Architectural Busstrut Corp. v. Target Corp.

Emmett’s client, Architectural Busstrut Corporation, is a premier supplier of commercial lighting systems.  Busstrut had a contract with Target to supply its system for installation in hundreds of Target stores nationwide.  Target jilted Busstrut for another supplier, and Busstrut filed suit in Minnesota federal court.  Busstrut retained Kirkland & Ellis, a top-ranked national firm boasting over 2,700 attorneys.  Unhappy with the representation, Busstrut terminated Kirkland and hired Robinson Law Firm to lead the charge in drafting Busstrut’s opposition to Target’s motion for summary judgment.   Target argued that the parties’ contract—composed of a number of complex, interrelated documents—was not a requirements contract obligating Target to purchase all of the goods it required from Busstrut but rather was a mere “firm offer” or options contract.  After briefing led by Emmett and oral argument by Minnesota-based co-counsel, the District Court adopted many of the arguments Emmett raised in Busstrut’s brief and denied Target’s motion for summary judgment.

Target’s previous settlement offer had been in the low-six-figures range.  But victory on summary judgment increased the value of the case dramatically.  Ultimately, Busstrut was able to leverage the summary-judgment victory into a $4 million payout from Target.