Kuramo Capital Management, LLC v. Seruma

COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
KATHALEEN ST. JUDE MCCORMICK LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
CHANCELLOR 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734

December 11, 2025

Bruce E. Jameson Eric A. Veres
J. Clayton Athey S. Michael Blochberger
John G. Day Abrams & Bayliss LLP
Christine N. Chappelear 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200
Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A. Wilmington, Delaware 19807
1310 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Mary S. Thomas
Thomas Law LLC
1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301
Wilmington, DE 19803
(302) 647-1203

Re: Kuramo Capital Management, LLC, et al. v. Seruma, et al.,
C.A. No. 2021-0323-KSJM

Dear Counsel:

This case arises from a dispute over the parties’ relative ownership interests

of entities formed to hold interests in a palm oil production company, Plantations et

Huileries de Congo SA (“PHC”), which is located and minority owned by the

Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”). Defendant Larry Seruma managed and held

interests in the entities at issue. The plaintiffs, referred to collectively as “Kuramo,”

filed suit in April 2021 claiming that Seruma and his affiliates, referred to as the

“Nile Parties,” breached fiduciary duties owed to Kuramo.1 Kuramo took aim at a

1 Other terms have the meaning ascribed to them in the Post-Trial Memorandum

Opinion. Dkt. 308, Kuramo Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. Seruma, 2024 WL 1888216 (Del. Ch.
Apr. 30, 2024).
C.A. No. 2021-0323-KSJM
December 11, 2025
Page 2 of 10

host of Seruma’s actions, but primarily challenged a restructuring transaction that

Seruma orchestrated to purportedly acquire a majority interest in PHC.

The court issued a long Post-Trial Memorandum Opinion (the “Opinion”) in

April 2024.2 The Opinion found that Seruma breached his duty of loyalty.3 The

Opinion also granted the parties leave to submit letters identifying any unaddressed

arguments or claims.4 The court issued a Letter Decision on September 6, 2024,

addressing most of the remaining arguments.5 As of the Letter Decision, the only

remaining issue concerned remedies.

To close this case, Kuramo requests an in-kind redemption of its investments

in PHC and GenAfrica investments.6 The briefing on remedies spawned motions to

strike and intervene.7 This decision determines the appropriate remedy and the two

attendant motions.

The court assumes knowledge of the background of this action.8 As a quick

reminder, the court found that Seruma breached his fiduciary duties as follows:

• Seruma attempted a corporate coup of PHC. After Kuramo refused to
appoint Seruma as director general of PHC, Seruma took matters into
his own hands.9 Waiting until Kuramo’s principals traveled hundreds

2 Kuramo, 2024 WL 1888216.

3 Id. at *41.

4 Id. at *43.

5 Dkt. 318 (Letter Decision).

6 Dkt. 323 (Kuramo’s Suppl. Post-Trial Opening Br.) at 2.

7 Dkts. 328, 333.

8 See Kuramo, 2024 WL 1888216.

9 Id. at *12.
C.A. No. 2021-0323-KSJM
December 11, 2025
Page 3 of 10

of miles away, under the guise of “risk management,” and with one-day
notice, Seruma scheduled an emergency board meeting to elect a new
director general.10

• To stack his election odds, Seruma sent unsigned resignations letters
from two board members to the chairman.11 He then purported to install
replacements.12 Ultimately, he failed to install himself as director
general.13 Undeterred, he remained in the DRC to try to seize control of
PHC.14

• Separately, Seruma attempted to transfer the majority the parties’
investment in PHC to himself. Through a series of deceptive
maneuvers, he grew his 1 percent minority interest to a controlling
stake.15

• To execute his scheme, Seruma lied to Kuramo and secretly contributed
his interest in Ugandan farmland into the entity holding PHC.16 This
diluted Kuramo’s interests and increased Seruma’s.17

• Seruma next advanced a theory, without supporting evidence, that
Kuramo agreed to a 60/40 split of an entity formed to help restructure
PHC’s debts, KN Agri.18 And according to Seruma, because Kuramo
failed to fund and convert a bridge loan, they forfeited their interests in
the entity.19

10 Id.

11 Id. at *13.

12 Id.

13 Id.

14 Id.

15 Id. at *14.

16 Id. at *14–17.

17 Id. at *15.

18 Id. at *20.

19 Id. at *19, 30.
C.A. No. 2021-0323-KSJM
December 11, 2025
Page 4 of 10

• At trial, the court found no evidence that Kuramo refused to fund the
bridge loan20 and that Kuramo owned 97% (not 40%) of KN Agri.21

• Meanwhile, PHC lenders declined to work with Seruma,22 who failed the
lenders’ know-your-customer review.23

A. The In-Kind Redemption

In 1939, the Delaware Supreme Court explained equitable remedies for

fiduciary breaches:

The rule, inveterate and uncompromising in its rigidity,
does not rest upon the narrow ground of injury or damage
to the corporation resulting from a betrayal of confidence,
but upon a broader foundation of a wise public policy that,
for the purpose of removing all temptation, extinguishes all
possibility of profit flowing from a breach of the confidence
imposed by the fiduciary relation.24

