National Hockey League v. Moyes et al
Filing
152
ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART 98 Report and Recommendation of the Bankruptcy Court. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (A580, A756) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (A305, A702) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/12/15.(SJF)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
National Hockey League,
10
Plaintiff,
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-10-01036-PHX-GMS
Jerry Moyes, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
Pending before the Court are the Parties’ Cross Motions for Summary and Partial
17
Summary Judgment. Also pending is the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of
18
United States Bankruptcy Judge Redfield T. Baum, which recommends that Defendants’
19
Motion be granted in part and denied in part and that Plaintiff’s Motion be denied. (Doc.
20
98.) Plaintiff National Hockey League (the “NHL”) made timely objections to Judge
21
Baum’s R & R (Doc. 107), to which Defendants (“the Moyes Parties”) responded (Doc.
22
110). For the following reasons, the R & R is accepted in part, Defendants’ Motion is
23
granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff’s Motion is granted in part and denied in
24
part.
25
BACKGROUND
26
In September 2006, Jerry Moyes, Vickie Moyes, and the Jerry and Vickie Moyes
27
Family Trust (collectively “the Moyes Parties”) became the controlling owners of the
28
Coyotes professional hockey team and the Coyotes’ hockey arena in Glendale, AZ
1
through their ownership of a series of limited liability companies.1 (A89–90, A166.)2 On
2
September 27, 2006, the Moyes Parties entered into two agreements with the NHL: a
3
Consent Agreement and a Guaranty. (A90, A166.) The Consent Agreement bound the
4
Moyes Parties, the Coyotes, and all entities under their control with an ownership interest
5
in the Coyotes to the NHL Constitution and Bylaws. (A92.) The Consent Agreement
6
further required the Coyotes to stay in Arizona for at least seven years and stated that any
7
transfer of ownership interest or relocation of the Coyotes must comply with the NHL
8
transfer or relocation procedures. (A16, 420.) Under the Guaranty, the Moyes Parties
9
agreed that they would be liable for the Coyotes’ losses for up to $30 million, which was
10
later reduced to $15 million by agreement. (A8–11, A92.)
11
By summer of 2008, “[the Moyes Parties] had advanced over $300 million to
12
operate the Phoenix Coyotes,” an ailing franchise which had “sustained annual financial
13
losses in excess of $36 million in 2006, 2007, and 2008.” In re Dewey Ranch Hockey,
14
LLC, 406 B.R. 30, 33-34 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2009) [hereinafter Dewey Ranch I]. The
15
Coyotes’ annual financial statements from 2004 until 2008 each “contain a statement by
16
the certified public accountants that the financial statements ‘raise[d] substantial doubt as
17
to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.’” In re Dewey Ranch Hockey,
18
LLC, 414 B.R. 577, 579-80 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2009) [hereinafter Dewey Ranch II]. “At the
19
request of the Moyes group, the NHL began advancing funds for the operations in August
20
2008.” Dewey Ranch I, 406 B.R. at 33-34. Beginning in autumn of 2008, the Moyes
21
Parties held various meetings with the NHL, Glendale, and others in an attempt to resolve
22
the Coyotes’ financial problems. Id. at 34. The Moyes Parties and the NHL agreed that
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Jerry and Vickie Moyes are the co-trustees and beneficiaries of the Jerry and Vickie
Moyes Family Trust. Jerry Moyes owned 99% and Vickie Moyes owned 1% of Coyotes
Holdings MemberCo, LLC. MemberCo owns 24.86% of Coyotes Holdings, LLC, and the
Trust owns 75.14% of Coyotes Holdings, LLC. Coyotes Holdings, LLC is the Managing
Member and owner of 91.79% of the units of Coyotes Hockey, LLC. Coyotes Hockey,
LLC is the Coyotes’ legal entity.
2
The Parties have submitted a joint appendix. (See Doc. 109.) Citations to the appendix
in this Order follow the Parties’ pagination, designated as the letter “A” with page
numbers.
-2-
1
they would seek a buyer for the Coyotes and that the NHL would finance the Coyotes’
2
losses until the sale. (A2; A156.)
3
In 2008 and 2009, without the NHL’s knowledge, the Moyes Parties began
4
discussions to sell the team to James Balsillie who wanted to relocate the Coyotes to
5
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
6
negotiations, the NHL told the Moyes Parties to stop negotiating because the NHL would
7
not allow the Coyotes to relocate. (A23.) The Moyes Parties nevertheless executed an
8
Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) to sell the Coyotes to Balsillie and relocate the team
9
to Hamilton. (A3089.) The APA required authorization from a bankruptcy court before
10
the sale could be finalized. (A97–100.) The Moyes Parties then caused the companies
11
that owned the Coyotes and that managed the arena to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
12
(A241, A260–61, A414.) Two days later, the Moyes Parties caused the debtor companies
13
to file an adversarial antitrust suit against the NHL, which they later voluntarily
14
dismissed.
15
proposed sale to Balsillie, which was not approved by the bankruptcy court. (A171.)
(A144.)
(A158, A168.)
When the NHL learned of these
The NHL and the City of Glendale, Arizona objected to the
16
During the bankruptcy proceeding, the NHL submitted a bid to purchase the
17
Coyotes for $140 million. (A171; A261.) Defendants objected, and the bankruptcy court
18
denied this initial bid without prejudice because it failed to equally distribute the
19
Coyotes’ assets to all creditors. (Id.) Specifically, NHL’s initial bid proposed to pay in
20
full all of the Coyotes’ creditors except the Moyes Parties, who were the principal
21
creditors of the Coyotes, and Wayne Gretzky (“Gretzky”), the Coyotes’ head coach. (Id.)
22
An equal distribution, as mandated by the law, would have substantially benefited the
23
Moyes Parties and Gretzky. (Id.)
24
The NHL then submitted a second restructured bid to the bankruptcy court. The
25
NHL represented to the bankruptcy court that the economics of this second bid were the
26
same but that the structure was slightly different. (A301.) Specifically, the second bid
27
provided that the NHL would purchase the Coyotes from the Moyes Parties for $128.4
28
million and purchase approximately $11.6 million of the Coyotes’ unsecured claims (the
-3-
1
two amounts totaling $140 million, the amount the NHL had initially offered to pay the
2
Moyes Parties to purchase the Coyotes). (A366.) The Moyes Parties objected and the
3
bankruptcy court rejected the second bid, but at a status conference held on October 26,
4
2009, the parties conferred during a recess and reached an agreement. (A2253.) The
5
NHL would purchase the team for $128.4 million and would purchase the unsecured
6
claims for $11.6 million, both the NHL and the Moyes Parties would reserve all rights
7
and defenses regarding the Guaranty, and the Moyes Parties’ liability under the Guaranty
8
would be capped at $15 million. (A2255-56.) Gretzky did not object to the sale under
9
these terms. (A1494-95.) On November 2, 2009, the court entered a Stipulated Order
10
Approving Amended and Clarified Bid, accepting the second bid on the agreed upon
11
terms. (A1488.)
12
On March 5, 2010, the NHL sued the Moyes Parties in New York state court. The
13
NHL makes claims against the Moyes Parties: (1) for aiding and abetting the breach of
14
fiduciary duty owed by the Coyotes to the NHL, (2) for breach of the Consent
15
Agreement, and (3) as a guarantor under the Guaranty. (Complaint, Doc. 1 at 31-36.)
16
The NHL’s claims fall into four categories of damages: (1) the operating losses that the
17
NHL incurred after purchasing the Franchise, (2) the NHL’s attorneys’ fees and expenses
18
incurred during the bankruptcy proceedings, as well as those incurred after purchasing
19
the Franchise, (3) the amounts the Coyotes owed to the unsecured creditors, which claims
20
were guaranteed by the Moyes Parties and purchased by the NHL as part of its
21
acquisition of the Coyotes , and (4) the amounts owed to Wayne Gretzky and not paid by
22
the Coyotes, which were also guaranteed by the Moyes Parties. (R & R, Doc. 98 at 2.)
23
The suit was removed to the Southern District of New York and then transferred to
24
this Court as a more convenient forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Doc. 1.) On
25
September 15, 2010, this Court referred this suit to the bankruptcy court pursuant to
26
General Order 01-15 of this District because this suit was related to the bankruptcy
27
proceeding of the entities that owned the Coyotes. (Doc. 66.)
28
On January 21, 2015, after determining that the NHL’s claims are Stern claims
-4-
1
requiring disposition by a federal district court, the bankruptcy court entered the current
2
R & R with its accompanying conclusions of law. See Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct.
3
2594, 2603 (2011) (recognizing certain counterclaims as core proceedings within the
4
definition of 11 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C), but holding that bankruptcy courts do not have
5
jurisdiction to enter final judgments on all such claims); Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v.
6
Arkison, 134 S. Ct. 2165, 2173 (2014) (holding that Stern claims may be disposed of in
7
bankruptcy court in the same manner as non-core proceedings—that is, the bankruptcy
8
court must submit findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court to be
9
reviewed de novo).
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The bankruptcy court, in its R & R, proposed the following conclusions of law:
1. The bankruptcy preemption doctrine precludes the NHL from recovering
any of its attorney’s fees and expenses incurred prior to November 2, 2009.
