WSC/2005 LLC v. Trio Ventures Associates (Ct. of Appeals)

Filed:  July 30, 2018

Opinion by:  Adkins, J.

Holding:  Although it is not recognized in the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act (the “MUAA”), manifest disregard of applicable law is a proper ground to vacate an arbitration award.

Facts:  Plaintiff filed a petition to vacate an arbitration award in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.  The petition argued that the arbitrator “manifestly disregarded well-established Maryland law in several respects” and that the arbitrator wrongly concluded the Plaintiff breached a contract provision.  Defendant moved to dismiss arguing that the Plaintiff did not allege any of the statutorily permitted vacatur grounds enumerated in the MUAA.

The MUAA governs the arbitration process in Maryland.  Once an arbitrator issues an award, a circuit court shall vacate an award on certain grounds enumerated in the MUAA.  The MUAA also provides that “the court shall not vacate the award or refuse to confirm the award on the ground that a court of law or equity could not or would not grant the same relief.”

Analysis:  The Court reviewed precedent decisions demonstrating that Maryland recognizes manifest disregard of the law as a permissible common-law ground for vacating an arbitration award.  The Court then analyzed whether the General Assembly abrogated the common law in this respect when it adopted the MUAA.

For an abrogation to occur, “the statutory language must indicate an express abrogation or an abrogation by implication by adoption of a statutory scheme that is so clearly contrary to the common law right that the two cannot occupy the same space.”  The Court agreed with Plaintiff that the MUAA does not pronounce an intention to expressly abrogate the common-law vacatur grounds.  The Court also agreed that the list of five grounds upon which a circuit court may vacate an award does not indicate the grounds are exclusive.  Further, the circumstances in which a circuit court cannot vacate an arbitration award under the MUAA do not include common-law vacatur grounds.

While disfavored, abrogation by implication is possible in two situations:  conflict preemption and field preemption.  The Court stated that conflict preemption does not apply because the common-law ground for “vacating an arbitration award will not conflict with any of the statutory grounds or render them nugatory.”  Field preemption occurs if a new enactment repeals and replaces the entirety of the prior law on a comprehensive basis.  Here, the Court stated that the MUAA’s “lack of universal applicability means the General Assembly did not preempt the entire field of arbitration common law.”

The Court then stated that manifest disregard of the law requires a “palpable mistake of law or fact appearing on the face of the award.  A court should look for an error that is readily perceived or obvious; an error that is clear or unquestionable.”  Finding no such mistake, the Court affirmed the Circuit Court’s dismissal.  

The opinion is available in PDF.

Young Electrical Contractors v. Dustin Construction (Ct. of Appeals)

Filed:  May 24, 2018

Opinion by:  Judge McDonald

Holding:

Maryland courts interpreting construction contracts under Virginia law will first look to the contract language and then to parol evidence to determine the intent of the parties regarding whether a construction subcontract contains a pay-when-paid or pay-if-paid clause.

Facts:

George Mason University (“Owner”) hired Dustin Construction (“General Contractor”) to renovate the school’s student union building, and General Contractor hired Young Electrical (“Subcontractor”) for the electrical work.

The Subcontract contained a provision “Contractor’s obligation to pay … Subcontractor … is contingent, as a condition precedent, upon Contractor’s receipt of payment from the Owner…” (Section 2(c)).

Subcontractor submitted cost increase requests to General Contractor, which submitted cost increase requests to Owner.  Owner rejected the request; General Contractor never paid the additional cost to Subcontractor.  Subcontractor sued General Contractor for breach of contract.  The Circuit Court for Montgomery County granted General Contractor’s motion for summary judgment.  Subcontractor appealed.

Analysis:

“Contract interpretation is governed by the law of the place of contract or the law chose by the parties.”  Cunningham v. Feinberg, 441 Md. 310, 326 (2015). However, the standard for summary judgment is governed by the law of the forum, in this case Maryland law. Goodwich v. Sinai Hosp. of Baltimore, Inc., 343 Md. 185, 204-207 (1996). Under the Maryland Rules, a circuit court may grant summary judgment only if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maryland Rule 2–501(f).

The Virginia Supreme Court has referenced Maryland law in examining the issue in this case.  The Maryland Court of Appeals relied on a 1962 Sixth Circuit case (Thos. J. Dyer Co. v. Bishop Int’l. Engineering Co.) when it examined the issue in Atl. States Const. Co. v. Drummond & Co. (1968) and Fishman Constr. Co. v. Hansen (1965).  In Maryland, Conditional Payment provisions are to be construed as timing provisions (pay-when-paid clauses) unless the contract language clearly indicates that the parties intended the clause to be a condition precedent (pay-if-paid clause). The Special Court of Appeals had affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision.  It held that Section 2(c) contained the “magic phrase” “condition precedent”.

The Court considered whether the General Contractor was entitled to summary judgment for the reason given by the Circuit Court and concluded it was not, then went through an analysis of the reason for summary judgement originally argued by the General Contractor. 

The full opinion is available PDF.

Maryland Financial Bank v. Congressional Bank (Cir. Ct. Mont. Cnty)

Filed: May 17, 2018

Opinion by: Judge Anne K. Albright

Holding:  Assignment of key obligations undertaken by a party to a contract containing an anti-assignment provision or other protective provision in favor of the non-assigning party is invalid and unenforceable if such assignment is made without the consent of the non-assigning party. 

Facts:  American Bank (“American”) originated a loan that was secured by a first lien against real property (the “Loan”).  American simultaneously entered into a participation agreement with Maryland Financial Bank (“MFB”) entitling MFB to an undivided 50% interest in everything arising from or out of the Loan and Loan documents.  The participation agreement provided that, among other things, American could not make material changes to the terms of the Loan without MFB’s consent or assign its obligations or duties as servicer of the Loan without MFB’s consent, but American could sell additional participations in the Loan (provided such action would not adversely affect the rights of MFB), control the course of action upon a Loan default after consulting MFB, and service the Loan.  MFB simultaneously sold a majority of its participation interest to National Bank of Cambridge, which later became 1800 Bank (“1800”).

American began to effect a plan of merger with Congressional Bank, during which time American declared a default on the Loan and, with the assistance of Congressional, assigned all of American’s right, title and interest in the Loan to Democracy Capital Corporation (“Democracy”). Congressional continued servicing the Loan after assignment to Democracy.  The assignment was made without MFB’s consent and, among other things, provided Democracy with a consent right before Congressional could take action upon an event of default and gave Democracy the right to terminate Congressional as the servicer.  MFB filed suit against Congressional and Democracy claiming that, by assigning the Loan to Democracy, Congressional had violated the participation agreement; 1800 was joined as a necessary party and all parties countered seeking a declaration as to their respective rights.  As part of a settlement agreement, Congressional transferred its servicing obligations to 1800 with MFB’s consent and over Democracy’s objections, and MFB, 1800 and Congressional dismissed their claims against each other; however, MFB, Democracy and 1880 were still seeking declaratory judgment as to 1880’s and Democracy’s rights and obligations relating to the Loan.  Democracy argued that 1800 did not have standing to seek a declaratory judgment as it was not a party or third-party beneficiary of the assignment between Democracy and American/Congressional.

Analysis:  As an initial matter, the Court held that, because 1800 was a party to the settlement agreement, it had standing to bring an action for declaratory judgment. Applying the “cardinal rule of contract interpretation” to “give effect to the parties’ intentions,” the court further held that the assignment to Democracy of certain of American’s key obligations related to the Loan violated the terms of the participation agreement.  Although the participation agreement gave American the right to sell participation interests in the Loan on terms different from those in participation agreement with MFB, American could not involve other participants in a manner that would adversely affect the rights and obligations of MFB.  After the assignment, not only did Democracy have the same right as MFB to prevent Congressional from assigning the servicing obligations, it could actually terminate Congressional as the servicer; Democracy also had final say as to the course of action upon a Loan default.

