This is the first time since I started this Newsletter that I haven't had to split my analysis of the Business Court's Opinions into two parts. That is because the Court's output was significantly reduced during the month of May 2026. It delivered only three Opinions, all of which are covered here. Three Opinions? That's a marked decline from 16 opinions in April 2026 and 13 opinions in March 2026. Perhaps this is attributable to the changing of the clerks following law school graduations in May. Or maybe it's just the beginning of summer.

Anyway, I expect there to be many many opinions down the pike to write about in this Newsletter. The Business Court has produced an average of 97 Opinions each year over the past 10 years (including a record 137 opinions in 2018). I plan to keep writing this Newsletter as long as I can, but that will also depend on how many of you are willing to pay the extraordinarily reasonable sum of five dollars per month to subscribe. The Orders of Significance edition for May 2026 is already in the yes working I'll be down a minute okay thanks I have sent off the trombonist like works. To read that upcoming edition and succeeding Opinions Part 2 Newsletters, you'll have to start a paid subscription. You can subscribe by following the link below. Please do that.

www.ncbclastmonth.com/upgrade

I have spent the last couple of days agonizing over the implementation of the paid tier of subscriptions. I think it is working smoothly now and that you can use Apple Pay to subscribe. Subscriptions will be automatically renewed unless you cancel, which you can do at anytime. Please let me know if you encounter any issues with getting a paid subscription ([email protected]). Remember that Judges of the Superior Court (both current and retired), Judges of the Business Court, and employees of the North Carolina Judicial Branch (anyone with an nccourts.org email address) are entitled to free subscriptions.

If you have been reading my writing about the North Carolina Business Court since I began way back in 2008, you know that appeals from the Business Court are taken directly to the North Carolina Supreme Court. You also know that the Notice of Appeal directed to the Supreme Court must be filed in the county in which the case originated, not just on the Business Court’s electronic filing system.

The Business Court has delivered at least two published Opinions dismissing an appeal for it not being directed to the proper court and not being filed in the proper county. Those cases are: Zloop, Inc. v. Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, 2018 NCBC 16 (Gale, J.) and much more recently, L. Off. of Ashley Nicole Russell, P.A.v. McLawhorn Legal Servs., PLLC, 2026 NCBC 44 (Robinson, C.J.).

Should something so horrible ever happen ever again to a lawyer appealing a Business Court decision? Of course not! But it did happen to a pro se Appellant in Stansell v. LoRusso, 2026 NCBC 48 (Conrad, J.). Perhaps that case name rings a bell? It should. The Plaintiff, Jody Stansell, is one of the most reprehensible characters to darken the halls of the Business Court. His conduct was so horrible that Judge Conrad began his findings of fact in his March 2026 Opinion dismissing Stansell’s claims with these words: “readers be warned: these findings of fact contain references to vulgarities and coarse language not typically found in judicial opinions.” If you need a refresher on the case, click here,

There is a particular kind of case that seems to recur in the North Carolina Business Court over and over again. Best Logistics Grp., Inc. v. Bravo, 2026 NCBC 46 (Conrad, J.) is such a case. Former employer sues former employees for violating restrictive covenants. Tortious interference claims are also included. An unfair and deceptive trade practices claim is also tacked on. A trade secrets misappropriation claim is also added in order to attempt to secure Business Court jurisdiction.

That's what we have in the Best Logistics Complaint and it rapidly dies almost completely on the vine like its similar counterparts. Judge Conrad granted most of the two former employees’ Motion to Dismiss..

The former employer’s Complaint was particularly “threadbare” (Op. ¶4) . Although it alleged a breach of a provision regarding the nonsolicitation of Best Logistics’ employees by one of the former Defendant employees (Mr. Carson) with some specificity, it contained no substantive allegations that Carson's activities were attributable to the second Defendant employee (Mr. Bravo). Judge Conrad dismissed this claim against Defendant Bravo with prejudice, noting that Plaintiff Best Logistics had already amended its Complaint, Op. ¶4.

Mr. Bravo also moved to dismiss the restriction regarding the nonsolicitation of customers on the basis that it was overly broad and therefore unenforceable. On this Motion, he was not successful. Judge Conrad ruled that the enforceability of the nonsolicitation clause was "an issue was better suited to summary judgment.” Op. ¶5. He said that evidence was needed to show the reasonableness of the restrictions. Id.

The tortious interference claim and the claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage were also dismissed due to being vague, conclusory, and inadequate to state a claim. Op. ¶6. There was no allegation that any customer had failed to perform an existing contract. Nor was there any identification of contracts that would have been entered into absent the alleged interference by Defendants Bravo or Carson.

