BLS Blog

Considering the rights of parties involved in a soured business relationship, Judge Kaplan reiterated that a binding contract requires an agreement on the material terms and an intent to be bound. A term sheet that does not represent an attempt to formalize an already established agreement is not an enforceable contract.

Key Issue: In G4S Technology LLC v. Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation, Judge Sanders faced the question of whether a state agency acting pursuant to a legislative mandate has standing to bring a claim under G.L. c. 93A, § 11.

Key Takeaway: The G4S decision follows a line of Massachusetts decisions holding that public entities acting under legislative mandates are not engaged in “trade or commerce” for purposes of Chapter 93A, even if the public entities are engaged in commercial transactions.

Assertions made solely on “information and belief” are insufficient support for a preliminary-injunction motion. That’s the key takeaway from Judge Salinger’s decision in Governo Law Firm LLC v. CMBG3 Law LLC.

The Governo Law Firm alleged that six former partners, who left to start another firm, misappropriated proprietary databases and electronic files. Judge Salinger denied the Governo Law Firm’s preliminary-injunction motion, which sought the return of the databases and files.

Judge Leibensperger denied Glock’s motion to set aside a civil-investigative demand (CID) issued by Attorney General Maura Healy. The AG issued the CID under G.L. c. 93A,  6, as part of her investigation into Glock’s compliance with Massachusetts laws bearing on gun safety and product warranties. According to the AG, there have been reported safety issues with Glock handguns, including the risk of accidental discharge.

Proving that motions for reconsideration are not always futile, Judge Sanders exercised her discretion to undo part of her own prior ruling. Judge Sanders previously ruled in the case before her that the plaintiffs’ breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim survived summary judgment. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants sold tilapia “without providing plaintiffs an opportunity to participate in these transactions.” In support of this allegation, the plaintiffs relied on their own interrogatory answer. Judge Sanders, on reconsideration, pointed out that the answer was “not based on personal knowledge and therefore d[i]d not constitute admissible evidence under Rule 56(e).” (Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(e) states that “[s]upporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.”) For that reason, among others, Judge Sanders allowed the defendants’ motion for reconsideration and awarded summary judgment against the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim.

In OpenRisk, LLC v. Microstrategy Services Corp., et al., Judge Kaplan declined to adopt a conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction. Judge Kaplan framed the issue this way:

In a Nexium class action against AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Justice Sanders awarded $6 million in attorneys’ fees—30% of the $20 million common fund agreed to in a settlement achieved shortly before trial. Justice Sanders acknowledged that this was an “unprecedented” award for state court, but believed it was warranted by the facts of this case.