In a split decision last month, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that a claim under North Carolina’s unfair and deceptive trade practices act, N.C.G.S. 75-1.1 (the “Act”) could not stand, even where a partner had been found to have acted “unfairly and deceptively” in his dealings with his other partners, because the Act was not intended to reach the “internal operations of a single market participant.” White v. Thompson, No. 226A09, (NC April 15, 2010).

In White, the defendant, Andrew Thompson, was a partner with plaintiffs Charles White and Earl Ellis in an entity known as Ace Fabrication and Welding (”ACE”). Ace was formed primarily for the purpose of performing specialty construction and fabrication work at a plant owned by Smithfield Packing Company, Inc. At trial, the evidence suggested that ACE enjoyed initial success. Subsequently, infighting and disagreements overtook the partnership. Eventually, Defendant Thompson decided to leave the partnership and start his own business, PAL. While it is unclear from the opinions when he actually advised his partners of his intentions, defendant Thompson at some point advised White and Ellis of this decision but then a dispute arose between the partners regarding the distribution of partnership assets. While still a partner of ACE, defendant Thompson obtained work from the Smithfield Packing facility for PAL. Eventually, White and Ellis sued Thompson for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair and deceptive trade practices.

After a trial, the jury found that Thompson had in fact breached his fiduciary duty to his partners and the damages were trebled under the Act. Defendant Thompson appealed the judgment. On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals, in a split decision, reversed the unfair and deceptive trade practices trebling of damages, finding the Act inapplicable to the dispute because it did not meet the “in or affecting commerce” requirement of the Act.  White v. Thompson, 676 S.E.2d 104 (N.C. App. 2009).  According to the Court of Appeals, “it must be shown that the alleged unfair or deceptive acts had an impact in the marketplace” but “[t]he allegations against Defendant Andrew Thompson do not amount to practices impacting the marketplace.” And while Thompson had been found to have breached his fiduciary duty in usurping partnership opportunities for himself, that did not impact the marketplace. Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

In another split decision, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision.  As with the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court correctly noted that the Act requires that the unfair or deceptive act or practice be “in or affecting commerce.”  The Supreme Court also correctly noted that the Act defines “commerce” as “business activities” which the Court had previously defined as connoting “the manner in which businesses conduct their regular, day-to-day activities, or affairs, such as the purchase and sale of goods, or whatever other activities the business regularly engages in and for which it is organized.”  As the Court noted, the General Assembly intended the Act to “achieve fairness in dealings between individual market participants” in two type of business settings: (1) interactions between businesses and (2) interactions between businesses and consumers.”

Viewing the case from this perspective, the Supreme Court found the claim against Thompson to have involved purely the “internal operations of a single market participant.” The parties were partners in “a single market participant” and Thompson breached his fiduciary duty as a partner in “a single market participant.” The Act, according to the Supreme Court, was not intended to “intrude into the internal operations of a single market participant.”

The Supreme Court’s opinion in White, while perhaps adding some more definition to the Act’s reach, raises at least one important question which the majority opinion fails to answer.  In discussing Thompson’s conduct as being purely “internal” to ACE, the Court cites to and discusses briefly its prior decision in Sara Lee Corp. v. Carter, 351 N.C. 27, 519 S.E.2d 308 (1999).  In that case, the defendant there, while employed by Sara Lee, had engaged in self-dealing by creating companies which then supplied to Sara Lee at inflated prices.  Sara Lee sued this employee under 75-1.1 and the Court found that the “in or affecting commerce” requirement was met there by the buyer-seller relationship forming the basis of the employee’s self-dealing.  591 S.E.2d at 312.  But the Supreme Court, in the White opinion, fails to explain how the usurping of the partnership’s opportunities to himself and PAL is appreciably different from the self-dealing in Sara Lee. 

This noticeable absence of explanation was not lost on the dissent in the White case.  Justice Hudson, in her lengthy dissenting opinion, argued that Thompson’s conduct, like that of the defendant in Sara Lee, involved other businesses and was covered by the Act.  According to the dissent, Thompson’s conduct was not constrained to the internal operations of ACE but involved his competing company, PAL “through which he obtained specialty fabrication work at Smithfield Packing and funneled jobs that had been originally awarded to ACE” and began these activities before he advised Plaintiffs of his intention to withdraw from ACE.  Justice Hudson found these facts to put the White case within the parameters of Sara Lee (“This conduct affected commerce in much the same way as the conduct at issue in Sara Lee”).  Later, she again noted: 

“Rather than supporting the majority’s view, this Court’s decision in Sara Lee strongly indicates that the type of self-dealing found by the jury here is exactly the type of conduct that is covered by the Act.”  . . . Indeed, in its discussion of the very definition of “‘commerce,’” this court noted that the Act is subject to a “reasonably broad interpretation” and that “‘we have not limited [the Act's] applicability . . . to cases involving consumers only.  After all, unfair trade practices involving only businesses affect the consumer as well.’”  White, p. 21 (citations omitted). 

While the majority in White does not clearly, or at least convincingly, distinguish these facts from Sara Lee, the majority has made it clear that in the context of a dispute involving the internal operations of a partnership, Chapter 75’s trebling provision will not be available.  While not stated, perhaps the Court distinguished Sara Lee on the basis that, in that case, the employee engaged in his self dealing over a considerable period of time and did not disclose this conduct during his employment tenure.  Here, although there was some dispute as to exactly when Thompson advised of his intention to withdraw, he clearly had notified his partners of his intention during the time that he had engaged in this conduct.  Perhaps the majority was focused on a lack of impact on Smithfield’s business posed by Thompson’s conduct.  Finally, the majority may simply have believed that Thompson’s conduct was simply too far removed from “buyer-seller relations” to give rise to a claim under the Act.  Whatever the reason, the tug-of-war continues on the reach of Section 75-1.1.