Sanum Investment Limited et al v. San Marco Capital Partners, LLC et al
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 7/12/2017. (nmfn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
SANUM INVESTMENT LIMITED and
LAO HOLDINGS, N.V.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
)
)
)
)
)
)
SAN MARCO CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC
and KELLY GASS,
Defendants.
Civ. No. 16-320-SLR
)
)
)
)
)
Michael F. Bonkowski, Esquire of Cole Schatz, P.C., Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel
for Plaintiffs. Of counsel: Deborah Deitsch-Perez, Esquire and Kenneth N. Hickox,
Jr., Esquire of Lackey Hershman, LLP, Dallas, Texas.
James D. Taylor, Esquire and Dawn Kurtz Crompton, Esquire of Saul Ewing LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant. Of counsel: Kenneth J. Joyce,
Esquire, Stacy M. Schwartz, Esquire, and Andrew B. Zelman, Esquire of Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dated: July~, 2017
Wilmington, Delaware
RO~~ct
I.
Judge
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Sanum Investment Limited and Lao Holdings, N.V. (collectively,
"plaintiffs") filed a complaint against San Marco Capital Partners LLC ("San Marco") and
its sole member/manager Kelly Gass ("Gass," and collectively with San Marco, the
"defendants"). (D.I. 1) The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
contract, and conversion. (Id. at 111169-86) Defendants have asked the court to dismiss
the complaint based on an arbitration clause in either one of two agreements or under
the doctrine of forum non conveniens. (D.I. 12) The court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332(a)(1 ). The court finds that,
under a theory of estoppel, plaintiffs are required to arbitrate this dispute pursuant to the
arbitration clause in a Deed of Settlement (the "Deed") executed by plaintiffs and the
government of Laos ("Laos"). Accordingly, the court does not reach defendants' other
arguments, and its motion to dismiss is granted.
II.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are 80% owners of a casino and 60% owners of two slot clubs
(collectively, the "gaming assets"), all located in the Lao People's Democratic Republic.
(D.I. 11114) Laos owns the remaining 20% of the casino and a company named ST
Group Co., Ltd. owns the remaining 40% of the slot clubs. (Id.) In 2012, plaintiffs filed
bilateral investment treaty arbitrations (the "BIT arbitrations") alleging that Laos had
expropriated the gaming assets and otherwise violated plaintiffs' treaty rights. (Id. at 11
15) Plaintiffs and Laos settled the BIT arbitrations by executing the Deed dated June
15, 2014 and a side letter dated June 18, 2014. (Id. at1116)
The complaint alleges that section 13 of the Deed is "[a] key provision of the
Deed" under which "the Gaming Assets would be sold to a third-party 'on a basis that
will maximize Sale proceeds."' (D.I. 11} 2 (quoting section 13)). According to the
complaint, if the assets were not sold within a certain timeframe, section 12 of the Deed
provided that the parties would "jointly consult to appoint a qualified neutral gaming
operator to take over, manage, and sell the Gaming Assets." 1 (Id. at 1} 18) Section 12
further provided that the operator "shall have a fiduciary duty to [plaintiffs] and Laos as
interested parties in the Gaming Assets." (Id. (quoting section 12 of the Deed)) Finally,
section 42 of the Deed states that it "shall be governed by and construed solely in
accordance with the laws of New York." (Id. at 1} 20) What the complaint does not
mention is that section 42 also contains an arbitration clause. It states in pertinent part:
Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Deed ... shall be
referred to and finally resolved by arbitration in Singapore in accordance
with the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration
Centre .... The seat of the arbitration shall be in Singapore.
(D.I. 13 at 5 (emphasis added))
On April 16, 2015, Laos entered into a Management and Sales and Marketing
Contract (the "contract") with defendant San Marco. (D.I. 1 at 1} 24) The contract was
The court notes that the complaint is not quoting the exact language of section
12 in making this assertion. Section 12 states, in relevant part:
If the Sale Deadline is missed, the Claimants and Laos shall have the
right to appoint RMC or any other qualified gaming operator to: (i) step in
and manage and operate the Gaming Assets ... , and (ii) complete the
Sale .... If the Claimants and Laos have not agreed on who that operator
shall be 30 days before the Sale Deadline, they shall submit the matter
to the FT Committee for final decision such that the operator can take
over by the Sale Deadline.
