You are on page 1of 45

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 1 of 45

Desc Main

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________
:
:
:
ETFF CORPORATION, et al.
:
:
Debtors
:
____________________________________:
:
MorrisAnderson, Ltd., in its capacity
:
as Trustee of the Plan Trust of
:
ETFF Corporation, et al.
:
:
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
:
:
WELLSOURCE FACILITIES
:
HOLDING, LLC f/k/a CARLISLE
:
ADVISORS, LLC,
:
:
RALPH W. BRIGGS,
:
:
WILLIAM R. NOJAY, ESQUIRE,
:
:
GARY S. OHLBAUM,
:
:
and
:
:
NOURICAN PORTFOLIO I LLC
:
:
Defendants
:
____________________________________:
In re:

CHAPTER 11
BANKRUPTCY NOS. 12-19430(MDC)
and 12-19431(MDC)
(Jointly Administered)

ADVERSARY NO. 14-

COMPLAINT

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 105(a), 363 and 510(c) and Rule 7001 of the Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, MORRISANDERSON, LTD., in its capacity as Trustee of
the Plan Trust of ETFF Corporation, et al. (the Trustee and at times, the Plaintiff), by
and through its counsel, Gellert Scali Busenkell & Brown, LLC, hereby bring this Complaint

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 2 of 45

Desc Main

against WELLSOURCE FACILITIES HOLDING, LLC f/k/a CARLISLE ADVISORS, LLC


(Wellsource); RALPH W. BRIGGS (Mr. Briggs); WILLIAM R. NOJAY, ESQUIRE
(Mr. Nojay); GARY S. OHLBAUM (Mr. Ohlbaum); and NOURICAN PORTFOLIO I
LLC (Nourican, collectively with Wellsource and Messrs. Briggs, Nojay and Ohlbaum, the
Defendants), and in support thereof, respectfully aver as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

This is an adversary proceeding commenced by the Debtors, pursuant to 11

U.S.C. 105(a), 363 and 510(c) (the Bankruptcy Code) and Rule 7001 of the Federal Rules
of Bankruptcy Procedure (the Bankruptcy Rules).
2.

This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(1) and 1334(b) and (e), and this matter arises in, under,
and is related to a pending bankruptcy case. This adversary proceeding is a core proceeding
under 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (D), (M), (N) and (O).
3.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1408 and 1409.

THE PARTIES

4.

Debtor, ETFF Corporation (ETFF), was a Pennsylvania business corporation

with its principal offices located at 2260 Erin Court, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601-1965. Its
predecessor corporation, Pennfield, was founded in the spring of 1919. Over the years, the
company flourished and grew from a small grist-type feed mill into a diversified, multi-state
business.
5.

Debtor, the ETFF Transport Company (the Affiliated Debtor), was a

Pennsylvania business corporation with its corporate offices located at 2260 Erin Court,
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601-1965. ETFF is the sole owner of one hundred (100%) percent
2

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 3 of 45

Desc Main

of the equity interests in the Affiliated Debtor. The Affiliated Debtor entity was formed for the
sole purpose to own the tractors and trailers that are used in the distribution of feed for ETFF.
6.

Plaintiff, the ETFF Plan Trustee, is the trustee of the ETFF Plan Trust which

was vested with title to all claims and causes of action previously held by the Debtor and
Affiliated Debtor by the terms of the Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation Proposed by Debtorsin-Possession, dated June 13, 2014 (the Plan) and the order confirming the Plan (the
Confirmation Order) entered June 18, 2014. See Penn, Docket Entries No. 929 and 941. 1
7.

Defendant, Wellsource, is a Pennsylvania limited liability company with a

registered office located at 7 East Harmon Drive, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17015-7649. Upon
information and belief, Carlisle Advisors, LLC, was created on March 1, 2012, and has been
operating as Wellsource since December 2012.
8.

Defendant, Mr. Briggs is the managing director and president of Wellsource.

Upon information and belief, Mr. Briggs home address is located at 7 East Harmon Drive,
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17015-7649. Upon information and belief, Mr. Briggs holds a fortyfive percent interest in Wellsource.
9.

Defendant, Mr. Nojay is an attorney formerly with the firm of Hiscock &

Barclay, LLP, in Rochester, New York. In addition, Mr. Nojay is a partner of Mr. Briggs in
Wellsource. Upon information and belief, Mr. Nojays home address is located at 37 Wood
Stone Rise, Pittsford, New York 14534-3668. Upon information and belief, Mr. Nojay holds a
forty percent interest in Wellsource.
10.

Defendant, Mr. Ohlbaum is a managing member and agent of Nourican. Upon

information and belief, Mr. Ohlbaums home address is located at 15 Avery Road 15,
The record will be referred to herein by Pennfields bankruptcy case docket number as Penn. Docket Entry
No[s]. ___ and/or the Affiliates bankruptcy case docket number as PTC Docket Entry No[s]. ___.
1

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 4 of 45

Desc Main

Bloomfield, Connecticut 06002-4318.


11.

Defendant, Nourican, is a foreign limited liability company with registered

offices located at 12 Crossroads Plaza, West Hartford, Connecticut 06137 and 160 Greentree
Drive Suite 101, Dover, Delaware 19904.

BACKGROUND
A.

The Debtors Chapter 11 Cases

12.

On October 3, 2012 (the Petition Date), ETFF and the Affiliated Debtor filed

separate Voluntary Petitions for Relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. See, Penn. Docket Entry No. 1; PTC Docket Entry No. 1.
13.

Since the Petition Date, the Debtors have continued in possession and

management of their business and property in accordance with 11 U.S.C. 1107(a) and 1108.
14.

Among the first day motions filed by the Debtors was a Motion for the entry

of an Order directing the joint administration of the Debtors Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases
pursuant to Rule 1015(b) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. See, Penn. Docket
Entry No. 7. Thereafter, in an Order dated October 10, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court granted the
Debtors joint administration requests. See, Penn. Docket Entry No. 70.
15.

No Trustee or Bankruptcy Examiner has been appointed in these Chapter 11

bankruptcy cases pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 1104(a) or (c).


16.

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 1102(a)(1), an official committee of unsecured creditors

has been appointed by the United States Trustee. See, Penn. Docket Entry No. 104.
17.

On June 18, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court signed an Order approving the

Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation. See Penn. Docket Entry No. 941.
4

Case 14-00507-mdc

18.

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 5 of 45

Desc Main

On July 3, 2014, the Effective Date of the Plan occurred. See Penn. Docket

Entry No. 961. On the Effective Date, pursuant to the Plan, the Trustee was appointed. The
Trustee was granted the right under the Plan to pursue any avoidance claims or causes of action
that accrued to or were assertable by the Debtors.

B.

The Business Operations of the Debtors

19.

ETFF was a regional manufacturer of bulk and bagged feeds for dairy, equine

and other commercial and backyard livestock (the Feed Business). See, Declaration of
Arnold Sumner, at 14, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and
made a part hereof. Approximately seventy-five (75%) percent of the tons of feed that were
sold in 2011 were to the dairy sector. Id. ETFF owned and operated three (3) production mills
located in Mount Joy, Martinsburg and South Montrose, Pennsylvania. Id.
20.

These mills produced 194,000 tons of feed in 2011. See, Exhibit 1, at 14. The

strategy of ETFF was to produce complete and concentrate feeds for the animals of the
customers that they service. Id., at 17. ETFF formulates the feeds to meet the specific
nutritional needs of the animals in the different segments of their life cycle and/or milking
cycle. Id. ETFF delivers the feed directly to the farms of the customers or to the feed dealers.
Id. The feed was delivered in bulk or in bags, depending on the needs of each client. Id.

C.

The Events Leading to Bankruptcy

21.

ETFFs unstable financial situation was due, among other reasons, to a

combination of long-term industry trends, short-term commodity volatility, and substantial

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 6 of 45

Desc Main

outstanding liabilities. See, Exhibit 1, at 39. The dairy industry in Pennsylvania has been
slowly contracting as consumption declines and herd productivity increases. Id.
22.

During the current contraction which began in 2007, combined with the loss of

several important customers, ETFFs dairy volume declined and the company began a strategic
review of its business assets, which culminated in the sale of its foodservice assets in April
2011 and the Hempfield feed mill in April 2012. See, Exhibit 1, at 40.
23.

ETFF implemented a plan in mid-2010 which included various cost reduction

strategies including a reduction in wages and personnel, reductions in marketing expenses,


elimination of the 401(k) match as well as leveraging ETFFs logistics operations to reduce
costs and gain market share. See, Exhibit 1, at 41.
24.

Furthermore, during the first half of 2012, ETFF implemented another cost

reduction plan, which included cutting corporate staff and closing the ETFFs truck repair and
maintenance facility at Mount Joy. See, Exhibit 1, at 42.
25.

ETFFs financial position continued to deteriorate in June and July of 2012 as

commodity prices rapidly increased due to the drought in the Midwest, milk price declines, and
ETFFs input prices rose accordingly. See, Exhibit 1, at 43. The combination of lower
volume, rising input costs, and lower milk prices placed additional strain on ETFFs cash
management and its accounts payable continued to increase. Id.

D.

The Factors Leading to the Sale of the Business

26.

In June 2012, the Debtors began a strategic review of their operations and

considered a variety of strategic options to maximize value through strategic business


initiatives, capital restructurings and/or asset dispositions involving all or part of the Feed
Business. See, Exhibit 1, at 44. Facing declining liquidity, in July 2012, the Debtors decided
6

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 7 of 45

Desc Main

to explore opportunities to sell the Feed Business as a whole or by individual mill or mill
combination. Id.
27.

