Tulum Management USA LLC v. Casten ( 2015 )

COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
JOHN W. NOBLE 417 SOUTH STATE STREET
VICE CHANCELLOR DOVER, DELAWARE 19901
TELEPHONE: (302) 739-4397
FACSIMILE: (302) 739-6179
December 23, 2015
Brock E. Czeschin, Esquire Steven L. Caponi, Esquire
Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. Blank Rome LLP
920 North King Street 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Tulum Management USA LLC v. Casten
C.A. No. 11321-VCN
Date Submitted: November 10, 2015
Dear Counsel:
Plaintiff George Polk (“Polk”) is embroiled in multi-fora litigation regarding
RED Parent LLC (“RED Parent”),1 a Delaware limited liability company, of which
he is a Manager.2 By its Operating Agreement, RED Parent agreed to “indemnify
each Manager for all costs, losses, liabilities and damages paid or incurred by such
Person in connection with the business of [RED Parent] to the fullest extent
1
See, e.g., RED Parent, LLC v. Polk, No. 2015 CH 08634 (Cook County Cir. Ct.
Ill. filed July 15, 2015) (the “Illinois Action”); RED Capital Inv. L.P. v. RED
Parent, LLC, C.A. No. 11575-VCN (Del. Ch. filed Oct. 5, 2015).
2
Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 1 (Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of
RED Parent, LLC (“Operating Agreement”)) § 5.9 (designating Polk as a
“Preferred Interest Manager”).
Tulum Management USA LLC v. Casten
C.A. No. 11321-VCN
December 23, 2015
Page 2
provided or permitted by the [Delaware Limited Liability Company] Act and the
other laws of the State of Delaware.”3 RED Parent also agreed to advance to
Managers “as and when they are paid or incurred, all expenses arising in
connection with the defense of any matter as to which [RED Parent] is required to
indemnify such person.”4 Polk now seeks advancement for expenses incurred in
the Illinois Action.5
The parties agree that Polk’s demand for advancement is in proper form.
The question is whether litigation expenses incurred in the Illinois Action are
subject to advancement. RED Parent argues that Polk was not sued in Illinois
3
Id. § 5.4.
4
Id. The Operating Agreement provides that RED Parent “shall advance.” Thus,
the Operating Agreement contemplates mandatory advancement. See Schoon v.
Troy Corp., 948 A.2d 1157, 1169 (Del. Ch. 2008). Based on the plain language of
Section 5.4 of the Operating Agreement, Polk must establish the following in order
to obtain advancement: (1) that he was a Manager of RED Parent at the relevant
times; (2) that the expenses paid or incurred by him were “in connection with the
defense of any matter as to which [RED Parent] is required to indemnify” him; and
(3) that those expenses were incurred “in connection with the business of [RED
Parent].”
5
An initial dispute about Polk’s right to advancement of pre-litigation expenses is
no longer before the Court. The parties currently debate whether Polk is entitled to
advancement. Polk has requested advancement of expenses incurred after the start
of the Illinois Action. Disputes about the reasonableness of the expenses for which
he seeks advancement have yet to come before the Court.
Tulum Management USA LLC v. Casten
C.A. No. 11321-VCN
December 23, 2015
Page 3
because of his status as a Manager. It also asserts that Polk’s conduct that resulted
in the filing of that action was not “in connection with the business” of RED
Parent. Instead, it contends that he was sued because he was a member of RED
Parent’s Investment Committee and the Illinois Action involves questions about
the work of the Investment Committee. No separate advancement or
indemnification provision relates to one’s status as a member of the Investment
Committee.
In the Illinois Action,6 RED Parent “seeks a declaratory judgment to resolve
an actual controversy between the parties by making a binding determination of
their rights under [the Operating Agreement].”7 RED Parent, through a subsidiary,
“develops, owns and operates power projects that harness waste energy and
dramatically reduce manufacturers’ greenhouse gas emissions and power costs.”8
The Illinois Complaint “concerns the proper valuation method for projects
undertaken by RED Parent, and the proper party to engage the accounting firm
6
These allegations are drawn from the First Amended Complaint for Declaratory
Judgment (the “Illinois Complaint”) filed in the Illinois Action. Defs.’ Mot. for
Summ. J. Ex. 2.
7
Id. ¶ 1.
8
Id. ¶ 6.
Tulum Management USA LLC v. Casten
C.A. No. 11321-VCN
December 23, 2015
Page 4
conducting the valuation and provide the relevant information to the accounting
firm under the Operating Agreement.”9 Polk is accused of “seek[ing] to conduct a
valuation that is in contravention of the clear terms of the Operating Agreement.”10
RED Parent alleges that it—and not Polk and other defendants in the Illinois
Action—“engages the accounting firm that performs the valuation at issue and
supplies information for that valuation.”11 RED Parent focuses on Polk’s actions
as a member of the Investment Committee. The valuation efforts involve the work
of the Investment Committee. For the outcome of the Illinois Action, RED Parent
proposes that: “any valuation . . . must specifically comply with [certain] terms
of . . . the Operating Agreement; . . . any valuation engagement . . . be solely with
[RED Parent]; and . . . the cash flow for valuation purposes [be] determined by
RED Parent.”12 Notably, RED Parent seeks no monetary relief from Polk; its
objectives are limited to declaratory relief.
9
Id. ¶ 2.
10
Id. ¶ 3.
11
Id.
12
Id. Wherefore clause.
