Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
No. 14-1402
LEGWEAR
GROUP,
INC.;
WILLIAM
SHEELY;
JOHN
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00244-MR-DLH)
Submitted:
Decided:
May 5, 2015
PER CURIAM:
USA
Trouser,
manufacturer,
filed
S.A.
de
suit
C.V.
against
(USAT),
its
primary
Mexican
sock
distributor,
370 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 308 (2014); Mun.
Assn of S.C. v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 709 F.3d 276, 283 (4th
Cir. 2013).
In
Id.
A dispute is
Id. at 568
challenges
the
district
courts
grant
of
summary
First, USAT
claimed
that
fiduciary
duties
arose
out
of
as
did
the
district
court,
that
USAT
business
However, we
forecast
no
Stonewall Packaging, LLC, 727 S.E.2d 291, 298-99 (N.C. Ct. App.
2012).
which
Although
the
made
them
district
mutually
court
may
interdependent
have
read
too
businesses.
broadly
the
831,
mutual
interdependence,
fiduciary
833
(N.C.
type
of
fiduciary
businesses.
App.
without
obligations),
necessarily harmless.
the
Ct.
we
1990)
more,
(indicating
will
conclude
not
that
only
give
any
that
rise
error
to
is
circumstances
relationship
required
between
for
the
existence
mutually
of
interdependent
F.3d 331, 348 (4th Cir. 1998), quoted with approval in Kaplan v.
O.K. Techs., L.L.C., 675 S.E.2d 133, 138 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009);
Crumley & Assocs., P.C. v. Charles Peed & Assocs., P.A., 730
S.E.2d 763, 768 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012).
Next, USAT claims that it presented evidence demonstrating
Andrews owed it, as ILGs creditor, a fiduciary duty due to his
position as ILGs director and that the district court erred by
not viewing the evidence in USATs favor.
We agree.
With one
Perry,
App.
560
quotation
S.E.2d
marks
817,
824
(N.C.
omitted).
Ct.
[O]nly
2002)
where
(internal
there
exist
omitted).
claim
against
director
from
reaching
the
jury.
See
thus,
existed.
whether
director-creditor
fiduciary
relationship
insolvency
2
as
nearly
irrelevant
(Continued)
6
factors. 2
The
court
operation
operations
up
of
until
ILG
the
and
time
actively
that
alone,
the
lender
district
court
ILGs
decided
(J.A. 2729-30). 3
ILGs
continuing
concluded
to
On this
that
no
conclude,
factfinder
however,
could
that
USAT
reasonably
presented
infer
that
evidence
from
ILG
both
was
an ILG director. 4
First, we
note that the relevant inquiry is whether ILG had ceased these
activities at a time when Andrews was still on the board.
The
district court concluded that ILG had not ceased the activities
until ILGs primary lender decided to foreclose.
Second, the
whether
existed.
creditor-director
fiduciary
relationship
that
the
forced
liquidation
of
ILGs
assets
and
arises,
directors
of
corporation
may
prefer
secured
before
S.E.2d at 827.
paying
any
debts
to
the
latter.
Keener,
560
App.
(Inherent
2013)
affirmative
duty
to
in
any
fiduciary
disclose
all
relationship
facts
material
is
an
to
constructive
trust
or,
instead,
constructive
fraud.
In
806
Salem
(N.C.
Ct.
Logistics
App.
Traffic
2014);
Servs.,
Variety
LLC,
Wholesalers,
723
S.E.2d
Inc.
744,
v.
751-52
(N.C. 2012).
Finally, for the remainder of the claims that USAT seeks to
raise on appeal, we conclude that USAT either has raised them
here for the first time or has not sufficiently challenged in
its
brief
the
regarding them.
basis
for
the
district
courts
disposition
See In re
Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014); Projects Mgmt.
Co. v. Dyncorp Intl LLC, 734 F.3d 366, 376 (4th Cir. 2013);
Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 653 n.7 (4th Cir.
2006); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th
Cir. 1999).
Accordingly,
summary
judgment
we
vacate
to
Andrews
the
on
district
USATs
courts
fiduciary
grant
duty
of
and
10
before
this
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED
11