2. Under the Agreements, the NHL is entitled to recover its attorney’s fees
and costs incurred after November 2, 2009.
3. The NHL paid the unsecured creditors at or prior to the November 2,
2009 closing and, therefore, there are no unpaid debts of the Coyotes to
support the NHL’s claim against Moyes under the Agreements.
4. Based upon the uncontested evidence and representations before the
bankruptcy court, the NHL is judicially estopped from claiming that the
unsecured debts have not been paid.
5. The NHL’s claim against Moyes for the unpaid amounts owed Gretzky
[is] barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel.
6. The NHL’s claims for its post acquisition losses are not recoverable
because the losses were not foreseeable when the contracts were made and
the express terms of the Agreements do not apply to those losses.
7. The bankruptcy preemption doctrine precludes the NHL’s claim for
damages for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty.
(Doc. 98 at 13.)
The bankruptcy court also recommends that this Court hold that the NHL’s claims
-5-
1
for attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred before November 2, 2009 are barred by judicial
2
estoppel and that “any claims by the NHL based upon negotiations, failing to disclose
3
such negotiations, agreeing to sell and relocate the Coyotes through the bankruptcy
4
process, and the filing of the antitrust adversary action in the bankruptcy court are all
5
barred by the bankruptcy preemption doctrine.” (Id. at 5.)
6
The R & R would grant summary judgment to the Moyes Parties on “all of the
7
NHL’s claim[s] except for its claim for attorney’s fees and expenses incurred after
8
November 2, 2009, which claim must be tried to a jury, pursuant to the NHL’s demand
9
for a jury trial.” (Id. at 14.)
10
The NHL objected to all of Judge Baum’s conclusions of law, except for the
11
conclusion that the NHL is entitled to recover its attorney’s fees and costs incurred after
12
November 2, 2009. (Doc. 107.)
13
14
DISCUSSION
I.
Legal Standard
15
The bankruptcy court has submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
16
law, which this Court reviews de novo before entering judgment. Stern, 131 S. Ct. at
17
2603; Executive Benefits, 134 S. Ct. at 2173.
18
The Court grants summary judgment when the movant “shows that there is no
19
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
20
of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In making this determination, the Court views the
21
evidence “in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.”
22
Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir.1995). Where the parties have filed cross-motions
23
for summary judgment, the Court “evaluate[s] each motion independently, ‘giving the
24
nonmoving party in each instance the benefit of all reasonable inferences.’” Lenz v.
25
Universal Music Corp., 2015 WL 5315388, at *2 (9th Cir. Sept. 14, 2015) (quoting
26
ACLU v. City of Las Vegas, 333 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir.2003)). “[A] party seeking
27
summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court
28
of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes
-6-
Warren v. City of
1
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
2
477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
3
The party opposing summary judgment “may not rest upon the mere allegations or
4
denials of [the party’s] pleadings, but . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there
5
is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
6
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87 (1986); Brinson v. Linda Rose Joint Venture,
7
53 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 1995). Substantive law determines which facts are material,
8
and “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the
9
governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v.
10
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “A fact issue is genuine ‘if the evidence is
11
such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Villiarimo v.
12
Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S.
13
at 248). Thus, the nonmoving party must show that the genuine factual issues “can be
14
resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of
15
either party.” Cal. Architectural Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc., 818
16
F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250).
17
II.
Analysis
18
The NHL makes claims against Moyes (1) for aiding and abetting a breach of
19
fiduciary duty owed by the Coyotes to the NHL (Count III of the Complaint), (2) for
20
breach of the Consent Agreement (Counts I and II), and (3) for obligations under the
21
Guaranty (Counts IV and V). (Complaint, Doc. 1 at 31-36.)
22
A.
23
Count III of the Complaint, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, alleges
24
that “Moyes caused the Coyotes to violate its fiduciary duty . . . by secretly negotiating
25
with Balsillie and his agents for the sale of the Coyotes in violation of the NHL
26
Constitution and Bylaws; by having his representative lie to the NHL Commissioner
27
about the status of any pending discussions to sell the Club, by directing the Coyotes and
28
its affiliated holding companies to file bankruptcy; by agreeing to a purported sale and
Aiding and Abetting a Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Count III)
-7-
1
relocation of the Coyotes without notifying or seeking the approval of the NHL; and by
2
suing the NHL to invalidate the transfer restrictions contained in the Consent Agreement,
3
and in the NHL Constitution and Bylaws.” (Id. at ¶ 78.) Plaintiff alleges that “Jerry
4
Moyes acted maliciously in aiding and abetting the Coyotes’ breach of fiduciary duties
5
by acting deliberately with knowledge of the NHL’s rights and with an intent to interfere
6
with those rights.” (Id. at ¶ 82.)
7
The bankruptcy court concluded that “[t]he bankruptcy preemption doctrine
8
precludes the NHL’s claim for damages for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary
9
duty.” (Doc. 235 at 13.) This Court reviews that conclusion de novo and adopts the
10
bankruptcy court’s recommendation with respect to the tort claim only.
11
“The Supremacy Clause provides a clear rule that federal law ‘shall be the
12
supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
13
Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.’”
14
Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2500 (2012) (quoting U.S. Const. art. VI, cl.
15
2). “Under this principle, Congress has the power to preempt state law.” Id. An analysis
16
of the scope of bankruptcy preemption begins with the presumption that state law will not
17
be preempted. See Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. California ex rel. California Dept. of Toxic
18
Substances Control, 350 F.3d 932, 943 (9th Cir. 2003). “[T]he purpose of Congress is
19
the ultimate touchstone in every pre-emption case.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S.
20
470, 485 (1996).
21
Federal law can preempt state law in three ways:
express preemption, field
22
preemption, and conflict preemption. See Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2500-01. In the absence
23
of express statutory language indicating preemption, “[s]tate law must also give way to
24
federal law in at least two . . . circumstances.” Id. at 2501. “First, the States are
25
precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress, acting within its proper
26
authority, has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance.” Id. “The
27
intent to displace state law altogether can be inferred from a framework of regulation ‘so
28
pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it’ or where there is
-8-
1
a ‘federal interest . . . so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude
2
enforcement of state laws on the same subject.’” Id. (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator
3
Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947)). “Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict
4
with federal law.” Id. Conflict preemption occurs where “compliance with both federal
5
and state regulations is a physical impossibility,” id. (quoting Florida Lime & Avocado
6
Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142–143 (1963)), as well as “where the challenged
7
state law ‘stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes
8
and objectives of Congress.’” Id. (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941)).
9
Where state law tort claims call into question whether a bankruptcy was filed for
10
an improper purpose or in bad faith, these claims are preempted by federal bankruptcy
11
law, “a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be
12
assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” MSR Exploration,
13
Ltd. v. Meridian Oil, Inc., 74 F.3d 910, 913 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Fidelity Federal Sav.
14
& Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 152–53 (1982)). “[T]he adjustment of rights
15
and duties within the bankruptcy process itself is uniquely and exclusively federal. It is
16
very unlikely that Congress intended to permit the superimposition of state remedies on
17
the many activities that might be undertaken in the management of the bankruptcy
18
process.” Id. at 914. “Debtors filing bankruptcy petitions are subject to a requirement of
19
good faith, and violations of that requirement can result in the imposition of sanctions.”
20
Gonzales v. Parks, 830 F.2d 1033, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 1987). These sanctions constitute
21
“an implicit rejection of other penalties, including the kind of substantial damage awards
22
that might be available in state court tort suits.” Id. at 1036.
23
In Astor Holdings, Inc. v. Roski, 325 F. Supp. 2d 251, 262 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), the
24
plaintiff sued for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, alleging “that the
25
defendant induced a third party to file for bankruptcy, harming the plaintiff.” Relying on
26
the Ninth Circuit decision in MSR Exploration and emphasizing the “broad scope of
27
bankruptcy preemption,” the court concluded that any misuse of the bankruptcy process
28
is “governed exclusively” by the Bankruptcy Code, and thus “claims . . . requiring a
-9-
1
finding that [a bankruptcy was filed] in bad faith or for an improper purpose, as measured
2
by the standards of New York tort law, are therefore barred.” Id. at 262-63.
3
Even where the state law claim is brought against a non-bankruptcy party, rather
4
than the debtor, a claim “that could have been made, and for which a remedy is provided,
5
under the Bankruptcy Code cannot be the subject of regulation by state statutory or
6
common-law remedies.” Id. at 262. An aiding and abetting claim for inducing a third
7
party to file bankruptcy would necessarily question “whether [the bankruptcy] petition
8
had been filed in ‘good faith’ within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code,” and doing so
9
would contravene “the principle that no authorized proceeding in bankruptcy can be
10
questioned in a state court or used as the basis for the assertion of a tort claim in state
11
court against any defendant.” Choy v. Redland Ins. Co., 127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 94, 103 (2002)
12
(qtd. in Astor Holdings, 325 F. Supp. 2d at 262).
13
disruptions brought about by state malicious prosecution actions” infringe upon the
14
“uniquely and exclusively federal” bankruptcy process. MSR Exploration, 74 F.3d at
15
914.
