Business and Corporate Category Archives — Page 5 of 5 — The Virginia Business Litigation Blog Published by Virginia and Washington, D.C. Litigation & Appeals Attorney

April 23, 2012

Lawyers Argue Contacting Advertisers Is Tortious Interference

Not everyone was happy when KIBZ 104.1 FM (The Blaze) replaced its rock format with new programming. One unhappy listener tried contacting the radio station to express his displeasure but had trouble reaching a live person. So he took his complaints to the station’s advertisers. He succeeded in getting a response, but it came in the form of a cease-and-desist letter from the station’s lawyers, accusing him of defamation and of tortiously interfering with the station’s contractual relationships.

Three Eagles Communications, a Colorado-based company, had rearranged its programming for a Lincoln, Nebraska radio station, The Blaze. It brought in a show from the Omaha market, replacing or rearranging other programming to do so. The new show included political, pop culture and off-color commentary. Many listeners objected to the changes and banded together to boycott the show. They established a Facebook page, started a petition, published a list of those who advertised with the show, and included information on how to contact members of Three Eagles management. They also held a public event, sent emails and letters to Three Eagles management, and sent emails to advertisers with The Blaze. Some stated Three Eagles was not a local operation.

Ted Pool was among those who opposed the changes. He sent emails to some Blaze advertisers objecting to the changes, attributing them to regional and out-of-state decisions, and encouraged the email recipients to sign the petition. He urged the recipients to contact Three Eagles to ask if the company would continue “jeopardizing YOUR advertising dollars by being associated with” the new show.

April 17, 2012

Summary Judgment Reversed Due to Ambiguity in Contract

by Lee E. Berlik

Swiftships Shipbuilders and its defense contract procurement consultant, Lion Associates, are currently in a dispute over a $181 million contract awarded to Swiftships by the United States Navy. In February 2009, Swiftships, which specializes in military vessels, submitted a capability summary to the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) in response to a Navy announcement seeking coastal patrol boats to supply to the Iraqi government. After not receiving a response in two months, Swiftships hired Lion Associates to provide marketing and promotion services to attract potential Swiftships clients. In exchange, Swiftships would pay Lion Associates $7,500 a month for 12 months and “3% of each new contract obtained by Lion.” Swiftships later revised the contract so that the 3% commission was limited to “each new contract brought to Swift[ships], which was obtained by Lion.” In the meantime, Admiral Lyons, the CEO, President, and sole member of Lion Associates, worked on procuring the Navy contract for Swiftships by assuring a high-ranking NAVSEA admiral that Swiftships could manage the entire job by itself. The contract was awarded to Swiftships a few months after the singing of the revised contract between Lion Associates and Swiftships, but Swiftships refused to pay Lion Associates the 3% commission on the Navy contract because it did not think that Lion Associates had brought the Navy contract to Swiftships.

Lion Associates sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. It argued that it was entitled to a little over $6 million in compensatory damages because the 3% payment provision applied to any contract that Swiftships was unable to obtain without Lion Associates assistance. The Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of Swiftships on both claims, but the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case after finding that the contract was ambiguous and that evidence should have been considered to determine its meaning and whether it was breached.

In a breach of contract claim, a court must determine if contractual provisions have been violated by looking at the actual language of the document. If the contract language is ambiguous, the trier of fact can look to extrinsic parol evidence to determine the parties’ intent as to certain provisions. However, resort to extrinsic evidence is limited to situations where language is “susceptible to more than one reasonable construction,” when considered in the context of the contract as a whole.

February 21, 2012

Noncompete Covenants and Covenants Restricting Land Tested By Different Standards

by Lee E. Berlik

Under Virginia law, covenants restricting the free use of land are not favored and must be strictly construed. Restrictive covenants that are unreasonably broad will not be enforced. There is a growing body of case law in Virginia governing noncompete covenants in employment contracts, but does that body of law apply to restrictive covenants in deeds? Earlier this month, the Fourth Circuit answered that question in the negative.

