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

Plaintiffs filed a class action on behalf of stock purchasers, alleging that Boeing committed securities fraud under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), and SEC Rule 10b-5. The suit related to statements concerning the new 787-8 Dreamliner, which had not yet flown, and did not specify a damages figure. At argument the plaintiffs’ lawyer indicated that the class was seeking hundreds of millions of dollars. The district court dismissed the suit under Rule 12(b)(6) before deciding whether to certify a class. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal; Boeing cross-appealed denial of sanctions on the plaintiffs’ lawyers for violating Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal with prejudice, but remanded for consideration under 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(c)(1), (2), of Rule 11 sanctions on the plaintiffs’ lawyers. No one who made optimistic public statements about the timing of the first flight knew that their optimism was unfounded; there is no securities fraud by hindsight. Plaintiffs’ lawyers had made confident assurances in their complaints about a confidential source, their only barrier to dismissal of their suit, even though none of them had spoken to the source and their investigator had acknowledged that she could not verify what he had told her. View "City of Livonia Emps' Ret. Sys. v. Boeing Co." on Justia Law

In 2000 the SEC charged violation of securities law. The court appointed a receiver to distribute assets among victims of the $31 million fraud. The receiver found that assets had been used to acquire oil and gas leases. SonCo claimed an interest in the leases. In 2010, the district court issued an “agreed order,” requiring SonCo to pay $600,000 for quitclaim assignment of the leases and release of claims in Canadian litigation. Alco operated the wells and had posted a $250,000 cash bond with the Texas Railroad Commission. Alco could get its $250,000 back if replaced by new operator that posted an equivalent bond. The $250,000 had come, in part, from defrauded investors. Alco was incurring environmental liabilities, with little prospect of offsetting revenues. SonCo was to replace Alco, but failed to so, after multiple extensions. The district judge held SonCo in civil contempt, ordered it to return the leases, and allowed the receiver to keep the $600,000. The Seventh Circuit upheld the finding of civil contempt. Following remand, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the sanction; considering additional environmental compliance costs and receivership fees, a plausible estimate of the harm would be $2 million. ”SonCo will be courting additional sanctions, of increasing severity, if it does not desist forthwith from its obstructionist tactics.” View "Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. First Choice Mgmt Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

In 2011, BEST fired Aslin, a securities broker, to remain compliant with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority “Taping Rule,” which requires securities firms to adopt monitoring measures when too many of their brokers have recently worked for “Disciplined Firms.” Instead of adopting such measures, the employer may terminate brokers. FINRA, a private corporation, is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a “national securities association.” The Maloney Act provides for establishment of private self-regulatory organizations to oversee securities markets, 15 U.S.C. 78o. The SEC must approve FINRA’s rules and may abrogate, add to, and delete FINRA rules. Aslin filed suit alleging that FINRA violated his due process rights by including him on the list of brokers from Disciplined Firms without providing him the opportunity to challenge the designation. The district court dismissed, concluding that Aslin failed to state a claim because he was not deprived of a protected property or liberty interest. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Since Aslin sought only injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent application of the rule to him, the controversy ended in 2012, after which Aslin was no longer included on the list of brokers from Disciplined Firms and the case was moot. View "Aslin v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth., Inc." on Justia Law

Knight was owner and CEO of Knight Industries, which owned other companies. Bank had provided credit ($34 million) to the companies, which, in 2009, filed bankruptcy petitions. Chatz was appointed trustee and was authorized to retain the Freeborn law firm. Chatz and the Bank alleged that Knight had made fraudulent transfers, had breached duties of good faith and fair dealing and duties to creditors, had misappropriated corporate opportunities, had committed conversion, and had violated securities laws, and demanded $27 million for the companies and $34 million for the Bank. In 2010 Knight filed a chapter 7 petition, listing the claims, value “unknown.” Chatz, appointed as trustee, requested representation by the Freeborn law firm, without disclosing intent to pursue the claims against Knight. The bankruptcy court approved. Later, the Bank and Chatz asked to assign the companies’ claims to the Bank. Knight objected, arguing that approval of the law firm conflicted with the companies having viable claims against Knight. The bankruptcy court overruled Knight’s objection. The district court and Seventh Circuit affirmed. Failure to disclose intent to pursue the claims did not harm Knight, and other remedies are available. It would be inequitable to permit Knight to reap huge benefits from harmless omission.View "Knight v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law

Sklena and Sarvey were floor traders in the Five-Year Treasury Note futures pit at the Chicago Board of Trade. Sklena was a “local,” authorized to trade only on his own behalf; Sarvey was a “broker” and could trade for himself and for his customers. On April 2, 2004, the price of the Five-Year Note futures fluctuated wildly. Sarvey and Sklena executed the series of transactions that resulted in criminal prosecution. According to the government, Sklena and Sarvey conspired to sell Sarvey’s customers’ contracts noncompetitively. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed a civil complaint alleging that the two “engaged in a series of non-competitive trades” that defrauded customers out of over $2 million. Sarvey died before trial on charges of wire and commodity fraud and noncompetitive futures contract trading. In Sklena’s trial, the district court excluded Sarvey’s deposition as inadmissible hearsay. Sklena was convicted. The Seventh Circuit reversed. There was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, but the court erred in excluding the deposition testimony.View "United States v. Sklena" on Justia Law