“[E]ven slight incursions and
16
Here, the NHL alleges tortious conduct relating to an attempted unauthorized sale
17
of the Coyotes by means of filing bankruptcy. This amounts to an assertion that the
18
bankruptcy filing was for an improper purpose or in bad faith. To the extent that the
19
NHL alleges that the Moyes Parties aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty by
20
causing the debtors to file bankruptcy, the claim is preempted. Astor Holdings, 325 F.
21
Supp. 2d at 262-63.
22
The NHL argues that to the extent that its tort claim comprises pre-filing conduct,
23
the claim is not preempted, citing Davis v. Yageo Corp., 481 F.3d 661, 679-80 (9th Cir.
24
2007). (Doc. 149 at 1.) In Davis, the Ninth Circuit held that “breach of fiduciary duty
25
claims are not preempted by federal bankruptcy law [where] these claims concern
26
conduct that occurred prior to bankruptcy,” as opposed to preempted claims “involving
27
conduct that occurred during bankruptcy.” Id. at 678. The bankruptcy court in Davis had
28
“explicitly assigned to plaintiffs all pre-bankruptcy claims . . . over defendants’
- 10 -
1
objections.” Id. at 680. “Since the bankruptcy court limited the assignment to claims that
2
‘existed . . . prior to the Chapter 11 filing[],’ the assignment was valid.” Id.
3
The plaintiffs in Davis sought damages that accrued pre-petition and would have
4
accrued whether or not the bankruptcy petition was filed. Dux Capital Mgmt. v. Chen,
5
2004 WL 1936309, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2004) aff’d sub nom. Davis v. Yageo
6
Corp., 481 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he injury and the main factual issue for the jury
7
to determine were whether the directors breached their fiduciary duty—before the
8
petition—by choosing the bankruptcy option rather than at least evaluating some other
9
course of action that might have provided the company and its shareholders with more
10
value.”).
11
bankruptcy, but rather accrued “before the [bankruptcy] petition,” when the defendants
12
“spurn[ed] the alternatives” that could have been valuable to the company. Id. (emphasis
13
in original).
Damages did not flow from the bankruptcy or any consequences of the
14
Under New York law, “[a] claim for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty
15
requires . . . that plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the breach.” Kaufman v. Cohen,
16
760 N.Y.S.2d 157, 169 (2003). “A tort claim accrues as soon as ‘the claim becomes
17
enforceable, i.e., when all the elements of the tort can be truthfully alleged in a
18
complaint.’” IDT Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 N.Y.3d 132, 140-41
19
(2009) (quoting Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp., 81 N.Y.2d 90, 94 (1993)). Where “damage is
20
an essential element” in a tort claim, “the claim ‘is not enforceable until damages are
21
sustained.’”3 Id.
22
When damages arise only after and because of the bankruptcy filing, a claim based
23
on pre-filing conduct is preempted. Casden v. Burns, 504 F. Supp. 2d 272, 281-82 (N.D.
24
Ohio 2007) aff’d on other grounds, 306 F. App’x 966 (6th Cir. 2009) (“When, as here,
25
injury . . . might never occur, and thus plaintiff’s claim would not accrue . . . until after
26
the company files its bankruptcy petition, and accrual of the claim depends on what
27
28
3
The same is true under California law, which was the state law applicable to Davis.
Dux Capital Mgmt., 2004 WL 1936309, at *18.
- 11 -
1
happens in the Bankruptcy Court, the potential future claim would interfere sufficiently
2
with the bankruptcy process to trigger preemption.”); see also In re Miles, 430 F.3d 1083,
3
1092 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[W]e hold that 11 U.S.C. § 303(i) completely preempts state law
4
tort actions for damages predicated upon the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy
5
petition.” (emphasis added)).
6
Here, the NHL has not identified any actual damages suffered as a result of the
7
Moyes Parties’ pre-filing conduct—their negotiations with Balsillie, the failure to
8
disclose such negotiations, or the agreement to sell the Coyotes to Balsillie and relocate
9
the Coyotes to Canada—aside from those that arose after the bankruptcy filing and
10
depended upon the bankruptcy proceedings. The NHL has not indicated that the Moyes
11
Parties rejected alternative options that would have provided more value, as was the case
12
in Davis.4 Cf. Dux Capital Mgmt., 2004 WL 1936309, at *16. Balsillie, on behalf of
13
PSE, was the only buyer willing to purchase the Coyotes at the time of the bankruptcy.
14
The Reinsdorf Group and Ice Edge, both of which had the opportunity to submit bids
15
during the bankruptcy, declined to do so. See Dewey Ranch II, 414 B.R. 577, 585
16
(Bankr. D. Ariz. 2009) (“On August 25th . . . the NHL submitted its bid . . . . By this date,
17
the other two potential bidders for the Coyotes [aside from PSE], the Reinsdorf Group
18
and Ice Edge . . . had publicly announced that they would not be submitting any bid(s) at
19
the court auction.”). The Court therefore holds that no reasonable juror could conclude
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
According to the bankruptcy court, “[t]he Official Unsecured Creditors’ Committee
generally support[ed] the [sale to Balsillie] because the committee ha[d] concluded that
the sooner there [was] a sale/auction the better the chances of the greatest recovery for
the unsecured creditors.” Dewey Ranch I, 406 B.R. 30, 35 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2009).
“Unsurprisingly, [Moyes] support[ed] the sale because he consider[ed] it in the best
interests of the creditors and [because it would provide] the greatest return to the
creditors.” Id. It appeared to the bankruptcy court “that the sale proceeds would most
likely provide a material return to the general creditors.” Id. at 41. Balsillie’s final bid
was $242,500,000 “if Glendale accepted [Balsillie’s] $50,000,000.00 offer to withdraw
its objection to the sale,” or $212,500,000 without Glendale’s acceptance. Dewey Ranch
II, 414 B.R. 577, 587 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2009). The NHL maintains that the Moyes Parties
should have done exactly what the NHL chose to do after it purchased the franchise—run
the Coyotes in Glendale at a loss for years, at least until finding a buyer who was willing
to do the same. This alternative provided far less value to the Coyotes’ creditors
generally.
- 12 -
1
that sales to either of these two entities constituted viable alternatives. Because the NHL
2
did not allege damages that accrued other than from the bankruptcy process, the NHL has
3
failed to establish all of the elements of its tort claim, which therefore must fail as a
4
matter of law.
5
Furthermore, a tort claim for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty must
6
be distinct from breach of contract claims. “[A] contracting party may be charged with a
7
separate tort liability arising from a breach of a duty distinct from, or in addition to, the
8
breach of contract.” Sommer v. Fed. Signal Corp., 79 N.Y.2d 540, 551 (1992) (quoting
9
N. Shore Bottling Co. v. C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc., 22 N.Y.2d 171, 179 (1968)). “[W]hile
10
causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty that merely restate contract claims must be
11
dismissed, conduct amounting to breach of a contractual obligation may also constitute
12
the breach of a duty arising out of the relationship created by contract which is
13
nonetheless independent of such contract.” Bullmore v. Ernst & Young Cayman Islands,
14
846 N.Y.S.2d 145, 148-49 (2007).
15
Here, the NHL’s tort claims merely restate its contract claims. Under New York
16
law, “[s]ince the plaintiff is not alleging tort liability or a breach of a duty distinct from,
17
or in addition to, the breach of contract claim, these causes of action should be
18
dismissed.”
19
Delaware Charter Guarantee & Trust Co., 788 F. Supp. 2d 226, 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) on
20
reconsideration, No. 09 CIV. 8025, 2011 WL 3837146 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2011)
21
(quoting Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V., 901
22
N.Y.S.2d 618, 636 (1st Dept. 2010)) (“[U]nder New York law, ‘a cause of action for
23
breach of fiduciary duty that is merely duplicative of a breach of contract claim cannot
24
stand.’”); Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 389 (1987) (“It is
25
a well-established principle that a simple breach of contract is not to be considered a tort
26
unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated.”); Sommer, 79
27
N.Y.2d at 551 (“[M]erely alleging that the breach of contract duty arose from a lack of
28
due care will not transform a simple breach of contract into a tort.”).
Layden v. Boccio, 686 N.Y.S.2d 763, 764 (1998); see also Grund v.
- 13 -
1
2
3
The Court therefore grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on
Count III, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty.
B.
4
Contract Claims under the Consent Agreement (Counts I and II)
1.
Breach of the Consent Agreement (Count I)
5
Count I of the NHL’s Complaint alleges breaches of the Consent Agreement “by,
6
among other things, conducting secret negotiations with Balsillie and his agents regarding
7
the potential sale and relocation of the Coyotes, by signing the Asset Purchase Agreement
8
with PSE, by directing the Phoenix Coyotes and its affiliated holding companies to enter
9
bankruptcy and by suing the NHL to invalidate the transfer restrictions contained in the
10
Consent Agreement, and in the NHL Constitution and By-Laws.” (Complaint, Doc. 1 at
11
19 ¶ 70.)
12
a.
