12 results for 'cat:"Fiduciary Duty" AND cat:"Business Practices"'.
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Cline finds a lower court properly granted summary judgment in favor of a promotional products company, but not the original owner of the company himself. A former business partner argued that the owner of the promotional products company breached fiduciary duty by defaulting on lines of credit, leaving him in deep debt, and then launched a separate business without notice. However, the former owner of the company sufficiently showed in court that his former partner did not suffer direct damages as a result of his actions. Affirmed in part.
Court: Kansas Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Cline, Filed On: October 20, 2023, Case #: 125,657, Categories: fiduciary Duty, business Practices
J. Ezra mostly adopts a report and recommendations and dismisses a lawsuit brought by Tesla shareholders who alleged the company's board of directors had caused "financial harm and irreparable damage" to the company's reputation by permitting a "toxic workplace culture grounded in racist and sexist abuse and discrimination." The suing stockholders have failed to show that their claims are viable. Their claims of wrongdoing are not sufficiently "particularized" and incorporation documents "[exculpate] Tesla’s directors from liability for all but breaches of the duty of loyalty."
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Ezra, Filed On: September 15, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv592, NOS: Stockholders’ Suits - Contract, Categories: fiduciary Duty, business Practices
J. Gould agrees in part with the intermediate court's decision that a son's allegation of stockholder oppression is sufficient in a suit he brought against his parents' food distribution firm. The son had a share equal to that of his brother, and he was promoted quickly. His father moved to Thailand and the board made the brother president of the firm against the son's wishes. When the son attempted to get information from human resources for a dividend study, his brother and their mother blocked the request, and the son was fired shortly thereafter. As the son was an employee and a stockholder, his family's conduct foiled his logical expectations of remaining employed, input as a manager and receiving shareholder profits, which is sufficient to proceed. However, the son fails to successfully argue breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. Affirmed in part.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Gould, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: C-13-CV-21-000666, Categories: fiduciary Duty, Partnerships, business Practices