BP Products v. Stanley involved an appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia by BP Products North America, which had lost its motion for summary judgment against Charles V. Stanley and his business, Telegraph Petroleum Properties. BP had sued Stanley and his company to enforce a restrictive covenant in a deed, but the district court found that the restriction was overbroad and unenforceable. The Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed, finding that when analyzed under the appropriate test, the challenged prohibition was too inconsequential to invalidate the entire covenant.

Stanley leased a service station from BP in Alexandria, Virginia, subject to an agreement containing a restriction against selling fuel that was not BP-branded. Following a disagreement regarding the price of the fuel, Stanley stopped selling BP-branded fuel and started selling AmeriGO fuel, prompting the lawsuit. BP Pump.jpg

January 7, 2012

Fairfax Court Finds Mere Reference to By-Laws Insufficient to Incorporate Into Contract

by Lee E. Berlik

In Virginia, employment is presumed to be at-will, but that presumption can be rebutted with evidence that the employment is for a specific period of time or that it can be terminated only for just cause. Virginia law says that contracts are to be construed as written and if the terms of the contract are clear, then those terms are to be given their plain meaning. A separate writing that is referenced in a written contract is construed as part of that agreement only if it is referred to with specificity and there is some expression of an intent to incorporate its terms into the agreement. As explained in a recent opinion by Judge Bruce D. White of Fairfax, “in order to incorporate the provisions of another document into the employment contract, the plain language of the employment contract must clearly reference and incorporate the terms of the document being incorporated.”

Johnson v. Versar was a lawsuit brought by William Johnson, Alexis Kayanan and Davy Jon Daniels against their former employer Versar, a government contractor based in Springfield, Virginia, for alleged breach of their employment contracts. They claimed that their employment was not at-will but was for a definite term. They based their argument on the fact that they received certain documents upon accepting employment that referenced Versar’s by-laws, which provided that officers “may be removed” by a majority vote of the board of directors. Because a resolution was never passed, they claimed that they were terminated in violation of their employment agreements.

Judge White sustained Versar’s demurrer with prejudice and dismissed the case. The Court found that the plaintiffs were at-will employees because the by-laws were not specifically and intentionally incorporated into the employment agreement. None of the offer letters referenced the by-laws, and the accompanying documents that did reference the by-laws did not indicate any intent to incorporate their terms as part of the employment agreement.

December 31, 2011

Who Owns an Employee’s Twitter Following?

by Lee E. Berlik

Does an employer have any sort of ownership interest in its employees’ tweets or Twitter following? This very current social-media question may be tested in a lawsuit originally filed last July in federal court in California by PhoneDog, a South Carolina-based company that reviews mobile phones and services online, against former employee Noah Kravitz. An amended complaint in the case, filed on November 29, 2011, has attracted considerable media attention.

When Kravitz worked for PhoneDog as a product reviewer and video blogger from 2006 to 2010, he tweeted under the handle @PhoneDog_Noah and attracted some 17,000 followers for his comments and opinions on Twitter. When he left the company, he continued tweeting under the name @NoahKravitz. But he didn’t create a new account with that name; instead, he kept the account (with all its followers) and just changed the Twitter handle to @NoahKravitz. Eight months later, PhoneDog sued Kravitz, alleging that his continued use of the account and his tweeting to his followers constitute a misappropriation of PhoneDog’s trade secrets, intentional interference with prospective economic relationships, and conversion. Phone Dog said that it had suffered loss of advertising revenue as a result and that Kravitz “was unjustly enriched by obtaining the business of PhoneDog’s Followers.”

PhoneDog essentially claims ownership rights due to the fact that it directs its employees to maintain Twitter accounts and instructs them to tweet links to PhoneDog’s website, thus increasing PhoneDog’s page views and generating advertising revenue for PhoneDog. PhoneDog said in the complaint that since Kravitz now works for TechnoBuffalo, a competitor of PhoneDog, he is exploiting PhoneDog’s confidential information on behalf of a competitor. PhoneDog is seeking $340,000 in damages — $2.50 per month per Twitter follower for eight months. Although PhoneDog said in the complaint that “industry standards” peg the value of a Twitter follower at $2.50 per month, the company did not give a source for that estimate. Nor did PhoneDog attempt to distinguish between people who followed Kravitz because of his connection to PhoneDog and those followers who are merely friends of his or enjoy his commentary.

