opinion

Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Brief in Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Business Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Discovery, without discussion, in its Order in this covenant not to compete case.  From looking at Defendant's brief in opposition, what probably doomed the motion was that the one year non-compete period had nearly expired when Plaintiff requested expedited discovery.  The same Order was entered on the same day in a companion case, Robert Half Int'l Inc. v. Flood.

Full Opinion

Brief in Support of Motion for Expedited Discovery

Brief in Opposition to Motion for Expedited Discovery

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court found that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine did not apply to the false submission of data to a public agency.  The Court further found this conduct was not entitled to free speech protection under the First Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution.  Nor were the Defendants entitled to state action immunity, or the protection of the filed rate doctrine. 

Full Opinion

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court granted a Motion for Protective Order preventing Defendant from determining the identity of a confidential informant to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.  The Court found that the identity of the confidential informant was "of no consequence to the issues in this case."  The Court further found that there was good cause for the entry of the Protective Order, holding:

Here, the burdens of the proposed discovery greatly outweigh any benefits, and Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause for the entry of a protective order. The most significant burden of forcing DENR to reveal the identity of the informant is the chilling effect such a ruling would have on potential informants. The Court wishes to encourage individuals who believe a fraud is being committed on the state to present such information to the proper authorities. Without the promise of confidentiality, such individuals are less likely to come forward. There may be instances in which circumstances require disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant under the discovery rules, but this is not one of them. Here, where the Defendants already know the substance of the informant’s communications and have demonstrated no genuine need for the informant’s identity, the Court is unwilling to erode the incentives offered to the public to speak out when they observe a possible fraud on their government.

Full Opinion

Brief in Support of Motion for Protective Order

Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Protective Order

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Plaintiff sought an injunction preventing Defendant from selling its assets in North Carolina.  The Motion was filed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-485, which permits an injunction when "the defendant threatens or is about to remove or dispose of his property, with intent to defraud the plaintiff." 

The Court denied the injunction, finding that it would be a detriment to the Defendant's ability to sell its assets, and might result in Defendant's operation being forced to close.  The Court required, however, that the Defendant give sixty days notice before the closing of a sale of all or substantially all of its assets.

Full Opinion

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This opinion dealt with subpoenas to a party's attorney and its accounting firm.  The Court quashed the subpoena to the law firm (Gray Layton), holding:

Service of a subpoena duces tecum on a law firm seeking documents from the firm’s client files clearly raises worrisome issues of attorney-client and work product privilege. The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between attorney and client “made on the faith of the relationship between them.” Kenneth S. Broun, Brandis & Broun on North Carolina Evidence § 129 (4th ed. 1993). The work product privilege prevents disclosure of the “mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation in which the material is sought.” N.C. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). The Court may quash a subpoena if it “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter.” N.C. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(b), (c)(5). Gray Layton’s files may well contain materials protected by one or both of these privileges.

 The Court enforced the subpoena to the accounting firm, however, holding:

In 2001, the Court of Appeals restated that “[a]n accountant-client privilege is not recognized in North Carolina.” Miles v. Martin, 147 N.C. App. 255, 261, 555 S.E.2d 361, 365 (2001) (citing State v. Agnew, 294 N.C. 382, 394, 241 S.E.2d 684, 692 (1978)). In the absence of such a privilege, the Court finds no reason to quash the subpoena served on McCannon Rogers.

Full Opinion

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The personal representative of a decedent was not required to give personal notice of the deadline for filing claims against the estate to a claimant, as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A-14-1, where she did not have actual knowledge of the claim.  The Court also determined that she had no obligation to conduct an investigation to determine whether there was a potential claim.  The Plaintiff therefore had not properly presented its claim as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 28A-19-3(a). 

The Court also dealt with a statute of limitations issue: whether the three year statute for breach of contract or the ten year statute for a contract signed under seal should apply.  The Court found this to be a question of law as to the defendant who had passed away, who had not signed the agreement in question, but a question for the jury as to other defendants, who had.   It determined that the deceased defendant could not be bound by the sealed signatures of others on the basis that he was a member of a joint venture and that he had therefore adopted the signatures of the others as his own.

Full Opinion

Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

Brief in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment

Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Business Court overruled an objection to its mandatory jurisdiction over a Complaint alleging breach of a trademark license agreement.  It held "this case involves both the right to use trademarks and the right to use designs previously sold under the trademarked names at issue. It involves issues which fall within the mandatory issues supporting assignment to the Business Court."

Full Opinion

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A minority member (Kaplan) of a limited liability company, who was the LLC's only source of funds and who controlled the LLC's checkbook, did not have fiduciary duties to the LLC and its other members.

Judge Tennille held:

Being an investor in a company does not create a fiduciary relationship. . . . Kaplan, as a minority shareholder, had no fiduciary duty to the other shareholders even though he was the sole financial contributor to O.K.  Like an investor in a corporation, Kaplan's position as the holder of the purse strings did not create a fiduciary duty.  At all pertinent times, Kaplan was a minority shareholder without dominance or control over either O.K. or any of the other shareholders and therefore without a fiduciary duty.

The LLC members also contended that Kaplan had not followed the procedures set forth in the LLC's Operating Agreement in making his loans.  The Court ruled, however, that these claims were barred by ratification and estoppel.  It held "Defendants are estopped from objecting to the loans by their continued acceptance of reimbursement and salary made possible by the loans, as well as their inaction when O.K. creditors were paid with the loaned money."  (Op. at 8).

