USA Trouser, S.A. de C.V. v. Scott Andrew

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00244-MR-DLH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999577536].. [14-1402]

Appeal: 14-1402

Doc: 43

Filed: 05/05/2015

Pg: 1 of 11

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1402

USA TROUSER, S.A. DE C.V.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SCOTT ANDREWS,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
INTERNATIONAL
SANCHEZ,

LEGWEAR

GROUP,

INC.;

WILLIAM

SHEELY;

JOHN

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00244-MR-DLH)

Submitted:

April 23, 2015

Decided:

May 5, 2015

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Matthew K. Rogers, LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW K. ROGERS, PLLC,
Hickory, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Dana C. Lumsden,

Appeal: 14-1402

Doc: 43

Filed: 05/05/2015

Pg: 2 of 11

Bethany A. Corbin, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Charlotte,
North Carolina; Lindsey C. Boney IV, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT
CUMMINGS LLP, Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1402

Doc: 43

Filed: 05/05/2015

Pg: 3 of 11

PER CURIAM:
USA

Trouser,

manufacturer,

filed

S.A.

de

suit

C.V.
against

(“USAT”),
its

a

primary

Mexican

sock

distributor,

International Legwear Group, Inc. (“ILG”), two of ILG’s former
officers, and the former chairman of ILG’s board of directors,
Scott Andrews.

On motions for summary judgment, the district

court denied USAT’s motion and granted Andrews summary judgment
on USAT’s claims of, among others, breach of fiduciary duty and
constructive trust. 1

USAT appeals the disposition of all of its

claims in favor of Andrews.

We affirm in part, vacate in part,

and remand to the district court for further proceedings.
We review de novo a district court’s order ruling on crossmotions for summary judgment.

Bostic v. Shaefer, 760 F.3d 352,

370 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 308 (2014); Mun.
Ass’n of S.C. v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 709 F.3d 276, 283 (4th
Cir. 2013).

“A district court ‘shall grant summary judgment if

the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.’”

Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d

1

Although the district court denied USAT’s motion for
summary judgment as to ILG, the court subsequently entered
default judgment against ILG.
The court also granted summary
judgment to ILG’s two former officers on all but two claims, for
which USAT later accepted offers of judgment.
USAT does not
appeal these rulings.

3

Appeal: 14-1402

Doc: 43

Filed: 05/05/2015

Pg: 4 of 11

562, 568 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).

In

determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, “we
view the facts and all justifiable inferences arising therefrom
in the light most favorable to . . . the nonmoving party.”
at 565 n.1 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Id.

“A dispute is

genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party[, and a]] fact is material if it might affect
the outcome of the suit under the governing law.”

Id. at 568

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
USAT

challenges

the

district

court’s

grant

of

summary

judgment to Andrews on its claim that Andrews breached fiduciary
duties he owed to USAT.

See Green v. Freeman, 749 S.E.2d 262,

268 (N.C. 2013) (setting forth elements of claim).

First, USAT

claimed

a

that

fiduciary

duties

arose

out

of

partnership or joint venture between ILG and USAT.
conclude,

as

did

the

district

court,

that

USAT

business

However, we
forecast

no

evidence to show USAT and ILG were joint venturers or business
partners under North Carolina law.

See Best Cartage, Inc. v.

Stonewall Packaging, LLC, 727 S.E.2d 291, 298-99 (N.C. Ct. App.
2012).

Second, USAT claimed that fiduciary duties arose out of

the vertically integrated strategic partnership between USAT and
ILG,

which

Although

the

made

them

district

mutually
court

may

4

interdependent
have

read

too

businesses.
broadly

the

Appeal: 14-1402

Doc: 43

Filed: 05/05/2015

Pg: 5 of 11

decision in Tin Originals, Inc. v. Colonial Tin Works, Inc., 391
S.E.2d

831,

mutual

interdependence,

fiduciary

833

(N.C.

type

of

fiduciary
businesses.