December 12, 2011

Virginia Limited Liability Company (LLC) Membership Interests Analogous to Partnership

by Lee E. Berlik

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled on November 4, 2011, that membership in a Virginia limited liability company is comprised of two components–a control interest and a financial interest–and that only the financial interest is transferable by will when a member dies. Moreover, the court held that a devisee or assignee of a financial interest has no control interest in the limited liability company without becoming a member, just as a control interest in a partnership “cannot be bestowed on another by the unilateral act of a partner.”

The financial interest involves only the right to share in the company’s profits and losses and to receive distributions. It does not entail the right to participate in the management or control of the company’s affairs.

In 1991, the Virginia legislature enacted the Limited Liability Company Act, creating the limited liability company as a hybrid entity, similar in some respects to a partnership and in other respects to a corporation. The statute provides that the transferability of a member’s interest in an LLC should be similar to the transferability of a partner’s interest in a partnership. Last Will.jpg Under the Uniform Partnership Act, the transfer of a partner’s interest in a partnership entitles the transferee only to the financial rights, not the control rights.

September 26, 2011

Law of Fraudulent Conveyances Outlined by Virginia Supreme Court

by Lee E. Berlik

Once a plaintiff has introduced evidence to establish a “badge of fraud,” a prima facie case of fraudulent conveyance is established and the burden shifts to the defendant to establish that the transaction was not fraudulent. So held the Virginia Supreme Court, in reversing the Henrico County Circuit Court’s decision to strike the plaintiff’s evidence and enter judgment in favor of the defendant.

Fox Rest Associates, L.P. v. Anne B. Little involved a dispute between George B. Little, an attorney and the general partner of Fox Rest Apartments, and the limited partners of Fox Rest Apartments, arising out of an alleged sale of the apartments by the general partner without the consent or knowledge of the limited partners. After learning that the limited partners planned to sue him, Mr. Little made various transfers, including transfers into an account at SunTrust Bank held jointly with his wife. The limited partners filed a derivative action against Fox Rest for malpractice, double billing, and other claims. The limited partners obtained a judgment but were unable to collect approximately $856,400. They then proceeded to file a fraudulent conveyance action to attempt to set aside various transfers as fraudulent.

The trial court struck the limited partners’ evidence, finding that they had produced insufficient evidence of fraudulent intent. The Supreme Court, however, reversed. Under Virginia law, it pointed out, to survive a motion to strike, a plaintiff need only introduce evidence of “badges of fraud.” Badges (or presumptions) of fraud include:

September 5, 2011

Attorneys’ Fees Must Be Reasonable, Despite What Contract Says

by Lee E. Berlik

Many contracts provide that in the event of litigation arising out of a breach, the prevailing party will be entitled to recover “reasonable” attorneys’ fees from the losing party. Some attorneys, however, hoping to obviate the need for a mini-trial regarding the reasonableness of the fees, draft contracts setting the attorneys’ fees as a fixed percentage of the underlying obligation (e.g., 15% of the total amount due). But what happens when the underlying obligation is so large that applying the fixed percentage stated in the contract would result in awarding the prevailing party far more than it actually incurred in legal fees?

Judge Leonie M. Brinkema recently faced that question and ruled that the percentage-based attorneys-fee provision was unenforceable as a matter of law. Considering a request for attorneys’ fees and costs after the conclusion of a commercial case, she rejected a finance company’s contention that a flat 15 percent of the amount it recovered in the case should be awarded to it as attorneys’ fees, even though the loan document in question specified that fees not less than 15 percent of the amount in question should be awarded.

Automotive Finance Corp. (AFC), based in Indiana, provided financing for several automobile dealer showrooms in Virginia. Later, it filed suit against the dealers and against three companies that guaranteed the debt. After a trial, Judge Brinkema awarded AFC $3,156,149 in damages. AFC then applied to the court for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $473,422.35 Money v2.jpg (precisely 15 percent of the recovery) which amount exceeded the fees and costs it actually incurred. While finding AFC’s argument “appealing in its simplicity,” Judge Brinkema said the problem with it is that it “flies in the face of the applicable case law.” The fees awarded in any piece of litigation, according to both Virginia and Indiana law, must be reasonable.