Democracy’s claim that the assignment of the servicing from Congressional to 1800 without Democracy’s failed because the court held that Democracy never had the right to consent to such assignment in the first place as the provisions of the assignment of the Loan to Democracy purporting to give Democracy the right to terminate Congressional as the servicer and withhold consent to any assignment by Congressional of its servicing obligations were invalid.  Therefore, 1800, as the sole servicer of the Loan pursuant to the settlement agreement, was the only party who had the right to foreclose on the real property that had been mortgaged as collateral for the Loan. 

Full text of opinion available here.

Laidlaw v. Beneficial Bancorp, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Balto. Cnty)

Filed:  August 8, 2017
Opinion by: Judge Pamela J. White

Holding: A stockholder can file a derivative claim action against a corporation, without serving a pre-suit demand on a board, if it can shown that a demand would be futile.

Facts: Plaintiff brought suit against company Board of Directors in a derivative suit on behalf of company alleging that the individuals named breached a fiduciary duty owed to the company and were unjustly enriched as a result. After company completed a mutual stock conversion, the Board voted to award themselves more than 1 million shares as a part of a compensation package. The company provided its non-employee directors an average total compensation of $77,521 per non-employee director, while the CEO received $1,712,899 in compensation during the same period. A stock plan was approved by stockholders at the corporations annual meeting. Under the stock plan the Board reserved 3,500,000 shares of company stock. They later awarded themselves 1,043,416 of the reserved stock as a bonus for their role in the mutual-to-stock conversion. The value of the stock due to be disbursed was more than $14 million.

Plaintiff filed suit derivatively on behalf of the company less than a year after the stock plan was approved without making a demand. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss.

Analysis:

Plaintiff alleged that the Board breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty to the company by engaging in impermissible self-dealing. He argued that as result the Board was unjustly enriched and disgorgement was warranted. The Defendants argued for a dismissal on the grounds that a pre-suit demand was never submitted on the Board prior to the lawsuit. Plaintiff’s complaint gave inference that the demand would’ve been futile in this case because the board could not have objectively decided on a pre-suit demand due to its’ self-dealing in the stock plan.

“In order to maintain this balance of managerial power, a complaining stockholder generally speaking….must make demand upon the corporate board to commence the action and show that this demand has been refused or ignored before he may file a suit derivatively behalf of the company” Parish v. Md. & Va. Milk Producers Ass’n, 250 Md. 24, 81-82 (1968).  “Failure to serve a pre-suit demand can result in a dismissal of a derivative complaint.” Werbowsky v. Collomb, 363 Md. 581, 620-21(2001).  Here, Plaintiff argued that the demand should be excused because the board was personally and directly conflicted or committed to preserving their self-compensation.

Defendants argued that no member of the board was disqualified because of the fact that a director expected to derive a personal benefit from a corporate transaction. They argued that demand was not futile because the stock award was recommended by the Board’s four-member Compensation Committee and that a bare majority of the nine-member Board  could have fairly considered the Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand.  The Court decided that due to the outsized nature of the award at issue, one could reasonably infer that the Defendants were conflicted to a degree sufficient to excuse demand under Werbowsky.

In its’ analysis of one the counterarguments of the Defendants, the Court went on to state that “the question is whether a majority of the Board has a personal interest in not disturbing the decision that is sufficiently significant to overwhelm their better judgment.” In re Regions Morgan Keegan Securities, Derivative Erisa Litig., 694 F. Supp. 2d 879, 884 (W.D. Tenn. 2010).  Here, each member of the Board has a personal financial interest in the stock award with the stock award being more than four times the salary the President/CEO earned in the year prior to the stock award. The non-employee defendants’ interest in the stock was more than eleven times larger than their compensation from the previous year.

Defendants tried to rely upon the presumption of good faith of the business judgment rule. and that was deemed by the Court to be inapplicable to the circumstances. However since the Board’s actions were not from a disinterested position, they could not enjoy the protection’s of the rule.

