Business Law

COA finds Yellow Book ad contract induced by fraud

May 22, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
A heating and cooling company does not owe Yellow Book for a contract it tried to break after finding the publication didn’t change the terms of the contract as promised, the Indiana Court of Appeals held. But, the heating and cooling company is on the hook for two other contracts it had that it failed to fully pay.
More

Lilly to appeal $450M ruling over poisoned workers in Brazil

May 12, 2014
IBJ Staff
Eli Lilly and Co. plans to appeal a ruling from a judge in Brazil that fined the pharmaceutical giant and an Italian firm $450 million for poisoning workers at a manufacturing plant in the South American country.
More

Court finds man abandoned shareholder derivative claim

May 8, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
Because a man “expressly and unambiguously” abandoned his shareholder derivative claim when responding to a court demand to specify his legal claims, he cannot now assert that claim on appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.
More

IU McKinney team in Vienna for moot competition

April 11, 2014
IL Staff
For the second year in a row, a group of students from Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of law is competing in a prestigious international business law competition in Vienna, Austria.
More

COA: Trial court is wrong to order shareholders to pay attorney fees

March 3, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
In a case that stems from a failed transaction in 2000 to purchase an event-decorating company, the Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed the order that shareholders of a corporation are liable for attorney fees on a wrongful stop-payment claim.
More

Company can’t prevail in appeal on claims of collusion

January 16, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the confirmation of a sale of an ethanol plant in South Bend to a joint venture, rejecting a nonbidder’s claim that the establishment of the joint venture amounted to collusion that spoiled the auction.
More

COA reverses treble damages in business deal gone bad

January 9, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
A trial court erred in awarding treble damages to an Indiana man who entered into a business venture with a North Carolina couple that ended up costing him more than $1 million in money owed to him, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded Thursday.
More

Angie's List hit with shareholder suit

December 26, 2013
Chris O'Malley
Angie’s List’s CEO William Oesterle and four other top executives made a series of false or misleading statements about the company’s prospects that inflated its stock price earlier this year as they sold $13 million of their own shares, a lawsuit seeking class-action status alleges.
More

Brother in Holiday World dispute still fighting for ownership

December 6, 2013
Marilyn Odendahl
The family battle over the southern Indiana amusement park, Holiday World and Splashin’ Safari, could be moving to the Indiana Supreme Court.
More

COA: Food odors don’t support granting preliminary injunctive relief

November 14, 2013
Jennifer Nelson
In a dispute over smells from a produce business drifting into neighboring businesses, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that the manager of the shopping plaza is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief for cooking foods without proper ventilation.
More

COA rules preliminary injunction wrongly extended noncompete agreement

November 13, 2013
Marilyn Odendahl
In reviewing a dispute over the terms of a noncompete agreement, the Indiana Court of Appeals reminded the trial court that a preliminary injunction has limits.
More

7th Circuit blocks Obamacare ‘contraception mandate’

November 11, 2013
Dave Stafford
Roman Catholic employers – including the owners of an Indiana company – won a Circuit Court ruling Friday blocking the “contraception mandate” contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare.
More

Shares of dissolved corporation is matter to be handled by trial court, COA rules

October 18, 2013
Marilyn Odendahl
A dispute between two brothers over corporate shares left from the dissolution of the family business got a rehearing by the Indiana Court of Appeals, but no reversal.
More

Marsh Supermarkets, former CEO spar over attorney fees

September 12, 2013
Scott Olson
The years-long legal spat between Don Marsh and the company he once led appeared to have concluded this summer, but has now turned to attorneys’ fees and who’s paying the million-dollar bills.
More

Business agreements provide roadmap for changes in family-run enterprises

September 11, 2013
Marilyn Odendahl
Integrate family into small business ownership and the potential for rivalry, high emotions and different agendas increases, especially as the business is passed from one generation to the next. The dispute rocking the Holiday World & Splashin’ Safari theme park in southwest Indiana shows what can happen when a family fights over a business but, attorneys say, it is an extreme and uncommon situation. Usually members of a family or multiple shareholders in a closely held company work through their dispute outside the courtroom.
More

Heavily redacted report cannot hide behind business-judgment rule

September 3, 2013
Marilyn Odendahl
Although a report produced by a special litigation committee contains privileged information, the plaintiffs must be allowed full access to the unredacted version in order to determine if the investigation was extensive and conduced in good faith.
More

Holiday World family takes dispute to Court of Appeals

August 6, 2013
Marilyn Odendahl
An agreement meant to keep a popular amusement park in the family has sparked a bitter dispute that has reached the Indiana Court of Appeals.
More

7th Circuit: New indemnity provision does not release employer from liability

July 30, 2013
Marilyn Odendahl
An employer will have to pay $4.23 million after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was unconvinced by the employer’s argument that language in a later contract superseded that of an earlier contract.
More

Appeals court orders more proceedings in pulley lawsuit

July 23, 2013
Jennifer Nelson
Finding the trial court shouldn’t have granted summary judgment in favor of a distributor on a buyer’s claim of breach of implied warranty of merchantability regarding pulleys provided by the distributor, the Indiana Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court to take another look at the issue.
More

Lilly, Simon lawyers make best-paid general counsel list

July 23, 2013
IL Staff
Attorneys for two Indianapolis-based Fortune 500 companies are among the 50 best-paid general counsel, according to a list published Monday by Corporate Counsel Magazine.
More

COA affirms dissolution of corporation embroiled in family dispute

July 17, 2013
Jennifer Nelson
A company owned by two brothers – one disabled and one terminally ill – was properly dissolved by the trial court over the disabled brother’s objections, the Indiana Court of Appeals held.
More

7th Circuit rejects ‘kitchen sink approach’ in widow’s insurance appeal

July 8, 2013
Dave Stafford
A woman whose husband died of cancer as their purchase of several Terre Haute-based car dealerships was failing is not entitled to proceeds of his life insurance policy – a policy that had been assigned as an asset in the sale of the lots – the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday.
More

State responds to complaint over cold beer sales

July 8, 2013
Marilyn Odendahl
The Office of the Indiana Attorney General has filed an answer to a lawsuit challenging the state’s laws and regulations that keep gas stations and grocery stores from selling cold beer.
More

Tax Court rejects company’s claim it was a passive investor

June 19, 2013
Jennifer Nelson
A mobile telecommunications group was unable to convince the Indiana Tax Court Tuesday that it was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of whether it should have received a refund for paid adjusted gross income tax.
More

Changing times change mergers and acquisitions practice

June 19, 2013
Marilyn Odendahl
In the manufacturing hub of Elkhart, attorney Mike Pianowski has noticed the mergers and acquisitions market rebounding.
More
Page  << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >> pager
Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT