OA Holding Co. LLC v Weld N. Ventures LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

OA Holding Co. LLC v Weld N. Ventures LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 31734(U) March 23, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 652169/2016 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2018 10:50 AM 1] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 INDEX NO. 652169/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART _3_9_ HON. SALIANN SCARPULLA Justice -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X OA HOLDING COMPANY LLC, INDEX NO. 652169/2016 Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 3/7/2017 MOTION SEQ. NO. -v- 002 WELD NORTH VENTURES LLC, DECISION AND ORDER Defendant. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39,40 were read on this application to/for DISMISSAL Upon the foregoing documents, it is In this action for breach of contract and fraud, defendant Weld North Ventures, LLC ("Weld") moves, pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a) (1) and CPLR 321 l(a) (7), to dismiss the complaint. On June 25, 2015, plaintiff OA Holding Company LLC ("OA Holding") entered into a Unit Purchase agreement ("UPA") with Weld and various other sellers to purchase 100% of the membership interests in Organic A venue, LLC ("Organic"), an organic juice business. At the time of purchase, Weld was the majority member of Organic. 652169/2016 OA HOLDING COMPANY LLC vs. WELD NORTH VENTURES LLC Motion No. 002 1 of 11 Page 1of11 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2018 10:50 AM 2] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 INDEX NO. 652169/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2018 Prior to the consummation of the sale of Organic, Weld provided OA Holding with Organic's Fourth Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement (the "Fourth Agreement") which was dated December 31, 2012. Section 19 of the Fourth Agreement stated that: (a) In the event that Weld Members (the "Dragging Members") propose a Sale of the Company in a bona fide transaction to any Person that is not an Affiliate of any of the Dragging Members, the Dragging Members shall be entitled to deliver notice to the Company that the Dragging Members desire the Company and/ or the Members to enter into agreements with one or more Persons that would result in a Sale of the Company (an "Approved Sale"), whereupon all Members and the Company shall consent to and raise no objections against the Approved Sale, and ifthe Approved Sale is structured as ... (ii) a sale of Units, each Member shall, and hereby agrees to, agree to sell their Units on the same terms and conditions approved by such Dragging Members. To complete the sale quickly, Weld relied on section 19's drag-along provision, which obligated all of Organic's members to consent to the sale. The Fourth Agreement included a redemption obligation in Section 8(a) which stated: The Weld Members hereby agree that, on or prior to December 31, 2013 the Weld members shall, or shall cause the Company [Organic] to, offer to purchase all or any portion of the Units ... then held by all Members ... " David Schwinger ("Schwinger"), vice president of OAM Manager Inc., the manager of OA Holding, alleges that prior to the execution of the UP A, he was concerned that not all the members had executed the Fourth Agreement. Schwinger asserts that OA Holding contemplated doing an equity offering or financing after acquiring Organic and did not want there to be a "cloud" on the title of the membership interests. OA Holding and Weld modified the UP A to address the issue of the failure of 652169/2016 OA HOLDING COMPANY LLC vs. WELD NORTH VENTURES LLC Motion No. 002 2 of 11 Page 2of11 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2018 10:50 AM 3] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 INDEX NO. 652169/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2018 all members to execute the Fourth Agreement and the UPA, and the effectiveness of the drag-along. The modification, embodied in Section 3.5 (a) of the UPA, stated: Upon consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. .. the Purchaser [OA Holding] will have acquired good and marketable title in and to one hundred percent (100°/o) of the issued and outstanding membership interests in the Company [Organic], free and clear of all Encumbrances. (emphasis in original) The UPA also contained a representation and warranty from Weld, which stated that Organic did not have "any obligation ... to purchase, redeem, or acquire any equity securities or interest" in Organic. In addition, the UP A contained an indemnification provision, which stated, "[s]ubject to the limitations set forth herein, [Weld] shall indemnify, defend and hold [OA Holding] ... harmless against all liability, loss, and damage ...relating to or arising from the untruth, inaccuracy or breach of any of the representations, warranties, covenants or agreements of [Weld] contained herein ... " On the closing date, the UP A was executed by Steven Berger, Vice CJ:iairman, on Weld' s behalf. Several, but not all, of Organic' s members executed the UP A after the Closing Date. On August 20, 2015, OA Holding engaged a placement agent (the "Offering Agent") to raise funds for the continuing operations of Organic (the "Offering"). According to the amended complaint, the Offering would raise two million dollars by issuing senior-secured convertible notes. The Offering Agent conducted due diligence on OA Holding and Organic and, on September 21, 2015, notified the former that the Offering was approved by the Offering Agent's investment committee. 