Directing Debtors to Enter Bankruptcy
13
One of the allegations in Count I of the Complaint is that the Moyes Parties
14
breached the Consent Agreement “by directing the Phoenix Coyotes and its affiliated
15
holding companies to enter bankruptcy.” (Id.) If any terms in the Consent Agreement or
16
NHL Constitution exist that restrict the right of the debtor parties to file bankruptcy, such
17
terms are not enforceable. In re Cole, 226 B.R. 647, 651-54 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1998); see
18
also, e.g., In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 677 F.3d 869, 890-91 (9th Cir. 2012) [hereinafter
19
Thorpe I] (“[T]he anti-assignment provisions contained in the contracts . . . stand as an
20
obstacle to completion of a successful § 524(g) plan, and therefore are preempted by
21
federal bankruptcy law.”); In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 671 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir.
22
2012) [hereinafter Thorpe II] (holding that contractual terms that directly or indirectly
23
proscribe seeking bankruptcy protection contravene public policy and are unenforceable);
24
Fallick v. Kehr, 369 F.2d 899, 904 (2d Cir. 1966) (“[T]he Bankruptcy Act expresses a
25
strong legislative desire that deserving debtors be allowed to get a fresh start. . . . [A]n
26
advance agreement to waive the benefits of the Act would be void.”); In re Madison, 184
27
B.R. 686, 690 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1995) (“[A]n agreement not to file bankruptcy is
28
unenforceable because it violates public policy. . . . [I]f agreements prohibiting
- 14 -
1
bankruptcies were given force, the [Bankruptcy] Code could be nullified in the vast
2
majority of debts arising out of contracts.”).
3
If a contractual term denying the debtor parties the right to file bankruptcy is
4
unenforceable, then a contractual term prohibiting the non-debtor party that controls the
5
debtors from causing the debtors to file bankruptcy is equally unenforceable. Parties
6
cannot accomplish through “circuity of arrangement” that which would otherwise violate
7
the Bankruptcy Code. Nat’l Bank of Newport v. Nat’l Herkimer Cnty. Bank, 225 U.S.
8
178, 184 (1912) (holding that a provision of the Bankruptcy Act that voided the granting
9
of a preference applies whether the transfer is “made directly to the creditor” or “made to
10
another, for his benefit” because the effect is the same). “Any attempt by a creditor in a
11
private pre-bankruptcy agreement to opt out of the collective consequences of a debtor’s
12
future bankruptcy filing is generally unenforceable. The Bankruptcy Code preempts the
13
private right to contract around its essential provisions.” Thorpe II, 671 F.3d at 1026
14
(quoting In re Pease, 195 B.R. 431, 435 (Bankr. D. Neb. 1996)). Even where a contract
15
“does not specifically mention bankruptcy,” any contractual term that in effect waives
16
bankruptcy benefits is unenforceable. Id.
17
Plaintiff asserts that “in exchange for the NHL’s permission to purchase the Club
18
and have it play in Arizona, the Moyes Parties promised the NHL that they would keep
19
the Club there for at least seven years and pay its debts.” (Doc. 107 at 25.) This
20
assertion reflects the NHL’s interpretation of Sections 7(d)(i) and (ii) of the Consent
21
Agreement, which the NHL characterize as requiring the Moyes Parties to “(i) maintain
22
$10 million in Net Working Capital and (ii) timely pay all Operating Expenses,”
23
combined with Section 4(c), which precludes the Moyes Parties from moving,
24
transferring, or selling the Franchise. (Id. at 13.) To the extent that the NHL asserts that
25
the Consent Agreement obligates the Moyes Parties to fund a fully operating franchise
26
for seven years in spite of the franchise’s operating losses without inducing the debtor
27
party to seek bankruptcy protection absent the NHL’s approval, this contractual
28
obligation is unenforceable and preempted by the Bankruptcy Code.
- 15 -
A contractual
1
provision that indirectly prohibits filing bankruptcy stands as “an obstacle to the
2
accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress” and is
3
therefore preempted. Thorpe I, 677 F.3d at 890-91 (quoting English v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
4
496 U.S. 72, 79 (1990)).
5
6
The Court therefore grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Count I
to the extent that the claim pertains to inducing the debtors to file bankruptcy.
7
b.
Negotiations with Balsillie and Attempted Sale to PSE
8
On the other hand, the contractual terms prohibiting the Moyes Parties from
9
attempting to move or transfer the Coyotes or from selling the Coyotes without NHL
10
consent do not restrict bankruptcy rights. (See Consent Agreement at A32, A34-35.) The
11
Moyes Parties could have induced the debtor parties to file bankruptcy without violating
12
these contractual terms. Instead, the Moyes Parties attempted to sell the Coyotes without
13
the NHL’s consent and to relocate them, and in doing so, they breached clauses 4(c) and
14
6(c) of the Consent Agreement. (Id.) Although the Asset Purchase Agreement the
15
Moyes Parties entered into with PSE was “expressly conditioned on the filing of a
16
bankruptcy proceeding and Bankruptcy Court approval,” (Defendants’ Statement of Facts
17
at A158,) the breached contractual terms did not place impermissible restraints on
18
bankruptcy. Filing bankruptcy does not relieve the Moyes Parties of their liability for
19
breaches of independent, ostensibly enforceable5 terms in their contract with the NHL.
20
“This is not a case where a separate state action will interfere with the uniformity
21
required in bankruptcy proceedings or with the control of the bankruptcy court over those
22
proceedings. It is a simple matter of enforcing contract law and deciding claims arising
23
out of actions which allegedly breached contracts.” Hinduja v. Arco Products Co., 102
24
F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 1996).
25
Bankruptcy Code where the contractual term itself does not directly or indirectly limit a
Breach of contract claims are not preempted by the
26
27
28
5
This order determines that Sections 4(c) and 6(c) of the Consent Agreement are not
preempted by federal bankruptcy law, and it assumes without deciding that these sections
are otherwise enforceable.
- 16 -
1
party’s rights regarding bankruptcy or otherwise infringe on the bankruptcy process. See
2
In re Extended Stay Inc., 435 B.R. 139, 149 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (holding that a breach of
3
contract action is not preempted by the Bankruptcy Code where the action “does not seek
4
to invoke common law or other extraneous doctrines to label wrongful, or punish, the
5
exercise of rights under the Bankruptcy Code, nor does it question the legal validity or
6
propriety of the Debtors’ [bankruptcy] filings”).
7
Section 4(c) of the Consent Agreement states:
8
[Defendants] acknowledge, covenant and agree that for a period of at least
seven (7) calendar years from the date hereof, they will not: (i) move or
transfer, request to move or transfer, or attempt to move or transfer, the
Franchise to a new Home Territory, [or] (ii) engage or participate in
discussions or negotiations with a third party relating to moving or
transferring the Franchise to a new Home Territory . . . .
9
10
11
12
(A32.)
13
Section 6(c) of the Consent Agreement states, in part:
14
[Defendants] acknowledge and agree that: (i) . . . any proposed transfer of
the location of the Franchise and any proposed [t]ransfer of any of the
assets of, or any direct or indirect ownership or other interest in . . . the
Club, are subject to and conditioned upon . . . the NHL’s prior written
consent . . . . (iii) . . . [Defendants] shall not, nor shall they cause or permit,
without the prior written approval of the NHL: . . . (C) any transaction that
will result in a change, directly or indirectly, in the ownership or
management of the Club . . . .
15
16
17
18
19
(A34-35).
20
The parties do not dispute that the Moyes Parties authorized their attorney, Earl
21
Scudder, to negotiate with Richard Rodier, a representative of Balsillie, regarding the
22
potential sale to PSE and move of the Coyotes to Canada. (A128.) Scudder’s actions,
23
which are attributable to the Moyes Parties, constituted a breach of Section 4(c) of the
24
Consent Agreement. The parties likewise do not dispute that on May 5, 2009, the Moyes
25
Parties entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with PSE for the sale of the Coyotes.
26
(A158.) This constituted a breach of Section 6(c) of the Consent Agreement.
27
Under New York law, a contract claim differs from a tort claim in that “a breach
28
of contract cause of action accrues at the time of the breach.” Ely-Cruikshank Co. v.
- 17 -
1
Bank of Montreal, 81 N.Y.2d 399, 402 (1993). “Since nominal damages are always
2
available in breach of contract actions, all of the elements necessary to maintain a lawsuit
3
and obtain relief in court [are] present at the time of the alleged breach . . . .”6 Id.
4
(internal citations omitted). As such, the Casden analysis is limited to tort claims.
5
Unlike a tort claim, a breach of contract claim is not preempted when actual damages, if
6
any, arise only after and because of the bankruptcy filing. The Court therefore grants
7
summary judgment to the NHL regarding liability on Count II to the extent that it alleges
8
breaches of contract based on the Moyes Parties’ pre-filing negotiations with Balsillie
9
and attempted sale to PSE.
10
However, the Court holds as a matter of law that the operating losses the NHL
11
incurred after purchasing the Coyotes do not constitute actual damages arising from these
12
breaches.
13
Under New York law, recoverable damages for breach of contract include both
14
“general” damages and “special” or “consequential” damages. Kenford Co. v. Cnty. of
15
Erie, 73 N.Y.2d 312, 319 (1989). “It is well established that in actions for breach of
16
contract, the nonbreaching party may recover general damages which are the natural and
17
probable consequence of the breach.” Id. “Special, or consequential damages, which ‘do
18
not so directly flow from the breach,’ are also recoverable in limited circumstances.” Bi-
19
Econ. Mkt., Inc. v. Harleysville Ins. Co. of New York, 10 N.Y.3d 187, 192 (2008)
20
(quoting Am. List Corp. v. U.S. News & World Report, Inc., 75 N.Y.2d 38, 43 (1989)).