The Defendants also argued that because the stockholders ratified the stock award, they were well within their rights to distribute the stock award. Under Md. Code Ann., Corps & Ass’ns § 2-419 (a) & (b)(1)(ii) Maryland law shields transactions between a corporation and its directors against stockholder derivative suits if, after the directors’ interest is disclosed, the “transaction is authorized, approved or ratified by a majority of votes cast by the disinterested stockholders entitled to vote.” The Court stated that the Board abused its power when it adopted the stock award and therefore could not adopt this protection. “The grant of authority for directors to set their compensation, is not a statutory safe harbor for director compensation decisions.” Sample v. Morgan, 914 A. 2d 647, 664 (Del. Ch. 2007). The Court cited that the stock plan did not inform stockholders the Board intended to give themselves a one time stock award of 1 million shares of stock. The Court decided that since stockholders were not properly informed the protection of shareholder approval under § 2-419 would not apply.

The Defendants also failed to provide a defense that would warrant a dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Meso Scale Diagnostics v. Crescendo Biosciences (Cir. Ct. Mont. Cnty.)

Filed: November 29, 2017

Opinion by: Judge Rubin

Holding:

The post-termination materials requirements contract provision was enforceable despite it being removed during negotiations. In resolving a contract dispute, governed by Delaware law, the court may consider extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intentions.

Facts:

William Hagstrom (“Hagstrom”) formed Defendant in 2007 to commercialize Vectra DA, a test for rheumatoid arthritis.  On March 2, 2009, Defendant accepted Plaintiff’s proposal to evaluate the Vectra DA test’s viability.  The parties began to negotiate for a long-term supply agreement in 2010 after the development phase.  Both parties were invested in their relationship for the long-term, and Defendant knew that Plaintiff wanted to share in the long-term success of Vectra DA. Hagstrom understood that Plaintiff would not move forward with signing the agreement without some means of sharing in the upside potential if the product was commercially successful.

Section 10.1 of the Purchase Agreement contained the post-termination provision.  The Court found Plaintiff’s General Manager’s, Jim Wilbur’s (“Wilbur”), testimony more credible than Hagstrom’s testimony regarding Wilbur explaining Section 10.1 to Hagstrom.  Hagstrom denied Wilbur explained it and further argued that he never intended Defendant to be bound to deal with Plaintiff after the contract’s termination.  During the negotiation process, the provision was removed and re-inserted at least once, but the agreement that Hagstrom signed on April 2, 2012, included Section 10.1. 

On April 21, 2016, Defendant notified Plaintiff that it intended to terminate the agreement effective on April 30, 2018.  Plaintiff sued Defendant on May 23, 2016. (see the opinion for litigation details).

Analysis:

In Delaware, the parties’ subjective expressions are considered when a contract is negotiated between parties on an equal footing and the contract/provision is ambiguous.  SIManagement L.P. v. Wininger, 707 A.2d 37 at 43 (1998).  Extrinsic evidence that is considered “must speak to the intent of all of the parties to the contract.”  Id.  In addition, contracts “should be read to give effect to all its provisions and not to render any part of it ineffective.”  Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 203(a) (1981).

The Court acknowledged that Hagstrom was a “seasoned biotech entrepreneur with more than three decades of executive and board-level experience”, having raised $100 million for Defendant from venture capital firms.  In addition, the contract was reviewed by a global law firm.  The Court found Section 10.1 was a “business compromise” and the materials requirement was a “central element of the bargained for exchange”.

The full opinion is available PDF.

Neitzey v. Allen (Cir. Ct. Mont. Cnty)

Filed: August 31, 2017

Opinion by: Judge Michael D. Mason

Holding:  A covenant not to solicit clients that is overbroad on its face will be interpreted based on the wording of the agreement and is not partially enforceable if the employer voluntarily commits to limit its right of enforcement to only those remedies necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate business where such partial enforcement is not achievable based on the wording of the agreement. 

