So the 11th Circuit Does Reverse Summary Judgments Sometimes.

 

We always hear about the abysmal reversal rate before the 11th Circuit, but miracles do happen, even when they involve our highly esteemed Chief Judge:

In a supplemental summary judgment order the district court held as a matter of law that the purchase price of LanBox was $450,000. In its analysis, the district court rejected LanLogistics’s argument that, under the reasoning in Pantry Pride Enterprises., Inc. v. Stop & Shop Cos., Inc., 806 F.2d 1227, 1231 (4th Cir. 1986), the determination of the purchase price of a company in a package purchase requires that the fair market value of the company be considered. We find the reasoning in Pantry Pride persuasive and the district court’s holding in error.
. . . . 

Because the issue of LanBox’s purchase price was disputed and the fair market value of LanBox and the other companies in the package deal should have been considered, summary judgment was improper. By deciding the issue on summary judgment before LanLogistics had an opportunity to present evidence on the fair market value of the companies or possible tax incentives for its purchase price allocation, the district court prematurely decided a disputed issue of material fact. See Holly v. Clairson Indus., L.L.C., 492 F.3d 1247, 1264 (11th Cir. 2007).

In other news, I know a lot of you are fitness enthusiasts and are gearing up for the Corporate Run next week, so here's another interesting charity race for a good cause -- see you there!

Plus tonight begins Holocaust Remembrance Day.

(Wow, those three things do not go together.)