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

Trovare sought to purchase an affiliated group of family-owned companies. The parties executed a Letter of Intent that included a provision requiring the companies, if they terminated negotiations in writing before a certain date, to pay Trovare a breakup fee of $200,000. Trovare demanded that fee more than a month before the termination date, claiming that the companies intentionally scuttled the deal before the termination date, and then engaged in sham “negotiations” to avoid paying the breakup fee. The companies never sent written notice of termination. Following a remand, the district court concluded and the Seventh Circuit affirmed that the companies had not terminated negotiations before the termination date, and that Trovare was therefore not entitled to the breakup fee. View "Trovare Capital Grp., LLC v. Simkins Indus., Inc." on Justia Law

From 2006-2011, NCO purchased consumers’ defaulted debt and referred collections to its sister corporation Financial, an Illinois-licensed debt collector, and to outside attorneys, who are exempt from the Illinois Collection Agency Act (ICAA), 225 ILCS 425/2.03(5). NCO avoided direct collection activities; did not communicate with debtors or credit-reporting agencies; and did not consider itself a ”collection agency” subject to the ICAA. Financial attempted to collect the debts and outside lawyers filed 2,749 lawsuits on NCO’s behalf. Illinois consumers whose debts NCO bought and referred to Financial or outside counsel, filed a class action, alleging that NCO engaged in unlicensed debt collection and that Financial violated the ICAA because it knew or should have known that NCO was an unlicensed debt collector. The district judge agreed that NCO was not a collection agency, relying in part on testimony from a lawyer in the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, charged with enforcing the ICAA, that the Act did not apply to NCO until 2013, when it was amended to add a definition of “debt buyer.” The court entered judgment for the defendants. The Seventh Circuit reversed, noting a 2015 Illinois Supreme Court holding that a passive debt buyer “clearly qualifies as a ‘collection agency’ as defined in section 3 of the Act.” View "Hawthorne v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

In 2013, hackers attacked Neiman Marcus and stole the credit card numbers of its customers. In December 2013, the company learned that some of its customers had found fraudulent charges on their cards. On January 10, 2014, it publicly announced that the cyberattack had occurred and that between July 16 and October 30, 2013, and approximately 350,000 cards had been exposed to the hackers’ malware. Customers filed suit under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). The district court dismissed, ruling that the individual plaintiffs and the class lacked Article III standing. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that the plaintiffs identified some particularized, concrete, redress able injuries, as a result of the data breach. View "Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Employees of Instant, an information-technology staffing firm sign agreements in which they promise not to solicit business from Instant’s clients, not to recruit Instant’s employees to other jobs, and not to disclose the firm’s sensitive information to outsiders. DeFazio was Instant’s Vice President until 2012, when she was fired. She was already cofounding Connect, a new tech-staffing firm, and began working there immediately, along with several coworkers she persuaded to leave Instant. Connect won business from several of Instant’s recent clients. Instant sued DeFazio and others for breaching the restrictive covenants and under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030. DeFazio counterclaimed, alleging that Instant shortchanged her on a bonus. The court concluded that no one is liable to anyone else. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that defendants did not leak or otherwise misuse Instant’s proprietary data. Defendants admitted breaching the covenants not to solicit and not to recruit, but in Illinois a restrictive covenant in an employment agreement is valid only if it serves a “legitimate business interest.” The district court concluded that neither covenant did. Tech-staffing firms do not build relationships with clients that would justify restricting their employees from setting out on their own. View "Instant Tech. LLC v. DeFazio" on Justia Law

VDF has trademark and patent rights in “CoffeeBerry” extract and licensed J&J to make and sell CoffeeBerry-based skin-care products. VDF was entitled to “running royalties,” based on the number of sales by the licensee, or by sublicensees. The license permitted J&J to sublicense its rights and required J&J to pay a minimum quarterly royalty if running royalties fell below a specified level. The license could not be assigned without written permission, but it did not forbid a change of control of J&J. J&J sublicensed Stiefel, a manufacturer of dermatological products. Four years later, J&J’s owners sold their interests to Stiefel for $8.5 million. J&J became a Stiefel subsidiary. After buying J&J’s stock, Stiefel engineered amended the sublicence, reducing the alternative minimum royalties that Stiefel owed J&J and diverting part of the license-revenue stream from VDF and J&J to Stiefel. VDF filed suit, alleging de facto assignment and breach of contract. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to claims that they engineered an unauthorized assignment of the license and that the $8.5 million paid for J&J was really a purchase of J&J’s anticipated sales revenue, so that part of that revenue should have gone to VDF as advance royalties. View "VDF Futureceuticals, Inc. v. Stiefel Labs, Inc." on Justia Law

