MHC IV, LLC V. TCFIV Venturi Buyer P, LLC

SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE

VIVIAN L. MEDINILLA LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
500 NORTH KING STREET, SUITE 10400
JUDGE
WILMINGTON, DE 19801-3734

Submitted: September 20, 2024
Decided: December 19, 2024

Philip Trainer, Jr., Esq. Jamie L. Brown, Esq.
Samuel M. Gross, Esq. Gillian L. Andrews, Esq.
500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 200
P.O. Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19801
Wilmington, DE 19899

Peter S. French, Esq.
Ann O. McCready, Esq.
One Indiana Square, Suite 3500
Indianapolis, IN 46204

RE: MHC IV, LLC V. TCFIV Venturi Buyer P, LLC f/k/a TCFIV PSC
Buyer LLC, Venturi Supply LLC, and Trive Capital, Inc.
C.A. No.: No. N24C-02-174 VLM CCLD

Dear Counsel:

In this action, Plaintiff asserts various claims including breach of contract and

tortious interference. Defendants move for dismissal under Superior Court Civil

Rule 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED as to

Count I (Breach of Contract and Indemnity) and GRANTED as to Counts III and

IV (Tortious Interference).

1
BACKGROUND

For most of 2022, plaintiff MHC IV, LLC (“Seller”) owned Tri-Star

Industrial, LLC which was a giant distributor of pipes, valves, and fittings.1 Wanting

a slice of the pie, private equity firm Trive Capital, Inc. formed TCFIV Venturi

Buyer P LLC (“Buyer”) to purchase Tri-Star and five other like suppliers.2 Trive

also formed Venturi Supply LLC (“Venturi”) to hold, control, and operate the new

acquisitions.3 In late 2022, Buyer and Seller entered into a Membership Interest

Purchase Agreement (“MIPA”) by which Buyer purchased “all of the issued and

outstanding units” of Tri-Star.4

In addition to the purchase price, Section 2.06(a)(i) of the MIPA provides an

earnout structure for payments up to $5,000,000 if Tri-Star achieved certain

EBITDA goals.5 Notably, Section 2.06(a)(iii) provides: “For the avoidance of

doubt, if 2023 EBITDA is equal to or less than $7,000,000, the Earnout Payment

1
See Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Damages ¶¶ 1-2, D.I. 1 (hereafter “Compl.”). These
facts are taken largely from the Complaint and documents integral thereto. See Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. v. AIG Life Ins. Co., 860 A.2d 312, 320 (Del. 2004) (“On a motion to dismiss, the Court may
consider documents that are ‘integral’ to the complaint, but documents outside the pleadings may
be considered only in ‘particular instances and for carefully limited purposes.’”). Citations to the
September 20, 2024 hearing transcript are in the form “Tr. #,” D.I. 30. Interested readers are
directed to the docket for additional factual predicate.
2
Compl. ¶¶ 4, 6, 10.
3
Id. ¶¶ 5, 11.
4
Id., Ex. A (MIPA) at RECITALS.
5
Id. §§ 2.06(a)(i)-(ii) (“If 2023 EBIDTA [sic] is greater than or equal to $7,500,000, the Earnout
Payment will be equal to $5,000,000[.]”).

2
will be equal to zero and neither the Buyer nor any of its Affiliates (including [Tri-

Star]) will have any obligation to make any payment . . . .”6

Post-closing, Buyer was entitled to operate Tri-Star at its discretion,7 but

Section 2.06(d)(vi) prohibited Buyer from terminating, reassigning, or transferring

five key executives including Michael DiMino, Scott Chamberlain, and Sabrina

Lucero (the “Key Three”) before December 31, 2023.8 Despite the provision, Buyer

transferred and reassigned the Key Three from Tri-Star to Venturi before the cutoff