To assist in that task, the Debtors used the services of Lakeshore Food

Advisors, LLC (Lakeshore), in order to simultaneously pursue debt refinancing and to


manage the sales process for the Feed Business, both as a whole and in parts, to prospective
buyers. See, Exhibit 1, at 44. See also, Certification of Mary Burke, at 4, a true and correct
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and made a part hereof. Thereafter, Lakeshore
worked with the Debtors to develop a Confidential Information Memorandum (CIM) to
market the Business to potential lenders/buyers. See, Exhibit 2, at 5.
28.

In seeking potential buyers for the Feed Business, Lakeshore initially identified

twenty-three (23) parties based on those companies strategic fit and financial characteristics
and contacted those parties to solicit interest in purchasing part or all of the Feed Business.
See, Exhibit 1, at 45. See also, Exhibit 2, at 7. Of those 23 contacted parties, more than
nine (9) potential buyers executed confidentiality agreements and received business and
financial information regarding the Feed Business and performance of the individual mills.
See, Exhibit 1, at 45. See also, Exhibit 2, at 8.
29.

Following the receipt of initial letters of intent, the Debtors invited five (5)

potential buyers to management presentations between August 29, 2012 and September 4,
2012. See, Exhibit 1, at 45. See also, Exhibit 2, at 9. Four (4) of those potential buyers
were also given access to due diligence materials in a data room created by Lakeshore and
were provided with a draft asset purchase agreement. See, Exhibit 1, at 45. See also, Exhibit
2, at 10. The data room contained substantially all of the materials related to the Debtors
business units necessary for those potential buyers to determine their ongoing interest in the
Feed Business. See, Exhibit 1, at 45.
7

Case 14-00507-mdc

30.

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 8 of 45

Desc Main

The Debtors, with the assistance of Lakeshore, continued to provide for the

organized and efficient transmission of the data related to the Feed Business to those interested
parties. See, Exhibit 1, at 46. Additionally, the Debtors coordinated various site visits to the
Debtors' offices and mills. Id. See also, Exhibit 2, at 11. All in all, these prospective bidders
have had extensive access to diligence materials and have assembled teams of business, legal
and financial advisors to properly assist them in determining their bids.
31.

After several weeks of continuing diligence and marketing efforts, the Debtors

instructed prospective bidders to submit their final proposals no later than September 20, 2012,
which proposals were to include a mark-up of a form purchase agreement prepared by the
Debtors. See, Exhibit 1, at 47. See also, Exhibit 2, at 11. Two potential buyers submitted
marked-up asset purchase agreements for the purchase of all of the Feed Business and four
potential buyers submitted letters of intent for the purchase of an individual mill or mill
combination. See, Exhibit 1, at 47. See also, Exhibit 2, at 12.
32.

The Debtors, in conjunction with Lakeshore, evaluated the terms and benefits of

each proposal, as well as the benefits of other alternatives. See, Exhibit 1, at 48. See also,
Exhibit 2, at 13. In addition to the financial terms of each proposal, the Debtors also
evaluated other factors including, but not limited to: (1) any conditions placed on the purchase
of the Feed Business (or portion thereof), such as due diligence contingencies; (2) the financial
wherewithal of the prospective buyer; (3) the proportion of the Feed Business to be purchased;
(4) the willingness of the prospective buyer to assume the Debtors obligations under its
Customer Programs; and (5) the continued employment of the Debtors employees. See,
Exhibit 1, at 48. See also, Exhibit 2, at 14.
33.

Based upon these evaluations, the Debtors, in their business judgment,

concluded that the marked-up asset purchase agreement submitted by Wellsource offered
8

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 9 of 45

Desc Main

advantageous terms and significant economic benefit to the Debtors with respect to the sale of
the Debtors' assets. See, Exhibit 1, at 49. See also, Exhibit 2, at 17. Thus, on September
22, 2012, Lakeshore approached Wellsource regarding the possibility of pursuing a sale
transaction through a bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 363. See, Exhibit 2, at 15.
34.

Wellsource indicated to Ms. Burke and the Debtors that the financing necessary

to consummate the sale would be received from Mr. Ohlbaum and Nourican.
35.

Consequently, at a meeting held on September 28, 2012, the Debtors Board of

Directors authorized management to finalize negotiations with Wellsource as a Stalking


Horse Bidder, to finalize negotiations on a DIP Loan, and to file for Chapter 11 protection of
the Debtors assets while continuing to market and engage other interested buyers for the sale
of the assets under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. See, Exhibit 2, at 16.

E.

Wellsource and Nourican


36.

After ascertaining that Pennfield was for sale and while the solicitation process

was continuing, Mr. Briggs contacted Mr. Nojay and convinced him that the Feed Business
was a proper target for acquisition.
37.

Upon information and belief, in September 2012, Mr. Briggs and Mr. Nojay

contacted Mr. Ohlbaum and met with him in New York City. Wellsource, its principals and
Mr. Ohlbaum soon thereafter entered into an agreement whereby Mr. Ohlbaum would create
Nourican and fund it with $217 million, of which $88 million would go to Wellsource to fund
the acquisition of several feed businesses, including, specifically, Wellsource (the Nourican
Agreement).
38.

Although Mr. Ohlbaum was aware of the Wellsource Agreement, as defined

below, and that Wellsource and its principals were relying on funds provided under the
9

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 10 of 45

Desc Main

Nourican Agremeement to consummate the same, none of the expected $88 million was
funded.

F.

The Sale Motion

39.

Based on the pre-petition solicitation process, on the date these Chapter 11

bankruptcy cases were filed, the Debtors entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with
Wellsource for the sale of the Feed Business (the Wellsource Agreement). A true and
correct copy of the Wellsource Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and made a part
hereof.
40.

Accordingly, on October 5, 2012, the Debtors submitted a pleading styled

Motion for Orders pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 105(a), 363, 365 and 1146(c) and Fed. R. Bankr.
P. 2002, 6004, 6006 and 9014 (I) Approving Bidding Procedures and Break-Up Fee, (B) the
Form and Manner of Sale Notices and (II) Authorizing and Approving (A) the Sale of the
Debtors Interests in its Business and Mills and Associated Real Estate, Machinery,
Equipment, Fixtures and Personal Property Free and Clear of Liens, Claims and
Encumbrances, (B) the Assumption and Assignment of Certain Executory Contracts and
Unexpired Leases and (C) the Assumption of Certain Liabilities, (D) Granting Related relief
and Request for an Expedited Hearing, Limited Notice and Reduced Noticed Period (the
Sale Motion) with accompanying Exhibits. See, Penn. Docket Entry No. 58, 127, 147-51.
41.

Accompanying Exhibit A to the Sale Motion consisted of the proposed

Bidding Procedures to be employed with respect to the proposed sale of the Feed Business.
See, Penn. Docket Entry Nos. 58 and 147. Specifically, the proposed Bidding Procedures
described, inter alia, the assets available for sale, the manner in which bidders and bids became
qualified, the coordination of diligence efforts among bidders, the receipt and negotiation of
10

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 11 of 45

Desc Main

bids received, the conduct of any subsequent auction, the ultimate selection of the successful
bidder(s) and the Courts approval thereof. See, Penn. Docket Entry No. 147.
42.

Accompanying Exhibit B to the sale Motion consisted of the Wellsource

Agreement between the Debtors and Wellsource. See, Exhibit 3. See also, Penn. Docket Entry
Nos. 58 and 127. Pursuant to the Wellsource Agreement, (a) the Debtors were to (i) sell the
assets used in the [Feed] Business, free and clear of all liens, claims, interests and
encumbrances and (ii) assume and assign the certain executory contracts and leases to the
purchaser and (b) the purchaser was to assume the Assumed Liabilities of the Debtors. See,
Exhibit 3, at pp. 1-4. The salient terms of the Wellsource Agreement are as follows:
Purchase Price. The Purchase Price for the assets shall be $15,600,000 minus
the Adjustments. Adjustments are (i) liabilities for Acquired Leases
relating to rolling stock, information technology, phone systems and computer
leases scheduled to expire on November 1, 2012; (ii) value of all inventory
which is not good, saleable condition, and payables tied to inventory (other than
customer prepayments or deposits to purchase feed in the Feed Business); (iii)
the amount that is equal to 15% of the accounts receivable arising out of the
operation of the Feed Business and listed on Schedule 1.1(g), and (iv) all
accounts payable attributable to acquired inventory. The purchaser is also
assuming certain liabilities as detailed in section 1.3 of the Agreement
including, but not limited to (a) all liabilities of seller for obligations relating to
the Grain Bank incurred in the Grain Business, up to a maximum of
$1,500,000 and (b) all liabilities relating to customer prepayments or deposits to
purchase feed in the Feed Business, up to a maximum amount of $600,000.
Assets Included. The proposed sale will include all the Debtors right, title and
interest in the assets except for the Excluded Assets.
Assumed Liabilities. The purchaser shall assume those liabilities relating to the
ownership, possession or use of the assets and the liabilities in connection with
the customer programs (related to the grain account program and customer
prepayments and deposits) including all of the obligations and liabilities arising
under the assumed contracts.
Closing. The closing shall occur immediately following the latest to occur of:
(i) approval of the proposed sale by the Bankruptcy Court; and (iii) as soon as
reasonably practicable after the conditions set forth in Article VIII of the
Agreement have been satisfied.

