Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs challenged the district court's conclusion that they, as agents of Beacon Maritime, Inc. (Beacon), were bound by Beacon's agreement to arbitrate disputes with Aban Offshore Limited (Aban). The court held that under settled principles of agency and contract law, plaintiffs were not personally bound by Beacon's agreement with Aban and therefore, the court reversed the district court's order compelling arbitration and remanded for further proceedings.

This case arose when Shoe Show, Inc. (Shoe Show) entered into a lease as lessee of a store space in a shopping mall in Houston, Texas. The lease expressly prohibited Shoe Show from operating another business under the name "The SHOE DEPT." or any "substantially similar trade-name," within two miles of the leased premises. Shoe Show subsequently opened a retail footwear store under the name "SHOE SHOW" in a commercial center located less than a quarter mile from the mall in which the leased premises was located. At issue was whether the two trade names were substantially similar. The court held that, under the uncontested facts of the case and the discrete provisions of the lease, the trade name SHOE SHOW was not substantially similar to The SHOE DEPT. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's order of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Defendants appealed from a district court's order confirming an arbitration award where plaintiffs, six business entities, claimed to have been defrauded by defendants. At issue was whether the arbitration panel had exceeded its jurisdiction by rendering an award against defendants because they had never consented to arbitration. The court reversed the district court's order because under ordinary principles of contract and agency law, defendants, as the CEO and CFO of the defendant corporations, were not personally bound by the arbitration agreements their corporations entered into. Therefore, the court held that the arbitration panel lacked jurisdiction to render an award against defendants.

This case arose when the SEC brought suit against Stanford Group Company (SGC), along with various other Stanford entities, including Stanford International Bank (SIB), for allegedly perpetrating a massive Ponzi scheme. In this interlocutory appeal, defendants appealed the preliminary injunction that the receiver subsequently obtained against numerous former financial advisors and employees of SGC, freezing the accounts of those individuals pending the outcome of trial. The court held that the district court had the power to decide the motion for preliminary injunction before deciding the motion to compel arbitration; the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction; the preliminary injunction was not overbroad; and the district court acted within its power to grant a Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. 24.005(a)(1), injunction rather than an attachment; and that the court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the motion to compel arbitration. Accordingly, the court affirmed and remanded the motion to compel arbitration for a ruling in the first instance.

Texas Wyoming Drilling, Inc. (TWD) filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 and filed its disclosure statement and plan, which eliminated all of TWD's shareholders' stock interests in TWD. Central to this dispute were the terms of the plan and statement; namely, whether the terms preserved TWD's claims against Laguna Madre Oil & Gas II, LLC et al. A few months after confirmation of the plan, TWD sued 32 of its former shareholders, including appellants here, for pre-petition dividend payments that were allegedly fraudulent transfers under 11 U.S.C. 544, 548, and 550, and the Texas Business and Commerce Code, alleging that the former shareholders had received dividends and other transfers equaling millions of dollars while TWD was insolvent (Avoidance Actions). Laguna subsequently appealed the bankruptcy court's denial of its motion for summary judgment. The court held that the bankruptcy court properly denied Laguna's motion for summary judgment because the plan adequately preserved the Avoidance Actions and the claims were not barred by judicial estoppel or res judicata. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

This case stemmed from the transportation excise tax that National Airlines (National) owed the government. Plaintiff appealed the district court's summary judgment determination that, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6672, he was personally liable for the excise taxes that National collected from its passengers but failed to pay over to the United States during his tenure as National's CEO. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court and held that the district court properly found that plaintiff was a "responsible person" and that his failure to pay taxes was willful as defined by this circuit's precedents.

Defendant appealed from the district court's award of attorney's fees to plaintiff in a breach of contract and negligence suit where plaintiff hired defendant to investigate land and provide a design that would allow for construction of plaintiff's stores on the site. The parties entered into a geotechnical services contract, which provided that "[e]ach party shall bear its own expenses of litigation," and a testing and inspection contract which included an indemnification clause. At issue was whether, under Mississippi law, the contractual agreement between the parties permitted for an award of attorney's fees, and if so, whether the district court's fee award was an abuse of discretion. Having found that the testing and inspection contract was the only basis for an award of attorney's fees, the court held that the district court's fee award was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court vacated the award of attorney's fees and remanded for further proceedings.

Defendant, a technology company that sold data centers, appealed the district court's judgment on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, a company that purchased defendant's fiber management systems and intelligent fiber systems, in plaintiff's suit for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. At issue was whether the district court erred in denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court held that because plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that defendant had no intent to perform under the "best efforts" provision of the contract and failed to present any evidence of damages on its other claim, the judgment of the district court was reversed and remanded to the district court to enter judgment in favor of defendant. Accordingly, the court did not reach the other issues raised by defendant on appeal.

This case stemmed from the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing of a family-owned oil and gas drilling business. The Nancy Sue Davis Trust ("Trust") filed a motion to revoke a confirmation order from the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing for fraud and alleged that it had recently become aware that former advisers of the family and various representatives of the purchasing entities had engaged in fraud that enabled them to buy out the family's interests far below market value. At issue was whether the plan of reorganization and confirmation order barred the assertion of fraud claims against defendants. The court held that all family members, including the Trust, were continuously represented by sophisticated counsel and could have elected zealously to pursue their remedies under Chapter 11 rather than succumb to the hasty process that occurred. Accordingly, the judgment of the bankruptcy court denying the Trust's motion to pursue its claims against appellees was affirmed.

Appellant appealed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's decision that certain deeds appellant held were legal nullities. The panel certified a question to the Mississippi Supreme Court which stated: "When a minority member of a Mississippi limited liability company prepares and executes, on behalf of the LLC, a deed to substantially all of the LLC's real estate, in favor of another LLC of which the same individual is the sole owner, without authority to do so under the first LLC's operating agreement, is the transfer of real property pursuant to the deed: (i) voidable, such that it is subject to the intervening rights of a subsequent bonafide purchaser for value and without notice, or (ii) void ab initio, i.e., a legal nullity?" The Mississippi Supreme Court explained that the deed was neither voidable nor void ab initio, but "void and of no legal effect" because the minority member (" Michael Earwood"), as an agent of Kinwood Capital Group, L.L.C. ("Kinwood"), lacked actual or apparent authority to convey Kinwood's 520-acre tract of land and Kinwood never ratified the purported transfer.