August 29, 2011

To Be Enforceable, Non-Compete Agreements Should Be Narrow in Scope

by Lee E. Berlik

In Virginia, non-compete agreements will be enforced if they are narrowly drawn to protect the employer’s business interests, if they are not unduly restrictive of the employee’s ability to earn a living, and if they are not against public policy. While noncompetes are often struck down as disfavored restraints on trade, a recent Fairfax County decision demonstrates that, when properly drafted, a non-compete or non-solicitation agreement can be a valuable tool for any business wanting to protect its competitive position in the marketplace.

Preferred Systems Solutions, Inc. v. GP Consulting, LLC, involved a dispute between a government IT contractor, Preferred Systems Solutions (“PSS”) and GP Consulting, an IT consulting firm. On October 1, 2003, PSS and GP entered into an agreement in which GP would provide certain consulting services to PSS in connection with a project for the Defense Logistics Agency involving Enterprise Resource Planning software. The agreement included a non-compete provision prohibiting GP from competing with PSS for 12 months after the completion or termination of the agreement.

On February 1, 2010, GP terminated the agreement. Its last day working for PSS was February 12, 2010. Four days later, its sole member and manager, Sreenath Gajulapalli, started working for Accenture, a direct competitor of PSS, performing the same duties that he had performed for PSS. Judge R. Terrence Ney ruled that Mr. Gajulapalli’s conduct was in direct violation of the non-compete agreement, which provided (in pertinent part) that:

August 1, 2011

Virginia Court Pierces Corporate Veil But Declines to “Reverse Pierce”

by Lee E. Berlik

Courts don’t often grant requests to “pierce the corporate veil” – in other words, to disregard the existence of a corporation and to hold a shareholder personally liable for the corporation’s debts – but in a recent Virginia case, a judge did just that, entering a personal judgment against a corporation’s sole shareholder for nearly $140,000. His mistake? Failing to observe corporate formalities, and arranging for the corporation to enter into a contract while grossly undercapitalized.

Advance Technologies, Inc., had been hired as a sub-subcontractor by subcontractor ACE Electric Company on a boiler maintenance project for the University of Richmond. ACE, however, soon terminated Advance from the project, and Advance went out of business. In December 2009, a default judgment was entered against Advance for more than $137,500. ACE was unable to recover any of this money from Advance, so it sued Erik Butler, the sole shareholder, officer, and director of Advance, in an attempt to pierce the corporate veil and recover funds from Butler’s personal assets to satisfy the judgment. ACE’s lawyers also invoked a “reverse piercing” theory by seeking to impose liability against Butler’s wife, DeAnne Butler, and from another corporation, ADVTEC, Inc., of which she was the sole officer, shareholder, and director. ACE claimed that ADVTEC was created by DeAnne Butler in a fraudulent attempt to avoid the debts incurred by Advance.

In an opinion handed down on April 29, 2011, Judge Gary A. Hicks of the Circuit Court of Henrico County wrote that piercing the veil and permitting a plaintiff to recover from the personal assets of a shareholder is “an extraordinary remedy that is infrequently granted.” The judge pointed out that there are generally sound legal and economic reasons for granting immunity to shareholders. However, the judge noted, exceptions do exist. In this case, the judge wrote, the evidence was “sufficient to pierce the corporate veil as to Erik Butler.” The court found that Butler failed to adhere to corporate formalities (such as conducting annual meetings and maintaining separate books for the corporation), and that when Advance entered into the contract with ACE, Advance was “grossly undercapitalized.” It had only between $10,000 and $15,000 in the bank, and owed back taxes both to the IRS and to Virginia authorities. Under these circumstances, Judge Hicks wrote, it would be a “profound injustice” not to permit ACE to go after Erik Butler’s personal assets to satisfy the default judgment.