11

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 12 of 45

Desc Main

Conditions to Closing. The Agreement is subject to approval by the Bankruptcy


Court and additional competitive bidding pursuant to the proposed Bidding
Procedures.
Representations and Warranties.
representations and warranties.

The

Agreement

contains

standard

See, Exhibit 3, at pp. 2-4, 6-12 and 15-16. See also, Penn. Docket Entry No. 58.
43.

In an Order dated October 22, 2012 (the Procedures Order), the Bankruptcy

Court, inter alia, (i) approved the proposed Bidding Procedures proposed by the Debtors, (ii)
allowed a break-up fee in the amount of $400,000 to be paid to Wellsource in the event that a
higher and better bid was presented and accepted by the Debtors, and (iii) authorized the
Debtors to solicit bids for the sale of the Feed Business. See, Docket Entry No. 159. In
addition, the Procedures Order scheduled a hearing for November 28, 2012, to approve the
Debtors sale of the Feed Business to the successful bidder (the Sale Hearing). Id.
44.

Thereafter, Lakeshore spoke with additional interested parties regarding the 11

U.S.C. 363 sale process, and reengaged previously contacted parties to determine if there was
any renewed interest in submitting a bid to purchase the Feed Business of the Debtors. See,
Exhibit 2, at 18. Lakeshore also reached out via telephone and/or e-mails to fifty-nine (59)
additional strategic and financial parties. Id., at 19. At the same time, advertisements of the
sale auction were published in the Wall Street Journal Eastern distribution on October 29,
2012, and the October 29, 2012 issue of Feedstuffs Magazine. Id., at 19.
45.

Pursuant to the Procedures Order entered by the Bankruptcy Court, the Bid

Deadline to submit bids was November 19, 2012. See, Penn. Docket Entry No. 159. See also,
Certification of Arnold Sumner, at 6, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit 4 and made a part hereof. Bids were initially submitted by other potential buyers, but
those bids were subsequently withdrawn and thus, no bid other than the one made by

12

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 13 of 45

Desc Main

Wellsource was received by the Debtors by the requisite Bid Deadline date. See, e.g., Hearing
Transcript of November 28, 2012, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit 5 and made a part hereof, at p. 11. See also, Exhibit 2, at 22; Exhibit 4, at 6.
46.

Wellsources bid was bolstered by a letter dated November 16, 2012 signed by

Mr. Ohlbaum which indicated that the full closing amount of $15,600,000 was on deposit at
Citibank, N.A. in New York, and a commitment for a financial guarantee from Vital Funds,
Inc. dated October 16, 2012 and provided by Mr. Ohlbaum.
47.

Accordingly, on November 21, 2012, the Debtors filed a Notice with the

Bankruptcy Court of the bid results indicating, inter alia, that the Debtors intended to proceed
with the sale of the Feed Business pursuant to the terms of the Wellsource Agreement. See,
Exhibit 4, at 6. See also, Penn. Docket Entry No. 216.

G.

The Sale Order

48.

At the Sale Hearing before the Bankruptcy Court on November 28, 2012,

testimony was adduced from (i) Ms. Mary Burke, Lakeshores principal; (ii) Mr. Arnold
Sumner, the president and chief executive officer of the Debtors; and (iii) Mr. Briggs, the
substantial majority owner of Wellsource. See, Exhibit 5.
49.

In his testimony, Mr. Briggs indicated that Wellsource was prepared in every

way to close on the purchase of the Feed Business under the terms of the Wellsource
Agreement as early as December 5, 2012 and that there was no reason why Wellsource would
not close on the agreed upon transaction. See, Exhibit 5, at pp. 20 and 22-23.
50.

In addition, Mr. Briggs testimony also indicated that Wellsource had

sufficient funds to close on the purchase of the Feed Business and that there was no going
back on that obligation. See, Exhibit 5, at pp. 24-25.
13

Case 14-00507-mdc

51.

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 14 of 45

Desc Main

This being so, in an Order dated November 28, 2012 (the Sale Order), the

Bankruptcy Court, inter alia, approved and authorized the Wellsource Agreement. A true and
correct copy of the Sale Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 6 and made a part hereof.
52.

Pursuant to the Sale Order, the Debtors were authorized and empowered by the

Bankruptcy Court to accept Wellsources offer upon such terms and conditions as were set
forth within the Wellsource Agreement and the record compiled at the Sale Hearing on
November 28, 2012. See, Exhibit 6, at pp. 5, 7, 10, 17, 19-20. See also, Exhibit 5.
53.

Pursuant to the Sale Order, the Debtors were also authorized and empowered by

the Bankruptcy Court to execute any and all documents necessary to effectuate the sale agreed
upon within the Wellsource Agreement and to take all other actions as may be necessary to
release its liens on or claims against the Feed Business. See, Exhibit 6, at pp. 19-20.

H.

The Closing on the Transfer of the Purchased Assets

54.

After the entry of the Sale Order by the Bankruptcy Court on November 28,

2012, Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs, delayed the initially scheduled closing date
on the purchase of the Feed Business of the Debtors to December 14, 2012.
55.

On December 14, 2012, closing commenced and all the documents necessary to

transfer the Feed Business from the Debtors to Wellsource pursuant to the Wellsource
Agreement were fully executed and delivered (collectively, the Transfer Documents).
56.

This being so, the sole condition remaining to conclude the closing was

Wellsource advancing the Funds Needed to Close (as hereinafter defined).


57.

During the course of the closing, Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs,

advised counsel for the Debtors, Aris J. Karalis, Esquire, that it was unable to deliver the cash
due from it in the amount of $13,523,488.17 (the Funds Needed To Close) as indicated on
14

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 15 of 45

Desc Main

the HUD-1 (cash from Borrower (Item 301) of the Master HUD-1) in order to conclude the
closing. A true and correct copy of the Master HUD-1 with attachments is attached hereto as
Exhibit 7 and made a part hereof.
58.

As a result, it was agreed on the evening of December 14, 2012, that Wellsource

would have until 12:00 P.M., Eastern Time, on December 18, 2012 (the Initial Deadline) to
wire the Funds Needed to Close to the Land Transfer Company (the Title Company).
59.

Pursuant to the closing document escrow dated December 14, 2012, the parties

agreed that the Title Company would hold all the Transfer Documents as escrow agent until it
received the Funds Needed To Close, so that it could make the disbursements on the HUD-1s
and release the Transfer Documents.

Otherwise, the Title Company was to destroy the

Transfer Documents.
60.

Approximately a half-hour before the Initial Deadline, Wellsource and/or its

principal, Mr. Briggs, advised the Debtors counsel that the Funds Needed to Close had been
wired to CitiBank and Wellsource would provide written notification to the Debtors counsel
that the wire was sent and, based on this additional information, Wellsource and/or Mr. Briggs
requested that the Debtors extend the Initial Deadline to 4:00 P.M., Eastern Time, on
December 18, 2012 (the Second Deadline) to avoid the Transfer Documents being destroyed.
61.

Based on these representations from Wellsource, Mr. Briggs and Mr. Ohlbaum,

and additional conditions imposed by the Debtors, the Debtors agreed to the Second Deadline.
62.

Despite repeated representations that the Funds Needed to Close would arrive

before the Second Deadline, the funds were not received and Wellsource defaulted on its
obligations by failing to timely consummate the closing under the terms and conditions set
forth within the Wellsource Agreement approved and authorized by the Sale Order.

15

Case 14-00507-mdc

I.

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 16 of 45

Desc Main

The DIP Financing Orders

63.

On October 4, 2012, the Debtors submitted a pleading styled Motion of

Debtors for Entry of Interim and Final Orders (I) Authorizing Debtors to Obtain Secured
Postpetition Financing pursuant to 105, 361, and 364(c) of the Bankruptcy Code and
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4001; (II) Scheduling an Interim Hearing and
Prescribing Form and Manner of Notice for the Final Hearing, and (III) Granting Related
Relief (the DIP Financing Motion). See, Penn. Docket Entry No. 24.
64.

As reflected in the DIP Financing Motion, in addition to entering into an asset

purchase agreement with the Debtors, Wellsource also agreed to provide the Debtors with $2
million ($2,000,000) of post-petition financing under a secured debtor-in-possession (DIP)
term loan facility. See, Penn. Docket Entry No. 24, DIP Financing Motion, at 19 and 21.
See also, Exhibit 1, at 49, 51, 81 and 84; Exhibit 5, at pp. 21-22.
65.

This being so, in an Order dated October 10, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court

granted the relief requested in the DIP Financing Motion and authorized the Debtors to obtain
post-petition financing in the amount of $2 million ($2,000,000) from Wellsource pursuant to
the terms of a secured DIP term loan facility dated October 3, 2012 (hereinafter, the DIP
Financing Facility) on an interim basis (the Interim Order). A true and correct copy of the
Interim Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 8 and made a part hereof.
66.

Thereafter, on November 8, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court entered a final order

(the Final Order) authorizing the Debtors to enter into and perform under the DIP Financing
Facility and to borrow under that Facility the aggregate principal amount of $2 million
($2,000,000) for the purposes set forth in the budget attached to the Final Order (the

16

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 17 of 45

Desc Main

Budget). True and correct copies of the Final Order and the DIP Financing Facility are
attached hereto as Exhibits 9 and 10, respectively, and made a part hereof.
67.

Despite repeated requests from the Debtors, Wellsource as the DIP lender

defaulted on its obligations by failing to make the remaining advances to the Debtors set forth
in the Budget, including the advance of the full balance of the $2 million ($2,000,000) under
the DIP Financing Facility, approved by the Interim and Final Orders entered by the Court.