(D. I. 15 at 5) The arbitrator will need to decide whether section 12 means plaintiffs' joint
consultation and approval was required at the time defendants were hired.
2
signed by defendant Gass as the president of San Marco. (Id.) The stated purpose of
the contract was to have defendants "manage, control, market and sell the Gaming
Assets as contemplated by Sections 12, 13 and 16 of the Deed." (Id.
at~
30) Laos did
not consult with plaintiffs before hiring defendants to serve as the operator specified in
the Deed. (Id.
at~
35) Plaintiffs claim if they had been consulted beforehand, they
would not have approved of Laos awarding the contract to defendants. (D.I. 22 at 4)
According to the complaint, defendants, as operators of the gaming assets, failed
to enforce or fulfill several provisions of the Deed, in breach of their fiduciary duties and
the contract. (D.I. 1 at~~ 70-80) Specifically, defendants failed to respond to plaintiffs'
requests for information regarding sections 15, 21, and 25 of the Deed, which provide
respectively for the establishment of an escrow account, the exporting of slot machines
in storage, and the expansion and upgrade of an airport. (Id.
at~~
38-40) Defendants
also did not take action to prevent or reverse Laos' breach of sections 6 and 9 of the
Deed. (Id.
at~~
50, 53) Section 6 provided that a project development agreement
("PDA") related to the casino was restated and effective for fifty more years, but Laos
terminated the PDA while "Gass was in charge" and "she did nothing." (Id.
at~~
49-50)
Section 9 of the Deed provided that all taxes on the gaming assets would be subject to
a flat tax, but Laos imposed a tax set at a percentage of revenue, and "Gass failed to
prevent or reverse this action." (Id.
at~~
51-53) Finally, the complaint alleges that
defendants have repeatedly acted or failed to act in a manner that will complete a sale
of the gaming assets "on a basis that will maximizes the Sale proceeds," as required by
section 13 of the Deed. (Id.
at~
54)
3
Ill.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A defendant may move to dismiss in favor of arbitration pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
if it is apparent on the face of the complaint and the documents relied upon therein that
the plaintiff's claims are subject to an enforceable arbitration clause. Guidotti v. Legal
Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., 716 F.3d 764, 773-74 (3d Cir. 2013). Under Rule
12(b)(6), the court accepts all factual allegations as true and construes the complaint in
the light most favorable to plaintiff. Id. at 772. In addition, the court may consider only
the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, and the
documents on which plaintiff's claims are based. Id. The motion to dismiss should be
denied in favor of limited discovery concerning the validity of the arbitration agreement
if: (1) "the complaint and its supporting documents are unclear regarding the agreement
to arbitrate;" or (2) plaintiff has responded to the motion to dismiss with "additional facts
sufficient to place the agreement to arbitrate in issue." Id. at 774-76. "After limited
discovery, the court may entertain a renewed motion to compel arbitration, this time
judging the motion under a summary judgment standard." Id. at 776.
IV.
DISCUSSION
Generally, claims must go to arbitration if: (1) "there exists a valid agreement to
arbitrate;" and (2) "the particular dispute sought to be arbitrated falls within the scope of
the arbitration agreement." Hartford Accident & lndem. Co. v. Swiss Reinsurance Am.
Corp., 246 F.3d 219, 226 (2d Cir. 2001); Trippe Mfg. Co. v. Niles Audio Corp., 401 F.3d
529, 532 (3d Cir. 2005). Plaintiffs do not dispute that the Deed is a valid and
enforceable contract. Indeed, their claims depend on this being true. Plaintiffs also do
not dispute that the Deed contains a broad arbitration clause that would apply to its
4
claims. 2 The only issue is whether defendants, as nonsignatories to the Deed, can
enforce the arbitration clause in that agreement against plaintiffs, who are signatories.