date.9 DiMino became CEO of Venturi; Chamberlain became VP – Global Projects

and Pricing at Venturi; and Lucero became Venturi’s Global Director ERP/IT.10

In January 2024, Seller notified Buyer of the breach allegations under the

MIPA.11 Buyer denied any breach arguing Section 2.04(e) (controlling dispute

resolution) governed the issue instead.12

6
Id. § 2.06(a)(iii).
7
Id. § 2.06(d) (“[A]fter the Closing, the Buyer has the right to operate the Company in any way
that the Buyer deems appropriate in the Buyer’s sole discretion, and the Buyer is not obligated to
operate the Company in a manner consistent with the manner in which the Company was operated
prior to the Closing Date.”).
8
Compl. ¶¶ 14-15, 24; MIPA § 2.06(d)(vi) (“[T]he Buyer will[]not terminate without Cause the
employment of any individual listed on Schedule 2.06(d)(vi) or reassign or transfer any such
individual such that his or her full-time services are not available to [Tri-Star], except with respect
to any termination, reassignment or transfer for Cause or as a result of such individual’s failure to
fulfill his or her job duties and responsibilities”); Compl., Ex. 2, Sch. 2.06(d)(vi) (reflecting the
Key Three under a prohibited transfer list).
9
Compl. ¶¶ 16-18.
10
Id.
11
Id. ¶¶ 19, 33-34.
12
Id. ¶¶ 19, 35.

3
Seller then brought this action against Defendants seeking claims for: Breach

of Contract and Indemnity (Count I), and Declaratory Judgment (Count II).13 Seller

also sought claims against Trive and Venturi individually for Tortious Interference

(Counts III and IV).14 Defendants subsequently moved to dismiss (the “Motion”)

under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).15

After the parties completed briefing, this Court heard oral argument on

September 20, 2024 (the “Hearing”), at which time this Court took the Motion under

advisement.16

ANALYSIS
Defendants seek dismissal of this action based on the earnout provision of the

MIPA. Upon a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court (i) accepts all well-

pled factual allegations as true, (ii) accepts even vague allegations as well-pled if

they give the opposing party notice of the claim, (iii) draws all reasonable inferences

in favor of the non-moving party, and (iv) only dismisses a case where the plaintiff

would not be entitled to recover under any reasonably conceivable set of

circumstances.17 But the Court does not accept “conclusory allegations that lack

13
Id. ¶¶ 39-56.
14
Id. ¶¶ 57-77.
15
See generally Defendants’ Opening Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss, D.I. 12 (hereafter,
“MTD Opening Br.”).
16
D.I. 26-27, 29. Defendants abandoned the Rule 12(b)(1) basis for dismissal at the hearing. Tr.
19:22-20:1, 20:7-9, 44:17. Thus, this Court addresses dismissal only under Rule 12(b)(6).
17
See ET Aggregator, LLC v. PFJE AssetCo Hldgs. LLC, 2023 WL 8535181, at *6 (Del. Super.
4
specific supporting factual allegations.”18

A. THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM SURVIVES.
Seller has stated a viable breach of contract claim against Buyer. To prevail

on a breach of contract claim, a plaintiff must show “(1) the existence of a

contractual obligation; (2) a breach of that obligation; and (3) damages resulting

from the breach.”19 At this stage, a plaintiff must plead both damages and causation

in a way that is not “speculative or conjectural.”20

At the outset, the parties dispute which part of the MIPA controls. Defendants

argue Seller’s allegations are conclusory and fail to establish any damages.21 Under

this theory, Seller repudiated Section 2.06(b) by failing to timely object to the

earnout calculation.22 Defendants assert Seller’s claims stem from a calculation

issue because Tri-Star missed the $7 Million EBITDA threshold.

Seller counters by invoking the provisions of Section 2.06(d) arguing Buyer

breached the operational covenant therein—which prohibited the reassigning and

transferring of the Key Three—by altering the leadership resources available to Tri-

Dec. 8, 2023).
18
Id. (quoting Ramunno v. Crawley, 705 A.2d 1029, 1034 (Del. 1998)).
19
Sarraf 2018 Fam. Tr. v. RP Holdco, LLC, 2022 WL 10093538, at *6 (Del. Super. Oct. 17, 2022).
20
Petroleum v. Magellan Terminals Hldgs., L.P., 2015 WL 3885947, at *12 (Del. Super. June 23,
2015) (citing Laskowski v. Wallis, 205 A.2d 825, 826 (Del. 1964)).
21
Tr. 18:11-12; MTD Opening Br. at 17.
22
Tr. 20:13-21:16; MTD Opening Br. at 16-17.