J.

The Notice of Default

68.

As put forth in this Complaint, Wellsource is in default under the Wellsource

Agreement and the Sale Order. See, 30-33 , 39, 43, 45-60, supra. See also, Exhibit 3;
Exhibit 5, at pp. 20, 22-23 and 24-25; Exhibit 6; Exhibit 7.
69.

As put forth in this Complaint, Wellsource is also in default of the DIP Facility,

the Interim Order and the Final Order. See, 61-65, supra. See also, Exhibit 1, at 49, 51,
81 and 84; Exhibit 5, at pp. 21-22; Penn. Docket Entry Nos. 24, 89 and 191.
70.

Accordingly, on December 19, 2012, the Debtors served Wellsource with a

notice of default (the Default Notice) under the Wellsource Agreement, the Sale Order, the
DIP Facility, the Interim Order and the Final Order. A true and correct copy of the Default
Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit 11 and made a part hereof.
K.

Events Subsequent to the Default


71.

Following Wellsources default, the Debtors restarted the sales process. On

December 28, 2012 the Debtors entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Cargill,
Incorporated to purchase a portion of the Feed Business for a purchase price of $8,500,000
(Cargill Sale).

17

Case 14-00507-mdc

72.

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 18 of 45

Desc Main

Debtors filed a motion for approval of the Cargill Sale on December 28, 2012

and an order approving the same was granted on January 18, 2013. See, Penn Docket Entries
No. 290 & 337. The Cargill Sale was consummated.
73.

The Debtors and professionals employed by the Debtors expended

significant time and resources in arranging and consummating the Cargill Sale.
74.

On January 17, 2013, the Debtors entered into an agreement with John J.

Hoober, Inc. for a second portion of the assets which the Defendants were to have purchased
(Hoober Sale) at a price of $105,000.00. The Hoober Sale was approved and consummated.
See, Penn Docket Entries No. 345 & 347.
75.

The Debtors and professionals employed by the Debtors expended significant

time and resources in arranging and consummating the Hoober Sale.


76.

A final portion of the Feed Business as sold to K&M Ag, LLC pursuant to an

agreement dated January 17, 2013 and approved by the Court on January 28, 2013 (K&M
Sale). See, Penn Docket Entries No. 362 & 370. The sales price was $245,000.
77.

The Debtors and professionals employed by the Debtors expended significant

time and resources in arranging and consummating the K&M Sale.

COUNT I
THE TRUSTEE v. DEFENDANTS WELLSOURCE, MR. BRIGGS
AND MR. NOJAY
PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL

78.

The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 75 above are incorporated

herein, as if fully set forth at length.

18

Case 14-00507-mdc

79.

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 19 of 45

Desc Main

In Pennsylvania, a corporation is normally regarded as a legal entity separate

and distinct from its shareholders and thus, there is a strong presumption . . . against piercing
the corporate veil. See, Deron v. SG Printing, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125196, at *27*28 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 4, 2012) quoting Ashley v. Ashley, 482 Pa. 228, 237, 393 A.2d 637, 641
(1978) citing in turn Barium Steel Corp. v. Wiley, 379 Pa. 38, 47, 108 A.2d 336, 341 (1954).
The same presumption applies for members of a limited liability company. See, In re Kitchin,
445 B.R. 472, 481 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2010). See also, Comment to 15 Pa. C.S.A. 8904(b).
80.

At the same time, whenever one in control of a corporate entity uses that

control, or uses the corporate assets, to further his or her own personal interests, the fiction of
the separate corporate identity may properly be disregarded and the corporate veil of that
entity may be effectively pierced. See, Morelia Consultants, LLC v. RCMP Enters., LLC,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101793, at *24 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2011) quoting Ashley, supra, 482 Pa.
at 237, 393 A.2d at 641 citing in turn College Watercolor Group, Inc. v. William H. Newbauer,
Inc., 468 Pa. 103, 117, 360 A.2d 200, 207 (1976).
81.

There is no clear test or well-settled rule in Pennsylvania regarding when a

Court may pierce the corporate veil.

Nonetheless, the Third Circuit has set out a non-

exhaustive list of factors to determine whether it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil:
. . . gross undercapitalization, failure to observe corporate formalities,
nonpayment of dividends, insolvency of debtor corporation, siphoning of
funds from the debtor corporation by the dominant stockholder,
nonfunctioning of officers and directors, absence of corporate records, and
whether the corporation is merely a facade for the operations of the
dominant stockholder . . .
See, ASD Specialty Healthcare Inc. v. New Life Home Care Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
136819, at *10-*11 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2011) quoting Pearson v. Component Tech. Corp., 247
F.3d 471, 484-85 (3rd Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 950, 122 S.Ct. 345, 151 L.Ed.2d 261

19

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 20 of 45

Desc Main

(2001). See also, Morelia Consultants, LLC, supra, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101793, at *25
citing Commonwealth, Dept of Environmental Resources v. Peggs Run Coal Co., 55 Pa.
Commw. 312, 319, 423 A.2d 765, 769 (1980) (identifying some of the factors listed above and
noting that Courts in Pennsylvania have found allegations of failure to adhere to corporate
formalities, substantial intertwining of personal and corporate affairs, undercapitalization,
and the furthering of personal interests sufficient to pierce the corporate veil); Partners
Coffee Co., LLC v. Oceana Servs. & Prods. Co., 700 F. Supp. 2d 720, 736 (W.D. Pa. 2010)
(identifying some of the factors listed above and noting that Pennsylvania courts have found
that the veil of an LLC may be pierced to the same degree as that of a corporation).
82.

At all times relevant hereto, Messrs. Briggs and Nojay were members of

Wellsource. Mr. Briggs is the managing director and president of Wellsource. See, 7, supra.
Mr. Nojay, on the other hand, is a partner of Mr. Briggs in Wellsource. See, 8, supra.
83.

As put forth in this Complaint, Carlisle Advisors, LLC, was created on

March 1, 2012, and has been operating as Wellsource since December 2012. See, 6, supra.
The significance behind this statement lies in the fact that, once this limited liability company
was created, there was a total failure to observe any limited liability company formalities by
Wellsource and/or Mr. Briggs. That is:
(a)

The record reflects that there were no company records issued by


Wellsource;

(b)

The record reflects that no owners, members, or shareholders meetings


were held by Wellsource;

(c)

The record reflects that Mr. Briggs maintained the books and business
records for Wellsource.

20

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 21 of 45

Desc Main

All in all, Mr. Briggs, or, in the alternative, Mr. Nojay, dominated and controlled the activities
and business decisions of Wellsource and thus, he operated the company for his own exclusive
benefit.
84.

At the same time, it is important to note that at all times relevant hereto,

Wellsource was and, upon information and belief, remains undercapitalized.


85.

The undercapitalization of Wellsource is evidenced by the fact that the

company lacked the financial wherewithal to complete the sale ultimately approved by the
Bankruptcy Court in the Sale Order and acquire the Feed Business. See, Exhibit 5, at pp. 2223, 24-25. See also, 60, supra. Specifically, Wellsource, through its principals, Mr. Briggs
and Mr. Nojay, never provided the Funds Needed To Close and utilized subterfuges, delays
and inaction to evade the companys obligations under the Wellsource Agreement and/or the
Sale Order approving and authorizing the same. See, 52-60, supra; Exhibit 1.
86.

The undercapitalization of Wellsource is also evidenced by the fact that the

company lacked the financial wherewithal to fund the DIP Financing Facility authorized by the
Interim and Final Orders entered by the Bankruptcy Court. See, e.g., Exhibit 8; Exhibit 9 and
Exhibit 10. To that effect, Wellsource, through its principals, Mr. Briggs and Mr. Nojay,
never advanced to the Debtors all the monies contemplated in the Budget, despite repeated
requests from the Debtors. See, 62-65, supra; Exhibit 1.
87.

The undercapitalization of Wellsource is further evidenced by the fact that Mr.

Briggs, and Mr. Nojay would personally pay certain obligations of Wellsource, or cause
Wellsource to be funded only to the limited extent that it was able to pay certain limited
obligations as they became due. In short, at no time was Wellsource capitalized or funded to
the extent sufficient for it to operate as a separate and distinct going concern and without Mr.

21

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 22 of 45

Desc Main

Briggs ongoing, direct and constant oversight, control and domination of nearly every
decision made.
88.

This being so, in this Adversary Proceeding, the limited liability company

form of Wellsource should be disregarded and the corporate veil pierced because:
(a)

Mr. Briggs and Mr. Nojay, used Wellsource to induce and perpetrate a
fraud upon the Debtors as described herein. See, Counts IV, V and IX,
infra;

(b)

Mr. Briggs and Mr. Nojay, used Wellsource to misrepresent information


upon the Debtors as described herein. See, Counts IV, VI and IX, infra;

(c)

Mr. Briggs used Wellsource to interfere with prospective contractual


relations of the Debtors as described herein. See, Count VII, infra;

(d)

Mr. Briggs, and Mr. Nojay caused Wellsource to be undercapitalized.


See, 82-85, supra;

(e)

Mr. Briggs, and Mr. Nojay failed to observe corporate formalities


respecting Wellsource. See, 81, supra.

In short, Wellsource was and is dominated by Mr. Briggs and Mr. Nojay to the extent that
Wellsource is merely their alter ego.
89.