Facts:  A former employee sued his former employer to have certain restrictive covenants stricken from his employment agreement as overbroad.  At issue was a non-solicitation provisions that restricted the former employee from soliciting and accepting business from any customer of the former employer.  The term “customer” was not defined in the employment agreement and was not limited to customers of the former employer during the former employee’s employment by the former employer.  The former employer offered to restrict the meaning of “customer” to those with whom the former employee had personal contact while employed by the former employer. 

Analysis:  The court held that the former employer’s offer to limit enforcement of the non-solicitation provision could not save the provision from being declared unenforceable.  After a lengthy discussion of Holloway v. Faw, Casson & Co., 78 Md. App. 205 (1989) (“Holloway”), Holloway v. Faw, Casson & Co., 319 Md. 324 (1990), and Fowler v. Printers II, Inc., 89 Md. App. 448 (1991), the court agreed with the Court of Appeals in Holloway, that the enforceability of the non-solicitation provision at issue turned on its internal severability.  The non-solicitation provision at issue was not internally severable because, without some measure of damages on a client-by-client basis similar to the liquidated damages clause in Holloway*, there was no way to establish separate damages for clients with whom the former employee had personal contact and the other clients of the former employer.  Therefore, the non-solicitation provision could not be enforced even if the court limited enforcement in the manner proposed by the former employer.

* In Holloway, the non-solicitation provision was accompanied by a liquidated damages provision equal to 100% of the prior year’s fee for any clients solicited in violation of the non-solicitation provision.

Full text of opinion available here.

Comptroller of the Treasury v. Jalali (Ct. of Special Appeals)

Filed: January 31, 2018

Opinion by: Judge James A. Kenney III

Holding: The Court of Special Appeals held that: (1) the question of whether advances of money to a business are considered debt or equity (the “debt-equity” question) is a mixed question of law and fact; (2) in deciding the debt-equity question, the Maryland Tax Court applied correct legal principles and properly evaluated the relevant facts and circumstances when it found that a taxpayer’s advances of money to business entities were advances of debt; and (3) the Court of Special Appeals would not consider an issue not raised by the Comptroller before the Tax Court because, on judicial review of administrative agency decisions, the Court of Special Appeals is restricted to the record before the agency and generally does not consider issues not encompassed in the agency’s final decision (although the Court went on to find that a taxpayer’s advances constituted bad business debt because the record supported a finding that the taxpayer’s dominant motivation for making the advances was to protect his employment).

Facts: Taxpayer made several advances to businesses he owned or in which he had an ownership interest. Each advance was documented by a written promissory note containing a loan amount, loan period, interest rate, and other repayment terms. The interest and repayment terms of the notes were not strictly complied with or enforced. None of the advances were secured. Ultimately, the businesses failed and the advances were not repaid. Taxpayer filed amended tax returns with the Maryland Revenue Administration division and the Internal Revenue Service for the relevant tax year. The amended returns reported the unpaid advances as unreimbursed business expenses and sought a resulting carried-back net operating loss and tax refund. The Comptroller rejected the returns. Taxpayer requested a final determination, and the Comptroller issued a Notice of Final Determination denying the requested refunds, in part, because (i) proof of acceptance of one applicable return by the IRS had not been provided; and (ii) the advances were not bona fide loans. Taxpayer appealed to the Maryland Tax Court, which reversed the Comptroller’s determination and granted the requested refunds. The Comptroller filed a petition for judicial review, and the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County affirmed the Tax Court. On appeal by the Comptroller, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the Tax Court’s decision.

