Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Catahama, LLC v. First Commonwealth Bank

October 31, 2011

CATAHAMA, LLC,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
FIRST COMMONWEALTH BANK, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Terrence F. McVerry United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT

Now pending before the Court is DEFENDANT FIRST COMMONWEALTH BANK‟S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) (Document No. 48). Defendant (the "Bank") filed a brief in support of its motion and also submitted numerous exhibits. Plaintiff ("Catahama") filed a brief in opposition to the motion and it is ripe for disposition.

Factual and Procedural Background

As more fully set forth in the Court‟s Memorandum Opinion of June 24, 2011 in a related case (Civil Action No. 10-1140), the Bank foreclosed on its security interest in a state-of-the-art food manufacturing facility and equipment located in Dubois, Pennsylvania (the "Facility") in the summer of 2008 and thereby obtained title. To preserve the value of its collateral, the Bank preferred to keep the Facility occupied and operating. In March-April 2009, after extensive negotiations, the Bank and Fresh Harvest River, LLC ("FHR") entered into a series of agreements, including a mortgage, lines of credit and a temporary lease. FHR continued to possess and operate the Facility while further negotiations ensued. In October 2009, FHR was unable to make a required $2,500,000 down payment because Abramson, the FHR partner who was to supply the money, backed out. This problem coincided with an unforeseen and historic economic downturn that devastated the real estate market, consumer food demand and FHR‟s business prospects. FHR advised the Bank of these developments, and of its plan to locate new investors. The Bank and FHR agreed to adjourn the closing indefinitely. FHR remained in possession of the premises. By January 2010, FHR had reached its credit limit and the Bank advised FHR that it was unwilling to loan additional funds under the lines of credit. FHR advised David Hepler, a senior officer of the Bank, that without additional funding FHR would be forced to discontinue operations.

As pled in the Amended Complaint, in February 2010, Jack Gray of FHR approached Catahama to act as a potential investor. Catahama was willing to provide working capital and to advance funds to fulfill specific purchase orders placed by FHR‟s customers, under certain conditions, including that FHR assign its accounts receivable ("A/R") to Catahama. To accomplish this assignment, FHR‟s invoices would direct the customers to remit payment directly to Catahama. Catahama also expressly conditioned its agreement to advance funds on the Bank‟s forbearance from enforcing any security interest the Bank may have had in the A/R created by Catahama‟s funding of customer orders.

No later than February 2010, Gray informed Hepler that Catahama was a potential funding source and advised the Bank of Catahama‟s conditions. The Bank was aware that without funding, FHR would discontinue operations and the value of the Bank‟s collateral would be reduced. Accordingly, Hepler told Gray "with the knowledge and intent that Mr. Gray would share the information with Catahama" that the Bank agreed to Catahama‟s conditions. On one occasion, Gray introduced Hepler to a then-member of Catahama and Hepler indicated his awareness of Catahama‟s role.

Subsequently, relying on the Bank‟s forbearance representation, Catahama and FHR entered into a written agreement. Between March and September 2010, Catahama loaned $2,162,375.15 to FHR. The Bank took no steps to enforce any security interest it held in the A/R until July 2010.

In May 2010, Catahama began direct negotiations with FHR and the Bank concerning the acquisition of the Facility. On June 3, 2010, Paul McGrath, an attorney representing the Bank, met with Catahama and FHR in Catahama‟s New York offices. During the meeting, and another meeting on June 10, 2010, the Bank, Catahama and FHR discussed Catahama‟s loans to FHR, terms for purchase of the Facility and FHR‟s repayment of the credit lines. The Bank reaffirmed its consent to the financing arrangement between Catahama and FHR. At no point did the Bank announce any intent to renege on its forbearance representation. Unbeknownst to Catahama, the Bank had entered into an agreement to sell the facility to the Kerry Group ("Kerry"), an Irish firm which had engaged FHR to serve as one of its suppliers.

On May 6, 2010 the Bank issued a letter to FHR to give formal notice that the Bank had elected to terminate the lease for non-payment of rent from September 2009 through April 2010. Notwithstanding the letter, FHR remained in possession of the Facility and the Bank and Catahama continued to negotiate a sale of the Facility through at least the end of June 2010. Plaintiff alleges that the Bank never demanded that FHR enter a new lease after the prior lease expired on October 30, 2009 and that no rent was owed. At a meeting on July 6, 2010 Hepler advised Gray that: (1) the Bank had entered into an agreement with Kerry; (2) the Bank‟s termination of the lease as set forth in the May 6 letter was effective; and (3) the Bank‟s claim for unpaid rent was effective. FHR was instructed to vacate the Facility.

Shortly after this meeting, Catahama determined that it would cure any alleged default claimed by the Bank against FHR. At Catahama‟s request, FHR contacted the Bank to confirm where payment of the rent arrearages should be directed. The Bank identified a specific account. Catahama wired $575,000 into the account specified by the Bank. Catahama intended the payment to cover the purported rent default and sent excess funds to cover future purported rent. The wire transfer was directed to the attention of Hepler. The Bank knew that Catahama was the source of the funds and that Catahama intended the funds to cure the arrearage in rent payments when it accepted the funds. On a July 30, 2010 "earnings call" with stock analysts, the Bank‟s Chief Financial Officer reported that the funds were rental income generated by a tenant of the Facility. Three days later, in litigation before the Honorable Paul Cherry, the Bank took a contrary position and represented that there was no cure option under the lease and that it had applied the funds to FHR‟s lines of credit.

In late July 2010, the Bank issued letters and telephonic demands to FHR customers, to demand that they pay directly to the Bank all A/R due to FHR. FHR could not have generated these receivables but for Catahama‟s agreement to fund FHR‟s operations and finance the filling of customer orders. By interfering with the payments to Catahama, the Bank was attempting to obtain a windfall from funds which only existed because of Catahama‟s loans to FHR.

This case was filed by Catahama on its own behalf.*fn1 The case was originally filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and was transferred to this Court in May 2011. On June 20, 2011 the Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss the original complaint (Document No. 40). This motion was rendered moot by the filing of a new three-count Amended Complaint by Catahama. In Count 1, Catahama seeks a declaration that: (1) Catahama is entitled to receive payment from FHR‟s customers where the invoices state that payment be made to Catahama; and (2) the Bank has no right to receive payment of A/R that were generated from advances made by Catahama to FHR. In Count 2, Catahama asserts a claim for unjust enrichment. In Count 3, Catahama asserts a violation of 13 Pa.C.S.A. § 4A205, on the theory that Catahama made a mistake of fact by erroneously instructing a payment of funds to the wrong account. The Bank seeks to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety.

Standard of Review

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the complaint filed by Plaintiff. The United States Supreme Court has held that "[a] plaintiff‟s obligation to provide the "grounds‟ of his "entitle[ment] to relief‟ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.