In this Adversary Proceeding, it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil of

Wellsource because recognition of the corporate fiction would lead to an unjust result, namely
shielding certain Defendants from the personal liability that should result from the fraudulent,
unlawful and tortious conduct described herein.
WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully demands judgment in its favor and
against Defendants Wellsource, Mr. Briggs and Mr. Nojay, together with their attorneys fees
and costs and for such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and
appropriate.

22

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 23 of 45

Desc Main

COUNT II
THE TRUSTEE v. DEFENDANTS WELLSOURCE, MR. BRIGGS AND MR. NOJAY
BREACH OF CONTRACT (THE WELLSOURCE AGREEMENT)

90.

The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 87 above are incorporated

herein, as if fully set forth at length.


91.

The Wellsource Agreement is a valid and binding contract between the Debtors

and Wellsource. See, Exhibit 3. See also, Exhibit 6, at pp. 5, 7, 9-10 and 21.
92.

The Sale Order approving and authorizing the Wellsource Agreement

constitutes a binding and enforceable obligation. See, Exhibit 6, at p. 21. See also, In re
Winston Inn & Restaurant Corp., 120 B.R. 631, 634-35 (E.D.N.Y. 1990) (finding that a
successful bidder at a 363 judicial sale [is] bound by a bankruptcy courts order authorizing
or confirming the sale); In re Rosecrest Enterprises, Inc., 80 B.R. 354, 356 (Bankr. W.D. Pa.
1987) (finding that the Bankruptcy Courts sale Order is controlling upon the parties and
purchaser is bound by the language of that Order); In re Mann, 45 B.R. 755, 758 (Bankr.
S.D. Ohio 1985) (finding that a sale lawfully ordered, duly conducted and confirmed by
Bankruptcy Court Orders is binding on defaulting purchaser).
93.

Pursuant to the Wellsource Agreement and/or the Sale Order approving and

authorizing the same, the cash purchase price to be paid to the Debtors at closing totaled
$13,523,488.17 (i.e., the Funds Needed to Close). See, Exhibit 6, at p. 11. See also, Exhibit
3, at p. 6; Exhibit 1, at p. 2.
94.

Pursuant to the Wellsource Agreement and/or the Sale Order approving and

authorizing the same, there was no doubt that the Debtors had limited resources with which to
continue to manage and operate their businesses. See, Exhibit 6, at p. 6. See also, 22 and
23, supra. Therefore, the prompt consummation of the sale of the Feed Business, as provided
23

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 24 of 45

Desc Main

for in the Wellsource Agreement and/or the Sale Order, was essential to the economic interests
of the Debtors. See, Exhibit 5, at p. 20. See also, Exhibit 6, at p. 6.
95.

The Debtors performed their obligations under the Wellsource Agreement

and/or the Sale Order approving and authorizing the same by, among other things, taking all
actions necessary to effectively consummate the sale of the Feed Business. See, Exhibit 8, at
p. 1; Exhibit 1, at p. 1. See also, 53, supra.
96.

Wellsource and/or its principals, Mr. Briggs and Mr. Nojay, materially breached

their obligations under the Wellsource Agreement and/or the Sale Order approving and
authorizing the same by, among other things, not providing the requisite Funds Needed to
Close on the sale of the purchased assets. See, Exhibit 8, at p. 2; Exhibit 1, at p. 2. See also,
54-60, supra.

Specifically, by not providing the requisite Funds Needed to Close,

Wellsource and/or its principals, Mr. Briggs and Mr. Nojay, failed to consummate the sale
contemplated by the Wellsource Agreement and/or the Bankruptcy Court Order approving and
authorizing the same. See, Exhibit 8, at p. 2. See also, Exhibit 1, at p. 2.
97.

In so breaching, Wellsource, and/or its principals, Mr. Briggs and Mr. Nojay,

not only have arbitrarily and unreasonably engaged in conduct which has impeded and derailed
the Debtors ability to promptly consummate the sale of the purchased assets, but has caused
substantial monetary damages to the Debtors.
WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully demands judgment in its favor and
against Defendants Wellsource and Mr. Briggs in the amount of no less than $6,750,000,
which represents the difference between the sales price under the Wellsource Agreement and
sales price under the Hoober, K&M and Cargill Sales, plus incidental costs associated with
consummating the Hoober, K&M and Cargill Sales together with their attorneys fees and
costs and for such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate.
24

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 25 of 45

Desc Main

COUNT III
THE TRUSTEE v. DEFENDANTS WELLSOURCE, AND MR. BRIGGS
BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

98.

The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 95 above are incorporated

herein, as if fully set forth at length.


99.

The Wellsource Agreement is a valid and binding contract between the Debtors

and Wellsource. See, Exhibit 3. See also, Exhibit 6, at pp. 5, 7, 9-10 and 21.
100.

The Sale Order approving and authorizing the Wellsource Agreement

constitutes a binding and enforceable obligation. See, Exhibit 6, at p. 21. See also, Winston
Inn, supra, 120 B.R. at 634-35 (finding that a successful bidder at a 363 judicial sale [is]
bound by a bankruptcy courts order authorizing or confirming the sale); Rosecrest
Enterprises, supra, 80 B.R. at 356 (finding that the Bankruptcy Courts sale Order is
controlling upon the parties and purchaser is bound by the language of that Order); Mann,
supra, 45 B.R. at 758 (finding that a sale lawfully ordered, duly conducted and confirmed by
Bankruptcy Court Orders is binding on defaulting purchaser).
101.

There is implied in every contract a duty of good faith and fair dealing that

neither party will do anything to deprive the other of the fruits of the contract. See, Clark
Motor Co. v. Mfrs. & Traders Trust, Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54314, at *15 (M.D. Pa. July
26, 2007) citing Bedrock Stone & Stuff, Inc. v. Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co., 2005 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 10218, at *18 (E.D. Pa. May 25, 2005) citing in turn Donahue v. Federal Express
Corp., 753 A.2d 238, 241, 2000 Pa. Super. LEXIS 663, at *7 (Pa. Super. Ct. May 9, 2000).
102.

The Wellsource Agreement approved and authorized by the Sale Order

contained said implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, as a matter of law.

25

Case 14-00507-mdc

103.

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 26 of 45

Desc Main

Wellsource is a party to the Wellsource Agreement approved and authorized by

the Sale Order and thus, it has a duty of good faith and fair dealing and has made an implied
covenant to act reasonably to fulfill that Agreement approved and authorized by the Court.
104.

Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs, breached their duty of good faith

and fair dealing by, among other things, failing to advance the Funds Needed to Close when all
conditions precedent to the closing had been satisfied under the Wellsource Agreement
approved and authorized by the Sale Order. See, e.g., Exhibit 1, at pp. 1-2. See also, 54-60,
supra.
105.

By failing to act in accordance with the terms of the Wellsource Agreement

approved and authorized by the Sale Order, Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs, not
only have deprived the Debtors of the fruits of the contract, but have caused substantial
monetary damages to the Debtors. Said actions on the part of Wellsource and/or Mr. Briggs
constitute breaches of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
106.

Wellsources and/or Mr. Briggs breaches of the implied covenant of good faith

and fair dealing entitle the Debtors to damages caused by them, as well as punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully demands judgment in its favor and
against Defendants Wellsource and Mr. Briggs, in the amount of no less than $6,750,000,
which represents the difference between the sales price under the Wellsource Agreement and
sales price under the Hoober, K&M and Cargill Sales, plus incidental costs associated with
consummating the Hoober, K&M and Cargill Sales, together with its attorneys fees and costs
and for such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate.

26

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 27 of 45

Desc Main

COUNT IV
THE TRUSTEE v. DEFENDANTS WELLSOURCE AND MR. BRIGGS
FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT

107.

The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 104 above are incorporated

herein, as if fully set forth at length.


108.

In Pennsylvania, the elements of a claim for fraudulent inducement are: (i) a

representation; (ii) which is material to the transaction at hand; (iii) made falsely, with
knowledge of its falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true or false; (iv) with the intent of
misleading another into relying on it; (v) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation; and (vi)
the resulting injury was proximately caused by the reliance. See, e.g., Atlantic Circulation, Inc.
v. Midwest Circulations, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166128, at *38 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 20,
2012) citing Eigen v. Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Div., 874 A.2d 1179, 1185,
2005 Pa. Super. LEXIS 901, at *13 (Pa. Super. Ct. April 20, 2005) quoting in turn Bortz v.
Noon, 556 Pa. 489, 499, 729 A.2d 555, 560 (1999).
109.

This being so, under Pennsylvania law, inducing another to enter into a contract

by means of fraud or a material misrepresentation, when the other party was under no duty to
enter into the contract, is a key element of a claim for fraudulent inducement. See, In re
Allegheny Intl, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 178 (3rd Cir. 1992) citing College Watercolor Group, Inc.
v. William H. Newbauer, Inc., 468 Pa. 103, 115, 360 A.2d 200, 206 (1976) quoting in turn
RESTATEMENT OF CONTRACTS 476 (1932).
110.

As put forth in this Complaint, Wellsource, and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs,

misrepresented material facts relating to the purchase of the Feed Business. Specifically,
Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs, falsely represented to the Debtors and other

27

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 28 of 45

Desc Main

parties-in-interest that Wellsource was prepared to purchase all of the Feed Business of the
Debtors. See, Exhibit 1, at 47; Exhibit 2, at 12. See also, 28, supra.
111.

In addition, Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs, misrepresented material

facts relating to Wellsources financial ability to purchase the Feed Business. In particular,
Wellsource and/or Mr. Briggs, falsely represented to the Debtors and other parties-in-interest
that Wellsource possessed the financial wherewithal to fund the purchase of all of the Feed
Business of the Debtors. See, Exhibit 5, at pp. 22-23, 24-25. See also, 47-48, supra.
112.