652169/2016 OA HOLDING COMPANY LLC vs. WELD NORTH VENTURES LLC Motion No. 002 3 of 11 Page 3of11 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2018 10:50 AM 4] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 INDEX NO. 652169/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2018 On September 11, 2015, John Edelman ("Edelman"), one of the other sellers under the UPA, brought an action against Weld and Organic, but not OA Holding (the "Edelman Action"). 1 Edelman is a signatory of the UP A, and one of the named sellers of units in Organic to OA Holding. In the Edelman Action Edelman alleged that Weld was required to, but did not, make a purchase offer by mail for Edelman's Organic shares in 2013. Weld made a purchase offer to Edelman on November 5, 2013, but Edelman declined it, alleging that it was invalid because it was made by email, and because he had not been provided with Organic's amended operating agreements. Edelman sought the $135,000 that he would have received, had he accepted, rather than rejected, the purchase offer from Weld in 2013. Edelman also sought money damages against Organic for failure to provide him with a copy of the Fourth Agreement, alleging that he "did not have full and complete information concerning [Organic] to assess the merits of [Weld's] November 5, 2013 offer." The complaint in the Edelman Action did not contest the validity ofEdelman's transfer of his interests pursuant fo the Fourth Agreement's drag-along provision. OA Holding alleges that, upon learning of the Edelman Action, it reviewed the executed UPA delivered by Weld's counsel after the closing and discovered that, "Organic Member LLC [a non-voting member of Organic which owned 1. 7% of Organic's shares], had still not executed the UPA and Weld failed to deliver clean title to 100% of the membership interests as required by the UPA." OA Holding alleges that it 1 Edelman v. Organic Avenue, LLC, NY Sup. Ct., Index #653091/2015. 652169/2016 OA HOLDING COMPANY LLC vs. WELD NORTH VENTURES LLC Motion No. 002 4 of 11 Page 4of11 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2018 10:50 AM 5] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 INDEX NO. 652169/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2018 was concerned that title to the membership interests was not marketable and this unclean title would prevent OA Holding from completing its equity offering. On or about September 26, 2015, OA Holding alleges that it notified Weld's counsel of Edelman's complaint, and that Weld's counsel stated in an email, "[a]ssuming the accuracy of the facts you state [that a lawsuit was commenced against Organic] ... Weld North would be responsible for indemnification obligations in accordance with the [UPA]." Subsequently, however, "Weld repudiated any liability that resulted in anticipatory breach of the UP A" and "as a direct result, the offering agent cancelled the offering, which caused OA Holding to lose the going concern value of [Organic]." As per the amended complaint, without the funds from the Offering, Organic was unable to continue business and was forced to file for bankruptcy on October 15, 2015. OA Holding commenced this action on April 22, 2016, asserting claims for breach of contract and fraud against Weld. Weld moves to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that OA Holding's allegations are conclusively disproven by the express terms of the UPA and because OA Holding has failed to state a cause of action for breach of contract and fraud. Discussion The standard of review on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 is well established: a court must assume the truth of the allegations in the pleading and "resolve all inferences which, reasonably flow therefrom in favor of the pleader." Sanders v. Winship, 57 N.Y.2d 391, 394 (1982). In assessing a complaint, the Court must "determine simply whether the facts alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory." 652169/2016 OA HOLDING COMPANY LLC vs. WELD NORTH VENTURES LLC Motion No. 002 5 of 11 Page 5of11 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2018 10:50 AM 6] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 INDEX NO. 652169/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2018 Marone v. Marone, 50 N.Y.2d 481, 484 (1980). If the facts stated are sufficient to support any cognizable legal theory, the motion to dismiss should be denied. Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State a/New York, 86 NY2d 307, 318 (1995). When a motion to dismiss is based on CPLR 3211 (a) (1), '"dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter oflaw."' Morgenthow & Latham v. Bank ofNew York Co., 305 A.D.2d 74, 78 (1st Dept. 2003) (citation omitted). Breach of Contract "The elements of a breach of contract claim are formation of a contract between the parties, performance by the plaintiff, the defendant's failure to perform, and resulting damage." Flomenbaum v. New York Univ., 71 A.D.3d 80, 91 (1st Dept. 2009) aff'd 14 N.Y.3d 901 (2010). In interpreting a contract, the court must consider the parties' intentions, "[t]he best evidence of [which] ... is what they say in their writing." Banco Espirito Santo, S.A. v. Concessionaria Do Rodoanel Oeste S.A., 100 A.D.3d 100, 106 (1st Dept. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "[T]he interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law for the court, and the provisions of the contract delineating the rights of the parties prevail over the allegations set forth in the complaint." Ark Bryant Park Corp. v. Bryant Park Restoration Corp., 285 A.D.2d 143, 150 (lstDept. 2001). 1. Breach of the Warranty that OA Holding Would Receive Good Title OA Holding maintains that Weld violated section 3.5 (a) of the UPA, which provided that OA Holding would receive good and marketable title to 100% of the 652169/2016 QA HOLDING COMPANY LLC vs. WELD NORTH VENTURES LLC Motion No. 002 6 of 11 Page 6of11 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2018 10:50 AM 7] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 INDEX NO. 652169/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2018 membership interests in Organic. OA Holding contends that, because of the allegations in Edelman's complaint, the Offering Agent determined that OA Holding did not have good and marketable title and was subject to a potential claim by Organic Member LLC ("Organic Member"), an entity which failed to sign either the Fourth Agreement or the UPA. The documentary evidence submitted by Weld conclusively establishes, however, that Weld did not violate section 3.5 (a) of the UPA as a matter of law. Indeed, the express terms of the UPA are inconsistent with OA Holding's allegations. First, review of the complaint in the Edelman Action shows that Edelman did not even challenge title. In fact, Edelman expressly alleged that he assigned his interest in Organic to OA Holding. Moreover, Organic Member, a non-voting member, was bound by the Fourth Agreement regardless of whether it signed the agreement. The Third Amended Operating Agreement ("Third Agreement") contained a provision permitting amendment on consent of the "voting Members holding at least sixty-six and two thirds percent (66 2/3%) of the then outstanding voting Units." It is undisputed that voting members holding at least 66 2/3% of the outstanding units of Organic approved the Fourth Agreement. See Fourth Agreement, Schedule II. Thus, the relevant documents show that Organic Member was bound by the Fourth Agreement, including the drag-along prov1s1on. The Fourth Agreement's drag-along provision provided that all members, including Edelman and Organic Member, agreed to sell their units in connection with a 652169/2016 OA HOLDING COMPANY LLC vs. WELD NORTH VENTURES LLC Motion No. 002 7 of 11 Page 7of11 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2018 10:50 AM 8] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 INDEX NO. 652169/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2018 sale of Organic approved by Weld. Therefore, the UP A did not have to be signed by Organic Member to effect the conveyance of its membership units. OA Holding does not allege that Organic Member, Edelman or any other member ever challenged the sale of their units to OA Holding. Considering the documentary evidence, OA Holding's allegation that a potential financing partner was concerned that Organic Member had not signed the Fourth Agreement and/or UPA is an insufficient basis to support OA Holding's claim that it did not receive good and marketable title as required by section 3.5 (a) of the UPA. OA Holding also argues that the Fourth Agreement could not have been adopted absent Organic Member's signature because the Third Agreement required written approval of the amendment. The Third Agreement, however, required written approval only for a material adverse change that affected a member disproportionately with respect to other members. OA Holding did not allege a disproportionate effect on Organic Member relative to other members. New York Limited Liability Company Law ("LLC Law") section 417 (b) does not require a different result, as it only states that certain types of amendments cannot be made to an operating agreement without the written consent of adversely affected members, unless the operating agreement provides otherwise. Here,.the Third Agreement provides otherwise and its more permissive terms render LLC Law section 41 7 (b) inapplicable. Because the documents submitted by Weld conclusively refute OA Holdings claim that Weld violated section 3.5 (a) of the UPA, OA Holdings may not assert a breach of 652169/2016 OA HOLDING COMPANY LLC vs. WELD NORTH VENTURES LLC Motion No. 002 8 of 11 Page 8of11 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2018 10:50 AM 9] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 INDEX NO. 652169/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2018 contract cause of action based upon an alleged violation of section 3 .5 of the UP A. See Morgenthow, 305 A.D.2d at 78 (2003); Ark Bryant Park Corp., 285 A.D.2d at 150. 