21
Whereas general damages seek to provide a plaintiff with the benefit of the bargain,
22
consequential damages, by contrast, “seek to compensate a plaintiff for additional losses
23
6
24
25
26
27
28
“Fundamentally different functions are served by an action in tort on the one hand, and
an action in contract on the other, and an understanding of that functional difference is
critical to understanding why nominal damages are appropriate in one and not in the
other. Contract liability is imposed by the law for the protection of a single, limited
interest, that of having the promises of others performed. The law of torts is concerned
with the allocation of losses arising out of human activities. In other words, a party’s
rights in contract arise from the parties’ promises and exist independent of any breach.
Nominal damages allow vindication of those rights. In tort, however, there is no
enforceable right until there is loss. It is the incurring of damage that engenders a legally
cognizable right.” Kronos, 81 N.Y.2d at 96 (internal citations omitted).
- 18 -
1
(other than the value of the promised performance) that are incurred as a result of the
2
defendant’s breach.” Schonfeld v. Hilliard, 218 F.3d 164, 175-76 (2d Cir. 2000).
3
To obtain consequential damages, “a plaintiff must demonstrate that the parties
4
contemplated those special damages ‘as the probable result of the breach at the time of or
5
prior to contracting.’” Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 618
6
F.Supp.2d 280, 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting Kenford, 73 N.Y.2d at 319).
7
determining the reasonable contemplation of the parties,” the Court should consider “the
8
nature, purpose and particular circumstances of the contract known by the parties . . . as
9
well as ‘what liability the defendant fairly may be supposed to have assumed consciously,
10
or to have warranted the plaintiff reasonably to suppose that it assumed, when the
11
contract was made.’” Kenford, 73 N.Y.2d at 319 (quoting Globe Ref. Co. v. Landa
12
Cotton Oil Co., 190 U.S. 540, 544 (1903)); see also, e.g., Ashland Mgmt. Inc. v. Janien,
13
82 N.Y.2d 395, 403 (1993); Bi-Econ., 10 N.Y.3d at 192-93 (2008) (“Consequential
14
damages [are] designed to compensate a party for reasonably foreseeable damages[.]”).
“In
15
Both the Consent Agreement and the Guaranty provide that the Moyes Parties
16
guaranteed the “Operating Expenses of the Club,” which included “all debts, obligations,
17
liabilities and expenses of the Club in the operation of the Franchise.” (A37; A68.) The
18
“Club” is defined in the Consent Agreement as Coyotes Hockey, LLC, which is one of
19
the four debtor parties that sold the Phoenix Coyotes hockey team to the NHL. (A27,
20
A1488.) Thus, when the NHL purchased the team, the Coyotes were transferred to
21
Coyotes Newco, LLC, and the “Club” was no longer incurring operating expenses in
22
running the franchise. The Moyes Parties are, therefore, under no obligation to pay such
23
operating expenses under either the Consent Agreement or the Guaranty.
24
Nor can the operating losses sustained by the NHL after purchasing the Coyotes
25
be general damages arising from the Moyes Parties’ breaches. These losses are not “the
26
natural and probable consequence” flowing from the Moyes Parties’ negotiations with
27
Balsillie or attempted sale to PSE. Kenford, 73 N.Y.2d at 319. The NHL made an
28
independent business decision to purchase the Coyotes and operate the franchise at a loss
- 19 -
1
for years. The Moyes Parties’ breaches did not directly and proximately cause the NHL’s
2
post-acquisition losses. “Causation is an essential element of damages in a breach of
3
contract action; and, as in tort, a plaintiff must prove that a defendant’s breach directly
4
and proximately caused his or her damages. Recovery is not allowed if the claimed
5
losses are the result of other intervening causes.” Diesel Props S.r.l. v. Greystone Bus.
6
Credit II LLC, 631 F.3d 42, 52-53 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted).
7
Nor can the operating losses be special or consequential damages. The Moyes
8
Parties cannot “fairly . . . be supposed to have assumed” that special damages arising
9
from breaching the Consent Agreement would include covering losses the NHL might
10
incur should it purchase the Coyotes and then run the team at a loss for years. Kenford,
11
73 N.Y.2d at 319 (quoting Globe Ref. Co., 190 U.S. at 544). While bankruptcy was
12
foreseeable at the time of entering into the Consent Agreement, the NHL’s response to
13
the debtors’ filing bankruptcy was not. In the past ten years, the NHL has approved five
14
hockey teams filing for bankruptcy and often facilitated “prepackaged” bankruptcy sales
15
where one buyer offered the only bid. (A609-10.) Likewise, in the past ten years, the
16
NHL has approved the relocation of five teams.
17
transpired before the Moyes Parties signed the Consent Agreement in 2006. (A609-10.)
18
The Moyes Parties could not have foreseen that the NHL would refuse to relocate the
19
Coyotes and instead opt to run the franchise at a loss for years.
20
21
22
(A610.)
Several of these events
Therefore, as a matter of law, the Moyes Parties are not liable for the operating
losses the NHL incurred after purchasing the Coyotes.
2.
Indemnification Obligations under Section 11(c) (Count II)
23
Count II of the Complaint alleges that the Moyes Parties breached the indemnity
24
obligation in Section 11(c)(iii) of the Consent Agreement, which provides that the Moyes
25
Parties agreed to indemnify the NHL for all losses arising out of “any breach of any
26
warranty, covenant or agreement . . . by any Seller Party, the Club or any other
27
Investment Party.” (A49). Section 11(c)(ii) of the Consent Agreement also provides that
28
Defendants agree to indemnify the NHL for all losses arising out of “any act, omission,
- 20 -
1
liability or obligation . . . of . . . the Club [or] any other Investment party.” (Id.) The
2
losses expressly include “without limitation, reasonable costs of investigation and
3
settlement and attorneys’ fees, including in actions with Affiliated NHL Parties.” (Id.)
4
The bankruptcy court concluded as a matter of law that “the judicial estoppel
5
doctrine precludes the NHL’s claim for its attorney’s fees and expenses incurred by it
6
prior to November 2, 2009.” (Doc. 235 at 12.) The court noted that “in the bankruptcy
7
case, the NHL was entitled to recover all of its reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses as
8
a condition of the assumption of the bundle of contract rights acquired by the NHL,” and
9
moreover noted that “[f]or whatever reason, the NHL never made any claim for those
10
attorney’s fees and expenses in connection with its purchase[] of the Coyotes, which
11
purchase included an assignment and assumption of virtually all of the debtors’ executory
12
contracts.” (Id.) The court concluded that “all attorney’s fees and expenses incurred
13
prior to November 2, 2009 should have been claimed by the NHL as a condition of the
14
assignment and assumption of the Coyotes’ executory contracts by the NHL and are now
15
barred by the bankruptcy preemption doctrine.” (Id.)
16
Contractual agreements to pay attorneys’ fees arising in bankruptcy court are not
17
preempted under the Bankruptcy Code. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Pac. Gas &
18
Elec. Co., 549 U.S. 443, 449 (2007) (“This case requires us to consider whether the
19
Bankruptcy Code disallows contract-based claims for attorney’s fees based solely on the
20
fact that the fees at issue were incurred litigating issues of bankruptcy law. We conclude
21
that it does not.”). Although “[u]nder the American Rule, the prevailing litigant is
22
ordinarily not entitled to collect a reasonable attorneys’ fee from the loser,” this default
23
rule can be overcome by statute or “by an enforceable contract allocating attorneys’
24
fees.” Id. at 448. “[A]n otherwise enforceable contract allocating attorney’s fees (i.e.,
25
one that is enforceable under substantive, nonbankruptcy law) is allowable in bankruptcy
26
except where the Bankruptcy Code provides otherwise.”
27
contractually liable for the attorneys’ fees its creditors incur in its bankruptcy, it follows
28
that a non-debtor can be contractually liable for the same fees.
- 21 -
Id.
If a debtor can be
1
Neither the bankruptcy court nor the Moyes Parties have cited any authority for
2
the proposition that a creditor who had the opportunity to seek attorneys’ fees from a
3
debtor during its bankruptcy proceeding and failed to do so is estopped or otherwise
4
precluded from later seeking those same fees from a non-debtor party under a state law
5
breach of contract claim. In the absence of authority suggesting otherwise, this Court
6
holds that a creditor is not estopped or precluded from doing so.