App.

without

obligations),

necessarily harmless.
the

Ct.

we

1990)
more,

(indicating
will

conclude

not

that

only

give

any

that

rise

error

to
is

USAT presented no evidence demonstrating

circumstances

relationship

required
between

for

the

existence

mutually

of

a

interdependent

See Broussard v. Meineke Disc. Muffler Shops, 155

F.3d 331, 348 (4th Cir. 1998), quoted with approval in Kaplan v.
O.K. Techs., L.L.C., 675 S.E.2d 133, 138 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009);
Crumley & Assocs., P.C. v. Charles Peed & Assocs., P.A., 730
S.E.2d 763, 768 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012).
Next, USAT claims that it presented evidence demonstrating
Andrews owed it, as ILG’s creditor, a fiduciary duty due to his
position as ILG’s director and that the district court erred by
not viewing the evidence in USAT’s favor.

We agree.

With one

exception, “directors of a corporation do not owe a fiduciary
duty to creditors of the corporation.”

Keener Lumber Co. v.

Perry,

App.

560

quotation

S.E.2d
marks

817,

824

(N.C.

omitted).

Ct.

“[O]nly

2002)

where

(internal

there

exist

circumstances amounting to a ‘winding-up’ or dissolution of the
corporation” will directors of a corporation owe a fiduciary
duty to its creditors.

Id. at 825 (internal quotation marks

5

Appeal: 14-1402

Doc: 43

omitted).

Filed: 05/05/2015

Pg: 6 of 11

In determining whether such circumstances exist, a

court undertakes a “complex analysis” involving:
various factors . . . , including but not limited to:
(1) whether the corporation was insolvent, or nearly
insolvent, on a balance sheet basis; (2) whether the
corporation was cash flow insolvent; (3) whether the
corporation was making plans to cease doing business;
(4) whether the corporation was liquidating its assets
with a view of going out of business; and (5) whether
the corporation was still prosecuting its business in
good faith, with a reasonable prospect and expectation
of continuing to do so.
Id.

Absent evidence that the corporation’s circumstances were

such that it was winding-up or dissolving, North Carolina courts
have used summary judgment to prevent a creditor’s fiduciary
duty

claim

against

a

director

from

reaching

the

jury.

See

Whitley v. Carolina Clinic, Inc., 455 S.E.2d 896, 900-01 (N.C.
Ct. App. 1995).

However, where a plaintiff-creditor presents

sufficient evidence, North Carolina courts allow the jury to
determine whether the corporation was winding-up or dissolving
and,

thus,

existed.

whether

a

director-creditor

fiduciary

relationship

See Keener, 560 S.E.2d at 826.

Although the district court laid out the Keener factors,
the court did not analyze all of them, emphasizing instead the
language of a treatise that treats both balance-sheet and cashflow

insolvency
2

as

nearly

irrelevant

The treatise states that

(Continued)
6

factors. 2

The

court

Appeal: 14-1402

Doc: 43

Filed: 05/05/2015

Pg: 7 of 11

determined that the evidence forecast only that ILG’s directors
and officers “were actively trying to secure financing for the
continued

operation

operations”

“up

of

until

ILG”
the

and

time

“actively

that

alone,

the

lender

district

court

ILG’s

decided

(J.A. 2729-30). 3

foreclose on its secured loans.”
determination

ILG’s

continuing

concluded

to

On this
that

no

fiduciary relationship arose because Andrews was not a director
during any period of winding-up or dissolution.
We
which

a

conclude,
factfinder

however,
could

that

USAT

reasonably

presented
infer

that

evidence

from

ILG

both

was

balance-sheet and cash-flow insolvent during Andrews’s tenure as

a corporation is not insolvent, as a general rule,
merely because it is embarrassed and cannot pay its
debts as they become due, or because its assets, if
sold,
would
not
bring
enough
to
pay
all
its
liabilities, if it is still prosecuting its business
in good faith, with a reasonable prospect and
expectation of continuing to do so.
15A William Meade Fletcher, Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of
Private Corporations § 7472 (perm. ed., rev. vol. 1990), quoted
in Keener, 560 S.E.2d at 825; Whitley, 455 S.E.2d at 900.
See
generally Matrix Grp. Ltd. v. Rawlings Sporting Goods Co., 477
F.3d 583, 590 (8th Cir. 2007) (defining balance-sheet and cashflow insolvency); J.B. Heaton, Solvency Tests, 62 Bus. Law. 983,
988-95 (2007) (same).
3

“J.A.” refers to the joint appendix filed by the parties
on appeal.

7

Appeal: 14-1402

Doc: 43

Filed: 05/05/2015

an ILG director. 4

Pg: 8 of 11

We also conclude that the district court

failed to construe in USAT’s favor evidence regarding whether
ILG was actively attempting to secure financing and continue its
operations during a time when Andrews was a director.

