Glasscock Greenlights Contract Claims in Suit Over Diverted Bid Rights
The Delaware Court of Chancery has allowed breach of contract claims to proceed against the manager of a Delaware LLC accused of diverting the firm's assets to benefit himself and his friends.
May 11, 2018 at 05:46 PM
4 minute read
The Delaware Court of Chancery has allowed breach of contract claims to proceed against the manager of a Delaware LLC accused of diverting the firm's assets to benefit himself and his friends.
Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III on Thursday said East Coast Miner investor MHS Capital had cleared initial hurdles to showing that Keith Goggin had violated the firm's operating agreement by secretly using the firm's bidding rights to lock up proceeds from a lucrative coal tract for himself and his “cronies” in a bankruptcy sale.
Glasscock, however, trimmed 11 other counts from the case—including claims against Goggin's friend's, Michael Goodwin and John Collins—as either duplicative or for failing to state a claim for relief.
The defendants had asked Glasscock in October to toss the entire suit, arguing that Goggin was protected from liability for money damages for breaching his duties to ECM under the company's operating agreement. Any equitable relief MHS sought, they said, would interfere with sale orders already entered by a Kentucky bankruptcy judge and were otherwise barred under the doctrine of judicial estoppel.
MHS had argued that it was not seeking to reverse or modify the sale orders. Instead the plaintiffs said they were seeking to disgorge the profits and set up a constructive trust over the proceeds from the transaction.
According to court documents, MHS said it is owed at least $35 million.
On Thursday, Glasscock rejected Goggin's argument that MHS was precluded from seeking equitable relief, and while he acknowledged concerns that the case could potentially undermine the bankruptcy court orders, a ruling on the availability of equitable relief was premature.
“Whether that is so depends in part on the scope of the relief—if any—I ultimately grant in this action,” he wrote in a 46-page memorandum opinion. “That is a fact-intensive question that cannot be resolved at the pleading stage.”
The Delaware complaint mirrors a similar case that worked its way through New York state and federal courts before it was dismissed last May based on an exclusive venue provision in ECM's operating agreement. In it, MHS said that it had given ECM $5 million to help the firm purchase a senior debt note in Kentucky-based coal mining company U.S. Coal Inc. for $21 million.
When ECM purchased the debt note, the company obtained a security interest in a division of U.S. Coal that allowed ECM to bid on coal assets using the note, instead of cash, the plaintiff said. Goggin, however, created an entirely new entity with Goodwin to exercise ECM's credit-bidding rights and dilute the interest that ECM had expected to receive.
In a separate series of transactions, MHS said, Goggin used another company to transfer ECM's assets to himself and Collins. Both sets of deals were approved by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
Goggin's Katsky Korins attorneys argued that MHS' request for at least $35 million conflicted with earlier statements it had made in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that it was not seeking money damages and that the relief it sought would not affect the U.S. Coal bankruptcy estate.
Glasscock said the request for equitable relief was not “clearly inconsistent” with the position MHS had taken in New York.
“MHS and ECM assured the district court that the relief they sought would not derogate the sale orders entered by the bankruptcy court,” he said. “MHS and ECM tried to support their position by pointing out that they sought monetary damages against Goggin, but that is not tantamount to a representation that MHS would never seek equitable relief against him or his purported co-conspirators.”
Glasscock, meanwhile, dismissed the remaining counts against Goodwin and Collins, citing deficiencies in the pleading. He also dismissed claims for fraud, unjust enrichment and misappropriation of trade secrets against Goggin, saying that they were either subsumed by the overarching contract complaint or had failed to state a claim under Chancery Court rules.
MHS is represented by Stanley S. Arkin, Robert C. Angelillo and Alex Reisen of Arkin Solbakken in New York and Philip Trainer Jr. and Marie M. Degnan of Ashby & Geddes in Wilmington.
Goggin and Goodwin are represented by David L. Katsky, Adrienne B. Koch and Joseph Weiner of Katsky Korins in New York and Gregory V. Varallo and Susan M. Hannigan of Richards, Layton & Finger in Wilmington.
Collins was represented by Michael Busenkell of Gellert Scali Busenkell & Brown in Wilmington and Michael T. Leigh of Kaplan Johnson Abate & Bird in Louisville, Kentucky.
The case is captioned MHS Capital v. Goggin.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![Trulia 2.0? The Case for a 'Plainly Beneficial' Standard Trulia 2.0? The Case for a 'Plainly Beneficial' Standard](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/delbizcourt/contrib/content/uploads/sites/394/2024/06/Mammarella-Stuhlmiller-767x633.jpg)
![Chancery Court Exercises Discretion in Setting Bond in a Case Involving Share Transfer Restriction Chancery Court Exercises Discretion in Setting Bond in a Case Involving Share Transfer Restriction](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/394/2024/10/Felger-Ekiner-2-767x633.jpg)
Chancery Court Exercises Discretion in Setting Bond in a Case Involving Share Transfer Restriction
6 minute read![Politician Trading: If You Can't Stop Them, Join Them Politician Trading: If You Can't Stop Them, Join Them](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/394/2024/10/Axelrod-Welsh-767x633.jpg)
![SEC Calls Terraform's Dentons Retainer 'Opaque Slush Fund' in Bankruptcy Court SEC Calls Terraform's Dentons Retainer 'Opaque Slush Fund' in Bankruptcy Court](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/394/2024/02/Terraform-Labs-Logo-767x633.jpg)
SEC Calls Terraform's Dentons Retainer 'Opaque Slush Fund' in Bankruptcy Court
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1DC Circuit Keeps Docs in Judge Newman's Misconduct Proceedings Sealed
- 2Litigators of the Week: US Soccer and MLS Fend Off Claims They Conspired to Scuttle Rival League’s Prospect
- 3Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 4U.S.- China Trade War: Lawyers and Clients Left 'Relying on the Governments to Sort This Out'
- 5Willkie Adds Five-Lawyer Team From Quinn Emanuel in Germany
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250