7
The indemnity clause in Section 11(c) requires the Moyes Parties to indemnify the
8
NHL for losses caused by breaches or acts by seller parties, the Club, and “other”
9
investment parties—it is an indemnification of third party breaches and acts, not of the
10
Moyes Parties’ own breaches and acts. (A49.) As such, the Moyes Parties maintain that
11
“to the extent the NHL seeks Defendants to indemnify it for a breach by the ‘Club,’ that
12
breach can only be the filing for bankruptcy, which is preempted [by federal bankruptcy
13
law].” (Doc. 151 at 4.) However, to the extent the NHL seeks the Moyes Parties to
14
indemnify it for an act by the Club—the act of filing bankruptcy, as well as the act of
15
filing the antitrust suit—this is not preempted by federal bankruptcy law. A contractual
16
provision stating that a debtor cannot file bankruptcy is preempted and unenforceable. In
17
re Cole, 226 B.R. at 651-54. A contractual provision stating that if a debtor chooses to
18
file bankruptcy, that debtor (or some other party) must pay the creditor’s attorneys’ fees
19
is not preempted and is enforceable. Travelers, 549 U.S. at 449. Although such a
20
contractual provision provides a disincentive to filing for bankruptcy, it does not
21
effectively proscribe or limit bankruptcy protection or otherwise conflict with the
22
Bankruptcy Code, see id. at 452-53, nor does it call into question the good faith of the
23
bankruptcy filing.
24
The parties do not dispute that the Club filed bankruptcy and initiated an antitrust
25
lawsuit against the NHL. These acts resulted in the NHL’s expenditure of attorneys’ fees
26
and costs. The Moyes Parties agreed under Section 11(c)(ii) of the Consent Agreement
27
to indemnify the NHL for losses arising out of any act by the Club. The Court therefore
28
grants the NHL’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of the Moyes Parties’
- 22 -
1
liability for attorneys’ fees and costs accrued in the course of the bankruptcy proceeding
2
and the antitrust suit.
3
The NHL alleges damages in the amount of “approximately $15.6 million in
4
attorneys’ fees and other expenses incurred in connection with the bankruptcy
5
proceedings and the NHL’s efforts to sell the Coyotes. (Doc. 107 at 11.) Although the
6
Court holds that the NHL is entitled as a matter of law to attorneys’ fees incurred in
7
connection with the bankruptcy proceedings and the antitrust suit, the NHL is not entitled
8
to attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the NHL’s efforts to sell the Coyotes, as the
9
NHL’s decision to purchase and/or to sell the Coyotes was not the result of the Club’s
10
acts.7
11
Likewise, the NHL’s operating losses, as discussed above, do not arise from the
12
Club’s acts but rather from the NHL’s business decision to purchase the Coyotes in the
13
bankruptcy proceedings and run the franchise in Glendale at a loss. Because no “act,
14
omission, liability or obligation” of the Club proximately caused the NHL’s post-
15
acquisition operating losses, the indemnification clause does not apply to those losses.
16
C.
17
Guaranty Claims (Counts IV and V)
1.
Unsecured Claims Purchased by the NHL (Count IV)
18
Count IV of the Complaint alleges a breach of the Moyes Parties’ obligations
19
under the Guaranty for the unsecured claims that the NHL purchased from the unsecured
20
creditors.
21
originally $11.6 million, a sum which has been since lowered to $9.3 million. (Doc. 107
22
at 41.)
23
(Complaint at ¶¶ 85-92.)
The damages claimed under Count IV were
Under the clear language of the Guaranty, the Moyes Parties were liable for the
24
25
26
27
28
7
The Moyes Parties did not object to the bankruptcy court’s proposed conclusion of law
that the NHL is entitled to attorneys’ fees accrued after it purchased the team in the
bankruptcy on November 2, 2009. Nonetheless, this Court sua sponte reviews this
conclusion de novo and concludes that the NHL has no legal grounds for recovering fees
it accrued after purchasing the team. Cf., e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985)
(noting that a district court may conduct sua sponte de novo review of a lower court’s
report and recommendation absent an objection).
- 23 -
1
unsecured claims before the bankruptcy proceedings. Defendants agreed to “guarantee
2
the full and punctual payment and performance of all debts, obligations and liabilities of
3
the Club.” (A68.) The unsecured claims were debts the Club owed to various creditors,
4
and as such, they were “Guaranteed Obligations” under the Guaranty. (See id.)
5
The Guaranty specifies that it “is an absolute, unconditional, irrevocable,
6
unlimited and continuing guaranty of the Guaranteed Obligations and shall remain in full
7
force and effect and shall be binding upon the Guarantors so long as there is any
8
Guaranteed Obligation outstanding.” (Id.) The issue is whether the unsecured claims
9
continued to constitute outstanding Guaranteed Obligations under the terms of the
10
Guaranty after the NHL purchased them.
11
The bankruptcy court, in its Report and Recommendation, noted that the NHL
12
asserted “that its bid would pay the legitimate unsecured creditors in full and that it was
13
important to the commercial and business interests of the NHL that these debts [be]
14
paid.” (Doc 235 at 8.) The court concluded that “the NHL is judicially estopped from
15
asserting that the claims have not been paid.” (Id.)
16
Nevertheless, the word “paid” is not synonymous with the word “extinguished.”
17
Treating these two words as the same risks conflating two separate issues: (1) whether
18
the unsecured creditors received what was owed to them, and (2) whether the debt was
19
extinguished. When the NHL purchased the unsecured claims, the creditors were fully
20
paid, but the debt was purchased rather than paid off—the claims were not extinguished.
21
The NHL paid the unsecured creditors for the right to collect on the debts by means of an
22
assignment. In purchasing the claims, the NHL did what it told the court it wanted to
23
do—it protected its commercial and business interests by seeing that the unsecured
24
creditors were paid.
25
As the bankruptcy court acknowledged, “the terms of the Sales Order stated that
26
the claims were assigned, not paid, and that the claims were not extinguished.” (Id. at 7.)
27
The court nonetheless concluded that the NHL was estopped from suing the Moyes
28
Parties under the Guaranty because the NHL misrepresented its position to the court. (Id.
- 24 -
1
at 5-9.)
2
Counsel for the NHL and various other attorneys at the October 26, 2009 status
3
conference, held prior to the court’s acceptance of the NHL’s bid, informed the court that
4
the NHL intended to purchase the claims and then seek recovery from the Moyes Parties
5
under the Guaranty. NHL counsel explained that it had submitted a written offer—not
6
accepted by the court at the time of the hearing—to purchase and extinguish the claims.
7
(A2249.) NHL counsel further explained that its amended bid included a proposal to
8
purchase the unsecured claims and that the NHL planned to sue the Moyes Parties to
9
satisfy those claims:
“[W]e had certain remedies against Mr. Moyes, as we’ve
10
mentioned, there are existing guarantees. And separate and apart from this case, we
11
believe we have redress to recover under that guarantee.” (A2238.)
12
During a recess in the hearing, the parties conferred and agreed to submit a
13
stipulated form of order. NHL counsel expressed on the record the essential points on
14
which the NHL, the debtors, the committee of unsecured creditors, SOF Investments, and
15
Jerry Moyes reached an agreement during the recess. Regarding the unsecured claims,
16
NHL counsel explained:
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The claims which are to be purchased by the NHL will be approximately
11.6 million. . . . Those claims will be held by the NHL subject to the
normal bankruptcy procedures. However, they will be subordinated in right
of payment from the bankruptcy estate to all other unsecured claims with
the exception of the claim by Mr. Moyes, who is as Your Honor has heard,
not part of the bankruptcy case, has an independent guarantee with the
NHL. Mr. Moyes has explicitly reserved all rights and all defenses which
he may have to that guarantee. And similarly, the NHL reserves all rights it
has against Mr. Moyes, with respect to that guarantee. But that will be
dealt with by the parties, not as part of the process.
(Id. at 32.)
24
Counsel for the debtor stated, “This amended transaction doesn’t really impact the
25
economics to any constituency group other than the ones that are specifically here. It
26
changed the form, but it didn’t specifically change the economics except as agreed to by
27
the parties that are directly impacted.” (Id. at 36.) Moyes and his counsel were present
28
at the status conference and agreed to the terms stated by the NHL.
- 25 -
1
On November 2, 2009, the bankruptcy court entered the Stipulated Order
2
Approving Amended and Clarified Bid, approving the bid memorialized in the NHL’s
3
Asset Purchase Agreement. (A1489-90.) The Stipulated Order provides that the NHL
4
will purchase the unsecured claims, that the NHL’s “purchase of the Unsecured
5
Liabilities does not extinguish the claims underlying the Unsecured Liabilities,” that the
6
Moyes Guaranty would be amended “to reduce the maximum cap amount under the
7
guaranty from $30 million to $15 million,” and that the NHL and the Moyes Parties
8
would “expressly reserve their respective rights to assert any claims, actions, causes of
9
action and defenses they may have with respect to the Moyes Guaranty, as so amended.”
10
(A1493.)
11
Because the unsecured claims were not extinguished and thus they remained debts
12
owed by the debtors, the claims continued to constitute outstanding Guaranteed
13
Obligations under the terms of the Moyes Guaranty after the NHL purchased them. The
14
NHL explicitly told the court that once it purchased the claims, it would retain the right to
15
seek recovery on the purchased claims from the non-debtor Moyes Parties under the
16
Guaranty. The NHL is not judicially estopped from doing so.
17
The parties have raised no disputed question of fact regarding the Moyes Parties’
18
liability for the unsecured claims; therefore, the Court grants the NHL’s motion for
19
summary judgment as to Count IV.