Generally, "arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to
submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit." AT&T Techs.,
Inc. v. Commc'ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 648 (1986); see also Stolt-Nielsen
S.A. v. Anima/Feeds Int'/ Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 681 (2010) ("[A]rbitration 'is a matter of
consent, not coercion."' (quoting Volt Info. Sci., Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland
Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 479 (1989))). Absent an express agreement to
arbitrate, federal courts have recognized limited exceptions upon which a party may still
compel arbitration. Relevant to this case, a signatory may be estopped from avoiding
arbitration with a nonsignatory when: (1) "the issues the nonsignatory is seeking to
resolve in arbitration are intertwined with the agreement that the estopped party has
signed;" and (2) "the signatory and nonsignatory parties share a close relationship."
MAG Portfolio Consultant, GMBH v. Merlin Biomed Grp. LLC, 268 F.3d 58, 62 (2d Cir.
2001); E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Rhone Poulenc Fiber & Resin Intermediates,
S.A.S., 269 F.3d 187, 199 (3d Cir. 2001).
A signatory-plaintiff's claims against a non-signatory defendant are intertwined
with an agreement containing an arbitration clause when the claims "rely on the terms of
2
Clauses requiring arbitration of any dispute "arising out of" the agreement, as the
Deed here requires, are typically characterized as "broad." JLM Indus., Inc. v. StoltNielsen SA, 387 F.3d 163, 172 (2d Cir. 2004) (collecting cases); Battaglia v. McKendry,
233 F.3d 720, 727 (3d Cir. 2000) ("[W]hen phrases such as 'arising under' and 'arising
out of' appear in arbitration provisions, they are normally given broad construction");
Compucom Sys., Inc. v. Getronics Fin. Holdings B. V., 635 F. Supp. 2d 371, 378 (D. Del.
2009) ("Broad arbitration provisions are generally defined as those that apply to any
dispute arising from an agreement.").
5
the agreement or assume the existence of, arise out of, or relate directly to, the written
agreement." Booth v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., 2014 WL 3952945, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Aug.
11, 2014) (quoting Sari v. A.M. Todd Co., 2008 WL 724607, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 18,
2008)); Miron v. BOO Seidman, LLP, 342 F. Supp. 2d 324, 334 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (finding
that claims are not intertwined with an agreement containing an arbitration clause where
plaintiffs' allegations against non-signatory defendants are not tied to any obligations or
benefits received under the agreement); Lismore v. Societe Generate Energy Corp.,
2012 WL 3577833, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2012) (finding that a signatory's claims are
intertwined when the claims "arise from the 'subject matter' of the agreement with the
arbitration clause"). Here, plaintiffs' claims against defendants arise out of, relate
directly to, and rely on the terms of the Deed. The complaint alleges that section 12 of
the Deed contemplates hiring an operator to manage the gaming assets and its sale,
and that Laos hired defendants to serve as the operator for the specific purpose of
fulfilling Laos' obligation "under Sections 12, 13, and 16 of the Deed." (D.I. 1,-m18, 30)
The complaint further alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties and
breached the contract by failing to enforce or fulfill several provisions of the Deed
(including sections 6, 9, and 13), and by failing to provide information demonstrating
compliance with sections 15, 21, and 25 of the Deed. (Id. at ,-m 38-40, 49-59, 69-80) In
fact, there are very few paragraphs of the complaint that do not reference or quote the
Deed. Considering all of the foregoing, the court finds that plaintiffs' claims against
defendants are intertwined with the Deed.
A non-party signatory and non-signatory defendant share a close relationship
sufficient to compel arbitration of plaintiffs' claims by estoppel "in cases involving
6
subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, and other related business entities." Ross v. Am. Exp.
Co., 547 F.3d 137, 144 (2d Cir. 2008). "Where the parties to [an arbitration] clause
unmistakably intend to arbitrate all controversies which might arise between them, their
agreement should be applied to claims against agents or entities related to the
signatories." Pritzkerv. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner& Smith, Inc., 7 F.3d 1110, 1122
(3d Cir. 1993). The complaint alleges that defendants are "agents" of Laos, and the
allegations in the complaint describe an agency relationship. (D.I. 11f 33) Accordingly,
the defendants have a sufficiently close relationship to Laos that they may enforce the
arbitration clause in the Deed against plaintiffs, because all of the claims in the
complaint are intertwined with the Deed.
