Muccio v. Hunt, 2016 Ark. 178

Appellants Tom Muccio, Mike Muccio, and Next Chapter Resources (collectively appellants) were minority members of BioBased, LLC (41.81%); appellees controlled 56.19%.
In 2008 appellees and others brought in Walter Smiley as consultant and later installed him as CEO; appellants contend Smiley was presented as neutral but was part of a conspiracy to oust them.
At an August 14, 2009 membership meeting Smiley allegedly made false statements about Signature Bank forcing BioBased into Chapter 11; the membership unanimously voted to file Chapter 11.
Appellants claim fraud, fraudulent inducement, civil conspiracy, intentional interference, and ADTPA violations, alleging the misrepresentations induced the bankruptcy vote and led to loss of their membership interests in the confirmed plan.
Appellants previously nonsuited appellees in Washington County, where the court found the bankruptcy plan was proper and approved by 75% of the membership; appellants later sued in Pulaski County, voluntarily dismissed some claims, and the trial court granted summary judgment for appellees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether material misrepresentations induced the bankruptcy vote (fraud)	Appellants: Smiley’s false statements about bank refusal and check-bouncing induced the vote for Chapter 11	Appellees: Appellants cannot prove justifiable reliance or that any misrepresentation changed the vote outcome	Court: No genuine issue—Tom did not rely; Mike’s vote alone could not change the result; no proof of damages from misrepresentation
Whether evidence supports civil conspiracy	Appellants: Appellees conspired with others to deprive appellants of their interests via fraudulent means	Appellees: No proof of an agreement or that appellees knew statements were false; conduct shows business friction not conspiracy	Court: No evidence of concerted unlawful purpose; conspiracy claim fails
Whether appellants were entitled to relief on other claims (intentional interference, ADTPA)	Appellants initially asserted these claims	Appellants voluntarily dismissed these claims before summary judgment	Court: Those claims were dismissed and not decided on the merits
Whether prior Washington County finding is law of the case	Appellants: Implicitly challenge preclusive effect	Appellees: Trial court correctly treated prior finding about the bankruptcy plan as law of the case	Court: Relied on law-of-the-case as alternative ground but affirmed on merits—no need to resolve further

Brock v. Townsell, 309 S.W.3d 179 (Ark. 2009) (summary-judgment standard review)
Jewell v. Fletcher, 377 S.W.3d 176 (Ark. 2010) (elements required to prove fraud)
Faulkner v. Arkansas Children's Hosp., 69 S.W.3d 393 (Ark. 2002) (civil-conspiracy elements)