Oliver v. Crump (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: September 15, 2011

Opinion by: Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander

Held: In a suit alleging breach of fiduciary obligations of directors of a corporation, a Maryland court may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state directors of a Maryland corporation that conducts its business operations in Maryland.

Facts: Defendants were directors, officers and employees of a Maryland corporation. Plaintiff alleged defendants acted in a course of misconduct. All of the defendants reside in Delaware.

Analysis: A court exercising personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants does not violate the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution when the defendants have "minimum contacts" in the state and "the exercise of jurisdiction based on those contacts is constitutionally reasonable." The Court applied the logic of Pittsburgh Terminal Corp. v. Mid Allegheny Corp., 831 F.2d 522 (4th Cir. 1987), which involved a West Virginia corporation and directors who lived in the State of Virginia.

In Pittsburgh Terminal, the Fourth Circuit held "the acceptance of a directorship constitutes minimum contacts in a derivative suit." The Court also found minimum contacts because, among other reasons, (a) Maryland law, like West Virginia law, provides the business and affairs of the corporation shall be managed under the direction of a board of directors, (b) directors participate in business decisions that have a primary effect in the forum state and (c) by becoming directors, the defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of doing business in that state.

Turning to the constitutional reasonableness portion of the due process test, the Court cited Pittsburgh Terminal, which noted the factors of the case made the "assertion of jurisdiction more reasonable." The Court agreed. As in Pittsburgh Terminal, the defendants live in a neighboring state. Maryland has a strong interest in providing a forum to hear a claim alleging wrongful acts by the directors of one of its domestic corporations. And, according to the Court, while defendants receive many benefits of the legal fiction of a corporation, requiring "them in turn to shoulder one of the few burdens of such fiction" did not seem unfair.

The opinion is available in pdf.

Hospitality Partners, LLC v. Brewmasters Hotel, LLC (Mont. Co. Cir. Ct.)

Filed: September 12, 2011
Opinion by Judge Ronald B. Rubin

Held: A defendant cannot attempt to terminate a contract for cause under one termination provision and, upon failing to justify the termination and losing a jury trial, invoke a different termination provision (that it did not comply with) to argue that the plaintiff's "expectation interest" in the contract, and thus its claim for damages, must be limited.

Facts: A hotel management contract had multiple clauses providing for termination, including termination for "no cause" whereby the terminating party would owe only 6 month's notice. The defendant terminated the contract for cause, on the ground that the plaintiff was grossly negligent in performing. The plaintiff sued and won a $2.8 million damages verdict from a jury. The defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that, had it terminated the contract for no cause, it would have owed only six month's notice. The defendant argued that, because it could have terminated for no cause upon six month's notice, the plaintiff's expectation interest in the contract was limited to six month's worth of damages.

Analysis: The court held that the defendant was not entitled to invoke the "no cause" termination clause after attempting, and failing, to terminate the contract pursuant to a different clause. The court distinguished the case from other Maryland cases where a plaintiff's expectation interest was deemed limited to the amount of notice it was entitled to receive before termination of a contract: Cottman v. Maryland Dep't of Natural Res., 51 Md. App. 380 (1982) and Storetrax.com, Inc. v. Gurland, 168 Md. App. 50 (2006).

The court pointed out that the defendant had not invoked or attempted to comply with the requirements of the "no cause" provision. The contract was a complex set of interlocking promises and promised benefits. The parties clearly had the expectation that, absent good faith compliance with the express terms of the available termination provisions, the contract would last ten years. The defendant could have availed itself of the "easy out" of terminating for no cause if it had given notice and paid a small fee. Instead, the defendant chose another path and refused to give notice or pay the fee. After failing to justify its termination, the defendant was not entitled to invoke a different termination provision in order to cap its exposure to damages proven at trial.

The full opinion is available in .pdf.

Hayes v. Autocorp, LLC (Mont. Co. Cir. Ct.)

Filed: July 13, 2011

Opinion by Judge Ronald B. Rubin



Held: A bank that elected to accept rather than contest the improper dishonor of its customer's check and to proceed against the customer for sums "charged back," waived its right to recover against the dishonoring bank after its attempt proved unsuccessful.