The “catchall” Chapter 75 claim (Op ¶7)was also dismissed to the extent that it rested on the dismissed claims for breach of the employment agreement containing the restrictive covenants. It remained alive to the extent that it was based on the misappropriation of trade secrets claim and breach of the customer nonsolicitation clause in Bravo’s employment agreement. Op. ¶7.

The claim for “injunctive relief” was also dismissed. By now, you know the reason why. “[I]njunctions are remedies, not independent causes of action.” Op. ¶8.

You can't make a standalone cause of action for injunctive relief.

Judge Conrad made clear that this dismissal was without prejudice to the Best Logistics Plaintiffs’ right to pursue that relief as a remedy at the appropriate time. Id.

So what is left of the claims in this case? Not much. Just the nonsolicitation claim against Mr. Bravo. Oh, and the misappropriation of trade secrets claim against both Defendants that was presumably the ticket for this case to get into the Business Court in the first place.

The Opinion in Kadah v. Paladin Drones, Inc., 2026 NCBC 47 (Houston, J.) illustrates how easy it is to make a claim for breach of contract and how much harder you need to work to make a claim for a Chapter 75 violation.

Plaintiff Kadah began working for Defendant Paladin Drones as its Director of Sales and was promoted the next year to Vice-President of Sales. In connection with that promotion, defendant sent to Kadah an Offer Letter detailing the terms of his compensation. Included in that was a promise of 4% equity in the company which was "protected against dilution.

Plaintiff did not sign the Offer Letter and no written agreement was entered into between the parties concerning compensation and the promise of equity. The Defendant corporation subsequently raised $3 million through a SAFE agreement. [A SAFE agreement permits an investor to provide startup funds to an entity in exchange for equity to be delivered later].

The Defendant corporation then embarked on an effort to raise an additional $9 million in capital via a company called Long Journey Fund IV.

Plaintiff Kadah alleged in his Complaint that he reached an oral agreement with Paladin regarding his compensation and the protection against the dilution of his as yet undelivered equity. Again, no written agreement was reached, but plaintiff asserted that the material terms of the oral agreement had been memorialized in multiple writings over several months and verbal promises by the CEO of Paladin. These writings included a draft Offer Letter Agreement, a revised draft to that never signed agreement, and emails between the parties and their counsel regarding the arrangement. One of the terms of this new oral agreement was that Plaintiff Kadah would remain "aligned” with Defendant Paladins's leadership team and would not interfere with the Long Journey financing.

Paladin did obtain the $9 million in financing from Long Journey. It thereafter declined to formalize the claimed oral agreement in writing. It also refused to pay Kadah a $250,000 bonus that Kadah said was a part of the unwritten deal. Paladin also did not deliver the stock in the company which Kadah claimed had been promised.

Plaintiff sued for breach of contract and unfair and deceptive trade practices. As to the latter claim, plaintiff took the position that the company's refusal to execute a written agreement memorializing the terms of the oral agreement was "a deliberate tactic that had the effect of stringing [him] along to secure his cooperation, misrepresenting that a written agreement was forthcoming.” Op. ¶18

Breach of Contract Claim Survives

Paladin moved to dismiss the breach of contract claim, arguing that the alleged oral agreement was not a valid and enforceable contract, and that even if it was, Kadah had breached his promise to remain ”aligned” with the Company’s leadership.

Judge Houston denied that aspect of the Motion to Dismiss. He observed that “[u]nder North Carolina’s notice pleading standard, “stating a claim for breach of contract is a relatively low bar.” Op. ¶32 (emphasis added)(quoting Vanguard Pai Lung, LLC v. Moody, 2019 NCBC LEXIS 39, at *4 (N.C. Super. Ct. June 1).

This Plaintiff had pled the bare-bones of a contract claim. He had alleged that he had reached an oral agreement with the defendant corporation; that they had an agreement on the material terms of their relationship (including the payment of a $250,000 bonus, the issuance of equity and stock, and the "alignment of leadership”); and that the defendant had breached the agreement by failing to honor those terms.

It's all up to the finder of fact now on the breach of contract claim.

The Chapter 75 Claim Had No Place Here

There is an undeniable lure to including a G.S. §75-1.1 claim in your lawsuit against your client’s former employer. Potential recovery of treble damages (G.S. sec. 75-16)? The possible recovery of attorney's fees (G.S. sec. 75-16.1)? Why not!

But be dissuaded from bringing such claims. As Judge Houston observed, “most employer-employee disputes fall outside the purview” of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75–1.1.” Op. ¶43. That is because the statute:

Op. ¶43 (quoting White v. Thompson, 364 N.C. 47, 53 (2010)).