Case law

Norment v. Rabon

2021 NCBC 1 · North Carolina Business Court · Jan 5, 2021

Norment will apply to become qualified individuals of Advantage. … contending that he was heavily involved in the merger process, that he was kept informed of the approval process, and that he “clearly knew . . . the status of approvals not having been obtained from NCCOB in July 2014.

McGuire v. Lord Corp.

2021 NCBC 3 · North Carolina Business Court · Jan 19, 2021

May 25, 2016) (“It clearly is proper for a shareholder to inspect corporate records to determine the proper valuation of his stock.”); see also, e.g., Hagy v. Premier MFG. … LORD argues that because a right to inspect a shareholder list is a “qualified right” and the “primary reason” a shareholder is permitted inspection of a shareholder list under Pennsylvania law is to “to influence the

Scr-Tech LLC v. Evonik Energy Servs.

2013 NCBC 42 · North Carolina Business Court · Aug 13, 2013

{6} As an initial matter, Defendants contend that Ebinger could never qualify as SCR-Tech’s “parent” because it was never a majority owner. … Wis. 2013) (“This court agrees with the government’s contention that the defendants have failed to establish any joint defense or common interest agreement, express or implied . . . .”). to Defs.’

Pack Brothers Paint and Body Shop v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

2003 NCBC 1 · North Carolina Business Court · Jan 10, 2003

App. at 583, 561 S.E.2d at 285. {28} It is not yet clear from the record that defendants had a qualified privilege. … In order to establish a violation of this section, plaintiff must meet a three-pronged test: (1) there must be a showing of an unfair or deceptive act or  practice, or an unfair method of competition; (2) in or affecting

Value Health Sols., Inc. v. Pharm. Rsch. Assocs., 2021 Ncbc 24a

North Carolina Business Court · Apr 5, 2021

Third, almost all the evidence upon which Plaintiff relies to establish PRA’s fraudulent intent is from after the execution of the LOI in October 2014. … This clearly is not the case in which this Court should consider recognizing such a claim. 113.

Krieger v. Johnson

2014 NCBC 13 · North Carolina Business Court · Apr 30, 2014

The Separation Agreement specifies the payments alleged by Plaintiff in the Amended Complaint and also lists undisclosed amounts due or paid to Johnson classified as, "[a]ccrued and vested amounts under all non- qualified … established in the Employment Agreement, 8-K and attached exhibits.

Lupton v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Giduz v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield

1999 NCBC 3 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 14, 1999

Rule 23(e) clearly applies to this situation; indeed, due process concepts might well be held to require notice, even in the absence of Rule 23(e)." Id. at 327. … {18} As the Shelton Court noted, this view of the fiduciary role of class representatives was well established. Id.

Lendingtree, LLC v. Anderson

2012 NCBC 21 · North Carolina Business Court · Apr 11, 2012

Defendant argues that this language clearly establishes that when the defense of improper venue is asserted in an answer, the defense is preserved and cannot be waived by inaction. (Def.’s Br. Supp Mot. Dismiss 1–3.) … While the CMR contains the following qualifying language: “[n]othing in this Report is intended to waive any of the objections or defenses Defendant may raise,” should the court give credence and value to this qualification

Bb&t Boli Plan Tr. v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co.

2016 NCBC 34 · North Carolina Business Court · Apr 29, 2016

scenarios impact a plaintiff’s right to take a voluntary dismissal of its initial action, but no court has clearly stated whether the Brisson exceptions operate similarly. … Under North Carolina law, “an injury in fact” is required to establish standing, Coker v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 172 N.C.

Krg New Hill Place, LLC v. Springs Investors, LLC

2015 NCBC 69 · North Carolina Business Court · Jul 8, 2015

Following approval of the Approved Plans, KRG shall bid each of the major trades involved in the Infrastructure Work to not less than three qualified contractors. … KRG has conceded that Springs has fully satisfied all existing liabilities, and KRG is therefore not a “creditor” of Springs within the meaning of the statute.24 KRG disputes this argument, and contends that the facts clearly

McKEE v. JAMES

2014 NCBC 73 · North Carolina Business Court · Dec 31, 2014

McKee Craft’s financial condition remained bleak, however, as the Company was not immune to the ailing economy of 2008, the detrimental effects of which caused numerous other boat manufacturers, i.e., companies in McKee … The precise contours of the parties’ arrangement, however, were carefully negotiated, reduced to writing, and clearly defined in the parties’ three shareholder agreements – the TSPA, CSPA I, and CSPA II.