Facts: A broker was hired to sell a 1960 Aston Martin DB4 as the agent of its owner. The buyer contacted the broker and agreed to purchase the car for $345,000. The buyer sent two checks to the broker. The broker deposited both checks without endorsement. The broker sent part of the proceeds to the owner, but an officer of the broker stole the rest and absconded.



The buyer's bank began an investigation and determined that the checks were deposited without proper endorsement. The bank returned the check to the broker's bank stamped "Return Reason -- endorsement irregular." The broker's bank debited the broker's account and the amount was credited back to the buyer's bank account. The broker's bank returned a copy of the check to the broker; the original check was destroyed upon processing and replaced with a copy.



After that, the car's owner contacted the buyer and asked him to wire the purchase money directly to the owner. Before proceeding, the buyer wanted to ensure that the broker would not re-deposit the original check. The broker returned to the buyer the copy it had received from its bank.



The buyer then wired the purchase money directly to the owner. He also placed a stop payment on the original check. The owner released the car to the buyer and signed the title over to him.



More then a month later, the broker's bank asserted a late return claim against the buyer's bank and argued that it was entitled to be paid on the check. The claim was made through the Federal Reserve and resulted in an automatic adjustment of accounts, reversing the flow of funds so that the buyer was now without the money. It appeared that the broker's bank's actions were precipitated by the inability to recover the funds from the broker.



The buyer's bank assigned its rights to the buyer, who filed suit against the broker and the broker's bank to recover his money. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment.



Analysis: The court began with the general rule that where there are contesting parties who are relatively blameless, it is necessary to examine the conduct to determine who had more control and which party was in a position to prevent the loss.



Regarding the missing endorsement: the court noted that case law indicates that a bank is not at fault for transferring an item with a missing endorsement if the same transaction of funds would have resulted, regardless of the missing endorsement. Applying this principle, the court concluded that the failure to recognize the lacking endorsement was irrelevant to the question of fault in the case.



Regarding the return of the check to the broker's bank, pursuant to section 4-104(a)(10) of the Commercial Law article, an item is finally paid when the payor bank makes provisional settlement and fails to revoke the settlement in the time and manner permitted by statute, clearing house rule, or agreement. The court found that the buyer's bank violated the rule when it sought to dishonor the check 15 days late under an improper endorsement theory.



The court also found that the buyer's bank violated Federal Reserve protocol by returning the check through the Federal Reserve rather than by dealing directly with the broker's bank.



The court further found, however, that the broker's bank returned the substitute check to the broker, along with a debit advice, and fined the broker a returned check fee. Based upon this, the court concluded that the broker's bank had the opportunity to review the returned check and decide the appropriate next steps. This was critical.



The court concluded that when the broker's bank made the election to collect from its customer, it no longer was entitled to use the copy of the check because it was then "owned" by the broker. Because the strategy elected by the broker's bank was unsuccessful, the court concluded, the bank was no longer entitled to a second bite of the apple against the buyer's bank, nor may it legally do so without title to the check copy. By making the election pursue and debit its customer, the broker's bank waived further claim against the buyer's bank.



On this basis, the court held that the broker's bank had more control and was in a better position to prevent the financial loss. As a result, the court granted summary judgment for the buyer.



The full opinion is available in pdf.

Hovnanian Land v. Annapolis Towne Centre (Ct. of Appeals)

Filed: July 20, 2011
Opinion by Judge Sally D. Adkins

Held: A condition precedent may be waived by a party’s conduct despite a non-waiver clause found in a purchase agreement that requires waiver to be in writing.

Facts: Respondent is the owner and developer of a 33-acre, mixed-use development project. Respondent intended to sell parcels while retaining ownership over a few common parcels that were to be maintained through a collection of an annual Common Area Maintenance (“CAM”) fee from the owners of each parcel.

Respondent entered into a Purchase Agreement with Petitioner for the sale of two parcels where the Petitioner was planning on constructing three residential towers. The Purchase Agreement required the Respondent to establish CAM fees for the Petitioner’s parcels, and provide common area maintenance funding for the other parcels as conditions precedent to the Petitioner completing the purchase, which the Petitioner could enforce or waive. The Purchase Agreement also contained a non-waiver clause that required any waiver to be in writing.