Tulum Management USA LLC v. Casten
C.A. No. 11321-VCN
December 23, 2015
Page 5
The projects to be valued are owned by RED Investment LLC (“RED
Investment”), RED Parent’s operating subsidiary. The outcome of the valuation
effort may be a change in control of RED Investment. Whether there is a change
in control of RED Investment, RED Parent argues, has nothing to do with the
“business” of RED Parent, and, thus, litigation costs associated with the valuation
effort are not subject to advancement or indemnification. In essence, RED Parent
seeks to differentiate between the business of RED Parent and the efforts required
to determine who controls RED Parent’s operating subsidiary.
Under Section 3.8 of the Operating Agreement, if a Trigger Event occurs,
control of RED Investment could pass to Polk (and his affiliates). A Trigger
Event, defined by Section 1.47 of the Operating Agreement, relates to adverse
financial circumstances of RED Parent’s various projects, most of which are held
by RED Investment. Under certain conditions, any member of the Investment
Committee (such as Polk) may request that RED Investment (and other assets of
RED Parent) be “revalued on the basis provided for in Exhibit G [of the Operating
Agreement] as determined by an independent accounting firm agreed to by all the
Investment Committee Members or, if they are unable to agree, drawn by lot from
Tulum Management USA LLC v. Casten
C.A. No. 11321-VCN
December 23, 2015
Page 6
one firm recommended by each Member.”13 This is the valuation process that
resulted in the Illinois Action where Polk is a defendant because of his role on the
Investment Committee.
Although control of RED Investment is the ultimate outcome, one presumes,
of the revaluation effort undertaken by the Investment Committee, that revaluation
effort is part of the business of RED Parent. The term—“business of” RED
Parent—is not defined, but a function of RED Parent, acting through the
Investment Committee, includes the revaluation effort. It requires participation of
Investment Committee members, selection of a valuation professional, and
development of information to assist the valuation professional. Those duties are
defined by the Operating Agreement and agreed to by RED Parent’s members.
Perhaps RED Parent believes that its “business” should be limited only to
those matters that directly generate income. No definition along these lines can be
found in the Operating Agreement, and the functions prescribed by the Operating
Agreement provide the best understanding of what RED Parent (or those acting on
its behalf) is expected to do. No principled basis has been offered for somehow
13
Operating Agreement § 1.47(b).
Tulum Management USA LLC v. Casten
C.A. No. 11321-VCN
December 23, 2015
Page 7
segregating what RED Parent must do from what constitutes the “business of”
RED Parent. Thus, Polk has been sued “in connection with the business of [RED
Parent].”
RED Parent argues that Polk is not entitled to advancement because he has
been sued for his work on the Investment Committee, not in his capacity as a
Manager. The Operating Agreement does not limit advancement (or
indemnification) to conduct carried out in the capacity of Manager, although one
must be a Manager in order to be entitled to advancement. Yet, the Operating
Agreement conditions advancement on actions “in connection with the business of
[RED Parent].” Polk’s status as a defendant in the Illinois Action stems from his
efforts regarding the business of RED Parent. In short, the capacity in which a
Manager is acting, as long as the underlying conduct is “in connection with the
business,” does not determine his right to advancement.14
Indemnification is available for “all costs, losses, liabilities and damages
paid or incurred” by an indemnified person.15 RED Parent points out that Polk has
not suffered losses or damages, in part, because it does not seek to impose
14
See DeLucca v. KKAT Mgmt., L.L.C., 2006 WL 224058 (Del. Ch. Jan. 23, 2006).
15
Operating Agreement § 5.4.
Tulum Management USA LLC v. Casten
C.A. No. 11321-VCN
December 23, 2015
Page 8
monetary liability through the Illinois Action. Although the Illinois Complaint
does not expressly seek an award of costs, they are routinely part of the litigation
process. Such costs, as far as the record demonstrates, have not yet been imposed.
However, the legal fees incurred by Polk are fairly characterized as “liabilities.”
There is no reason to exclude these “liabilities” from the liabilities contemplated
by Section 5.4 of the Operating Agreement. Because Polk is burdened with
liabilities and will be burdened with costs, he is entitled to indemnification and,
thus, advancement of “all expenses arising in connection with the defense of” the
Illinois Action.
Accordingly, Polk is entitled to advancement of his defense costs in the
Illinois Action because he is a Manager of RED Parent, and RED Parent is
required to indemnify him for those costs because they are being incurred for what
he did in connection with the business of RED Parent.
Polk also seeks “fees-on-fees”; that is, he seeks to recover the expenses
incurred in bringing this action in which he was able to vindicate his right to
advancement. Section 5.4 of the Operating Agreement provides advancement “to
the fullest extent provided or permitted by the [Limited Liability Company] Act
Tulum Management USA LLC v. Casten
C.A. No. 11321-VCN
December 23, 2015
Page 9
and the other laws of the State of Delaware.” Although the drafters of limited
liability company agreements have freedom to tailor such agreements to their
specific needs,16 there is no limitation on the right of a person entitled to
advancement to recover his legal fees incurred in seeking advancement. Under
established law, Polk is entitled to “fees-on-fees.”17
For the foregoing reasons, Polk is entitled to advancement by RED Parent of
his expenses incurred in defending the Illinois Action and to “fees-on-fees” for
pursuing this action.18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/ John W. Noble
JWN/cap
cc: Register in Chancery-K
16
See 6 Del. C. § 18-108.
17
DeLucca, 2006 WL 224058, at *15; see also Stifel Fin. Corp. v. Cochran, 809
A.2d 555, 561 (Del. 2002).
18
The facts are not in dispute. Whether the process is viewed as summary
judgment or trial on a paper record, the outcome is the same. This conclusion
resolves Polk’s claims under Counts VI and VII of his complaint in this action.