Edmond Costantini, et al.
Swiss Farm Stores Acquisition LLC
Submitted: October 29, 2013
This action involves the indemnification rights of the Plaintiffs, Mssrs. Costantini and Kahn. This Letter Opinion addresses Plaintiff James Kahn's September 9, 2013 Motion for Reargument filed in response to my Letter Opinion, issued on September 5, 2013, denying his Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. In his Motion for Reargument, Kahn points to my statement in the September 5 Letter Opinion that "[t]he parties concede that Kahn did not have a relationship with Swiss Farm that put him in the class of indemnitees identified in Article 14; that is, he was not a managing member, officer, employee, or agent." As a result, I opined that Kahn, in addition to not being entitled to a Judgment on the Pleadings, was not entitled to indemnification as sought in his Complaint. In fact, Kahn did argue in his opening brief that the underlying action treated him as an agent of Swiss Farm, and that he was accordingly entitled to indemnification under the LLC Operating Agreement. I therefore agreed to hear oral argument on the issues of whether the pleadings demonstrated that (1) Kahn was in fact an agent of Swiss Farm, and (2) Kahn was sued in the underlying action by reason of the fact that he was Swiss Farm's agent, as required for indemnification by Article 14 of the Operating Agreement. Argument was held on October 29, 2013; this is my decision on the Motion for Reargument.
While Mr. Kahn stated in his briefs on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, peripherally, that he was Swiss Farm's agent,  Mr. Kahn submitted evidence of that agency relationship for the first time with his Motion for Reargument. Specifically, Mr. Kahn has submitted an Exclusive Brokerage Agreement between Swiss Farm and Kahn Management Corporation, and an Exclusive Developer/Development Management Agreement between Swiss Farm and Kahn Management Corporation. Without these documents, I would have had no basis—save for a single footnote in his opening brief asserting that Mr. Kahn was Swiss Farm's Exclusive Real Estate Broker—to conclude that Mr. Kahn was an agent of Swiss Farm, or that the allegations in the underlying complaint arose out of that agency relationship. This matter is before me on a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Because the pleadings alone are insufficient to determine whether Mr. Kahn was an agent of Swiss Farm, and whether the underlying action was brought by reason of the fact of that relationship, Mr. Kahn's Motion for Reargument is denied, except as qualified below.
In this action, Mr. Kahn seeks indemnification under Swiss Farm's LLC Operating Agreement. That Agreement provides in relevant part:
The Company shall indemnify any person, who was or is a party to any proceeding by or in the right of the Company to procure a judgment in its favor by reason of the fact that the person is or was a member of the Board of Managers, an officer, an employee, or an agent of the Company, or is or was serving at the request of the Company as an officer, director, employee, or agent of another corporation . . . .
To the extent that a member of the Board of Managers, an officer, an employee, or an agent of the Company has been successful on the merits or otherwise in defense of any proceeding referred to in this Article 14, or in defense of any claim, issue, or matter therein, he reasonably incurred by him or her in connection therewith.
In the underlying action, Kahn was sued by Swiss Farm and prevailed on a defense of laches by analogy to the statute of limitations. In this action, he seeks indemnification for the costs of that litigation. Because the Operating Agreement only grants indemnification to an agent who was a party to a proceeding by reason of the fact that he was an agent, I must determine whether Mr. Kahn was Swiss Farm's agent, and whether the allegations in the underlying complaint sought to impose liability by reason of the fact of that agency relationship. The underlying complaint alleged that a lease agreement (the "Challenged Lease")—entered into by Mr. Costantini on behalf of Swiss Farm, and Mr. Kahn on behalf of Redeemed Properties, LLC—contained terms unfavorable to Swiss Farm, and therefore constituted breaches of Mr. Costantini's and Mr. Kahn's fiduciary duties to Swiss Farm. With respect to the source of Mr. Kahn's fiduciary duties to Swiss Farm, the underlying complaint stated:
At the time of the events complained of above, Defendant Kahn was a partner in the Kahn Quinn Partnership, which in turn was a member of Swiss Farm with the right and ability to designate a member of the Board of Managers of Swiss Farm. At the time of the events complained of, the Kahn Quinn Partnership designated Hank Quinn to serve on the Board of Managers, but in effect, the Kahn Quinn Partnership itself so served and in the process assumed for all of its partners, including Defendant Kahn, multiple fiduciary duties to Swiss Farm.
That is, the underlying complaint asserted the novel argument that Mr. Kahn's fiduciary relationship to Swiss Farm arose as the partner of an entity entitled to appoint a manager to the Swiss Farm board. However, in connection with this Motion for Reargument, Kahn submits an Exclusive Brokerage Agreement between Swiss Farm and Kahn Management Corporation, and an Exclusive Developer/Development Management Agreement between Swiss Farm and Kahn Management Corporation. Plaintiff's counsel represented at oral argument that Kahn Management Corporation is a sole proprietor entity with Mr. Kahn as the sole proprietor; Defendant's counsel asserted that it is a Pennsylvania corporation, but information of its ownership is not yet in the record. According to Kahn, these Agreements were in effect at the time the Challenged Lease was signed. The brokerage agreement vests Kahn Management Corporation, as Swiss Farm's agent, with authority to "identify and locate properties that are suitable sites for [Swiss Farm's] stores . . . and to assist [Swiss Farm] with the negotiation of lease agreements for such Prospective Sites, " and provides that Swiss Farm will pay Kahn Management Corporation a commission "for each Lease entered into during the term of this Agreement . . . ." The developer agreement provides that Kahn Management Corporation shall use its best efforts to locate and identify lots available to purchase, provide information about those lots to Swiss Farm, contact owners of those lots, and "endeavor to enter into a written agreement for the purchase of such Acceptable Site . . . ." The record, as it now exists, is silent as to whether Kahn Management Corporation was paid a commission for negotiating the Challenged Lease, or whether Kahn was an agent for Kahn Management in connection with the Challenged Lease.
This Court will grant a Motion for Reargument only where such a motion seeks to correct an issue of law or fact that is motion-dispositive. With respect to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, this requires finding that Mr. Kahn was an agent of Swiss Farm; that he was sued by reason of the fact that he was an agent such that he is entitled to indemnification under Swiss Farm's Operating Agreement; and that these determinations can be made from the undisputed facts alleged in the Complaint.
Assuming that the Exclusive Brokerage Agreement and Exclusive Developer/Development Management Agreement were in effect at the time Swiss Farm entered into the Challenged Lease, Mr. Kahn and Swiss Farm may have had an agency relationship. Those Agreements provide that Kahn Management Corporation was to act as Swiss Farm's agent, and Mr. Kahn may have acted as Kahn Management ...