Commencing on May 11, 2006 and continuing until January 2007, Respondent drafted a declaration and a proposed Supplemental Agreement between the parties to handle the CAM fees and the Petitioner had questions on each draft concerning them. Declarations were even recorded on October 30, 2006, December 20, 2006 and January 22, 2007. Prior to the recording of the January 2007 Declaration, Petitioner expressed concerns that there were some changes to the documents agreed upon by the parties that did not appear. Respondent notified Petitioner that it would address its concerns in a Supplement Agreement.

Over the next year, the project proceeded towards closing, and as they approached the original closing date, Petitioner paid $100,000 to extend that date, and soon afterward, Petitioner realized the extent to which the recent housing collapse had reached the markets. Petitioner sought an additional extension and/or a discount from Respondent and the parties could not agree on an acceptable extension deal and throughout these negotiations, Petitioner referenced market difficulties as the major reason for the requests.

On February 1, 2008, Petitioner’s president sent a letter to Respondent asserting that Respondent failed to fulfill the conditions precedent. On March 3, 2008, Respondent responded in a letter asserting that it satisfied the conditions because the Amended Declaration provided for annual assessments through the use of Supplemental Agreements.

Respondent filed a complaint in the Circuit Court seeking a declaratory judgment that Petitioner breached the Purchase Agreement. Petitioner answered, claiming that its obligations were relieved by Respondent’s failure to comply with the terms of the Purchase Agreement.

After both parties moved for summary judgment, the Circuit Court granted Respondent’s motion for summary judgment. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, and in an unreported opinion, the court affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision.

Petitioner then sought certiorari from this Court.

Analysis:

The threshold issue considered by the Court is whether a party can waive a contract right through its actions even if the contract contains a “non-waiver” clause. Relying on Freeman v. Stanbern Const. Co., 205 Md. 71, 106 A.2d 50 (1954), the Court held that oral modifications of a written contract may be established by the preponderance of the evidence even if a contract provides that the contract cannot be varied except through a written agreement by the parties.

The Petitioner argued that there is a distinction between “mutual” waiver and the waiver of a condition precedent. The Court held that there was no distinction and that case law does require mutual knowledge and acceptance, whether implicit or explicit, of the non-conforming action, and that in this case, the alleged waiver was “mutual” in that Respondent drafted and proposed the assertedly non-compliant declaration while Petitioner scrutinized it and provided substantial feedback. The Court added that a condition precedent usually benefits one of the two parties, and the benefited party’s actions will weigh more heavily in those cases.

Based on that analysis, the Court reviewed the Circuit Court’s grant of Respondent’s motion for summary judgment. The Circuit Court, apparently at the suggestion of the parties, resolved the issue on summary judgment, concluding as a matter of law that Hovnanian had waived the condition precedent. Yet, whether subsequent conduct of the parties amounts to a modification or waiver of their contract is generally a question of fact to be decided by the trier of fact. Further, nonwaiver clauses, although not favored by courts, must be considered by the trier of fact. Given the highly factual nature of the waiver inquiry, it is an uncommon case in which the issue can be resolved by summary judgment.

The Court then analyzed the Circuit Court’s decision to grant the Respondent its summary judgment motion. The Circuit Court held that as a matter of law, the Petitioner waived the condition precedent. Relying on University Nat’l Bank v. Wolf, 279 Md. 512 (1977), the Court held that analyzing the subsequent conduct to determine whether a waiver of a contract term has occurred is generally a question of fact to be decided by the trier of fact. In this case, a party must show the intent to waive both the contract provision at issues and the non-waiver clause.

Conclusion

Applying the foregoing rules, the Court reversed the granting of summary judgment and remanded the case to the lower court for the trier of fact to determine whether any party waived any rights.

The full opinion is available in pdf.

Uduak J. Ubom v. SunTrust Bank (Ct. of Special Appeals)

Filed: April 4, 2011
Opinion by Judge Kathryn Grill Graeff

Held: The clear language of an Agreement for a Line of Credit, as a whole, shows that the signature of a managing partner as guarantor was in a personal capacity, resulting in personal liability when the LLC defaulted on its obligations.