As this passage reflects, “Delaware law dictates that the scope of recovery for a breach

of the duty of loyalty is not to be determined narrowly.”25 “Once disloyalty has been

established, the standards. . . require that a fiduciary not profit personally from his

conduct, and that the beneficiary not be harmed by such conduct.”26 Additionally,

20 Id. at *22.

21 Id. at *20–21.

22 Id. at *22.

23 Id. at *22–23.

24 Guth v. Loft, Inc., 5 A.2d 503, 510 (Del. 1939).

25 Thorpe by Castleman v. CERBCO, Inc., 676 A.2d 436, 445 (Del. 1996).

26 Id.
C.A. No. 2021-0323-KSJM
December 11, 2025
Page 5 of 10

“courts will not construe a contract as taking away a common law remedy unless that

result is imperatively required.”27

Kuramo requests an in-kind redemption of the parties’ investments in PHC

and GenAfrica investments.28 According to Kuramo, this request would clear the

cloud of title that Seruma has placed over the investments, and allow Kuramo to

realize the value of their PHC and GenAfrica investments.29 Kuramo also raises

concerns with the alternative—a sale process—that would further delay resolution,

and empower and reward a faithless fiduciary.30 In the latest round of briefing,

Kuramo makes a compelling argument that the equities strongly favor an in-kind

redemption.31

27 Gotham P’rs, L.P. v. Hallwood Realty P’rs, L.P., 817 A.2d 160, 176 (Del. 2002)

(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 17A Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 727 (1991)).
28 Kuramo’s Suppl. Post-Trial Opening Brief at 2.

29 Id. at 8–10.

30 Id. at 5–8. During oral argument, the Nile Parties belatedly proposed a custodian-
led sale as an alternative to a Seruma-led sale or an in-kind redemption. Dkt. 351
(9/16/25 H’rg Tr.), at 46:3–12. The Nile Parties waived this request by failing to brief
it despite multiple opportunities. See Dkts. 322 (The Nile Parties’ Supplemental
Post-Trial Br.), 326 (The Nile Parties’ Supplemental Answering Br.); Emerald P’rs v.
Berlin, 726 A.2d 1215, 1224 (Del. 1999) (“Issues not briefed are deemed waived.”).
Although a custodian-led sale would eliminate some of the process concerns raised by
Kuramo, it would not address them all. The bottom line is that the one person who
benefits from a sale, not an in-kind redemption, is Seruma. For reasons discussed
below, it is not appropriate to give Seruma the benefit of a remedy given the court’s
findings.
31 See Kuramo’s Supplemental Post-Trial Br. at 3–13.
C.A. No. 2021-0323-KSJM
December 11, 2025
Page 6 of 10

The Nile Parties dispute Kuramo’s entitlement to an in-kind redemption based

on their interpretation of the LLC Agreements.32 They first point to Section 18-605

of the Delaware LLC Act, which provides that “[e]xcept as provided in a limited

liability company agreement, a member . . . has no right to demand and receive any

distribution from a limited liability company in any form other than cash.” 33 Nile

argues that because the LLC Agreements at issue do not provide for an in-kind

distribution, Kuramo cannot request one as a remedy for Seruma’s breach of fiduciary

duties.34

The Opinion and Letter Decision already revealed the flaw in the Nile Parties’

argument.35 As I stated in the Opinion, “[o]nce a fiduciary breach has been

established, this court’s powers are complete to fashion any form of equitable and

monetary relief as may be appropriate.”36 As I noted in the Letter Decision,

“Delaware law dictates that the scope of recovery for a breach of the duty of loyalty is

not to be determined narrowly.”37 Without contractual support, one party cannot

demand an in-kind redemption when another breaches their fiduciary duty. But a

32 See The Nile Parties’ Suppl. Post-Trial Answering Br. at 5–10.

33 Id. at 4 (citing 6 Del. C. § 18-605).

34 Id. at 6–10.

35See Letter Decision at 2–4 (discussing the parties’ contracts and this court’s
equitable powers).
36 Kuramo, 2024 WL 1888216, at *41 (quoting In re Dole Food Co., Inc S’holder Litig.,

2015 WL 5052214, at *44 (Del. Ch. Aug. 27, 2015) (citation modified)).
37 Letter Decision at 4 (quoting Thorpe, 676 A.2d at 445).
C.A. No. 2021-0323-KSJM
December 11, 2025
Page 7 of 10

court can. The LLC Agreements are silent as to appropriate remedies for a fiduciary

breach.38 And “even if a contract specifies a remedy for breach of that contract, a

contractual remedy cannot be read as exclusive of all other remedies if it lacks the

requisite expression of exclusivity.”39

The LLC Agreements do not foreclose Kuramo’s preferred remedy here. Those

agreements contemplate specific procedures for when and how Kuramo can withdraw

funds, but those procedures do not explicitly prevent in-kind redemptions.40 Nor do

they address in-kind redemptions as a remedy for breach or otherwise designate an

exclusive remedy for disputes among the members.

