Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Metroplex Communications, Inc., which operates several local news outlets in Illinois, earns revenue by selling advertising space. Meta Platforms, Inc., the owner of Facebook, also sells ads and competes for the same local advertisers. Metroplex, representing a putative class of small businesses that compete with Meta for advertisers, alleged that Meta engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive practices by misrepresenting the reach and effectiveness of its Facebook advertisements, thereby drawing advertisers away from other platforms. The suit is based on claims under the Lanham Act and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, seeking disgorgement of profits Meta allegedly earned through misleading conduct. Although Metroplex had purchased Facebook ads in the past, its lawsuit was brought in its capacity as a competitor, not as an ad purchaser.Meta moved to compel arbitration in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, arguing that Metroplex’s prior ad purchases subjected it to an arbitration clause in Meta’s Commercial Terms. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that Metroplex’s claims arose from its status as a competitor and not from its own ad purchases or contractual relationship as an ad buyer. The court found the claims to be outside the scope of the arbitration clause.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the scope of the arbitration clause de novo, applying Illinois law. The court held that Metroplex’s unfair competition claims were not sufficiently connected to Metroplex’s ad purchases or Meta’s Commercial Terms to fall within the arbitration agreement. The claims centered on alleged anticompetitive conduct and public misrepresentations, unrelated to Metroplex’s own limited use of Meta’s ad services. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Meta’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration clause did not apply to Metroplex’s claims as a competitor. View "Metroplex Communications, Inc. v Meta Platforms, Inc." on Justia Law

Merchants Bank of Indiana lent substantial amounts to two entities for the purchase of assisted living facilities in Arkansas and Tennessee. The loans were secured by mortgages on the properties as well as personal guaranties executed by three individuals. When the borrowers defaulted on the loans, Merchants initiated federal lawsuits against the guarantors to collect the outstanding debts and, after dismissing the borrowers from those suits, later began foreclosure actions on the mortgaged properties in state courts. Receivers were appointed for the properties, but Merchants had not recovered the loan amounts.After Merchants moved for summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, the guarantors argued that Indiana’s “One Action” statute (Indiana Code § 32-30-10-10) barred simultaneous suits on the guaranties and foreclosures. The district court, acting on its own, granted summary judgment to the guarantors, finding that the statute applied to guaranties and rendered the waivers in the guaranty contracts unenforceable as contrary to Indiana public policy.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that the scope of Indiana’s One Action statute and the enforceability of waivers in this context were unsettled under Indiana law. Recognizing the ambiguity and the lack of controlling precedent, the Seventh Circuit certified two questions to the Indiana Supreme Court: whether the statute prohibits a lender from foreclosing while simultaneously suing on guaranties in separate proceedings, and, if so, whether such protections may be waived by guarantors. The Seventh Circuit stayed further proceedings in the case pending the Indiana Supreme Court’s response. View "Merchants Bank of Indiana v. Craik" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, who purchased securities issued by an animal health company, brought a proposed class action against the company and certain officers and directors. They alleged that the company misled investors by publicly attributing its sales growth to strong end-user demand, when in reality, the growth was artificially created through “channel stuffing”—the practice of pushing excessive inventory onto distributors, thus inflating reported revenues. The company’s alleged conduct took place around the time of major acquisitions and included public statements and SEC filings that, according to the plaintiffs, failed to disclose the channel stuffing and misrepresented the true basis for revenue increases.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana reviewed the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint and dismissed it without prejudice for failure to state a claim, allowing an opportunity to amend. The plaintiffs sought to file a second amended complaint, asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933, as well as related “control person” liability provisions. The district court denied leave to amend, deeming further amendment futile, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court concluded the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged actionable misstatements, scienter (intent to defraud), or loss causation under the heightened pleading standards required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that, even assuming the statements at issue could be considered materially misleading, the plaintiffs failed to allege facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter. The court also agreed that the claims under the Securities Act sounded in fraud and therefore required particularized pleading, which the plaintiffs had not met. Consequently, all claims were properly dismissed with prejudice. View "Hunter v Elanco Animal Health Incorporated" on Justia Law