Facts: A professional limited liability company that provides legal services obtained a line of credit from a bank. The Managing Partner, the managing attorney and sole owner of the LLC, signed his name twice on the Agreement, once on the signature line for “Applicant” and once on the signature line for “Guarantor.” After both signatures, The Managing Partner included his title of “Managing Partner.” The Managing Partner also completed the personal information listed under the section title “Guarantor Information.” The Bank approved the line of credit.

Almost three years later, the bank filed a Complaint against the LLC and The Managing Partner asserting that the LLC had failed to make scheduled monthly payments due on the account, and requesting that the court grant judgment in its favor against the LLC and The Managing Partner, jointly and severally. The Managing Partner acknowledged that the LLC had defaulted on the Agreement, but argued that he signed the Agreement in his official capacity as Managing Partner, not as a personal guarantor of the loan. The Managing Partner further asserted that the bank representative told him that although he was signing as guarantor on the LLC’s Line of Credit, he could avoid personal liability by not including his name on the page of the Agreement that asked for legal name of guarantor, and by writing his title of “Managing Partner” after his signature on the final page of the Agreement.

The Circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank and against the LLC and The Managing Partner. The Managing Partner appealed.

Analysis: The legal question before the court was whether The Managing Partner signed his name in his capacity as an officer of the corporation or whether it was a personal guaranty. The Court noted that The Managing Partner in arguing that his signature did not create a personal guaranty cited no case law in support of this assertion. However, the Court exercised its discretion to consider The Managing Partner’s claim. The Managing Partner argued that the court should have allowed him to introduce evidence of the statements allegedly made to him by SunTrust’s representative.

Maryland courts adhere to a principle of objective interpretation of contracts, and only when the language of the contract is ambiguous will the court look to extraneous sources for the contract’s meaning. The Court compared the contract in this case to a similar case, L & H Enterprises, Inc. v. Allied Building Prod. Corp, 88 Md. App. 642, where there was a question of whether a guaranty of a corporation’s obligation, signed by a corporate officer, was signed in the officer’s representative or individual capacity. Although the Court in that instance found there was no personal liability because there was intent to only bind the corporation and only one place the corporation’s representatives signed, the Court distinguished that case from the case at hand. Here, there were two signature lines, one for “Applicant,” the law firm, and one for “Guarantor.” The Managing Partner signed his name on both signature lines, including his title after his signature. The court asserted that a corporate officer is not relieved of personal liability by the mere addition of his corporate title to a signature line.

The Managing Partner also completed the personal information under the “Guarantor Information” section of the form. If The Managing Partner had only signed the guaranty in a representative capacity, this would render the guaranty inconsequential; it would add nothing to SunTrust’s security to have the law firm, through its Managing Partner, guaranty an obligation to which the law firm was already bound. The language of the Agreement specifically indentifies the applicant, the LLC, as the entity primarily responsible for the line of credit, and the individual signing as guarantor, as jointly liable for the obligation of the LLC.

Since the language, which is clear and unambiguous, of the Agreement as a whole shows an intent to fix personal liability, parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict the clear terms of the Agreement.

The Court held that the circuit court properly granted bank’s motion for summary judgment against the LLC and the Managing Partner.

The full opinion is available in pdf.

Bradshaw v. Hillco Receivables, LLC (Maryland U.S.D.C.)

Filed: February 23, 2011

Opinion by: Judge Richard D. Bennett

Held: A debt collector violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by violating State law for failing to register as a debt collector. In addition, the unlicensed filing of lawsuits to collect debts purchased from original creditors is violative of the FDCPA. Both questions are issues of first impression in this district and in the Fourth Circuit.

Facts: On June 17, 2009, the creditor (Defendant in the underlying case) filed suit against the debtor in the District Court of Maryland for Frederick County in order to collect a debt that it purchased from the debtor's original creditors after the debt went into default. The debtor then brought a separate class action against the creditor, asserting claims that the creditor acted as a debt collector in the State of Maryland without a license and that the creditor unlawfully filed lawsuits against the debtor and others as part of its debt collection practices. The debtor contends that the creditor, through its actions, violated the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (“MCDCA”), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 14-201 et seq., and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-101 et seq.