Summary judgment was granted on Defendant's claim of negligent misrepresentation, because the Court found that Defendants, as majority shareholders of the LLC, could have investigated any questions of the validity of the representations made by Kaplan.  As members of the majority, the Defendants had "the opportunity to question and determine for themselves whether any documentation provided was inaccurate."  (Op. at 14).

Last, the Court granted summary judgment on Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices claim.  The Court held that "the dispute here arises from an internal dispute over the direction of O.K. by its shareholders.  Commerce is not affected by the parties' inability to work together as an LLC."  (Op. at 14).

Full Opinion

Plaintiff's Brief In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment

Defendants' Brief In Opposition To Motion For Summary Judgment

Plaintiff's Reply Brief In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court denied a motion for expedited discovery, but noted that the discovery at issue had already been served, and stated that "[i]n light of the claims alleged in the Complaint, the Court is not inclined to look favorably upon a motion by Defendant for an extension of time to respond to those requests."

Full Opinion

Brief in Support of Motion for Expedited Discovery

Brief in Opposition to Motion for Expedited Discovery

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court denied a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.  The Motion sought enforcement of covenants not to compete executed by the Defendants, who were loan officers with the Plaintiff, a mortgage broker.

The covenants stated that the Defendants:

will not directly or indirectly, in any capacity work for any company, entity or individual, including himself/herself, who originates or sells residential housing loans in any state in which LO has originated a loan in the six (6) months preceding the termination of LO’s employment with the Company [Integrity].

The Court found this to be too broad a restriction, holding:

the individual Defendants would not merely be prevented from working as loan officers for other mortgage brokers, but would also be prevented from doing even wholly unrelated work at any firm that competes with the Plaintiff.

The Court also noted that the Defendants contended that the Plaintiff had breached its agreement by failing to pay them, and held:

Our courts have held that “[i]njunctive relief to enforce the terms of a contract will not be granted a party who has himself breached the terms of the contract when his breach is substantial and material and goes to the heart of the agreement."

Full Opinion

Brief in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The person elected as liquidator to oversee the liquidation of the assets of two general partnerships was not entitled to limit his responsibility to the pursuit of a derivative action lawsuit against the auditor for the partnerships, as opposed to the general winding up of the affairs of the partnerships.  The Court held:

the substantive problem with Ray’s election as liquidator is that he is unwilling to accept the full mantle of responsibilities that attend to the post. Liquidation is a process for the winding up of a dissolved partnership’s affairs by collecting and providing for an orderly distribution of all of the partnership’s assets, first to creditors, if any, and then to the partners. See generally N.C.G.S. §§ 59-803 to -804 (2006); Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, §§ 17-803 to -804 (2006).

In the Court’s view, one who seeks to serve as a liquidator may not pick and choose among the assets of the partnership that he will supervise, but instead must be willing to accept responsibility for the full and complete winding up of the partnership’s affairs within this State.

The Court's remedy was to exercise its "inherent equitable power" to appoint a receiver for the partnerships.  That person would determine, as a part of the receivership, whether the derivative action should be pursued.

Full Opinion

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Plaintiff was entitled to discovery of documents relating to an arbitration proceeding involving similar claims, even though the legal issues were not identical, and also notwithstanding a confidentiality agreement entered by the arbitrator in the arbitration case. 

The Court made this comment on the standard of relevancy for discovery purposes:

A fundamental requirement of Rule 26, and the focus of the Court’s analysis here, is that the information sought to be discovered must be “relevant” to the pending action. The test of relevancy under Rule 26 is not the same as the more stringent relevancy requirement of Rule 401 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence. See N.C. R. Evid. 401 (“‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”); see also Adams v. Lovette, 105 N.C. App. 23, 29, 411 S.E.2d 620, 624 (1992), aff’d, 332 N.C. 659, 422 S.E.2d 575 (1992). Moreover, a determination that information is relevant for discovery purposes does not necessarily mean that the information is admissible at trial. The latter determination is made according to Rule 401 of the Rules of Evidence. Shellhorn v. Brad Ragan, Inc., 38 N.C. App. 310, 314, 248 S.E.2d 103, 106 (1978). To be relevant for discovery purposes, the information sought need only be “reasonably calculated” to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence admissible at trial. See N.C. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

The Court also held that there might be circumstances where an arbitrator's ruling on confidentiality might be enforced:

The Court emphasizes the narrow and fact-specific nature of this ruling. There may be instances in which recognition of an arbitration panel’s confidentiality order is warranted. This Court recently acknowledged the strong state and federal public policy in favor of resolving disputes through arbitration. See, e.g., State v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 2006 NCBC 22 ¶ 35 (N.C. Super. Ct. Dec. 4, 2006), http://www.ncbusinesscourt.net/opinions/2006%20NCBC%2022.htm. Confidentiality is an important part of the settlement process and is perceived as a clear advantage of arbitration. See, e.g., Richard C. Reuben, Constitutional Gravity: A Unitary Theory of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Public Civil Justice, 47 UCLA L. Rev. 949, 1086 (2000) (noting that “privacy can be an important consideration in the decision to waive full-blown trial rights in favor of the