Brace Industrial Contracting, Inc. v. Peterson Enterprises, Inc. ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                 COURT OF CHANCERY
    OF THE
    SAM GLASSCOCK III           STATE OF DELAWARE                       COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE
    VICE CHANCELLOR                                                              34 THE CIRCLE
    GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947
    Date Submitted: February 24, 2017
    Date Decided: March 3, 2017
    Andrew S. Dupre, Esquire                          Robert A. Penza, Esquire
    Michael P. Kelly, Esquire                         Christopher M. Coggins, Esquire
    Benjamin A. Smyth, Esquire                        Polsinelli PC
    McCarter & English, LLP                           222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1101
    405 North King Street, 8th Floor                  Wilmington, DE 19801
    Wilmington, DE 19801
    Re: Brace Industrial Contracting, Inc. v. Peterson Enterprises, Inc.,
    Civil Action No. 11189-VCG
    Dear Counsel:
    The following Letter Order addresses issues raised at the office conference
    held on February 24, 2017.
    On October 31, 2016, I issued a Memorandum Opinion (“Brace I”)1 and found
    that the Plaintiffs are entitled to an indemnification award of $725,059 from funds
    in escrow.2 Two issues remain with respect to that award: when it should be released
    and when, or whether, it begins to carry interest. I address the latter issue first.
    1
    Brace Indus. Contracting, Inc. v. Peterson Enterprises, Inc., 
    2016 WL 6426398
     (Del. Ch. Oct.
    31, 2016) (“Brace I”).
    2
    Id. at *15. To consummate the acquisition underlying this litigation, the parties entered into an
    escrow agreement (the “Escrow Agreement”) in which $1.87 million of the purchase price was
    placed into escrow and scheduled to be released to the Defendants in equal halves at two different
    points in time absent outstanding indemnification claims (the “Escrowed Amount”). See Pretrial
    Stip. at 10; JX 69 (the “Escrow Agreement”) §§ 1.3(c), 1.4(a), 1.5(a).
    The parties dispute the proper interest amount, if any, that should accompany
    the Plaintiffs’ indemnification award of $725,059. In Brace I, and in my recent
    Interim Order, I awarded the Plaintiffs an indemnification award of “$725,059,
    together with interest.”3 The Defendants point out that, pursuant to Section 6.6 of
    the stock purchase agreement (the “SPA”),4 the parties agreed that if Defendants’
    indemnification obligation is satisfied out of the amount in escrow, then interest does
    not accrue on that obligation (unless otherwise provided in the Escrow Agreement,
    which contains no such interest provision).
    By stating, in Brace I and in the Interim Order, “together with interest” I meant
    to convey “with that amount of interest appropriate.” After a careful examination
    of the SPA, it is clear to me that the parties have provided by contract that the
    appropriate amount of interest for the $725,059 indemnification award is $0, so long
    as it is satisfied from escrow. To the extent this contradicts any statement in Brace
    I, such statement is withdrawn. My reasoning follows.
    Section 6.6 of the SPA states, in full:
    Once a Loss is agreed to by the Indemnifying Party or finally
    adjudicated to be payable pursuant to this ARTICLE VI, the
    Indemnifying Party shall satisfy its obligations within ten (10) Business
    Days of such final, non-appealable adjudication by wire transfer of
    immediately available funds; provided, however, that the Buyer
    Indemnitees shall be required to take payment first out of the Escrow
    3
    Brace I, 
    2016 WL 6426398
    , at *15 (emphasis added); Interim Order (February 24, 2017) (Dkt.
    No. 193).
    4
    JX 70 (the “SPA”).
    2
    Amount, to the extent is has sufficient funds. The Parties agree that
    should an Indemnifying Party not make full payment of any such
    obligations within such ten (10) Business Day period, or to the extent
    the Escrow Amount is insufficient, any amount payable shall accrue
    interest from and including the date of agreement of the Indemnifying
    Party or final, non-appealable adjudication to and including the date
    such payment has been made at a rate per annum equal to the prime rate
    set forth in The Wall Street Journal’s Table of Interest Rates and Bonds
    on the day immediately prior to the date that payment is to be made;
    provided, however, if such obligations will be satisfied from the Escrow
    Amount, then such amounts will be released in accordance with the
    terms and conditions of the Escrow Agreement and such amounts shall
    not accrue interest unless otherwise provided in the Escrow Agreement.
    Such interest shall be calculated daily on the basis of a three hundred
    sixty-five (365) day year and the actual number of days elapsed.5
    Accordingly, I agree with the Defendants that, under Section 6.6 of the SPA,
    any indemnification owed should first come out of the Escrow Amount and only
    accrue interest to the extent required by the Escrow Agreement. The escrow amount
    of $1.87 million is more than sufficient to satisfy the $725,059 owed to the Plaintiffs
    and, accordingly, the Escrow Agreement does not provide for the accrual of interest.
    In light of the foregoing, I find that no interest has accrued on the $725,059 award.
    As to the timing of the award’s release, in light of the fact that interest is not
    accruing, it would be inequitable to delay the release of the amount the Plaintiffs are
    due from escrow, pending resolution of additional issues unrelated to
    indemnification that are still under consideration in this matter. Accordingly, the
    5
    SPA § 6.6 (emphasis added).
    3
    Plaintiffs should provide a form of order directing the release of $725,059 from
    escrow, to be effective when issued.
    To the extent the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO
    ORDERED.
    Sincerely,
    /s/ Sam Glasscock III
    Sam Glasscock III
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA 11189-VCG

Judges: Glasscock, V.C.

Filed Date: 3/3/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2017