First, we

note that the relevant inquiry is whether ILG had ceased these
activities at a time when Andrews was still on the board.

The

district court concluded that ILG had not ceased the activities
until ILG’s primary lender decided to foreclose.

Second, the

evidence, construed in USAT’s favor, demonstrates that Andrews
did not resign from ILG’s board of directors until after ILG’s
primary lender decided to foreclose. 5
Under these circumstances, genuine issues of material fact
remain concerning whether ILG was winding-up or dissolving and,
thus,

whether

existed.

a

creditor-director

fiduciary

relationship

With regard to whether Andrews breached any fiduciary

duty he may have owed to USAT, the district court correctly
found

that

the

forced

liquidation

of

ILG’s

assets

and

distribution of the proceeds to ILG’s primary lender could not

4

We need not, and do not, decide whether the court was
obligated under North Carolina law to weigh all of the factors
set forth in Keener.
5

Andrews resigned on July 20, 2011.
The only evidence
concerning when ILG’s primary lender made its decision shows
that it did so in mid- or late-July 2011.

8

Appeal: 14-1402

Doc: 43

Filed: 05/05/2015

Pg: 9 of 11

form the basis of a breach because, “even after the fiduciary
duty

arises,

directors

of

a

corporation

may

prefer

secured

creditors over unsecured creditors” by paying all debts to the
former

before

S.E.2d at 827.

paying

any

debts

to

the

latter.

Keener,

560

However, the court did not address USAT’s claim

that Andrews breached his duty by failing to disclose to USAT
ILG’s financial condition or the potential that ILG may cease
operating. 6

See King v. Bryant, 737 S.E.2d 802, 809 (N.C. Ct.

App.

(“Inherent

2013)

affirmative

duty

to

in

any

fiduciary

disclose

all

relationship

facts

transaction.”); Keener, 560 S.E.2d at 827.

material

is

an

to

a

Viewing the evidence

in USAT’s favor, we conclude that genuine issues of fact remain
as to whether ILG’s financial condition was material to USAT,
whether Andrews breached his fiduciary duty to USAT by failing
to disclose ILG’s condition during a time when ILG and USAT were
still transacting, and whether any of Andrews’s alleged breaches
caused USAT injury.
Turning to USAT’s claim of constructive trust, we note that
the record does not clearly indicate whether the claim was one
for

constructive

trust

or,

instead,

6

constructive

fraud.

In

In so concluding, we express no opinion regarding the
validity of the remainder of the actions on which USAT relied to
demonstrate breach.

9

Appeal: 14-1402

Doc: 43

Filed: 05/05/2015

Pg: 10 of 11

either case, we conclude that summary judgment was inappropriate
based on the genuine issues of material fact discussed above.
See Brisset v. First Mount Vernon Indus. Loan Ass’n, 756 S.E.2d
798,

806

Salem

(N.C.

Ct.

Logistics

App.

Traffic

2014);
Servs.,

Variety
LLC,

Wholesalers,

723

S.E.2d

Inc.

744,

v.

751-52

(N.C. 2012).
Finally, for the remainder of the claims that USAT seeks to
raise on appeal, we conclude that USAT either has raised them
here for the first time or has not sufficiently challenged in
its

brief

the

regarding them.

basis

for

the

district

court’s

Accordingly, we do not address them. 7

disposition
See In re

Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014); Projects Mgmt.
Co. v. Dyncorp Int’l LLC, 734 F.3d 366, 376 (4th Cir. 2013);
Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 653 n.7 (4th Cir.
2006); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th
Cir. 1999).
Accordingly,
summary

judgment

we

vacate

to

Andrews

the
on

7

district
USAT’s

court’s
fiduciary

grant
duty

of
and

To the extent that USAT asserts that the district court
erred in calculating damages in its default judgment against
ILG, we decline to entertain such a claim because ILG is not a
party to this appeal. To the extent that USAT seeks to argue in
this court the amount of damages for which Andrews is liable,
such arguments are premature as genuine issues of material fact
remain concerning whether Andrews is liable.

10

Appeal: 14-1402

Doc: 43

Filed: 05/05/2015

Pg: 11 of 11

constructive trust claims, affirm the district court’s order in
all other respects, and remand the case to the district court
for further proceedings.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

11