Because a 1999 issue of cumulative preferred stock was impairing the company’s ability to raise capital, Emmis signed holders of 60% of the preferred shares to swaps. Emmis purchased shares; the owners delivered their shares to an escrow. Closing was deferred for five years, during which the sellers agreed to vote their shares as Emmis instructed. Emmis did this because, once it purchased any share outright, it would be retired and lose voting rights, Ind. Code 23-1-25-3(a). Emmis repurchased addition preferred stock in a tender offer and reissued it to a trust for bonuses to workers who stuck with the firm through the financial downturn. The trustee was to vote this stock at management’s direction. Senior managers and members of the board were excluded, leaving them free to propose and vote without a conflict of interest. The plans allowed Emmis to control more than 2/3 of the votes. Emmis then called on owners of common and preferred stock to vote on whether the terms of the preferred stock should be changed. The cumulative feature of the stock’s dividends and other rights were eliminated. Plaintiffs, who own remaining preferred stock, sued. The district court rejected claims under federal and Indiana law. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Indiana, apparently alone among the states, allows a corporation to vote its own shares, which may be good, or may be bad, but the ability to negotiate better terms, or invest elsewhere, rather than judicially imposed “best practices,” is how corporate law protects investors View "Corre Opportunities Fund, LP v. Emmis Commc'ns Corp." on Justia Law

Lawson sold computer maintenance and support services for StorageTek. He was paid a base salary and commissions on his sales under the company’s annual incentive plan. Sun Microsystems acquired StorageTek in 2005. At the time Lawson was working on a large sale to JPMorgan Chase, but the deal did not close until 2006. If StorageTek’s 2005 incentive plan applied, Lawson would earn a commission, as high as $1.8 million. If the sale fell under Sun’s 2006 incentive plan, his commission would be about $54,000. Sun determined that the 2006 plan applied. Lawson sued for breach of contract and violation of Indiana’s Wage Claim Statute. The district court rejected the statutory wage claim but submitted the contract claim to a jury, which awarded Lawson $1.5 million in damages. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The sale did not qualify for a commission under the terms of the 2005 plan. Although the original plan documents said the plan would remain in effect until superseded by a new one, a September 2005 amendment set a definite termination date for the plan year: December 25, 2005. To earn a commission under the 2005 plan, sales had to be final and invoiced by that date. View "Lawson v. Sun Microsystems, Inc." on Justia Law

Tilstra (an Ontario business) sued a Wisconsin manufacturer of dairy equipment, BouMatic. Tilstra had been a BouMatic dealer for about 20 years. Tilstra’s territory included “arguably the richest dairy county in Canada,” on which 55,000 dairy cows grazed. His dealership was making a profit of $400,000 a year. The dealership contract reserved to BouMatic “the right to change, at its sole discretion, the assigned territory,” but provided that “BouMatic shall not terminate this Agreement or effect a substantial change in the competitive circumstances of this Agreement without good cause and only upon at least ninety (90) days’ advance written notice …. The term ‘good cause’ means Dealer’s failure to comply substantially with essential and reasonable requirements imposed upon Dealer by BouMatic.” Tilstra claimed that by devious means, BouMatic forced him to sell his dealership to a neighboring BouMatic dealer at a below-market price. The jury awarded Tilstra $471,124 in damages. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that BouMatic never gave Tilstra written notice of any alleged failure to comply. View "Tilstra v. BouMatic LLC" on Justia Law

Carhart and Halaska own CHI. CHI terminated its sales agent, MRO, which filed a federal suit for breach of contract. Carhart bought MRO’s claim for $150,000 and became the plaintiff in a suit against a company of which he was a half owner. Halaska then sued Carhart in Wisconsin state court for breach of fiduciary duties to CHI and Halaska by becoming the plaintiff and by writing checks on CHI bank accounts without approval, depositing payments owed CHI into Carhart’s own account, and withholding accounting and other financial information from Halaska. A receiver was appointed, informed the federal court that CHI had no assets out of which to pay a lawyer, and consented to entry of a $242,000 default judgment (the amount sought by Carhart), giving Carhart a potential profit of $92,000 on his purchase of MRO’s claim. In Carhart’s suit to execute that judgment, CHI’s only asset was its Wisconsin suit against Carhart. The court ordered the sale of CHI’s lawsuit at public auction; Carhart, the only bidder, bought it for $10,000, ending all possibility that CHI could proceed against him for his alleged plundering of the company. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Auctioning off the lawsuit placed Carhart ahead of CHI’s other creditors. Carhart was not a purchaser in good faith. No valid interest is impaired by rescinding the sale, enabling CHI to prosecute its suit against Carhart. View "Carhart v. Carhart-Halaska Int'l, LLC" on Justia Law

Iqbal bought a gasoline service station and contracted with S-Mart Petroleum for gasoline. Iqbal then hired Patel to conduct the business, ceding operational control to him. He chose Patel on the recommendation of Johnson, S-Mart’s president. Patel ran the business but did not pay for the gasoline, leading S-Mart to sue. The Indiana state court entered a judgment of more than $65,000 against Iqbal as guarantor. Under a settlement, Iqbal gave S-Mart a note, secured by a mortgage on the business premises. When he still did not pay, a state court entered a second judgment against him, and the property was sold in a foreclosure auction. Iqbal filed a federal suit, alleging that Patel and Johnson acted in cahoots to defraud him out of his business and seeking treble damages under 18 U.S.C. 1964, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The district court dismissed the complaint as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it challenged the state court’s judgments. The Seventh Circuit reversed, reasoning that Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predated the state litigation and caused injury independently of it. View "Iqbal v. Patel" on Justia Law