The case centers on a lawsuit filed by the Attorney General of Florida against the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and other organizations, alleging that their advocacy for gender-affirming care violated several Florida statutes, including the state's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, RICO Act, and antitrust law. The Florida enforcement action targeted AAP's policy statements and legal filings that supported access to gender-affirming care for transgender youth, with the Attorney General seeking significant monetary penalties and organizational restrictions. Although the lawsuit was publicized, there was a three-month delay before the organizations were served.Following the initiation of the Florida state court action, AAP, an Illinois nonprofit, filed a separate suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. AAP claimed that the Florida enforcement proceeding was brought in bad faith to retaliate against its First Amendment–protected advocacy. The district court granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the Florida Attorney General from pursuing the enforcement action against AAP and denied the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss, finding that personal jurisdiction and venue in Illinois were supported, and that the facts suggested the Florida action was brought in bad faith.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed only whether to stay the district court’s injunction during the expedited appeal. The Seventh Circuit denied the motion for a stay, holding that the Attorney General did not make a strong showing of likely success on the merits or irreparable harm. The court found that the bad-faith exception to Younger abstention applied based on the district court’s factual findings, and that jurisdiction and venue in Illinois were appropriate given the circumstances. The injunction against the Florida enforcement action remains in effect pending appeal. View "American Academy of Pediatrics v Uthmeier" on Justia Law

A small Indiana telecommunications engineering company entered into a master services agreement with a larger firm, Crown Castle, for potential construction work on cell tower sites. The agreement did not guarantee specific work or payment, and required approval of any subcontractors. Before the agreement was signed, the company began discussions with a group including the defendants about subcontracting the construction work because it lacked sufficient resources. Communications between the parties included a draft proposal but no finalized agreement. Nevertheless, work commenced, with the defendants providing crews, equipment, and funding, and the plaintiff company also supplying resources and covering expenses. Throughout the project, both parties disputed their responsibilities, and payments were made and later charged back. Eventually, the defendants contacted Crown Castle directly seeking payment, and the project ended with Crown Castle terminating its contract with the plaintiff due to poor work quality.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana granted summary judgment for all defendants. The court found there was no enforceable contract, as both sides admitted no final agreement was reached and essential terms were missing. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s claims for fraudulent inducement, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, finding no actionable reliance or advisory relationship. The claim for unjust enrichment failed because no benefit was conferred that would make retention unjust. The claim of tortious interference with business relations was dismissed because the defendants’ actions were justified by their legitimate interest in payment. The district court accordingly granted summary judgment to the insurers as well.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held there was no enforceable contract, no actionable fraud or misrepresentation, no unjust enrichment, and no tortious interference, and upheld summary judgment for all defendants. View "Peters Broadcast Engineering, Inc. v PEM Consulting Group, LLC" on Justia Law

This case arises from a contract dispute related to a broader multidistrict antitrust litigation involving alleged price-fixing in the sale of broiler chickens. The parties, a meat producer and a commercial purchaser, engaged in settlement negotiations to resolve the purchaser’s antitrust claims across three cases (Broilers, Beef, and Pork) for a total of $50 million. The negotiations included email exchanges where the purchaser appeared to accept a settlement offer, but several terms—including compliance with a judgment sharing agreement, assignment data, a “most favored nation” clause, and allocation among cases—remained unresolved. The purchaser had obtained litigation funding, which required consent from the funder for any settlement.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois initially denied the producer’s motion for summary judgment in 2023 but later granted the producer’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The court found that the parties had agreed to the essential material terms: the $50 million payment and release of claims. It relied on draft settlement agreements, despite their lack of signatures, to memorialize agreement on additional terms. The court rejected arguments regarding laches and jurisdiction and subsequently granted summary judgment to the producer, concluding its obligations had been fulfilled by payment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment de novo. It held that no binding settlement agreement existed as of the purchaser’s “We accept” email because several material terms remained open and unresolved at that time. The court found that, under Illinois law, mutual assent to all material terms is required for a binding contract, and the parties had continued to negotiate those material terms for months after the email exchange. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Carina Ventures LLC v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation" on Justia Law

On February 5, 2018, an abrupt spike in market volatility led to a sharp decline in the S&P 500 and a rapid increase in the VIX index. LJM Partners, Ltd. and Two Roads Shared Trust pursued trading strategies on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange that assumed low volatility and suffered catastrophic losses when volatility soared. They alleged that several market makers manipulated the VIX by quoting inflated bid-ask prices for certain options, which artificially increased volatility and caused losses exceeding one billion dollars in managed assets over two days.Both LJM and Two Roads filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, initially naming “John Doe” defendants. The cases were coordinated into multidistrict litigation, and the plaintiffs sought expedited discovery to identify the defendants. After extensive litigation, they amended their complaints to name eight firms as defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss. The district court found that LJM lacked Article III standing, as its complaint only alleged injuries suffered by its clients, not by LJM itself. The court denied LJM’s request for leave to substitute the real party in interest and dismissed its complaint without prejudice. For Two Roads, the court found that its claims were barred by the Commodity Exchange Act’s two-year statute of limitations, declined to apply equitable tolling, and also dismissed for failure to state a claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Seventh Circuit held that LJM did not allege a concrete injury in fact sufficient for Article III standing, as its complaint failed to distinguish between its own losses and those of its clients. The court also held that Two Roads’s complaint was untimely and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying equitable tolling. The court declined to reach the merits of the underlying Commodity Exchange Act claims. View "Two Roads Shared Trust v. Barclays Capital Inc." on Justia Law