Plaintiffs argue that they cannot be required to arbitrate under the Deed by
selectively quoting from the Second Circuit's decision in Sokol Holdings, Inc. v. BMB
Munai, Inc., 542 F.3d 354 (2d Cir. 2007). (D.I. 22 at 8) Specifically, plaintiffs claim that
they did not consent to defendants being retained as the operator and, under Sokol,
estoppel does not apply unless defendants '"were, or would predictably become, with
Plaintiffs' knowledge and consent, affiliated or associated with [Laos] in such manner as
to make it unfair' to not require Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims pursuant to the Deed."
(D.I. 22 at 2; Id. at 8 (internal punctuation omitted) (quoting Sokol, 542 F.3d at 361 )).
Plaintiffs are equating any contractual right they may have under the Deed to expressly
consent to the appointment of the operator with the underlying concept of consent as
applied in cases enforcing arbitration agreements. But the doctrine of arbitration by
estoppel developed under the rationale that although "arbitration remains a matter of
consent," that "consent can be implied." Gov. Emp. Ins. Co. v. Grand Med. Supply, Inc.,
7
2012 WL 2577577, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. July 4, 2012); Sokol, 542 F.3d at 361-62 (explaining
that cases applying arbitration by estoppel are "consistent with the black letter rule" that
arbitration requires consent, but "simply extends its contours somewhat by establishing
that consent need not always be expressed in a formal contract"). Sokol provides that
consent is implied when defendants "have a relationship with a signatory to the
agreement that is sufficiently close to support the conclusion that either (a) the
[plaintiffs] effectively consented to extend its agreement to arbitrate to the [defendants];
or (b) it would be inequitable to allow the [plaintiffs] to avoid arbitration with the
[defendants]." Grand Med. Supply, 2012 WL 2577577, at *4 (citing Sokol, 542 F.3d at
361-62). Accordingly, the court does not read Sokol as requiring express consent, only
the appropriate type of close relationship.
The court's conclusion is reinforced by several other aspects of the Sokol
opinion, its progeny, and other cases by the Second Circuit addressing arbitration by
estoppel. First, the quote on which plaintiffs rely comes from the court's summary of its
observations of other cases addressing arbitration by estoppel. In formulating a general
rule to apply to the case before it, the Sokol court stated that "there must be a
relationship among the parties of a nature that justifies a conclusion that the party which
agreed to arbitrate with another entity should be estopped from denying an obligation to
arbitrate a similar dispute with the adversary which is not a party to the arbitration
agreement." Sokol Holdings, 542 F.3d at 359. This is the rule that the Second Circuit
has applied in subsequent cases, not the quote on which plaintiffs focus. See, e.g.,
Ragone v. Atlantic Video at Manhattan Ctr., 595 F.3d 115, 127 (2d Cir. 2010). This is
also the combination of words closest in meaning to the Second Circuit's other
8
formulation of the rule for arbitration by estoppel, which states that there must be a
"close relationship." See, e.g., MAG Portfolio Consultant, 268 F.3d at 62. Second,
plaintiffs cite no case where the court found intertwined issues and a corporate
affiliation, such as an agency relationship, but denied arbitration by estoppel because
plaintiffs did not affirmatively consent to the corporate affiliation. Sokol itself found that
defendants had no relationship to the contract except as a third-party wrongdoer who
tortiously interfered with plaintiffs' rights by wrongfully inducing the other signatory to
breach that contract. Sokol, 542 F.3d at 362; Ross v. Am. Exp. Co., 547 F.3d 137, 145
(2d Cir. 2008) (explaining its decision in
Sako~;
Winter Investors, LLC v. Panzer, 2015
WL 5052563, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2015) (denying arbitration by estoppel where
the only relationship the non-signatory defendant had to the contract was as a thirdparty wrongdoer who tortiously interfered with plaintiffs' rights under that contract).
Here, plaintiffs do not allege defendants tortiously interfered with their rights under the
Deed. For all of these reasons, the court finds plaintiffs' reliance on Sokol misplaced.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss (D.I. 12) is granted.
Defendants' motion to stay discovery pending disposition of defendants' motion to
dismiss (D. I. 17) is denied as moot. Defendants' motion to strike the declarations of
John K. Baldwin and Deborah Deitsch-Perez (D.I. 26) is denied as moot. An
appropriate order shall issue.
9
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?