5
Star.23 Seller contends the executive exodus before the covenants expired led to Tri-

Star’s poor fiscal performance, which resulted in damages of $5 Million, at least.

Indeed, Defendants recognize the damages sought by Seller represent the

maximum earnout payments available under the MIPA had the $7 Million EBITDA

threshold been met.24 But any argument about the speculative nature on the total

amount of damages is premature. Section 2.06(d) explicitly prohibited reassigning

and transferring the Key Three before the end of 2023. Still, Buyers plucked the

Key Three from Tri-Star, dropped them into Venturi, and left a void in leadership.

Accepting such allegations as true, it is reasonably conceivable Seller may be

entitled to recover earnout payments. In short, Seller has adequately pled Count I.

B. THE TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIMS FAIL.
Seller has failed to state a viable tortious interference claim against Trive and

Venturi. To succeed on a tortious interference claim, a plaintiff must show: “(1) a

contract, (2) about which defendant knew, and (3) an intentional act that is a

significant factor in causing the breach of such contract, (4) without justification, (5)

which causes injury.”25 The first and second factors are undisputed, and the third

and fifth factors are muddy; so the claims hinge on the fourth factor—without

23
Tr. 22:16-20.
24
Tr. 15:2-16; MTD Opening Br. at 1.
25
Ray Beyond Corp. v. Trimaran Fund Mgmt., L.L.C., 2019 WL 366614, at *9 (Del. Ch. Jan. 29,
2019) (emphasis in original) (quoting Bhole, Inc. v. Shore Inves., Inc., 67 A.3d 444, 453 (Del.
2013)).

6
justification.26 In defense, Trive and Venturi assert the affiliate privilege doctrine.

“The affiliate privilege doctrine immunizes a controller from tort liability for

its affiliates’ contractual breaches.”27 If the privilege applies, a complaint, on its

face, cannot prove a parent’s alleged interference was unjustified.28 To overcome

the affiliate privilege, a plaintiff must show the parent acted maliciously or in bad

faith.29 “Delaware courts are reluctant to find bad faith because affiliate interference

often is a legitimate business strategy.”30 “The bad faith standard is ‘stringent’ and

will not be found where a parent was merely advising or causing the subsidiary to

engage in an efficient breach of the contract.”31 This means conclusory suppositions

26
MTD Opening Br. at 19-23.
27
Surf’s Up Legacy P’rs, LLC V. Virgin Fest, LLC, 2021 WL 117036, at *1 (Del. Super. Jan. 13,
2021).
28
PPL Corp. v. Riverstone Hldgs. LLC, 2019 WL 5423306, at *12 (Del. Ch. Oct. 23, 2019) (citing
Bhole, 67 A.3d at 453)) (“If the [affiliate] privilege applies, the plaintiff will not be able to prove
a prima facie element of the tort of intentional interference—that the parent's alleged interference
with its subsidiary's contract was ‘without justification.’”).
29
Bhole, 67 A.3d at 454.
30
Buck v. Viking Hldg. Mgmt. Co. LLC, 2021 WL 673459, at *6 (Del. Super. Feb. 22, 2021). See
also Ray Beyond, 2019 WL 366614, at *9 (first quoting Shearin v. E.F. Hutton Gp., Inc., 652 A.2d
578, 590 (Del. Ch. 1994); and then citing James Cable, LLC v. Millenium Digit. Media Sys., L.L.C.,
2009 WL 1638634, at *4 (Del. Ch. June 11, 2009) (“Affiliate liability is narrowly construed
because ‘courts have recognized the common economic interests between [parents and
subsidiaries] and have afforded them great latitude for discussion and joint decision making.’”)).
31
PPL, 2019 WL 5423306, at *3 (first citing Allied Cap. Corp. v. GC-Sun Hldgs., L.P., 910 A.2d
1020, 1039 (Del. Ch. 2006); and then citing NAMA Hldgs., LLC v. Related WMC LLC, 2014 WL
6436647, at *30 (Del. Ch. Nov. 17, 2014)). See Ray Beyond Corp. v. Trimaran Fund Mgmt.,
L.L.C., 2019 WL 366614, at *10 (Del. Ch. Jan. 29, 2019) (granting summary judgment where the
allegations specific to the parent were insufficient to support an inference that the parent interfered
with the contract at issue). Contra I Am Athlete, LLC v. EnMotive, LLC, 2024 WL 4904685, at
*10-11 (Del. Super. Nov. 27, 2024) (granting a motion to dismiss where the allegations sufficiently
alleged bad faith conduct by the parent).