The collapse of investment manager Sentinel in 2007 left its customers in a lurch. Instead of maintaining customer assets in segregated accounts as required by the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 1, Sentinel pledged customer assets to secure an overnight loan at the Bank of New York, giving the bank in a secured position on Sentinel’s $312 million loan. After filing for bankruptcy, Sentinel’s liquidation trustee brought attempted to dislodge the bank’s secured position. After extensive proceedings, the district court rejected the claims. Acknowledging concerns about the bank’s knowledge of Sentinel’s business practices, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The essential issues were whether Sentinel had actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud and whether the bank’s conduct was sufficiently egregious to justify equitable subordination, and the district court made the necessary credibility determinations. Even if the contract with the bank enabled illegal activity, the provisions did not themselves cause the segregation violations. View "Grede v. Bank of NY Mellon Corp." on Justia Law

Wehrs alleged that his stock broker, Wells, violated federal securities and state laws by executing unauthorized trades on Wehrs’s account, causing significant losses. Wells never answered the complaint or appeared in court; default judgment entered. The court later vacated with respect to damages and granted summary judgment in favor of Wehrs. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, first upholding denial of the motion to vacate as to liability. Although Wells took quick action to correct the default, and alleged excusable neglect, asserting that his withdrawn counsel did not provide him notice of the date by which he had to respond, he did not set forth a meritorious defense. Wells implicitly admitted the allegations in contesting damages and only made a single conclusory statement that the transactions were authorized. To permit Wells to argue that Wehrs should have sold his shares at sooner to mitigate damages would allow Wells to contest liability, rather than the extent of damages. A defaulting party has no right to dispute liability. The duty to mitigate is an affirmative defense and Wells waived his right to this defense by not filing a responsive pleading and could not raise it under the guise of proximate cause. View "Wehrs. v. Wells" on Justia Law

In 2007, Nelson, a minority shareholder and major creditor of RTI sued CHSWC alleging conspiracy with RTI’s majority shareholders to use RTI’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy to enrich themselves, tortious interference with RTI’s loan contract with Nelson, and abusing the bankruptcy process. The Bankruptcy Court found that RTI’s Chapter 11 petition was not filed in bad faith. The district court dismissed Nelson’s federal suit and remanded state law claims to state court. The Seventh Circuit concluded that because RTI had no assets and had terminated business, the adversary proceeding was moot; reversed the remand of state-law claims; and held that dismissal of the abuse-of-process claim did not require dismissal of state-law claims. On remand the district court dismissed, reasoning that the state law claims were predicated on allegation that RTI’s bankruptcy filing was improper, and finding “undisputed facts” and that partial recharacterization of Nelson’s debt as equity was proper. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, reasoning that nothing of legal significance happened after the last appeal. View "Nelson v. Welch" on Justia Law

Griffin, a futures commission merchant, went bankrupt in 1998 after one of its customers, Park, sustained trading losses of several million dollars and neither Park nor Griffin had enough capital to cover the obligations. The Bankruptcy Court first relied on admissions by the controlling Griffin partners that they failed to block a wire transfer, allowing segregated customer funds to be used to help cover Park’s (and thus Griffin’s) losses. On remand, the court reversed itself and held that the trustee failed to establish that the partners actually caused the loss of customer funds and failed to establish damages. The district court affirmed, applying the Illinois version of the Uniform Commercial Code to a series of transactions that was initiated by the margin call that caused Griffin’s downfall. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that there is no reason why the transactions at issue (which involved banks in England, Canada, France, and Germany, but not Illinois) would be governed by Illinois law. The Bankruptcy Court’s first decision appropriately relied on the partners’ admission that they failed in their obligation to protect customer funds, which was enough to hold them liable for the entire value of the wire transfer.

Plaintiff owned a rental center and retained defendants, who provide investment banking services to the equipment rental industry, to help him obtain an investor or buyer. Defendants’ advice culminated in sale of a majority of plaintiff’s stock for about $30 million. Defendants billed plaintiff $758,675. Plaintiff paid without complaint but later sued for return of the entire fee on the ground that defendants lacked a brokerage license required by Wis. Stats. 452.01(2)(a), 452.03. The district court dismissed, finding the parties equally at fault. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, declining to definitively answer whether a license was required under the circumstances that a negotiated sale of assets fell through in favor of a sale of stock. Plaintiff is not entitled to relief even if there was a violation. Referring to the classic Highwayman’s Case, the court rejected claims of in pari delicto and unclean hands; plaintiff was not equally at fault. To bar relief, however, is not punishing a victim. Plaintiff did not incur damages and is not entitled to restitution. Plaintiff sought compensation for spotting a violation and incurring expenses to punish the violator, a bounty-hunter or private attorney general theory, not recognized under Wisconsin law. The voluntary-payment doctrine is inapplicable.