20
Furthermore, the Moyes Parties agreed under Section 3 of the Guaranty “to pay to
21
the League, on demand, all reasonable costs and expenses (including court costs and legal
22
and accounting expenses) incurred or expended by the League in connection with the
23
Guaranteed Obligations, this Guaranty and the enforcement thereof.” (A68.) Therefore,
24
the NHL is entitled as a matter of law to reasonable costs and expenses, including
25
attorneys’ fees, expended in conjunction with seeking the Moyes Parties’ performance
26
under the Guaranteed Obligation to extinguish the unsecured claims. Because the Moyes
27
Parties’ liability under the Guaranty is capped at $15 million and Section 3 is part of the
28
Guaranty, the sum total of the amount of the unsecured claims and the NHL’s reasonable
- 26 -
1
2
costs and expenses is not to exceed $15 million. (A1493.)
2.
Gretzky Claims (Count V)
3
The NHL alleged in Count V of its complaint that “[i]f the Coyotes are liable for
4
the Gretzky Obligations, then the NHL has the right to enforce the Gretzky Obligations
5
against the Moyes Parties personally, for the benefit of Gretzky, pursuant to the terms of
6
the Guaranty.” (Complaint at ¶ 94.)
7
As discussed above, the Moyes Parties promised under the Guaranty to
8
“absolutely and unconditionally and irrevocably, to and for the benefit of the League . . .
9
guarantee the full and punctual payment and performance of all debts, obligations and
10
liabilities of the Club,” and this obligation remains “in full force and effect . . . so long as
11
there is any Guaranteed Obligation outstanding.” (A68.) The Club owed Gretzky a debt,
12
which constituted a Guaranteed Obligation under the clear terms of the Guaranty. (See
13
id.) The issue is whether that Guaranteed Obligation remains “outstanding.”
14
Unlike the unsecured claims, neither the transcript from the October 26, 2009
15
status conference nor the language of the stipulated sale order suggest that the NHL
16
purchased the Gretzky claims. Whereas the stipulated sale order specified that the NHL
17
purchased the unsecured claims and that such claims were not extinguished, (A1493,)
18
there is no such mention of the Gretzky claims in the sale order. Rather, the stipulated
19
sale order provides that “[t]he transfer of the [Coyotes’] Assets to the Buyer [NHL] under
20
the APA will be . . . free and clear of all liens, claims (as defined in section 101(5) of the
21
Bankruptcy Code), encumbrances, obligations, liabilities, contractual commitments or
22
interests of any kind or nature whatsoever (collectively, the ‘Interests’).” (A1494.) The
23
sale order further explains that the NHL can purchase the Franchise “free and clear of any
24
Interests of any kind . . . because in each case, one or more of the standards set forth in
25
section 363(f)(1)-(5) of the Bankruptcy Code has been satisfied.” (Id.)
26
claims constituted an “Interest.” By the terms of the stipulated sale order, “[a]ll holders
27
of Interests are adequately protected by having their Interests attach to the proceeds [of
28
the debtor estate, in order of priority].” (A1495.) Thus, at least at the time that the sale
- 27 -
The Gretzky
1
order was entered, the Gretzky claims, unlike the unsecured claims, had not been
2
purchased by the NHL and were subject to the bankruptcy process.
3
The NHL asserted during oral argument that the NHL purchased the Gretzky
4
claims “subsequent to all of the bankruptcy, not at the time of the bankruptcy,” at some
5
point “in November of 2013.” (Doc. 148 at 58.) The NHL has never cited to any part of
6
the record in support of this assertion. Consequently, the Court lacks evidence to suggest
7
that the NHL in fact owns the Gretzky claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) (a party
8
must support an assertion by citing to particular parts of the materials in the record); Fed.
9
R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3) (in its summary judgment analysis “[t]he court need consider only the
10
cited materials”); Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir.
11
2003) (“General references without page or line numbers are not sufficiently specific.”).
12
Nevertheless, whether or not the NHL owns the Gretzky claims, those claims
13
remain outstanding obligations under the Guaranty so long as they have not been
14
extinguished. The Moyes Parties have presented no evidence suggesting that the Gretzky
15
claims have been extinguished. Rather, the Moyes Parties assert that because the debt
16
was discharged in the bankruptcy, any third party guaranty of such debt is likewise
17
discharged.
18
“discharges the debtor of any debt that arose prior to the confirmation,” but that the
19
discharge “does not result in the extinguishment of the underlying debt.” Star Phoenix
20
Min. Co. v. W. Bank One, 147 F.3d 1145, 1147 n.2 (9th Cir. 1998). “[A] bankruptcy
21
court does not have the power to discharge the liabilities of a bankrupt’s guarantor.” Id.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(A384-86).
However, it is settled law that a bankruptcy proceeding
In Star Phoenix, the issue presented was “whether [the creditor had] received full
satisfaction of the amounts owed to it.” Id. at 1147. The Ninth Circuit explained:
If, by accepting the terms of the proposed reorganization plan, [the creditor]
stipulated that the collateral it received fully repaid the amounts owed, then
[the creditor] should now be precluded from collecting against [the
guarantors]. Such full satisfaction would in itself release [the guarantors’]
obligation under the guaranty because there would be no outstanding debt.
If, however, the plan does not determine the status of the debt owed to [the
creditor], but rather resolved only how much [the debtor] owed [the
creditor] in the bankruptcy context, then [the creditor] is entitled to recover
the outstanding debt under the guaranty agreement.
- 28 -
1
Id. The court concluded that the payment the creditor had received under the bankruptcy
2
plan “did not fully satisfy the debt owed” to it. Id. Although the creditor could not seek
3
to recover the remaining deficiency from the debtor, it could seek its remaining
4
deficiency from the guarantors of the debt. Id.
5
Likewise, here, the pro rata share distribution that Gretzky received did not
6
amount to full satisfaction of the amount owed to him. Gretzky could not seek the
7
remaining deficiency from the debtor parties, as those debts were discharged in the
8
bankruptcy. Nonetheless, the debts were not extinguished, and therefore they remain
9
Guaranteed Obligations under the Moyes Parties’ Guaranty.
10
The NHL has the right, pursuant to the Guaranty, to seek payment from the Moyes
11
Parties for any non-extinguished debt, whether or not that debt has been purchased by the
12
NHL. The Moyes Parties assert that “[t]he NHL seeks a windfall here by making a claim
13
on ‘behalf’ of Gretzky.” (A386). However, the NHL has asserted that “[i]f the Coyotes
14
are liable for the Gretzky Obligations, then the NHL has the right to enforce the Gretzky
15
Obligations against the Moyes Parties personally, for the benefit of Gretzky, pursuant to
16
the terms of the Guaranty.” (Complaint at ¶ 94) (emphasis added). Under the Guaranty,
17
the Moyes Parties guaranteed to the NHL the Club’s debts owed to parties other than the
18
NHL. (A68.) The language of the Guaranty specifies that the promises the Moyes
19
Parties made under the Guaranty are “to and for the benefit of the League.” (Id.)
20
Reading the language of the Guaranty as a whole, extinguishing debts owed to other
21
creditors is “to and for the benefit of the League.” (Id.) The NHL can enforce the
22
Guaranty “for the benefit of Gretzky,” (Complaint at ¶ 94,) and doing so is “to and for the
23
benefit of the League.” (A68).
24
The bankruptcy court proposed as a conclusion of law that “[t]he NHL’s claim
25
against Moyes for the unpaid amounts owed Gretzky [is] barred by the doctrine of
26
judicial estoppel.” (R & R, Doc. 98 at 13.) “Judicial estoppel, sometimes also known as
27
the doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions, precludes a party from gaining an
28
advantage by taking one position, and then seeking a second advantage by taking an
- 29 -
1
incompatible position.” In re Hoopai, 581 F.3d 1090, 1097 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting
2
Whaley v. Belleque, 520 F.3d 997, 1002 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Rissetto v. Plumbers &
3
Steamfitters Local 343, 94 F.3d 597, 600 (9th Cir. 1996))). “It is an equitable doctrine
4
invoked by a court at its discretion.” Id. (quoting New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S.
5
742, 750 (2001) (quoting Russell v. Rolfs, 893 F.2d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir. 1990))). Judicial
6
estoppel “is intended to protect the integrity of the judicial process by preventing a
7
litigant from playing fast and loose with the courts.” Id. (quoting Whaley v. Belleque, 520
8
F.3d 997, 1002 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Wagner v. Prof’l Eng’rs in Cal. Gov’t, 354 F.3d
9
1036, 1044 (9th Cir. 2004))). In determining whether to apply the doctrine, a court
10
“typically consider[s] (1) whether a party’s later position is clearly inconsistent with its
11
original position; (2) whether the party has successfully persuaded the court of the earlier
12
position, and (3) whether allowing the inconsistent position would allow the party to
13
derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party.” Id.
14
(quoting United States v. Ibrahim, 522 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir.2008) (quoting New
15
Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. at 750-51)).
16
Here, according to the bankruptcy court, the NHL’s approved bid and the
17
stipulated sale order “effectively treated [the] creditors exactly as the prior and
18
unapproved NHL bid; namely all creditors were paid in full except Moyes and
19
Gretzky. . . . The NHL controlled the sale proceeds because it did not want any of the
20
sales proceeds paid to either Moyes or Gretzky.”8 (Id. at 6-7.) The court concluded that
21
it is inconsistent for the NHL to effectively control the proceeds in such a way as to
22
divert the proceeds away from Gretzky and then to claim that the amount unpaid to
23
Gretzky constitutes an outstanding Guaranteed Obligation under the Moyes Parties’
24
Guaranty. (Id. at 6-7). It further concluded that allowing such a claim grants the NHL
25
“an unfair advantage” and imposes “an unfair detriment” on the Moyes Parties. (Id.).
