Justia U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Several shareholders of Paya Holdings, Inc.—who were originally sponsors of a special purpose acquisition company that merged with Paya—held “Earnout Shares” subject to contractual transfer restrictions. Under the Sponsor Support Agreement (“SSA”), these shares could not be transferred until October 2025 unless a “Change in Control” occurred and the price per share exceeded $15.00. If the price was below $15.00, the Earnout Shares would be automatically forfeited prior to consummation of the change. In January 2023, Nuvei Corporation agreed to purchase all Paya shares for $9.75 per share in a tender offer. The offer required that tendered shares be freely transferable. The appellants attempted to tender their Earnout Shares, but Nuvei rejected them, citing the SSA’s restrictions.The shareholders sued Nuvei in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Nuvei violated the SEC’s Best Price Rule, which requires the highest consideration paid to any shareholder in a tender offer to be paid to all shareholders of that class. The District Court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim, reasoning that no consideration was actually paid to the appellants because their shares were not validly tendered due to the transfer restrictions.On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. The Third Circuit held that the Best Price Rule does not require a tender offeror to purchase shares that are subject to self-imposed transfer restrictions. The Rule mandates equal payment only for shares “taken up and paid for” pursuant to a tender offer, and it is silent regarding whether offerors must accept all tendered shares. Therefore, Nuvei was not required to purchase the appellants’ restricted shares, and dismissal of their claim was proper. View "Abramowski v. Nuvei Corp" on Justia Law

A minor league baseball team in Oregon lost its longstanding affiliation with a Major League Baseball (MLB) club after MLB restructured its relationship with minor league teams in 2020. The team’s owner alleges that a minority owner of an MLB franchise, who also served on the board and a negotiation committee of the national minor league association, acted to reduce the number of minor league clubs for personal gain, which resulted in the team’s exclusion from the new affiliation structure. The owner claims that the association’s rules left it dependent on the board and committee members to protect its interests.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the owner’s complaint, finding that it failed to plausibly allege the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the board member and the team. The owner appealed, arguing that fiduciary duties arose under Florida’s non-profit statute, by contract, or by implication due to the structure of the association and the interactions between the parties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s dismissal de novo. The Third Circuit held that Florida’s non-profit statute does not create a fiduciary duty from a director to the members of the non-profit, only to the corporation itself. The court also found no express or implied fiduciary duty arising from contractual provisions or the surrounding circumstances. The court distinguished direct and derivative actions and concluded that the complaint did not allege facts to support a direct or implied fiduciary relationship. Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim. View "Sports Enterprises Inc v. Goldklang" on Justia Law

Nicole Schuster, a mechanical engineer at the Naval Foundry and Propeller Center, led two Navy procurement projects for large machines known as vertical turning centers (VTCs) in 2017 and 2019. In 2017, she favored Company 1, which won the SU22 contract, while Company 2’s bid was rejected as technically unacceptable. In 2019, Schuster again favored Company 1 for the SU25 contract and, after learning Company 2 had bid, she disclosed Company 2’s confidential bid information from the earlier SU22 procurement to an employee of Company 1. This information included cost data and proprietary manufacturing details. Company 1 subsequently won the SU25 contract, with Company 2’s bid deemed too expensive.Schuster was charged in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with violating the Procurement Integrity Act, specifically 41 U.S.C. §§ 2102(a) and 2105(a), which prohibit disclosure of contractor bid or proposal information before the award of the procurement to which the information relates. Schuster pled guilty based on a plea agreement, which included a factual basis describing the machines as “virtually identical” but did not detail whether the information she disclosed was the same in substance as that submitted for the pending SU25 procurement. The District Court accepted her guilty plea and sentenced her to one year and one day in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case, applying plain error review to Schuster’s challenge to the sufficiency of the factual basis for her plea. The Court held that the District Court erred by accepting the guilty plea without sufficient facts to establish that the disclosed information related to the pending procurement as required by statute. The Third Circuit vacated Schuster’s conviction and sentence and remanded the case for repleading, rather than entering judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. Schuster" on Justia Law

