Commercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy Ct. did not err in granting Trustee's request to set aside and recover $200,000 paid by debtor to one of its members that was made less than one year prior to filing of Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. Said payment was partial settlement of lawsuit between debtor and said member, and Dist. Ct. could properly find that said member, as one of several managers of LLC, was "insider" as defined by 11 USC section 101(31) of Bankruptcy Code, such that Trustee could recover such payment for benefit of bankruptcy estate. Fact that member alleged in underlying lawsuit that he was excluded from reviewing records of LLC did not preclude finding that member was insider where member still retained voting rights in LLC.

Record failed to support agency’s issuance of rule requiring use of electronic monitoring devices to record driver’s activities in commercial trucks. Remand was required since agency had failed to consider statutory requirement that any regulation that concerned monitoring devices in commercial vehicles not be used to harass vehicle operators. Ct. also rejected agency’s argument that plaintiffs-truck drivers and related association lacked standing to seek review of instant rule where holding in Abbott Laboratories, 367 US 136, permits pre-enforcement challenges of final agency rules involving purely legal claims.

In action alleging breach of contract and intentional misrepresentation arising out of defendant's termination of distributorship agreements held by plaintiffs, record contained sufficient evidence to support jury's verdict in favor of plaintiffs where record showed that defendant made representations that plaintiff would have future exclusive distributorships of defendant's products if plaintiffs ceased selling products from other companies when at same time defendant arranged with others to sell defendants' products in plaintiffs' territories and required that plaintiffs maintain impossible quotas as means to support instant terminations. Record, though, did not support jury's award of lost profits where distributorship agreements specifically precluded any lost profit award, and where plaintiffs failed to show sufficient disparity in bargaining power so as to avoid instant contractual limitation on damages. Also record failed to support jury's award of tort damages that were based on lost profits over six year period at assumed 20 percent growth rate where said assumptions were based on speculation.