26
Without a doubt, the Sale Order worked to the NHL’s advantage. Nonetheless, the
27
28
8
The court pointed out that “Gretzky was given every opportunity to object to the NHL’s
offer and did not object.” (Id. at 6.)
- 30 -
1
NHL did not gain this advantage by successfully asserting one position and then taking a
2
different, incompatible position. The NHL represented to the bankruptcy court that it
3
intended to pursue its claims under the Guaranty against the Moyes Parties before it
4
successfully convinced the court to accept its modified second bid and enter the
5
stipulated sale order.
6
expressly reserved its right “to assert any claims, actions, causes of action and defenses
7
. . . with respect to the Moyes Guaranty.” (A1493.) That the Court may have failed to
8
perceive possible legal claims the NHL had against the Moyes Parties under the Guaranty
9
is not attributable to any conflicting position advanced by the NHL.
(A2238.)
The stipulated sale order specifies that the NHL
10
Moreover, the restructured distribution of the sale proceeds did not result in an
11
“unfair detriment” to the Moyes Parties. Regardless of how the sale proceeds were
12
distributed, the Moyes Parties are liable under the Guaranty for any debts remaining after
13
the proceeds distribution. Had the proceeds been distributed differently, the Moyes
14
Parties would be liable for the same amount—the sum of the remaining balances on any
15
debts not fully extinguished by the proceeds.9
16
Therefore, the NHL is not judicially estopped from enforcing the Guaranty against
17
the Moyes Parties for the Gretzky claims. Because the Moyes Parties have failed to raise
18
a genuine issue of material fact suggesting that the Gretzky claims are extinguished, the
19
Court grants summary judgment to the NHL on the Moyes Parties’ liability for the
20
Gretzky claims.
21
The parties further dispute whether the Gretzky claims are subject to the $15
22
million cap. The Sale Order states that “The NHL agrees, at the request of the Creditors’
23
Committee, to amend the Moyes Guaranty to reduce the maximum cap amount under the
24
guaranty from $30 million to $15 million.” The Sale Order does not mention any
25
26
27
28
9
The Moyes Parties were themselves debtors, and they would have received a larger pro
rata share of the sale proceeds had the proceeds been distributed differently. But that
presumably would have left a greater amount of non-extinguished debt owed to other
creditors, for which the Moyes Parties would have been liable under the Guaranty. The
end result is the same.
- 31 -
1
exceptions or limitations to the $15 million cap on the Moyes Parties’ liability for
2
obligations under the Guaranty.
3
Parties’ payments of Club obligations would not count toward the $30 million cap in
4
certain situations, including “obligations owing to any Investment Party . . . .” (A68.)
5
Gretzky is an “Investment Party,” as defined in the Consent Agreement.10 (A27.)
However, the Guaranty specified that the Moyes
6
Under New York law, “agreements are construed in accord with the parties’
7
intent,” the best evidence of which is “what they say in their writing.” Greenfield v.
8
Philles Records, Inc., 98 N.Y.2d 562, 569 (2002) (internal citations omitted). “[A]
9
written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced
10
according to the plain meaning of its terms.” Id. “Extrinsic evidence of the parties’
11
intent may be considered only if the agreement is ambiguous, which is an issue of law for
12
the courts to decide.” Id. “A contract is unambiguous if the language it uses has a
13
definite and precise meaning, unattended by danger of misconception in the purport of
14
the agreement itself, and concerning which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of
15
opinion.” Id. at 569-79 (internal citations omitted).
16
The Sale Order is silent as to whether the $15 million liability cap in the Sale
17
Order comprises the exclusions that applied to the Guaranty’s original liability cap.
18
Ordinarily, “silence does not equate to contractual ambiguity,” and therefore “the failure
19
of a contract to address certain [matters]” does not entitle a court “to look beyond the four
20
corners of the document.” Id. at 573. “[A]n ambiguity never arises out of what was not
21
written at all, but only out of what was written so blindly and imperfectly that its meaning
22
is doubtful.”
23
Southampton v. Jessup, 173 N.Y. 84, 90 (1903)).
Id. (quoting Trustees of Freeholders & Commonalty of Town of
24
Here, however, the clause at issue in the Sale Order was written imperfectly such
25
that its silence regarding exclusions is ambiguous. The Sale Order states that “[t]he NHL
26
agrees . . . to amend the Moyes Guaranty to reduce the maximum cap amount under the
27
28
10
The Guaranty specifies that “[c]apitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall
have the respective meanings set forth in the Consent Agreement.” (A67.)
- 32 -
1
guaranty from $30 million to $15 million.” (A1493.) One reasonable interpretation of
2
this language is that claims arising under the Guaranty are now capped at $15 million,
3
and the silence as to any exclusions indicates that in the amended form of the Guaranty,
4
no such exclusions exist. Another reasonable interpretation is that the new cap amount
5
applies to only those claims that would have been subject to the old cap amount under the
6
original terms of the Guaranty, and the Sale Order’s silence as to any exclusions indicates
7
that those exclusions in the Guaranty have not been amended and remain valid. Because
8
there is a “reasonable basis for a difference of opinion,” the language of the Sale Order is
9
ambiguous as a matter of law. Greenfield, 98 N.Y.2d at 569-70.
10
Under New York law, where contractual terms are ambiguous, “it is proper to
11
consider extrinsic evidence in interpreting the ambiguous terms, irrespective of the parol
12
evidence rule.” Topps Co. v. Cadbury Stani S.A.I.C., 526 F.3d 63, 69 (2d Cir. 2008).
13
“To the extent the moving party’s case hinges on ambiguous contract language, summary
14
judgment may be granted only if the ambiguities may be resolved through extrinsic
15
evidence that is itself capable of only one interpretation, or where there is no extrinsic
16
evidence that would support a resolution of these ambiguities in favor of the nonmoving
17
party’s case.” Id. at 68.
18
That is not the case here. The Court thus “need not determine which is the more
19
likely interpretation,” but rather leaves the interpretation of the clause to the fact finder.”
20
Mellon Bank, N.A. v. United Bank Copr. Of New York, 31 F.3d 113, 115 (2d Cir. 1994).
21
The Court thus denies summary judgment on the issue of the scope of the $15 million cap
22
on the Moyes Parties’ liability under the terms of the Sale Order.
23
CONCLUSION
24
The NHL’s tort claim for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty is
25
preempted by the Bankruptcy Code, and as such, the Moyes Parties are entitled to
26
summary judgment on Count III.
27
The NHL’s breach of contract claim under the Consent Agreement as alleged in
28
Count I of its Complaint is preempted except to the extent that it alleges pre-filing
- 33 -
1
breaches, as to which the Court grants summary judgment to the NHL as to liability.
2
Regarding damages, the NHL is precluded as a matter of law from seeking its operating
3
expenses or any other losses caused by the NHL’s business decision to purchase the
4
Coyotes.
5
Neither judicial estoppel nor bankruptcy preemption bars the NHL’s breach of
6
contract claim under Section 11(c) (the indemnification clause) of the Consent
7
Agreement. The Moyes Parties have raised no genuine issue of material fact regarding
8
liability under Section 11(c).
9
regarding liability on Count II. Regarding damages, the NHL is entitled to reasonable
10
costs and attorneys’ fees related to the bankruptcy proceeding and antitrust suit. Here
11
too, the NHL is precluded as a matter of law from seeking its operating expenses or any
12
other losses caused by the NHL’s business decision to purchase the Coyotes.
The NHL is therefore entitled to summary judgment
13
The NHL is entitled to summary judgment for its claims under Count IV, as the
14
Moyes Parties are liable as guarantors for the unsecured claims purchased by the NHL.
15
The NHL is entitled as a matter of law to reasonable costs and expenses, including
16
attorneys’ fees, expended in conjunction with seeking the Moyes Parties’ performance
17
under the Guaranty to extinguish the unsecured claims. The combined amount of the
18
unsecured claims and the NHL’s related expenses must not exceed the cap under the
19
Guaranty of $15 million.
20
The NHL is entitled to summary judgment for its claims under Count V, as the
21
Moyes Parties are liable as guarantors for the non-extinguished debt constituting the
22
Gretzky claim, and the NHL has the right to enforce the Guaranty for the benefit of
23
Gretzky.
24
The Court denies summary judgment on the issue of the scope of the $15 million
25
cap on the Moyes Parties’ liability, as the terms of the Sale Order are ambiguous.
26
///
27
///
28
///
- 34 -
1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
2
1.
3
4
5
6
7
8
The Report and Recommendation of the Bankruptcy Court (Doc. 98) is
ACCEPTED IN PART and REJECTED IN PART.
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (A580, A756) is GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART.
3.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (A305, A702) is GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Dated this 12th day of November, 2015.
9
10
11
Honorable G. Murray Snow
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 35 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?