The Nile Parties’ remaining arguments against in-kind redemptions also fail.

The Nile Parties cite Neal v. Alabama By-Products Corp. to argue an in-kind

redemption is inappropriate because a remedy must relate to the legal rules at

issue.41 Their premise is correct, but the conclusion does not follow. In Neal, the

plaintiff failed to meet the demand requirement for appraisal under Section 262(a).42

The plaintiff requested that the court grant interest on the cash they would have

38 See JX-1609 (Amended Nile LLC Agreement); JX-1448 (Nile Global Agreement);

JX-1227 (Series B Supplement).
39 Gotham P’rs, 817 A.2d at 176 (citation modified).

40 See Letter Decision at 3–4.

41Nile Parties’ Supplemental Post-Trial Br. at 11 (citing Neal v. Alabama By-
Products Corp., 1988 WL 105754, at *5 (Del. Ch. Oct. 11, 1988)).
42 Neal, 1988 WL 105754, at *3–5.
C.A. No. 2021-0323-KSJM
December 11, 2025
Page 8 of 10

received from the merger absent their failed demand.43 The court explained that

“[e]quity, as a general rule, follows the law,”44 and refused to use its equitable powers

to grant interest because neither Section 262 nor the parties’ contract allowed it.45

Unlike Neal, the remedy here seeks to redress a breach of the duty of loyalty, not a

statutory remedy. As discussed above, disloyal conduct is different and warrants

flexing equitable powers.

Both sides cite Paige Capital Management, LLC v. Lerner Master Fund, LLC,46

but it is uninformative. There, a hedge fund manager exercised a “Gate Provision”

in a partnership agreement to prevent a fund from redeeming its investment.47 “The

central issue [was] contractual” and the court held the manager breached. 48 In the

alternate, the court also held the manager breached her duty of loyalty.49 As a result,

the court ordered the manager to return the investor’s capital with interest.50 The

court never addressed whether to grant an in-kind redemption because the hedge

fund held mostly cash,51 and the suit was filed because the manager failed to allocate

43 Id. at *5.

44 Id.

45 Id. at *5–6.

46 2011 WL 3505355 (Del. Ch. Aug. 8, 2011).

47 Id. at *1.

48 Id. at *2.

49 Id.

50 Id. at *43.

51
Id. at *6 (“As noted, [the manager] had largely kept the Fund in cash. . . .”).
C.A. No. 2021-0323-KSJM
December 11, 2025
Page 9 of 10

capital.52 The court never considered whether to order an in-kind redemption. Paige

does not dictate the outcome here.

The Nile Parties emphasize that Kuramo has not cited a single decision

granting in-kind redemption without explicit contractual authorization.53 But as

Neal states, a “lack of precedent is not a bar to the exercise of this Court’s equitable

powers.”54 And that makes sense. To discourage disloyalty, this court must have

discretion to use its equitable power to craft a remedy corresponding to a defendant’s

breach. Plus, the lack of precedent is unsurprising, given the unusually brazen

nature of Seruma’s breaches.

In sum, Kuramo makes a compelling argument for an in-kind redemption, and

the Nile Parties’ legal arguments against that remedy fail. The court thus awards

Kuramo an in-kind redemption of the PHC and GenAfrica investments. This remedy

ensures Seruma is not enriched for his breach of loyalty. And it allows Kuramo to do

what it does best: manage African investments. The parties must meet and confer to

submit a draft final order consistent with this decision.

B. The Motion to Intervene

In a motion to intervene, a party must have “(a) timely moved to intervene, (b)

in order to protect a property interest at issue in the case, (c) that would be impaired

52 See id.

53 See The Nile Parties’ Suppl. Reply Br. at 2, 14, 15, 27.

54 Neal, 1988 WL 105754, at *5.
C.A. No. 2021-0323-KSJM
December 11, 2025
Page 10 of 10

by the disposition of the action, (d) under circumstances where their interests are not

adequately represented by the existing parties.”55

Owl Creek’s motion is too late. It fails the first factor. “The timeliness

determination is a fact specific analysis that rests in the sound discretion of the trial

court.”56 Plaintiffs raised the in-kind redemption issue in their pre-trial brief, and it

has resurfaced throughout the case. Yet now Owl Creek seeks to intervene on a

limited basis to protect its interests as a creditor. This eleventh hour intervention is

not timely.

The motion to intervene is denied.

C. The Motion to Strike

At oral argument, the parties failed to address plaintiffs’ motion to strike. It

is moot given I have granted plaintiffs’ request for an in-kind redemption. The motion

to strike is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sincerely,

/s/ Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick

Chancellor

cc: All counsel of record (by File & ServeXpress)

55 GMF ELCM Fund L.P. v. ELCM HCRE GP LLC, 2021 WL 4313430, at *10 (Del.

Ch. Sep. 22, 2021) (citation modified).
56Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Great Am. Leasing Corp. v.
Republic Bank, 2003 WL 22389464, at *1 (Del. Ch. Oct. 3, 2003)).