Kadah v. Paladin Drones, Inc.

2026 NCBC 50 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 2, 2026

Paladin manufactures “high-performance emergency response drones and [has] established itself as a reliable one-stop provider of drones, software, and a data management platform for first responders across the country. … “Although someone cannot preface an otherwise defamatory statement with ‘in my opinion’ and claim immunity from liability, a pure expression of opinion is protected because it fails to assert actual fact.” Daniels v.

Gupta v. Eli Glob., LLC

2019 NCBC 39 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 19, 2019

Freeman, 367 N.C. 136, 146, 749 S.E.2d 262, 271 (2013) (noting that piercing the corporate veil is not a theory of liability and holding that a separate claim is required to establish liability). … The Court notes that at oral argument Defendants’ counsel responded to the allegations that Lindberg had no intention to honor his promises at the time he made them by asserting clearly that Defendants do not and will not

Global Textile All., Inc. v. Tdi Worldwide, LLC

2017 NCBC 106 · North Carolina Business Court · Nov 21, 2017

GTA does not clearly explain its involvement in cut-and-sew operations in China and Asia but claims that it was involved in “sourcing” cut-and-sew operations in China since as early as 2009. … Nevertheless, it is undisputed that Ryan’s responsibilities as head of GTA’s China operations required him to identify qualified cut and sew vendors for at least some of GTA’s customers, and to handle certain in-country

Adams v. Aventis, S.A.

2003 NCBC 7 · North Carolina Business Court · Aug 26, 2003

Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 240 S.E.2d 338 (1978); Blackwelder v. State Dep't of Human Resources, 60 N.C. App. 331, 299 S.E.2d 777 (1983); Heavener v. Heavener, 73 N.C. … It is difficult to interpret the language of the 1969 amendment to the statute as doing anything other than establishing indirect purchaser standing.

Herrera v. Charlotte School of Law, LLC

2018 NCBC 34 · North Carolina Business Court · Apr 20, 2018

automatically reduce the number of qualified scholarship recipients.” (Third Am. Compl. ¶ 24.) 37. … CSL had loyalties to the public and a duty to ensure that only qualified lawyers graduate from its program.

Red Fox Future, LLC v. Holbrooks

2014 NCBC 8 · North Carolina Business Court · Mar 24, 2014

{24} “The movant has the burden of establishing the absence of any triable issues of fact.” Strickland, 176 N.C. App. at 661, 627 S.E.2d at 305. … (2) Is the witness testifying at trial qualified as an expert in that area of testimony? (3) Is the expert’s testimony relevant?” Howerton v.

In Re Senergy and Thoro Class Action Settlement

1999 NCBC 7 · North Carolina Business Court · Jul 14, 1999

Some defendants have retained the same counsel and there has clearly been a coordinated effort on the part of defense counsel in this case. … The discovery needed is clearly ascertainable, even if it is voluminous.

Schlieper v. Johnson

2007 NCBC 29 · North Carolina Business Court · Aug 31, 2007

This figure is clearly noted as the Phantom Sale Price, not to be confused with the total sale price. … Nor did he serve in any alternative capacity suggesting that his employment was such that it otherwise qualified as “in or affecting commerce.” Id. at 658, 548 S.E.2d at 711.

Higgins v. Synergy Coverage Sols., LLC

2020 NCBC 4 · North Carolina Business Court · Jan 15, 2020

Nevertheless, “[a] speaker may not voice an opinion that he does not honestly believe, intending to deceive the listener, and then assert immunity from an action for fraud.” Potts v. … As an initial matter, this Court has held that “scienter and justifiable reliance are elements of a violation of § [78A-]8(1) or (3) . . . as those subsections of § [78A-]8 are clearly grounded on fraud.”