Several individuals who were former partners at Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., BGC Holdings L.P., and Newmark Holdings L.P. separated from those partnerships and were entitled to receive certain payments after their departure. These payments included an initial amount plus four annual installment payments, but the partnership agreements allowed the partnerships to withhold the annual payments if the former partners engaged in broadly defined “Competitive Activity.” The partnerships exercised this right and withheld payments from the plaintiffs after determining they had engaged in such activity. The plaintiffs alleged that these provisions constituted unreasonable restraints of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and, for two plaintiffs, a violation of Delaware’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to plead an “antitrust injury,” which is necessary to assert a claim under the Sherman Act, and further held that the implied covenant claims failed because the partnership agreements gave the partnerships express contractual discretion to withhold the payments when a former partner competed, leaving no contractual gap for the implied covenant to fill. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The court held that the plaintiffs’ pecuniary injuries, stemming from the withholding of payments, were not antitrust injuries because they did not result from anticompetitive conduct affecting their status as market participants, nor were their injuries inextricably intertwined with any anticompetitive scheme. Regarding the implied covenant claims, the Third Circuit found that the relevant agreements expressly permitted withholding the payments under the circumstances, and there was no plausible allegation that the partnerships exercised their discretion in bad faith. View "McLoughlin v. Cantor Fitzgerald L.P." on Justia Law

Yellow Corporation, a major trucking company, ceased operations and filed for bankruptcy in 2023. As a result, it withdrew from several multiemployer pension plans, triggering withdrawal liability—an amount owed to the pension plans to cover unfunded vested benefits for employees. The pension plans, which had received substantial federal funds under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) to stabilize their finances, filed claims against Yellow’s bankruptcy estate for withdrawal liability. The dispute centered on how much of the ARPA funds should be counted as plan assets when calculating Yellow’s liability, as well as whether certain contractual terms could require Yellow to pay a higher withdrawal liability than statutory minimums.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware reviewed the claims. It upheld two regulations issued by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC): the Phase-In Regulation, which requires ARPA funds to be counted as plan assets gradually over time, and the No-Receivables Regulation, which bars plans from counting ARPA funds as assets before they are actually received. The Bankruptcy Court found these regulations to be valid exercises of PBGC’s authority and not arbitrary or capricious. It also ruled that two pension plans could enforce a contractual provision requiring Yellow to pay withdrawal liability at a higher, agreed-upon rate, rather than the rate based solely on its actual contributions.On direct appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s order. The Third Circuit held that the PBGC’s regulations were valid under ARPA and ERISA, as Congress had expressly delegated authority to the PBGC to set reasonable conditions on the allocation of plan assets and withdrawal liability. The court also held that pension plans could enforce contractual terms requiring higher withdrawal liability, as the statutory scheme sets a floor, not a ceiling, for such liability. View "In re: Yellow Corporation" on Justia Law

Two business compliance companies entered into a partnership to develop a software product, with one company providing “white-label” services to the other. The partnership was formalized in a written agreement, but disputes arose over performance, payment for out-of-scope work, and the functionality of the software integration. As the relationship deteriorated, the company that had sought the services began developing its own infrastructure, ultimately terminating the partnership and launching a competing product. The service provider alleged that its trade secrets and proprietary information were misappropriated in the process.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania presided over a jury trial in which the service provider brought claims for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation under both state and federal law, and unfair competition. The jury found in favor of the service provider, awarding compensatory and punitive damages across the claims. The jury specifically found that six of eight alleged trade secrets were misappropriated. The defendant company filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and remittitur, arguing insufficient evidence, improper expert testimony, and duplicative damages. The District Court denied these motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s rulings. The Third Circuit held that the defendant had forfeited its argument regarding the protectability of the trade secrets by not raising it with sufficient specificity at trial, and thus assumed protectability for purposes of appeal. The court found sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding of misappropriation by use, and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The court also found no reversible error in the admission of expert testimony. However, the Third Circuit determined that the damages awarded for trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition were duplicative, and conditionally remanded for remittitur of $11,068,044, allowing the plaintiff to accept the reduced award or seek a new trial on damages. View "Harbor Business Compliance Corp v. Firstbase IO Inc" on Justia Law

Two employees of a debt-collection firm, one of whom was out sick with COVID-19, collaborated to resolve an urgent licensing issue for their employer. The employee at home, unable to access her work computer, asked her colleague to log in using her credentials and retrieve a spreadsheet containing passwords for various company systems. The colleague, with express permission, accessed the computer and emailed the spreadsheet to the employee’s personal and work email accounts. Both actions violated the employer’s internal computer-use policies. Separately, the employee at home had, over several years, moved accounts into her workgroup to receive performance bonuses, believing she was eligible for them. Both employees also alleged persistent sexual harassment at work, which led to internal complaints, one employee’s resignation, and the other’s termination.After these events, the employer, National Recovery Agency (NRA), sued both employees in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), federal and state trade secrets laws, civil conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud. The employees counterclaimed for sexual harassment and related employment claims. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court entered judgment for the employees on all claims brought by NRA, finding no violations of the CFAA or trade secrets laws, and stayed the employees’ harassment claims pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the District Court’s judgment in full. The Third Circuit held, first, that the CFAA does not criminalize violations of workplace computer-use policies by employees with authorized access, absent evidence of hacking or code-based circumvention. Second, it held that passwords protecting proprietary business information do not, by themselves, constitute trade secrets under federal or Pennsylvania law. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the state-law tort claims. View "NRA Group LLC v. Durenleau" on Justia Law