Analysis:  The Court of Special Appeals first held (in contrast to Fourth Circuit precedent) that the debt-equity question is a mixed question of fact and law. Therefore, the Court limited its review of the Tax Court decision to determining whether “a reasoning mind reasonably could have reached the factual conclusion that the Tax Court reached”. Applying this standard, the Court found that, in addressing the debt-equity question, the Tax Court properly evaluated the facts of the case in light of many of the factors deemed relevant by applicable case law, including the adequacy of capitalization of the businesses, availability of outside financing, the presence of written promissory notes, the presence of stated loan terms, the unsecured position of the advances, the failure of the businesses to comply with interest and repayment terms, the taxpayer’s subjective intent, and the source of repayments. The Court then addressed the Comptroller’s claim that, even if the advances at issue were debt, the advances were non-business bad debt and therefore not deductible. The Court held that it would not consider the argument because it had not been raised before the Tax Court, noting that “[o]n judicial review of administrative agency decisions, we do not ordinarily ‘pass upon issues presented to us for the first time on judicial review.’” Nevertheless, the Court went on to find that there was sufficient evidence in the record that the taxpayer’s “dominant motivation” in making the advances at issue was to protect his employment, and, as such, the advances constituted deductible bad business debt.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Jesse Small v. Monty J. Bennett (Cir. Ct. Balto. City)

Filed:  February 5, 2018

Opinion by:  Pamela J. White

Holding:  Demand for attorney's fees and costs incurred prior to the mooting of a shareholder derivative suit (1) failed to satisfy the requirements of the "corporate benefit rule" because the suit was frivolous and causally unrelated to the corporate benefit in question, and (2) failed to meet the requirements for a discretionary award under Maryland Rule 2-703.

Facts:  Defendants are a Texas-based publicly traded real estate investment trust ("Company"), the management group that conducts Company's day-to-day business affairs ("Advisor"), and Company's managing board ("Directors").

Company became a publicly traded corporation in late 2013 and soon entered into an advisory agreement engaging Advisor to perform management functions.  In mid 2015, concerned about a hostile takeover, Directors adopted a poison pill in the form of an amended advisory agreement; one which would impose an onerous termination fee payable by Company to Advisor upon a change in control or termination of the agreement by either side.

Displeasure over the termination fee's size and triggering mechanism was swiftly communicated by a minority shareholder ("Minority") who commenced derivative suits in early 2016.   Minority sued first in Maryland and weeks later in Texas, alleging breach of fiduciary duty for failing to approve candidates for a proxy battle and adopting a termination fee that threatened to reduce the firm's current equity by 50% in the event of a change in control.  Minority was ultimately unable to overcome the business judgment rule presumption and suffered the dismissal of all claims in February 2016.

Though they prevailed in their suit against Minority, Directors were not deaf to the rising noise of discontent.  Between February and April 2016, Directors established a committee to explore negotiation of a termination fee reduction.  Insufficiently placated by the measure, Plaintiff, a separately situated shareholder ("Shareholder") entered the scene and served a demand letter on Directors in April mirroring the claims made by Minority and requesting an investigation and recommendation on the merits of litigation.  

By that time, the record confirmed much of Advisor's and Directors' energies to be centered on the termination fee provision.  Independent directors of Company and Advisor began negotiations and  drafted revisions to the advisory agreement.  An unsolicited takeover offer received Directors' favorable attention and protracted discussions regarding the import and impact of the termination fee.  Directors retained outside counsel to conduct Shareholder's demanded investigation and to report findings at the upcoming December 2016 board meeting.

Directors described these events in several letters to Shareholder between April and October, but Shareholder considered his demand as having been refused.  In October 2016, Shareholder filed a derivative complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City largely regurgitating the content and form of Minority's prior suits: naming the same defendants (Company, Advisor, and Directors) and alleging breach of fiduciary duty with focus on the "unconscionable" fee provision.

Meanwhile, negotiations over the fee provision continued into 2017.  In January, Company's independent directors approved and recommended the amended advisory agreement.  In June 2017 at Company's annual shareholder meeting, shareholders approved the amended advisory agreement which softened its termination fee calculation and trigger mechanism.

That approval served to moot Shareholder's derivative suit; however, arguing that his litigation had led directly to substantial and valuable benefit for Company's shareholders, Shareholder moved for an award in the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses.

Analysis:  The court began by outlining the standard for an award of discretionary fees according to the corporate benefit doctrine, which required Shareholder to demonstrate three elements: (a) that his suit was meritorious when filed, (b) that Directors' action to benefit the corporation was taken prior to judicial resolution, and (c) that the corporate benefit was causally related to the suit.