7
absent specific facts are not enough. The complaint must allege that the non-party’s

sole motive in interfering with the subsidiary was done in bad faith.32 In sum, a

complaint lacking bad faith allegations is subject to dismissal.33

Here, the Complaint alleges Trive and Venturi used their control of Buyer, not

to enrich Seller, but to divert value from Buyer to Trive and Venturi in a bad faith

manner.34 But that’s it. The allegations in the Complaint, taken together, do not

give rise to a reasonable inference Trive and Venturi directed Buyer to sign the

MIPA with the primary purpose of causing the breach in bad faith. Sure, the

Complaint alleges the Trive and Venturi “had actual notice and/or knowledge” of

the operational covenants in the MIPA and directed the Buyer to transfer and

reassign the Key Three. 35 Yet no facts are alleged as to how Trive and Venturi

directed Buyer for the sole purpose of injuring Seller.36 Conclusory allegations—

32
Buck, 2021 WL 673459, at *6. See also Surf’s Up Legacy P’rs, 2021 WL 117036, at *7 (“[T]here
is no contractual mechanism for holding a non-party controller responsible for the controlled’s
breaches, a complaint must contain alleged facts to rebut the presumption that the controller was
pursing its legitimate profit seeking interests in good faith—i.e., by showing that the controller’s
sole motive in interfering was bad faith to injure plaintiff.” (citations omitted) (cleaned up)).
33
See Nivagen Pharm., Inc. v. Hikma Pharm. USA Inc., 2024 WL 1576519, at *3 (Del. Super.
Apr. 11, 2024) (granting a motion to dismiss because “[n]ot one fact in the [c]omplaint relates to
a reason why [the parent] would be motivated to injure [the subsidiary] or otherwise act against
[other subsidiary]’s pecuniary interest.”); James Cable, LLC v. Millennium Digit. Media Sys,
L.L.C., 2009 WL 1638634, at *5 (Del. Ch. June 11, 2009) (granting a motion to dismiss because
the complaint did “not sufficiently allege any purpose behind [the controller]’s actions outside of
an economic interest it shared with [the subsidiary].”).
34
Allied Cap. Corp. v. GC-Sun Hldgs., L.P., 910 A.2d 1020, 1042 (Del. Ch. 2006).
35
Compl. ¶¶ 60, 69.
36
Id. ¶¶ 63, 74.

8
that Trive and Venturi “had no justification for [their] actions, which were improper

and expressly prohibited by the [MIPA]” and “Trive formed Venturi as part of this

strategic plan, for the purpose of holding, controlling and operating the Acquired

PVF Suppliers”37—are insufficient to overcome the presumption the controllers

were acting in good faith to maximize joint profits.38 Without more, the claims

against Trive and Venturi fail.

Conclusion
Seller has sufficiently pled a breach of contract claim against Buyer. But

Seller has not sufficiently pled a tortious interference claim against Trive and

Venturi. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Count I (Breach of

Contract and Indemnity) and GRANTED as to Counts III and IV (Tortious

Interference).

Sincerely,

/s/ Vivian L. Medinilla
Vivian L. Medinilla
Judge

37
Id. ¶¶ 11, 65, 76.
38
Nivagen, 2024 WL 1576519, at *4.

9