Moreover, these false representations were material in that the representations

by Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs, that Wellsource had adequate financial backing
from others to successfully purchase all of the Feed Business prevented the Debtors in their
diligence efforts from selecting other marked-up asset purchase agreements and/or letters of
intent submitted by other potential buyers. That is, the Debtors Board of Directors would not
have authorized management to finalize negotiations with Wellsource had management known
that, despite Wellsources and/or Mr. Briggs representations to the contrary, Wellsource was
undercapitalized and lacked the financial support necessary to adequately fund the purchase of
the Feed Business. See, 29-31 and 47-48, supra. See also, Partners Coffee Co., LLC v.
Oceana Servs. & Prods. Co., 700 F. Supp. 2d 720, 728-29 (W.D. Pa. 2010) citing Blumenstock
v. Gibson, 811 A.2d 1029, 1036, 2002 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3212, at *14-*15 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct.
31, 2002) (finding that fraud in the inducement occurs when a party contends it would not have
entered into the agreement but for the fraudulent statements made by the other).
113.

In like manner, even though Wellsource and/or Mr. Briggs knew that these

representations regarding the purchase of the Feed Business and the adequacy of funds to
complete said transaction were false, Wellsource and/or Mr. Briggs nonetheless continued to
make these misrepresentations to induce the Debtors to enter into the Wellsource Agreement
28

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 29 of 45

Desc Main

and ultimately reject other marked-up asset purchase agreements and/or letters of intent
submitted by other potential buyers. Indeed, at the Sale Hearing before the Court, Mr. Briggs
not only assured the Debtors and other parties-in-interest that Wellsource would have sufficient
funds to close at the initially scheduled December closing date, but that he and Wellsource
would have those funds as early as November 29, 2012. See, Exhibit 5, at p. 24.
114.

This being so, the Debtors justifiably relied upon Wellsource and/or Mr.

Briggs misrepresentations and after evaluating each marked-up asset purchase agreement
received, concluded that the marked-up asset purchase agreement submitted by Wellsource
offered advantageous terms and significant economic benefits in the form of the highest
possible purchase price for the Feed Business. See, Exhibit 1, at 47-49; Exhibit 2, at 1117; Exhibit 6, at p. 20. See also, 28-31, supra. Had the Debtors known that Wellsource
and/or Mr. Briggs lacked the financial support necessary to close on the purchase of the Feed
Business, the Debtors would have selected other marked-up asset purchase agreements and/or
letters of intent submitted by other potential buyers and sell their business.
115.

As a result of this justifiable reliance, the Debtors have suffered damages

separate and apart from the damages incurred due to Wellsources breach of the Wellsource
Agreement and/or the Sale Order approving and authorizing the same.
116.

Furthermore, since the acts incurred by Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr.

Briggs, were oppressive, malicious and committed with conscious indifference to the rights of
the Debtors, the Debtors are entitled to and seek to recover punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully demands judgment in its favor and
against Defendants Wellsource, and Mr. Briggs, in the amount of no less than $6,750,000,
which represents the difference between the sales price under the Wellsource Agreement and
sales price under the Hoober, K&M and Cargill Sales, plus incidental costs associated with
29

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 30 of 45

Desc Main

consummating the Hoober, K&M and Cargill Sales, together with its attorneys fees and costs
and for such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate.

COUNT V
THE TRUSTEE v. DEFENDANTS WELLSOURCE AND MR. BRIGGS
COMMON LAW FRAUD

117.

The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 114 above are

incorporated herein, as if fully set forth at length.


118.

In Pennsylvania, the elements of a common law fraud action are: (i) a

misrepresentation; (ii) material to the transaction; (iii) made falsely; (iv) with the intent of
misleading another to rely on it; (v) justifiable reliance resulted; and (vi) injury was
proximately caused by reliance. See, e.g., Mason v. Threshman, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
121093, at *11 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2012) quoting Viguers v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 837
A.2d 534, 540, 2003 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4099, at *13 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 24, 2003), allocatur
granted by, 579 Pa. 705, 857 A.2d 680 (2004), affd by, 584 Pa. 120, 881 A.2d 1262 (2005)
citing in turn Debbs v. Chrysler Corp., 810 A.2d 137, 155, 2002 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3196, at
*44 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 24, 2002), allocatur denied by, 574 Pa. 744, 829 A.2d 311 (2003).
119.

Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs, misrepresented material facts

relating to the closing on the transfer of the purchased assets. In particular, Wellsource and/or
Mr. Briggs, misrepresented to this Honorable Court, the Debtors and other parties-in-interest
that Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs, intended to complete the sale ultimately
approved by the Bankruptcy Court in the Sale Order and acquire the purchased assets. See,
Exhibit 5, at pp. 22-23, 24-25. See also, 447-48, supra.

30

Case 14-00507-mdc

120.

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 31 of 45

Desc Main

At the same time, Wellsource and/or Mr. Briggs misrepresentations were

material in that the terms specifically presented by them in the proposed asset purchase
agreement, prevented the Debtors in their diligence efforts from selecting other marked-up
asset purchase agreements and/or letters of intent submitted by other potential buyers.
121.

In like manner, even though Wellsource and/or Mr. Briggs knew that these

representations regarding the Funds Needed to Close and the originally scheduled closing date
were false, Wellsource and/or Mr. Briggs nonetheless continued to make these
misrepresentations with the intent to prevent the Debtors from selecting other marked-up asset
purchase agreements and/or letters of intent submitted by other potential buyers. Indeed, at the
Sale Hearing, Mr. Briggs not only assured the Debtors and other parties-in-interest that he
would have sufficient funds to close at the originally scheduled December closing date, but that
he would have those funds as early as November 29, 2012. See, Exhibit 5, at p. 24.
122.

This being so, the Debtors justifiably relied upon Wellsource and/or Mr.

Briggs misrepresentations. Had the Debtors known that Wellsource and/or Mr. Briggs did not
intend to close on the sale of the purchased assets, the Debtors would have selected other
marked-up asset purchase agreements and/or letters of intent submitted by other potential
buyers.
123.

As a result of this justifiable reliance, the Debtors have suffered damages

separate and apart from the damages incurred due to Wellsources breach of the Wellsource
Agreement and/or the Sale Order approving and authorizing the same.
124.

Furthermore, since the acts incurred by Wellsource and/or its principal,

Mr. Briggs, were oppressive, malicious and committed with conscious indifference to the
rights of the Debtors, the Debtors are entitled to and seek to recover punitive damages.

31

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 32 of 45

Desc Main

WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully demands judgment in its favor and


against Defendants Wellsource and Mr. Briggs, in the amount of no less than $6,750,000,
which represents the difference between the sales price under the Wellsource Agreement and
sales price under the Hoober, K&M and Cargill Sales, plus incidental costs associated with
consummating the Hoober, K&M and Cargill Sales, plus punitive damages, together with its
attorneys fees and costs and for such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems
just and appropriate.

COUNT VI
THE TRUSTEE v. DEFENDANTS WELLSOURCE, MR. BRIGGS, MR. OHLBAUM
AND NOURICAN
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
125.

The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 123 above are

incorporated herein, as if fully set forth at length.


126.

In Pennsylvania, a claim of negligent misrepresentation requires: (i) a

misrepresentation of a material fact; (ii) that the representor either knew of the
misrepresentation, made the misrepresentation without knowledge as to its truth or falsity, or
made the representation under circumstances in which he or she ought to have known of its
falsity; (iii) that the representor intended the representation to induce another to act on it; and
(iv) that injury resulted to the party acting in justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation. See,
e.g., Clark Motor Co., supra, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54314, at *18-*19 citing Gibbs v. Ernst,
538 Pa. 193, 210, 647 A.2d 882, 890 (1994).
127.

Wellsource and/or its principals, Mr. Briggs, misrepresented material

facts relating to Wellsources financial ability to close on the transfer of the purchased assets.

32

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 33 of 45

Desc Main

In particular, as reflected in a bank letter, Wellsource and/or Mr. Briggs misrepresented their
financial wherewithal to complete the contemplated transaction. See, Exhibit 5, at p. 18.
128.

Mr. Ohlbaum and/or Nourican misrepresented material facts relating to

Wellsources financial ability to close on the transfer of the purchased assets.


129.

At the same time, Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs,

misrepresented material facts relating to the closing on the transfer of the purchased assets.
Specifically, as reflected at the Sale Hearing, Wellsource and/or Mr. Briggs, misrepresented to
the Debtors that Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs, intended to complete the sale
ultimately approved by the Bankruptcy Court in the Sale Order and acquire the purchased
assets. See, Exhibit 5, at pp. 22-23, 24-25. See also, 47-48, supra.
130.

This being so, Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs supplied false

information for the guidance of others in their business transactions and in so doing, failed to
exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information.
131.

As reflected in the testimony provided by Mr. Arnold Sumner at the Sale

Hearing, the Debtors justifiably relied on the false information provided to them by Wellsource
and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs. See, Exhibit 5, at pp. 16 and 18.
132.

