Source: cases/42usc1981/f3d-929-618-fcs-advisors-v-missouri.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_929/0618_01/index.html
The first is that Brevet has not "identif[ied] an impaired 'contractual relationship' under which [it ] ha[d] rights."
The software contract was between Missouri and EngagePoint, not Brevet, and section 1981 does not allow Brevet to sue on EngagePoint's behalf, even if it too had a contractual relationship with the company.
To the extent Brevet is relying on its own agreement with EngagePoint, its section 1981 claim fails for another reason. Brevet was not "the direct target of discrimination," nor did it experience discrimination based on its "relationship to, association with, or advocacy" for EngagePoint.
But this is a conclusory allegation based on a fraud theory that is itself inadequately pleaded.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash2 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f3d/929/0618-01 name FCS Advisors, LLC v. Missouri cite 929 F.3d 618 (2019) court United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit date 2019-07-09 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_929/0618_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl sha1=040f6192523eebf09347772a5986d6b33ad46132 chars=10520 opinion maj : majority by Stras @0..10520 controlling ? other: the defendants are the State of Missouri and a state official, but the opinion never discusses the state-remedial-route (Section 1983) or immunity for the Section 1981 claim; no block is recorded for it. law 42usc1981 role applied posture civil; Section 1981 claim by a lender to a minority-owned prime contractor whose state contract was terminated; Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal affirmed by CA8 result claimant-lost element own-contract : not-satisfied [pleaded] route _whole pattern lender-suing-over-termination-of-its-borrowers-state-contract fact @433..568 [cuts-against] | Missouri hired EngagePoint, a minority-owned information-technology company, to redesign the software for its health-benefits programs. fact @5622..5774 [cuts-against] | Brevet alleges that Nelson's decision to terminate Missouri's contract with EngagePoint was motivated by racial animosity toward the company's managers. fact @896..1072 [neutral] | Acting on this advice, EngagePoint turned to Brevet Direct Lending - Short Duration Fund, L.P. and its administrative agent, FCS Advisors, LLC (together, "Brevet"), for a loan. held @5925..6043 | The first is that Brevet has not "identif[ied] an impaired 'contractual relationship' under which [it ] ha[d] rights." held @6140..6346 | The software contract was between Missouri and EngagePoint, not Brevet, and section 1981 does not allow Brevet to sue on EngagePoint's behalf, even if it too had a contractual relationship with the company. ? route: no menu route for a derivative claim through another's contract (lender, shareholder, creditor of the contracting party; Domino's Pizza); employment-relationship lists these as out of scope. element racial-intent : not-satisfied [pleaded] route _whole pattern lender-not-itself-target-of-animus-aimed-at-borrowers-management fact @2112..2301 [cuts-against] | The second was that Nelson's alleged racial animus toward EngagePoint's "Asian-Indian American management" led to the company's termination, which violated federal anti-discrimination laws. fact @7603..7865 [supports] | To be sure, the complaint alleges that "Nelson also discriminated against [Brevet] directly by making fraudulent and/or false or materially misleading representations to it because of its association and work with EngagePoint's Asian-Indian American management." fact @7984..8134 [cuts-against] | The allegation is also implausible, particularly given that Brevet's complaint identifies independent non-discriminatory reasons for Nelson's actions. held @6818..7107 | To the extent Brevet is relying on its own agreement with EngagePoint, its section 1981 claim fails for another reason. Brevet was not "the direct target of discrimination," nor did it experience discrimination based on its "relationship to, association with, or advocacy" for EngagePoint. held @7866..7962 | But this is a conclusory allegation based on a fraud theory that is itself inadequately pleaded. ? route: the ruling is that the plaintiff was not personally the target of the discrimination (Bilello / Combs), partly on pleading-plausibility grounds; no menu route for "plaintiff not the target", so _whole. ? scope: this is the court's second ground, addressed to the plaintiff's own loan agreement rather than the state contract; recorded as merits rather than alternative because it disposes of a different contractual theory.