To the first, the court examined whether Shareholder's suit would have survived the motion to dismiss - and were left wanting.  Shareholder neglected to allege sufficient facts in his complaint to show that Directors had failed to act in accordance with the Business Judgment Rule or made anything other than good faith, informed business decisions.

To the third, the court's examination of the chronology of events led to a finding that neither the termination fee negotiations nor subsequent approval had been causally related to Shareholder's demand letter or threat of litigation.  Instead, the train of activity as to challenging and rectifying the termination fee and trigger mechanisms had already left the station following Minority's suit - and months prior to Shareholder's involvement by demanding an investigation or filing the instant litigation.  Finding insufficient support for the required elements, the court determined Shareholder's litigation to have yielded no corporate benefit.

The court finally turned to Maryland Rule 2-703 which might have permitted a discretionary award in consideration of factors such as (a) time and labor required, (b) novelty and difficulty of questions raised, (c) legal skills required,... (e) customary fees for such services, (f) contingent or fixed fee agreement, (g) time-limiting circumstances,... or (i) experience and ability of counsel, among other factors.  Even had Shareholder been able to meet his burden to show a corporate benefit, his neglect to support the 2-703 showing with sufficient evidence about any of the recited factors and inability to explain or justify the difference between an initial demand for $565,000 and an amended demand for $272,347 were fatal to a request for a discretionary award.

Accordingly, the court denied Shareholder's motion for award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Willow Grove Citizens Assoc. v. County Council of Prince George's County, Maryland (Ct. of Special Appeals)

Filed:  December 20, 2017

Opinion by:  Stuart R. Berger

Holding:  A Maryland LLC’s participation in an administrative proceeding by filing for a zoning special exception was valid even though the LLC had forfeited its right to do business in Maryland.  A foreign unregistered corporation's participation in the proceedings as agent or co-applicant did not invalidate the application because the isolated action did not constitute doing business in Maryland.

Facts:  Appellee (“LLC”) in 2001 purchased a parcel in Bowie, Maryland with the intent to construct an assisted living facility.  The parcel being zoned "Rural Residential," prior owner had obtained a special exception for this same purpose but had never developed the land.

In 2012, LLC neglected its State Department of Assessments and Taxation ("SDAT") obligations and forfeited its right to use its name and do business in Maryland.  LLC's sole member was a corporation organized in the District of Columbia not registered to do business in Maryland.  LLC's rights remained forfeited in February 2014 when it applied for a special exception to operate an assisted living facility on the parcel.

The application was accepted, heard, and granted in October 2014 by the local planning commission ("Examiner").  People's Zoning Counsel, appointed by the County Council to protect the public interest and create a full and complete record, was the same attorney who had conducted the settlement and subsequent contract work around the sale of the parcel to LLC.  The record showed no objections made after his disclosure of prior involvement and no objection to his participation in the proceedings.  Examiner's decision was appealed to the County Council who remanded the matter for a determination of LLC's standing with SDAT.

In May 2015, LLC's rights were reinstated, and a month later the sole member became a qualified corporation in Maryland.  LLC provided certificates of good standing at the subsequent rehearing where the Examiner recommended approval.   Appellant, a civic association ("Citizens"), appealed to the County Council, who found LLC legally authorized to file an application for a special exception concerning real or personal property, that forfeiture had not impaired the validity of such a filing, and that the act of applying for a special exception did not constitute doing business.  The Circuit Court for Prince George's County affirmed.

Analysis:  Because Citizens accepted the factual record and objected only to the decision of the County Council on legal grounds, the only question before the court was whether the approval for special exception had been premised on legally erroneous conclusions of law.

Evaluating Citizens' claim that LLC's actions in pursuit of a special exception were a legal nullity, the court pointed to § 4A-911 of the Corporations & Associations Article (emphasis added):

The forfeiture of the right to do business in Maryland and the right to the use of the name of the limited liability company under this title does not impair the validity of a contract or act of the limited liability company entered into or done either before or after the forfeiture, or prevent the limited liability company from defending any action, suit or proceeding in a court of this State.