Analysis: The creditor acquired the debtor's delinquent account while it was in default, and the creditor is a person who engages directly or indirectly in the business of collecting such consumer claims. According to the Court, the creditor is therefore a "collection agency" within the meaning of the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act, Md. Code Ann., Bus. Reg. § 7-101, et seq. ("MCALA"). In the Court's view, the statutory scheme and its legislative history confirm that the statute is intended to cover not only agents of the original owners of consumer debts but also purchasers of such debt such as the creditor here. Debt purchasers who collect consumer claims through civil litigation are therefore subject to the licensing requirement. The Court found that the creditor violated this requirement when it failed to obtain a collection agency license prior to suing the debtor to collect a debt purchased from the debtor's original creditor. According to the Court, although the creditor's violation of MCALA's licensing requirement does not itself give rise to a private right of action, it may support a cause of action under the FDCPA. The Court specifically declined to hold that any violation of state law, no matter how trivial, constitutes a per se violation of the FDCPA. The FDCPA prohibits the use of any “false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt,” 15 U.S.C. §1692e, and provides a non-exhaustive list of conduct that violates the FDCPA, including “[t]he threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5).

The creditor argued that it was not liable for violating the FDCPA because it did not threaten to take illegal action against the debtor but, rather, merely filed an illegal lawsuit against him. Although noting a split of authority among the circuits, the Court adopted the majority view, holding that the relevant section of the FDCPA prohibits the taking of “action that cannot legally be taken,” as well as the threatening of such action. Furthermore, under the "least sophisticated debtor" standard prevailing in the Fourth Circuit, the Court held that the filing of an illegal collection lawsuit would reasonably be construed by such a debtor as a threat to take illegal action.

The Court also held that the creditor was also not protected by the "bona fide error" defense, namely, that “the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c). The Court held that this defense was not available to the creditor because of the Supreme Court's recent holding in Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 130 S. Ct. 1605, 1608 (2010) that it does not apply to a violation resulting from a debt collector’s mistaken interpretation of the legal requirements of the FDCPA.

For essentially the same reasons as it found the creditor liable for violating the FDCPA, the Court also determined, on summary judgment, that the creditor had violated the MCDCA and the MCPA. Similar in purpose and scope to the FDCPA, the MCDCA states that a “person collecting or attempting to collect an alleged debt arising out of a consumer transaction” may not “[c]laim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a right with knowledge that the right does not exist.” Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 14-201(b) & 14-202(8). The MCPA prohibits “unfair or deceptive trade practices,” Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301, and expressly designates as “unfair or deceptive trade practices” those that constitute any violation of the MCDCA. Each statute provides for a private right of action for its violation. The Court determined that because the creditor was not immunized from its conduct based on a mistake of law (i.e., that it was not required to be licensed under the MCALA), and because the creditor actually violated that law and was reckless as to whether its conduct was proscribed, the knowledge element of the MCDCA was satisfied. For the foregoing reasons, the Court ruled that the debtor was entitled to partial summary judgment, on liability only, on its claims for damages under the FDCPA, the MCDCA, and the MCPA (Counts II, III, and IV).

As a result of Judge Blake's recent opinion in Hauk v. LVNV Funding, LLC, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2010 WL 4395395 (D. Md. Nov. 5, 2010), the Court held that declaratory and injunctive relief was not available to the debtor in the case at bar. The Court therefore found that the creditor was entitled to summary judgment on the debtor's Count I, which sought such relief.

Practice Tip: Judge Bennett specifically noted that the "FDCPA is a strict liability statute and a consumer has only to prove one violation in order to trigger liability." Consumer debt purchasers would therefore be wise to comply fully with this statute and its Maryland counterpart in order to avoid liability to consumers, including those, like the debtor in this case, who do not dispute the validity or amount of the underlying debt.