As a direct result of the Defendants negligent misrepresentation, and the

Debtors justifiable reliance thereon, the Debtors have suffered significant damages.
WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully demands judgment in its favor and
against Defendants Wellsource, Mr. Briggs, Mr. Ohlbaum and Nourican in the amount of no
less than $6,750,000, which represents the difference between the sales price under the
Wellsource Agreement and sales price under the Hoober, K&M and Cargill Sales, plus
incidental costs associated with consummating the Hoober, K&M and Cargill Sales, together

33

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 34 of 45

Desc Main

with its attorneys fees and costs and for such other and further relief as this Honorable Court
deems just and appropriate.

COUNT VII
THE TRUSTEE v. DEFENDANTS WELLSOURCE, MR. BRIGGS, MR. OHLBAUM
AND NOURICAN
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

133.

The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 130 above are

incorporated herein, as if fully set forth at length.


134.

In Pennsylvania, the elements of a cause of action for intentional

interference with a contractual relation, whether existing or prospective, are: (i) the existence
of a contractual, or prospective contractual relation between the complainant and a third party;
(ii) a purposeful action on the part of the defendant, specifically intended to harm the existing
relation, or to prevent a prospective relation from occurring; (iii) the absence of privilege or
justification on the part of the defendant; and (iv) the occasioning of actual legal damage as a
result of the defendants conduct. See, e.g., Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248, 263 (3rd Cir.
2001) citing Pelagatti v. Cohen, 370 Pa. Super. 422, 434, 536 A.2d 1337, 1343 (1987),
allocatur denied by, 519 Pa. 667, 548 A.2d 256 (1988) citing in turn Thompson Coal Co. v.
Pike Coal Co., 488 Pa. 198, 208, 412 A.2d 466, 471 (1979).
135.

In September 2012, two (2) potential buyers submitted marked-up asset

purchase agreements for the purchase of all of the Feed Business and four (4) potential buyers
submitted letters of intent for the purchase of an individual mill or mill combination. See, e.g.,
Exhibit 1, at 47; Exhibit 2, at 12. See also, 28, supra.

34

Case 14-00507-mdc

136.

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 35 of 45

Desc Main

Each of these proposals was competitive with the marked-up asset purchase

agreement submitted by Wellsource.

Accordingly, the Debtors evaluated the terms and

benefits of each proposal, as well as the benefits of other alternatives. See, e.g., Exhibit 1, at
48; Exhibit 2, at 13. See also, 29, supra.
137.

Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs, had knowledge of these

potential buyers and of the Debtors expectations of entering into a contractual relationship
with any one of them. Specifically, the Defendants were fully aware of the existence of these
prospective contractual relations between the Debtors and others.
138.

At all relevant times herein, Wellsource, its principal, Mr. Briggs, Mr.

Ohlbaum and/or Nourican, misrepresented material facts relating to Wellsources financial


ability to purchase the Feed Business. In particular, Wellsource and/or Mr. Briggs, falsely
represented to the Debtors and other parties-in-interest that Wellsource possessed the financial
wherewithal to fund the purchase of all of the Feed Business of the Debtors and ultimately
close on the transfer of the purchased assets. See, Exhibit 5, at pp. 22-23, 24-25. See also,
47-48, supra.
139.

These false representations were material in that the representations by

Wellsource, its principal, Mr. Briggs, Mr. Ohlbaum and/or Nourican, that Wellsource had
adequate financial backing from others to successfully purchase all of the Feed Business
prevented the Debtors in their diligence efforts from selecting other marked-up asset purchase
agreements and/or letters of intent submitted by other potential buyers. Specifically, the record
reflects that the Debtors would have selected another potential buyer proposal over the markedup asset purchase agreement submitted by Wellsource, but for the intentional interference on
the part of Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs, the Debtors failed to do so.

35

Case 14-00507-mdc

140.

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 36 of 45

Desc Main

Worse yet, this misrepresentation on the part of Wellsource, its principal,

Mr. Briggs, Mr. Ohlbaum and/or Nourican induced other potential buyers from withdrawing
their prospective purchase offers. See, e.g., Exhibit 5, at p. 11.
141.

Wellsource, its principal, Mr. Briggs, Mr. Ohlbaum and/or Nourican had no

privilege or justification for their actions in intentionally interfering with the prospective
contractual relations between the Debtor and other potential buyers.
142.

As a result of Wellsources, Mr. Briggs, Mr. Ohlbaums and/or Nouricans

intentional and improper interference with other potential buyers performance of their
prospective contractual relations, the Debtors have suffered losses as a result of these potential
buyers bid withdrawals.
143.

This being so, the Debtors have suffered substantial damages for the

intentional interference identified above. These substantial damages consist of the pecuniary
loss of the benefits of the prospective relations between the Debtors and these potential buyers,
the consequential losses for which the interference is a legal cause; and the harm to reputation
produced by such intentional interference. In short, the Debtors are entitled to the actual
damages suffered, together with punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully demands judgment in its favor and
against Defendants Wellsource and Mr. Briggs, Mr. Ohlbaum and Nourican in the amount of
no less than $6,750,000, which represents the difference between the sales price under the
Wellsource Agreement and sales price under the Hoober, K&M and Cargill Sales, plus
incidental costs associated with consummating the Hoober, K&M and Cargill Sales, together
with its attorneys fees and costs and for such other and further relief as this Honorable Court
deems just and appropriate.

36

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 37 of 45

Desc Main

COUNT VIII
THE TRUSTEE v. DEFENDANTS WELLSOURCE, MR. NOJAY AND MR. BRIGGS
BREACH OF CONTRACT (THE DIP FINANCING FACILITY)

144.

The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 141 above are

incorporated herein, as if fully set forth at length.


145.

The DIP Financing Facility is a valid and binding contract between the

Debtors and Wellsource. See, Exhibit 10. See also, 62-64, supra.
146.

The Interim and Final Orders authorizing the Debtors to obtain post-

petition financing in the amount of $2 million ($2,000,000) under the DIP Financing Facility
constitute a binding and enforceable obligation. See, e.g., In re Ocean Power Corp., 2007
Bankr. LEXIS 5014, at *9 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2007) (finding that [t]he DIP Order
and the DIP Loan Agreement are valid and binding). See also, Exhibit 8; Exhibit 9; 6264, supra.
147.

The DIP Financing Facility authorized by the Interim and Final Orders set

forth the obligations of the Debtors, as borrowers, and Wellsource, as the DIP Lender. See,
Exhibit 8; Exhibit 9; Exhibit 10; Exhibit 1, at pp. 2-3. See also, 62-64, supra.
148.

The Debtors performed any obligations they have under the DIP Financing

Facility and the Interim and Final Orders authorizing the same. See, Exhibit 10.
149.

Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs, materially breached their

obligations under the DIP Financing Facility and the Interim and Final Orders authorizing the
same, as well as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the DIP
Financing Facility, by failing to make contemplated advances. See, 65, supra. Specifically,
Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs, as the DIP lenders, defaulted on their obligations
by failing to make the contemplated advances to the Debtors set forth in the Budget, including
37

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 38 of 45

Desc Main

the advance of the balance of the $2 million ($2,000,000) under the DIP Financing Facility,
approved by the Interim and Final Orders entered by the Bankruptcy Court. Id. See also,
Exhibit 1, at p.3.
150.

As a result of Wellsources and/or Mr. Briggs breach under the DIP

Financing Facility and the Interim and Final Orders authorizing the same, the Debtors have
suffered significant damages.
WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully demands judgment in its favor and
against Defendants Wellsource and Mr. Briggs, in the amount of $2,000,000, plus
consequential damages, together with its attorneys fees and costs and for such other and
further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate.

COUNT IX
THE TRUSTEE v. DEFENDANTS WELLSOURCE AND MR. BRIGGS
FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT

151.

The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 148 above are

incorporated herein, as if fully set forth at length.


152.

As already stated, the elements of a claim for fraudulent inducement are:

(i) a representation; (ii) which is material to the transaction at hand; (iii) made falsely, with
knowledge of its falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true or false; (iv) with the intent of
misleading another into relying on it; (v) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation; and (vi)
the resulting injury was proximately caused by the reliance. See, e.g., Atlantic Circulation,

38

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 39 of 45

Desc Main

supra, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166128, at *38 citing Eigen, supra, 874 A.2d at 1185, 2005 Pa.
Super. LEXIS 901, at *13 quoting in turn Bortz, supra, 556 Pa. at 499, 729 A.2d at 560.
153.

This being so, under Pennsylvania law, inducing another to enter into a

contract by means of fraud or a material misrepresentation, when the other party was under no
duty to enter into the contract, is a key element of a claim for fraudulent inducement. See,
Allegheny Intl, supra, 954 F.2d at 178 citing College Watercolor Group, supra, 468 Pa. at 115,
360 A.2d at 206 quoting in turn RESTATEMENT OF CONTRACTS 476 (1932).
154.

As put forth in this Complaint, Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr.

Briggs, misrepresented material facts relating to the post-petition financing of the Debtors.
Specifically, Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs, falsely represented to the Debtors and
other parties-in-interest that Wellsource was prepared to provide the Debtors with $2 million
($2,000,000) of post-petition financing under a secured DIP term loan facility. See, e.g., Penn.
Docket Entry No. 24. See also, Exhibit 1, at 49, 51, 81, 84; Exhibit 5, at 21-22.
155.

In addition, Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs, misrepresented

material facts relating to Wellsources financial ability to provide such post-petition financing.
In particular, Wellsource and/or Mr. Briggs, falsely represented to the Debtors and other
parties-in-interest that Wellsource possessed the financial wherewithal to fund $2 million
($2,000,000) of post-petition financing under a secured DIP term loan facility.
156.