2. Breach ofthe Indemnification Provision OA Holding also asserts that Weld breached the UP A's indemnification provision by not indemnifying it for the Edelman Action. Weld argues that it had no obligation to indemnify OA Holding under the UP A for the Edelman Action because the Edelman Action was not based on the "untruth, inaccuracy, or breach of any of the representations, warranties, covenants or agreements" in the UPA. As stated above, the Edelman Action did not name OA Holding as a defendant or challenge OA Holding's title to the Organic units. The Edelman Action was simply not based on the "untruth, inaccuracy, or breach of any of the representations, warranties, covenants or agreements" in the UP A, thus Weld was not required to indemnify OA Holding under the UPA. Contrary to OA Holding's contention, the email from Weld's counsel could not have been an admission of indemnification liability, as counsel stated that he had not received the Edelman Action documentation and was unaware of the specific allegations in the suit. 3. Breach of Warranty that Organic Lacked Any Redemption Obligations Finally, OA Holding alleges that Weld violated section 3.5 (b) (iii) of the UPA, and bases this allegation on the language in Section 8(a) of the Fourth Agreement and on the allegations and outcome of the Edelman Action. Neither of these bases support OA Holding's claim for breach of 3.5(b)(iii) of the UPA. 652169/2016 QA HOLDING COMPANY LLC vs. WELD NORTH VENTURES LLC Motion No. 002 9 of 11 Page 9of11 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2018 10:50 AM 10] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 INDEX NO. 652169/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2018 Section 8 (a) of the Fourth Agreement states that "on or prior to December 31, 2013 the Weld Members shall, or shall cause the Company [Organic] to, offer to purchase all or any portion of the Units ... then held by all Members ... " The Fourth Agreement defines "Weld Members" as "Weld North Ventures LLC and/or any Transferee thereof." Contrary to OA Holding's interpretation, the language in Section 8 (a) does not obligate Organic to purchase the units, rather it requires Weld to do so. Because the redemption obligation is Weld's, and not Organic's, Weld did not breach 3.5(b)(iii) of the UPA which states that "neither [Organic] nor any of its subsidiaries has any obligation ... to purchase, redeem or otherwise acquire any equity securities or any interest therein ... " See Banco Espirito Santo, 100 A.D.3d at 106 (a clear and unambiguous document on its face "must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms") (internal citation omitted). Further, OA Holding's argument, that the Edelman Action lends support to its breach of warranty claim, is erroneous. In the Edelman Action, the claim for breach of Section 8 (a) of the Fourth Agreement is only brought against Weld and focuses on Weld's alleged failure to comply with the contractual notice requirement. In sum, Weld submits documentation to conclusively refute all three grounds on which OA Holding bases its breach of contract claim. Accordingly, I grant Weld's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim. 652169/2016 OA HOLDING COMPANY LLC vs. WELD NORTH VENTURES LLC Motion No. 002 10 of 11 Page 10of11 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2018 10:50 AM 11] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 INDEX NO. 652169/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2018 Fraud Where a fraud claim is merely duplicative of a breach of contract claim and the ) alleged breach of duty is one owed based upon alleged contractual obligations, a court will dismiss the fraud claim. See Rivas v. AmeriMed USA, Inc., 34 A.D.3d 250, 250 (1st Dept. 2006); JE. Morgan Knitting Mills v. Reeves Bros., 243 A.D.2d 422, 423 (1st Dept. 1997) (dismissing fraud claim as duplicative of breach of contract claim because both • claims were based on the same facts). OA Holding's fraud claim is duplicative of its breach of contract claim, as the only alleged misrepresentations supporting the fraud claim are the same as those upon which the breach of contract claim is based. In accordance with the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Defendant Weld's motion to dismiss plaintiff OA Holding's complaint is granted_ and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety, with costs and disbursements to Weld as taxed by the Clerk of the Court, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. 3/23/2018 DATE CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED GRANTED APPLICATION: § NON·FINAL DISPOSITION DENIED GRANTED IN PART . SUBMIT ORDER SETTLE ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: D DO NOT POST FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 652169/2016 OA HOLDING COMPANY LLC vs. WELD NORTH VENTURES LLC Motion No. 002 11 of 11 D D OTHER REFERENCE Page 11of11

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.