Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Several plaintiffs, including an individual, an investment fund, and a limited partnership, engaged in trading derivatives tied to the Sterling London Interbank Offered Rate (Sterling LIBOR). They alleged that a group of major banks conspired to manipulate Sterling LIBOR for their own trading advantage. The plaintiffs claimed that the banks coordinated false submissions to the rate-setting process, sometimes inflating and sometimes deflating the benchmark, which in turn affected the value of Sterling LIBOR-based derivatives. The plaintiffs asserted that this manipulation was orchestrated through internal and external communications among banks and with the help of inter-dealer brokers.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the case and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the Sherman Act and the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The district court found that two plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing because they were not “efficient enforcers” and had not transacted directly with the defendants, resulting in only indirect and remote damages. The court also determined that the third plaintiff, a limited partnership, lacked the capacity to sue and had not properly assigned its claims to a substitute entity. Additionally, the court found that one plaintiff failed to adequately plead specific intent for the CEA claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, but on a narrower ground. The Second Circuit held that none of the plaintiffs plausibly alleged actual injury under either the Sherman Act or the CEA. The court explained that because the alleged manipulation was multidirectional—sometimes raising and sometimes lowering Sterling LIBOR—the plaintiffs did not show that they suffered net harm as a result of the defendants’ conduct. Without specific allegations of transactions where they were harmed by the manipulation, the plaintiffs’ claims could not proceed. The judgment of dismissal was affirmed, and the cross-appeal was dismissed as moot. View "Sonterra Cap. Master Fund, Ltd. v. UBS AG" on Justia Law

A wholesale food supplier, Vista Food Exchange, Inc. ("Vista"), sued Comercial De Alimentos Sanchez S De R L De C.V. ("Sanchez") for breach of contract, alleging that Sanchez failed to pay for over $750,000 worth of meat products. Vista claimed that Sanchez was required to make payments to Vista's headquarters in New York, but Sanchez contended it had paid the invoices in cash to Vista's salesman, Eduardo Andujo Rascón, in Tijuana, Mexico. Sanchez supported its claim with declarations and documents, including an affidavit from Rascón stating he received the cash payments.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of Sanchez, dismissing Vista's breach-of-contract claim. The court found that Sanchez provided unrefuted evidence of cash payments to Rascón, fulfilling its contractual obligations. It also ruled that even if paying Rascón in cash breached the contract, Vista could not show that its damages were proximately caused by the breach because Rascón's theft of the money was unforeseeable. The court dismissed Vista's other claims for breach of implied contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment, citing New York law that forecloses such claims when an enforceable contract exists.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding Sanchez's claimed performance, the modification of the contract, and the foreseeability of damages. The appellate court vacated the district court's judgment dismissing Vista's claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment and remanded the case for trial on those claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Vista's claims for implied contract and promissory estoppel. View "Vista Food Exchange, Inc. v. Comercial de Alimentos Sanchez" on Justia Law