In this case, Robert Z. Maigetter and Barbara J. Berot jointly owned a co-op apartment in Washington, D.C., which Berot's son, Alexis Kyriakopoulos, used. After Berot was diagnosed with terminal cancer, she and Maigetter executed parallel wills, with Berot expressing her wish for the co-op to pass to Kyriakopoulos. Berot passed away in May 2020, and Maigetter sought advice from their attorney, Sarah A. Eastburn, resulting in several email exchanges. Kyriakopoulos sued Maigetter to enforce an alleged contract to will the co-op to him, claiming Maigetter agreed to this arrangement before Berot's death.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and, after an in-camera review, ordered the production of twelve emails between Maigetter and Eastburn, finding them probative of Berot's intentions and subject to the testamentary exception to the attorney-client privilege. The District Court certified a narrow question for appeal regarding the scope of the testamentary exception, specifically whether it applies only to communications made by the deceased or also to communications made by others discussing the deceased's statements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the District Court's application of the testamentary exception exceeded its traditional bounds. The Third Circuit held that the testamentary exception applies only to communications between the deceased client and their attorney, not to third-party communications made after the client's death. The court emphasized that the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client and can only be waived by the client or through an implied waiver in specific circumstances, which did not apply here. Consequently, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court's order compelling the production of the emails and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Kyriakopoulos v. Maigetter" on Justia Law

Dyax Corporation performed research for Ares Trading S.A. and licensed patents to Ares, including some held by Cambridge Antibody Technology (CAT Patents). Ares used Dyax’s research to develop a cancer drug, Bavencio, and agreed to pay royalties to Dyax based on the drug’s sales. The royalty obligation outlasted the lifespan of the CAT Patents. The District Court held that Ares’ royalty obligation was not unenforceable under Brulotte v. Thys Co., which prohibits royalties that extend beyond a patent’s expiration.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware found that Ares’ royalty obligation did not violate Brulotte because it was not calculated based on activity requiring the use of inventions covered by the CAT Patents after their expiration. The court characterized the royalties as deferred compensation for Dyax’s pre-expiration research. Additionally, the court noted that Ares’ royalty obligation could run until the latest-running patent covered in the agreement expired, which included patents other than the CAT Patents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Third Circuit held that Ares’ royalty obligation was not calculated based on activity requiring post-expiration use of the CAT Patents, and thus, Brulotte did not apply. The court emphasized that the royalties were based on sales of Bavencio, which did not require the use of the CAT Patents after their expiration. The court also rejected Ares’ argument that Dyax violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, noting that Ares received all the benefits promised under the agreement. The court concluded that Dyax did not breach any obligations under the agreement, and Ares’ royalty obligation remained enforceable. View "Ares Trading SA v. Dyax Corp" on Justia Law

Rose McAvoy, an undergraduate student at Dickinson College, alleged that the college violated Title IX and breached its contract by failing to respond adequately to her sexual assault claim. McAvoy reported that she was sexually assaulted by a fellow student, TS, in October 2017. She initially did not disclose TS's name but later requested a formal Title IX investigation in December 2017. Dickinson initiated an investigation, issued a no-contact directive, and provided McAvoy with various accommodations and support services.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of Dickinson College. The court found that McAvoy failed to produce sufficient evidence that Dickinson acted with deliberate indifference under Title IX and did not show sufficient evidence of breach of contract damages. The court noted that Dickinson's response, including the investigation and accommodations provided, was not clearly unreasonable under the circumstances.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Third Circuit held that Dickinson's actions, including the thorough investigation and the support provided to McAvoy, did not constitute deliberate indifference. The court emphasized that the investigation's length, while longer than the college's sixty-day objective, was justified by the need for thoroughness and fairness. Additionally, the court found no evidence that the lack of written notice about the investigation's delay caused McAvoy's claimed injuries, such as encountering TS on campus or delaying her graduation.The Third Circuit concluded that Dickinson's response to McAvoy's assault claim was not clearly unreasonable and that McAvoy did not establish a causal connection between the alleged breach of contract and her damages. Therefore, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Dickinson College. View "McAvoy v. Dickinson College" on Justia Law