Related Opinion: In an earlier opinion granting the debtor's motion to strike the creditor's affirmative defenses, Judge Bennett held that the plausibility standard set forth in Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566 U.S.__, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) applies to the pleading of affirmative defenses.

The full opinion is available in pdf..

The George Wasserman and Janice Wasserman Goldsten Family Limited Liability Company v. Kay (Ct. of Special Appeals)

Filed: February 9, 2011

Opinion by Judge James R. Eyler

Held: A claim brought by partners in a general partnership or members of an LLC against a managing partner or managing member will survive a motion to dismiss if they sufficiently allege they suffered harm directly and the managing partner or managing member violated duties owed to the partners or members.

Facts: Plaintiffs are partners in five real estate investment general partnerships and two real estate investment LLCs. Defendants are Mr. Kay, an individual that is the managing member or de facto managing member or partner of the partnerships and LLCs, and Kay Management Company, Inc. and Kay Investment Group, LLC, two entities controlled by Kay. Plaintiffs alleged Defendant took money from the partnerships and LLCs and invested the money with Kay Investment through Kay Management. In turn, Kay Investment invested the money with the Bernard Madoff entities. Plaintiffs brought suit following the Madoff ponzi scheme collapse.

The complaint set forth thirteen counts, including, among others, fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, conversion, civil conspiracy and negligence. The Circuit Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss because none of the claims were individual, the derivative claims involving the partnerships were not agreed to by a majority of the partnership, and the failure to make demand on behalf of the LLCs was unexcused.

Analysis:

After a lengthy discussion of corporations, general partnerships and LLCs, the Court framed the principal issues on appeal as (1) whether Plaintiffs may assert individual claims against Kay and (2) whether Plaintiffs may bring derivative claims on behalf of the partnerships and LLCs against Kay.

(1) Individual Claims

Applying logic from Shenker v. Laureate Education, Inc., which permitted a shareholder to bring a direct action when the shareholder suffers the harm directly or duties owed to the shareholder have been violated, the Court extended the rationale to the law of partnerships and LLCs. The Court then concluded Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged (a) they suffered harm directly and (b) Kay violated duties owed directly to the Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs alleged Kay took funds that were required to have been distributed. He also took funds required to be held in reserve, further injuring Plaintiffs by forcing them to replace the removed reserves.

Under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act, general partners owe each other, not just the partnership, fiduciary duties. Section 9A-405(b) of the RUPA "clearly provides a mechanism through which partners can sue other partners directly for breach of those obligations and others." However, there is no statute in Maryland expressly addressing LLC members' fiduciary duties. The Court, after finding managing members to be "agents for the LLC and each of the members, which is a fiduciary position under common law," again applied rationale from Shenker, to state where no statute precludes or limits fiduciary duties under common law, the underlying duties apply. Accordingly, the Court found Kay's fiduciary duties as the managing partner/member to run to the partnerships, the LLCs, the partners and the members.

(2) Derivative Claims

The Court found the term "derivative" inappropriate in a general partnership context. Derivative actions are necessary in a corporate and limited partnership context because shareholders and limited partners have no management rights. "Unlike shareholders and limited partners, however, general partners all have the ability to act on behalf of the partnership, and all have management rights." Accordingly, no need for a derivative action exists. The Court turned to whether minority general partners can bring claims against other partners. The Court cited many sections of RUPA to conclude all partners have equal ability to enforce rights involving partnership property. While section 9A-405(j) of RUPA requires unanimous consent of all the partners, the Court felt it should be tempered "when non-plaintiff partners have conflicts of interest." Instead, "the unanimity requirement should not apply to defendant partners and other interested partners."

However, based on the facts, the Court found a suit on behalf of the partnerships unnecessary because Plaintiffs adequately alleged an individual direct injury. If Plaintiff's prove the allegations, complete relief will be afforded. The derivative claims on behalf of the LLC were rejected for the same reason.

Note: In discussing fiduciary duties in the LLC context, the Court, citing section 4A-402(a) of the Maryland Limited Liability Company Act, notes that "one Maryland statute governing LLC operating agreements does suggest that provisions within operating agreements could alter existing duties or create other duties..." However, no such provisions were alleged in the case.

The full opinion is available in pdf.