This case involves Commerzbank AG, a German bank, and U.S. Bank, N.A., an American bank. Commerzbank sued U.S. Bank, alleging that it had failed to fulfill its duties as a trustee for residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) that Commerzbank had purchased. The case revolved around three main issues: whether Commerzbank could bring claims related to trusts with "No Action Clauses"; whether Commerzbank's claims related to certificates held through German entities were timely; and whether Commerzbank could bring claims related to certificates it had sold to third parties.The district court had previously dismissed Commerzbank's claims related to trusts with No Action Clauses, granted judgment in favor of U.S. Bank on the timeliness of Commerzbank's claims related to the German certificates, and denied Commerzbank's claims related to the sold certificates. Commerzbank appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions on the timeliness of the German certificate claims and the denial of the sold certificate claims. However, it vacated the district court's dismissal of Commerzbank's claims related to trusts with No Action Clauses and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that Commerzbank's failure to make pre-suit demands on parties other than trustees could be excused in certain circumstances where these parties are sufficiently conflicted. View "Commerzbank AG v. U.S. Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Total Wine challenged provisions of Connecticut’s Liquor Control Act and regulations as preempted by the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. Connecticut’s “post and hold” provisions require state-licensed manufacturers, wholesalers, and out-of-state permittees to post a “bottle price” or “can price” and a “case price” each month with the Department of Consumer Protection for each alcoholic product that the wholesaler intends to sell during the following month; they may “amend” their posted prices to “match” competitors’ lower prices but are obligated to “hold” their prices at the posted price (amended or not) for a month. Connecticut’s minimum-retail-price provisions require that retailers sell to customers at or above a statutorily defined “[c]ost,” which is not defined as the retailer’s actual cost. The post-and-hold number supplies the central component of “[c]ost” and largely dictates the price at which Connecticut retailers must sell their alcoholic products. The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaint. Connecticut’s minimum-retail-price provisions, compelling only vertical pricing arrangements among private actors, are not preempted. The post-and-hold provisions were not preempted because they “do not compel any agreement” among wholesalers, but only individual action. The court also upheld a price discrimination prohibition as falling outside the scope of the Sherman Act. View "Connecticut Fine Wine and Spirits LLC v. Seagull" on Justia Law

Sleepyʹs purchased beds from the Select Comfort for resale in Sleepyʹs stores and suspected that Select Comfort was disparaging Sleepyʹs stores and the particular line of Select Comfort beds it sold. Sleepy’s sued, alleging slander per se, breach of contract, unfair competition, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the Lanham Act. After a bench trial, the district court dismissed. On remand, a different district judge entered a judgment for Select Comfort on the merits and concluded that attorneyʹs fees were warranted because the case was ʺexceptionalʺ under the Lanham Act. The Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of Sleepyʹs slander claims. That dismissal had been on the ground that the publication element cannot be met under New York law when the statement in question is only made to the plaintiffʹs representatives--”secret shoppers” sent into Select Comfort stores by Sleepy’s. The Second Circuit remanded for a determination of whether the plaintiff consented to the slanderous statements by engaging the secret shoppers. The district court was directed to apply the “Octane Fitness” standard for evaluating whether a Lanham Act claim is ʺexceptional.ʺ The district court erred by not sufficiently explaining or justifying the amount of the defendantsʹ attorneyʹs fees. View "Sleepy's LLC v. Select Comfort Wholesale Corp." on Justia Law

Empire a distributor of alcoholic beverages, is New York State’s exclusive distributor for popular brands like Johnnie Walker, Grey Goose, and Seagram’s Gin. Empire alleges that from 2008-2014, Reliable and (non‐party) RNDC, among Maryland’s largest liquor distributors, conspired with retail liquor stores in Cecil County, Maryland and New York City to smuggle liquor from Maryland to New York, in violation of New York liquor law. Empire sued Reliable and several Cecil County and New York retailers under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961, alleging that their bootlegging directly harmed Empire “because every case of alcohol smuggled into New York from Maryland was a lost sale by New York’s authorized distributors.” The defendants argued that the smuggling operation did not directly cause Empire to lose sales and that Empire had not adequately alleged proximate cause under RICO. The district court dismissed the case. The Second Circuit affirmed. Empire failed to allege proximate cause adequately. Empire adequately alleged a smuggling scheme, satisfying the first element of wire fraud and satisfied the third element of wire fraud, alleging “dozens of specific wire communications allegedly made by defendants.” The Supreme Court, however, has suggested the need for skepticism “to claims brought by economic competitors” and New York State was a more direct victim of the smuggling operation. View "Empire Merchants, LLC v. Reliable Churchill, LLLP" on Justia Law