Moreover, these false representations were material in that the

representations by Wellsource and/or its principal, Mr. Briggs, that Wellsource had adequate
financial resources to provide post-petition financing under a secured DIP term loan facility
prevented the Debtors in their efforts from seeking other potential lenders. That is, the
Debtors Board of Directors would not have authorized management to finalize negotiations
with Wellsource had management known that, despite Wellsources and/or Mr. Briggs
39

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 40 of 45

Desc Main

representations to the contrary, Wellsource was undercapitalized and lacked the financial
wherewithal to adequately provide post-petition financing to the Debtors. See, Partners Coffee
Co., supra, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 728-29 citing Blumenstock, supra, 811 A.2d at 1036, 2002 Pa.
Super. LEXIS 3212, at *14-*15 (finding that fraud in the inducement occurs when a party
contends it would not have entered into the agreement but for the fraudulent statements
made by the other).
157.

In like manner, even though Wellsource and/or Mr. Briggs knew that

these representations regarding Wellsources ability to provide post-petition financing and the
sufficiency of funds to complete said transaction were false, Wellsource and/or Mr. Briggs
nonetheless continued to make these misrepresentations to induce the Debtors to
simultaneously enter into the Wellsource Agreement and ultimately reject other marked-up
asset purchase agreements and/or letters of intent submitted by other potential buyer.
158.

This being so, the Debtors justifiably relied upon Wellsource and/or Mr.

Briggs misrepresentations and submitted to the Bankruptcy Court the DIP Financing Motion
on October 14, 2012. See, Penn. Docket Entry No. 24. See also, 61-62, supra. Had the
Debtors known that Wellsource and/or Mr. Briggs lacked adequate financial resources to
provide post-petition financing under a secured DIP term loan facility, the Debtors would have
sought other potential lenders and effectively fund their business post-petition.
159.

As a result of this justifiable reliance, the Debtors have suffered

damages separate and apart from the damages incurred due to Wellsources breach of the DIP
Financing Facility and/or the Interim and Final Orders approving and authorizing the same.
160.

Furthermore, since the acts incurred by Wellsource and/or its principal,

Mr. Briggs, were oppressive, malicious and committed with conscious indifference to the
rights of the Debtors, the Debtors are entitled to and seek to recover punitive damages.
40

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 41 of 45

Desc Main

WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully demands judgment in its favor and


against Defendants Wellsource and Mr. Briggs, in the amount of no less than $2,000,000, plus
punitive damages in the amount of $1,000,000, together with its attorneys fees and costs and
for such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate.

COUNT X
THE TRUSTEE v. DEFENDANTS WELLSOURCE, MR. NOJAY AND MR. BRIGGS
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES

161.

The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 158 above are

incorporated herein, as if fully set forth at length.


162.

The DIP Financing Facility is a valid and binding contract between the

Debtors and Wellsource. See, Exhibit 10. See also, 62, supra.
163.

The Interim and Final Orders authorizing the Debtors to obtain post-

petition financing in the amount of $2 million ($2,000,000) under the DIP Financing Facility
constitute a binding and enforceable obligation. See, e.g., Ocean Power Corp., supra, 2007
Bankr. LEXIS 5014, at *9 (finding that [t]he DIP Order and the DIP Loan Agreement are
valid and binding). See also, Exhibit 8; Exhibit 9; 62-64, supra.
164.

The DIP Financing Facility authorized by the Interim and Final Orders

set forth the obligations of the Debtors, as borrowers, and Wellsource, as the DIP Lender. See,
Exhibit 8; Exhibit 9; Exhibit 10; Exhibit 1, at pp. 2-3. See also, 62-64, supra.
165.

Wellsource and/or its principals, Mr. Briggs and Mr. Nojay, materially

breached their obligations under the DIP Financing Facility and the Interim and Final Orders
authorizing the same, as well as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in
the DIP Financing Facility, by failing to make any contemplated advances. See, 59, supra.

41

Case 14-00507-mdc

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 42 of 45

Desc Main

Specifically, Wellsource and/or its principals, Mr. Briggs and Mr. Nojay, as the DIP lenders,
defaulted on their obligations by failing to make the contemplated advances to the Debtors set
forth in the Budget, including the advance of the balance of the $2 million ($2,000,000) under
the DIP Financing Facility, approved by the Interim and Final Orders entered by the
Bankruptcy Court. Id. See also, Exhibit 1, at p.3.
166.

In their capacity as DIP Lenders for property of the Debtors, Wellsource

and/or its principals, Mr. Briggs and Mr. Nojay, owed fiduciary duties to the Debtors,
including duties of honesty and fair dealing.
167.

As put forth herein, Wellsources and/or Mr. Briggs and Mr. Nojays

actions and course of conduct constituted a breach of their fiduciary duties to the Debtors.
168.

As a result of Wellsources and/or Mr. Briggs and Mr. Nojays breach

of their fiduciary duties under the DIP Financing Facility and the Interim and Final Orders
authorizing the same, the Debtors have suffered significant damages.
WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully demands judgment in its favor and
against Defendants Wellsource, Mr. Nojay and Mr. Briggs, in the amount of no less than
$2,000,000, plus consequential damage, together with its attorneys fees and costs and for such
other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate.

COUNT XI
THE TRUSTEE v. DEFENDANTS WELLSOURCE, MR. NOJAY AND MR. BRIGGS
EQUITABLE SUBORDINATION AND DISALLOWANCE

169.

The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 166 above are

incorporated herein, as if fully set forth at length.

42

Case 14-00507-mdc

170.

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 43 of 45

Desc Main

Because, Wellsource and/or its principals, Mr. Briggs and Mr. Nojay,

agreed to provide the Debtors with $2 million ($2,000,000) of post-petition financing under the
DIP Financing Facility and undertook both fiduciary and contractual duties in connection with
that role, for all practical purposes, Wellsource and/or Mr. Briggs and Mr. Nojay are
fiduciaries of the Debtors.
171.

As put forth herein, Wellsource and/or its principals, Mr. Briggs and Mr.

Nojay, not only have acted inequitably and breached their duties to the Debtors, but have
caused substantial harm to the Debtors, its employees and its creditors. See, e.g., 69-75,
supra. See also, Exhibit 11, at pp. 2-3. Therefore, any claim or interest of Wellsource and/or
its principal, Mr. Briggs and Mr. Nojay, in respect of the Debtors estates should be equitably
subordinated and/or disallowed to the fullest extent of the law.
WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully demand judgment in their favor and
against Defendants Wellsource, Mr. Nojay and Mr. Briggs, together with its attorneys fees and
costs and for such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate.
COUNT XII
THE TRUSTEE v. DEFENDANTS MR. OHLBAUM AND NOURICAN
BREACH OF CONTRACT (THE NOURICAN AGREEMENT)

172.

The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 169 above are

incorporated herein, as if fully set forth at length.


173.

Under Pennsylvania law, there are two types of claimants who may be

intended third party beneficiaries to a contract: (1) a claimant to whom the promisee has an
obligation; or (2) a claimant whom the promisee clearly intended to benefit based on the
contracts performance. Blue Mountain Mushroom Co., Inc. v. Monterey Mushroom, Inc.,
246 F.Supp.2d 394, 401 (E.D. Pa. 2002).
43

Case 14-00507-mdc

174.

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 44 of 45

Desc Main

Here, Wellsource and its principal, Mr. Briggs and Mr. Nojay, intended the

Debtors to be the beneficiaries of the Nourican Agreement, as by the time Wellsource entered
into the Nourican Agreement, Wellsource and its principals were already working to purchase
the Feed Business and soon after entering into the Nourican Agreement, became bound by the
Wellsource Agreement. See 35 & 37, supra.
175.

Mr. Ohlbaum and Nourican were aware of the obligations that Wellsource,

Mr. Briggs and Mr. Nojay had under the Wellsource Agreement and that the funds to be
provided under the Nourican Agreement would benefit the Debtors and allow Wellsource and
its principals to fulfill their obligation under the Wellsource Agreement.
176.

Nourican and Mr. Ohlbaum materially breached their obligations under the

Nourican Agreement, as well as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in
the Nourican Agreement, by failing to provide financing. Specifically, Nourican and Mr.
Ohlbaum failed to provide the Funds Needed To Close by both the Initial and Second
Deadlines.
177.

In so breaching, Nourcian and Mr. Ohlbaum, not only have arbitrarily and

unreasonably engaged in conduct which has impeded and derailed the Debtors ability to
promptly consummate the sale of the purchased assets, but have caused substantial monetary
damages to the Debtors.
WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully demands judgment in its favor and
against Defendants Nourican and Mr. Ohlbaum in an amount of no less than $6,750,000,
which represents the difference between the sales price under the Wellsource Agreement and
sales price under the Hoober K&M and Cargill Sales, plus incidental costs associated with
consummating the Hoober, K&M and Cargill Sales together with their attorneys fees and
costs and for such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate.
44

Case 14-00507-mdc

Dated: October 2, 2014

Doc 1

Filed 10/02/14 Entered 10/02/14 16:59:12


Document
Page 45 of 45

Desc Main

GELLERT SCALI BUSENKELL & BROWN,


LLC

By: /s/ Ronald S. Gellert


Gary F. Seitz
Ronald S. Gellert
601 Walnut Street
Suite 280S
Philadelphia, PA 19106
gseitz@gsbblaw.com
rgellert@gsbblaw.com
(302) 425-5806

Special Litigation Counsel for


MORRISANDERSON, LTD., in its capacity as
Trustee of the Plan Trust of ETFF Corporation, et
al.

45