LJM Partners, Ltd. and Two Roads Shared Trust, both involved in options trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, experienced catastrophic losses on February 5 and 6, 2018, when volatility in the S&P 500 surged unexpectedly; LJM lost approximately 86.5% of its managed assets and the Preservation Fund (managed by Two Roads) lost around 80%. The plaintiffs alleged that eight defendant firms, acting as market makers, manipulated the VIX index by submitting inflated bid-ask quotes for certain SPX Options, which artificially raised volatility and resulted in inflated prices on the plaintiffs' trades, causing over one billion dollars in combined losses.After initially filing complaints against unnamed "John Doe" defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the plaintiffs pursued extensive discovery to identify the responsible parties. The cases were swept into a multidistrict litigation proceeding (VIX MDL), which delayed discovery. Eventually, after several rounds of amended complaints, the plaintiffs identified and named eight defendant firms. The defendants moved to dismiss. The district court found that LJM lacked Article III standing because it failed to allege an injury in fact, as the losses belonged to its clients, not LJM itself. For Two Roads, the district court held that its claims were time-barred under the Commodity Exchange Act’s two-year statute of limitations, and equitable tolling was denied due to lack of diligence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held that LJM’s complaint failed to establish Article III standing, as it did not allege that LJM itself—not just its clients—suffered actual losses. The court further held that Two Roads’s complaint was untimely and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing equitable tolling. Both dismissals were affirmed. View "LJM Partners, Ltd. v. Barclays Capital, Inc." on Justia Law

37celsius Capital Partners, a Milwaukee-based firm specializing in healthcare-related businesses, sought to acquire Care Innovations, a subsidiary of Intel Corporation. The parties entered into a nondisclosure agreement containing a “Hold Harmless” clause that limited damages, and subsequently executed a term sheet outlining the proposed transaction. The term sheet required 37celsius to contribute $12 million by a specified closing date and granted it an exclusivity period during which Intel could not negotiate with other parties regarding Care Innovations. The term sheet expressly limited legal obligations, stating that no binding contract would exist until a definitive agreement was executed, except for certain provisions such as confidentiality and exclusivity.After 37celsius failed to provide proof of the required funds by the closing date, Intel sold Care Innovations to another buyer. 37celsius filed suit in Wisconsin state court, alleging breach of contract based on Intel’s communications with third parties during the exclusivity period. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which ruled that 37celsius was not entitled to expectation damages under the NDA and subsequently granted summary judgment for Intel, finding no reliance damages and no evidence of causation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment de novo. It held that the term sheet was not a binding “Type II” preliminary agreement under Delaware law, as its language did not obligate the parties to negotiate in good faith. Further, even if a binding obligation existed, 37celsius could not show that Intel’s alleged breach was the but-for cause of the failed transaction, as 37celsius did not have the required funds. The court also concluded that the NDA barred expectation damages and 37celsius did not appeal the denial of reliance damages. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for Intel. View "37celsius Capital Partners, L.P. v Intel Corporation" on Justia Law

Jerome and Shaun Cohen operated a Ponzi scheme through their companies, EquityBuild, Inc. and EquityBuild Finance, LLC, from 2010 to 2018. They solicited funds from individual investors and institutional lenders, promising high returns secured by real estate, primarily in Chicago. In reality, the Cohens used new investors’ funds to pay earlier investors and overvalued properties to retain excess capital. By 2018, the scheme collapsed, leaving over $75 million in unpaid obligations. The Securities and Exchange Commission intervened, obtaining a temporary restraining order and having a receiver appointed to liquidate assets and distribute proceeds to victims.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois oversaw the receivership and determined how proceeds from the sale of two properties—7749 South Yates and 5450 South Indiana—should be distributed. Both a group of individual investors and Shatar Capital Partners claimed priority to the proceeds, with Shatar arguing its mortgages were recorded before those of the individual investors. The district court found that Shatar was on inquiry notice of the individual investors’ preexisting interests and thus not entitled to priority, limiting all claimants’ recoveries to their contributed principal, minus any amounts previously received.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s distribution order. The appellate court affirmed, holding that under Illinois law, Shatar was on inquiry notice of the individual investors’ interests in both properties at the time it invested, given multiple red flags about the properties’ financing and EquityBuild’s business model. As a result, the individual investors were entitled to priority in the distribution of proceeds. The court also found Shatar’s challenge to the distribution plan moot, as there were insufficient funds to benefit Shatar after satisfying the investors’ claims. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Duff" on Justia Law