Luitpold is a New York corporation that develops and markets drugs and medical devices, including dental implant products. Geistlich, a Swiss corporation that develops and manufactures dental products, now owns the patents and trademarks for the Bio-Oss and Bio-Glide dental products, which are used to aid bone and tissue growth in patients following dental procedures. In 1994,, following failed attempts to market its products in the United States through other companies, Geistlich and Luitpold entered into interdependent commercial and license agreements to establish a distribution relationship for the sale of Geistlich’s dental products throughout the United States and Canada. The parties later entered into additional agreements and amendments. In 2010, Geistlich declared its intent to terminate the distribution relationship, without compensation to Luitpold, as of 2011. Geistlich did not allege breach of the agreements, but declared that the agreements had been in effect for a “reasonable” time and that under New York law, Geistlich could unilaterally terminate them upon reasonable notice. Luitpold sought declaratory relief, specific performance, damages, and prejudgment attachment of Geistlich patents and trademarks. The district court rejected all claims. The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, finding that material issues of fact precluded dismissal or summary judgment on certain claims. View "Luitpold Pharm., Inc. v. Ed. Geistlich Sohne A.G." on Justia Law

In 1953, New York and New Jersey entered into the Waterfront Commission Act, establishing the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor to govern operations at the Port of New York‐New Jersey. At that time, individual pieces of cargo were loaded onto trucks, driven to the pier, and then unloaded for loading, piece‐by‐piece, onto the vessel. Similarly, arriving cargo was handled piece-by-piece. Containerization transformed shipping: a shipper loads cargo into a large container, which is loaded onto a truck and transported to the pier, where it is lifted aboard a ship. Continental operates warehouses, including one at 112 Port Jersey Boulevard, Jersey City. Continental picks up containers from the Global Marine Terminal, transports them to the Warehouse, unloads them, and removes their contents. Continental stores the freight and provides other services, such as sampling, weighing. and wrapping. In 2011, the Commission advised Continental that it was required to obtain a stevedore license, concluding that the property line and building of the 112 Warehouse were within 1,000 yards of a pier. Continental sought a declaratory judgment. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court holding that Continental engages in stevedoring activities at the warehouse and that the warehouse is an ʺother waterfront terminalʺ under the Act and within the Commission’s jurisdiction. View "Cont'l Terminals, Inc. v. Waterfront Comm'n of N.Y. Harbor" on Justia Law

Select Comfort manufactures and sells Sleep Number bedding, which has inflatable air chambers that adjust to vary mattress firmness; it sells those beds through its own retail stores. In 2005, Sleepy’s, a bedding retailer, and Select executed an agreement making Sleepy’s a Sleep Number authorized retailer only for Select’s “Personal Preference” line. Sales were disappointing. In response to reports that Select salespeople were disparaging Sleepy’s and its Personal Preference line, Sleepy’s began conducting “secret shops.” Sleepy’s contends its undercover shopping revealed a pattern of disparagement. In 2007, Sleepy’s confronted Select; the parties executed a Wind-Up Agreement. Sleepy’s sued, alleging that Select breached the agreement by failing to provide “first quality merchandise,” and by violating a non-disparagement clause. Sleepy’s also asserted fraudulent inducement, slander per se, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair competition, and violation of the Lanham Act. The district court granted judgment for Select, finding that the contract had expired on September 30, 2006 and that Sleepy’s had consented to the allegedly slanderous statements. The Second Circuit vacated, except with respect to the “first quality merchandise” claim. The court erred in treating “expiration” and “termination” as interchangeable terms referring to the end of the contract term. View "SleepyÂ’s, LLC v. Select Comfort Wholesale Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from an order of the bankruptcy court holding that a mistakenly filed UCC-3 termination statement was unauthorized and therefore not effective to terminate a secured lender's interest in a debtor's property. The court certified to the Delaware Supreme Court the following question: Under UCC Article 9, as adopted into Delaware law by Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, art. 9, for a UCC-3 termination statement to effectively extinguish the perfected nature of a UCC-1 financing statement, is it enough that the secured lender review and knowingly approve for filing a UCC-3 purporting to extinguish the perfected security interest, or must the secured lender intend to terminate the particular security interest that is listed on the UCC-3? View "In Re: Motors Liquidation Co." on Justia Law