Irrespective of its forfeiture, LLC remained a legal entity with the power to enter binding contracts at any time.  What of the statute's proscription against bringing lawsuits?  Continuing on, the court found that because LLC had not filed its application "in a court of this State," the implicit prohibition against initiating suits was irrelevant.

"What about the sole member's initial status as an unregistered corporation?," pressed Citizens.  Applying a similar analysis, the court cited § 7-103 of the Corporations & Associations Article to find unregistered corporations to be entitled to engage in many in-state activities such as maintaining, defending, or settling actions, suits, claims, disputes, administrative or arbitration proceedings.  Citizens failed to meet their burden to prove the sufficiency of sole member's contacts or actions within the state to constitute "doing business,"  therefore, the sole member's status as co-applicant or agent in pursuing the special exception was also irrelevant. 

Finally, the court found that Citizens had not preserved for judicial review the question of People's Zoning Counsel's alleged conflict of interest because it failed to raise the issue at any stage of the administrative proceedings.

Accordingly, the court found the County Council's decision to approve the application for special exception to be correct as a matter of law.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Farm Fresh Direct by a Cut Above, LLC v. Downey (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: October 26, 2017

Opinion by: Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander

Holding:

Under Maryland law, the liability protections afforded to limited liability company (“LLC”) members with respect to obligations of an LLC did not support dismissal of claims that an individual engaged in unfair competition and deceptive trade practices by forming and participating in an LLC, where the plaintiff alleged conduct supporting direct claims against the individual.

Facts:

A Maryland LLC, Farm Fresh Direct by a Cut Above LLC (“Plaintiff”), brought suit against multiple defendants, including another Maryland LLC, Farm Fresh Direct Home Food Services, LLC (“Defendant LLC”), and an individual who allegedly filed Defendant LLC’s Articles of Organization with the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation (“Defendant Individual” and together with Defendant LLC, the “Defendants”), alleging that the Defendants engaged in unfair competition in violation of both Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and Maryland common law, by establishing and engaging in a competing business under a name which was confusingly similar to the name of the Plaintiff.  The Defendant Individual moved, pro se, to dismiss the action.  Despite construing the motion liberally in favor of the Defendant Individual, the district court denied the motion, holding that the Plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to satisfy the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).    

Analysis: 

The district court analyzed as a threshold issue whether the Defendant Individual was subject to suit in light of the Defendant LLC’s status as a Maryland LLC.  The district court’s analysis begins with a review of Maryland and Fourth Circuit law regarding the corporate shield and the corresponding LLC shield.  The court then notes that, notwithstanding the LLC shield, which generally protects LLC members from personal liability for obligations of the LLC, the LLC shield does not protect LLC members from direct liability for that member’s own actions.  Because Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant Individual formed the Defendant LLC and acted as its resident agent, the district court held that Plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to plead direct claims against the Defendant Individual.  Further, because Plaintiff alleged that the name of the Defendant LLC was confusingly similar to the name of the Plaintiff and that the Defendant LLC engaged in substantially the same business as the Plaintiff, the district court held that Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to plead claims of unfair competition and deceptive trade practices under Maryland and Federal law.  Accordingly, the district court denied Defendant Individual’s motion to dismiss.

The full opinion is available in PDF.

Opinions and conclusions in this post are solely those of the author unless otherwise indicated. The information contained in this blog is general in nature and is not offered and cannot be considered as legal advice for any particular situation. The author has provided the links referenced above for information purposes only and by doing so, does not adopt or incorporate the contents. Any federal tax advice provided in this communication is not intended or written by the author to be used, and cannot be used by the recipient, for the purpose of avoiding penalties which may be imposed on the recipient by the IRS. Please contact the author if you would like to receive written advice in a format which complies with IRS rules and may be relied upon to avoid penalties.