Cap Call, LLC v. Foster (In re Shoot the Moon, LLC)

• Decision Date: 10 September 2021
• Docket Number: Adv. Proc. No. 2:17-ap-00028-WLH,Case No. 2:15-bk-60979-WLH
• Citation: 635 B.R. 797
• Parties: IN RE: SHOOT THE MOON, LLC, Debtor. Cap Call, LLC, Plaintiff and Counterclaim-defendant, v. Jeremiah J. Foster, Defendant and Counterclaim-plaintiff.
• Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Montana

635 B.R. 797

IN RE: SHOOT THE MOON, LLC, Debtor.Cap Call, LLC, Plaintiff and Counterclaim-defendant,

v.Jeremiah J. Foster, Defendant and Counterclaim-plaintiff.

Case No. 2:15-bk-60979-WLH

Adv. Proc. No. 2:17-ap-00028-WLH

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Montana.

Signed September 10, 2021.

Martin S. King, Worden Thane, P. C., Missoula, MT, Alissa a Brice Castaneda, W. Scott Jenkins, Jr., Quarles & Brady LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Counter-Claimant.

David B. Cotner, Missoula, MT, for Defendant.

Michael H. Hekman, Robert C. Lukes, Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, PLLP, Missoula, MT, Roland Gary Jones, New York, NT, Steven M. Johnson, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WHITMAN L. HOLT, U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

Legal relationships between private parties are largely defined by contract. When these contracts are implicated in litigation, courts must assess the terms and other relevant evidence to classify and determine the parties’ rights and liabilities, often months or years after the original deal. In some instances, this after-the-fact analysis reveals legally significant aspects of the contractual relationship that the parties might not have appreciated when contracting.

In this adversary proceeding, a bankruptcy trustee and CapCall, LLC disagree about the legal classification and ramifications of prepetition transactions. After fully considering the evidence presented at trial, as well as briefing and oral argument offered by both sides, the court has determined that the trustee is entitled to entry of a judgment against CapCall. The details follow below.¹

FACTUAL BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL POSTURE

The Shoot the Moon Enterprise Generally

In the early 2000s, Kenneth Hatzenbeller and two other principal investors created a business generally known as Shoot the Moon. Over time this enterprise grew to consist of nineteen LLCs formed pursuant to Idaho, Montana, and Washington law that owned and operated sixteen restaurants located throughout the three states.² Among other forms of customer payment, the restaurants accepted credit cards, which generated a revenue stream for the Shoot the Moon entities through a processing company called Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.³ Until shortly before the underlying Shoot the Moon bankruptcy case discussed later, Mr. Hatzenbeller exercised day-to-day management and control of all Shoot the Moon entities from his office in Great Falls, Montana.

The Shoot the Moon restaurants eventually encountered various financial pressures, including due to the 2007-2009 Great Recession and improvements demanded by some of the restaurants’ franchisors. Hoping to combat these pressures, Mr. Hatzenbeller sought additional financing from various sources. Initial sources included himself and the original investors, family and friends, additional third-party investors, traditional bank lenders, and trade creditors. Some creditors obtained and perfected security interests regarding all assets of various of the entities (including accounts receivable) via UCC-1 financing statements that predate the CapCall transactions.⁴

Prepetition Merchant Cash Transactions With CapCall, LLC

Once the Shoot the Moon entities exhausted the sources of capital mentioned above, several sought additional financing from merchant cash advance companies such as CapCall. Between October 2014 and September 2015, the Shoot the Moon entities and CapCall consummated eighteen transactions. The parties detailed the terms in written Merchant Agreements and associated documents (including confessions of judgment, personal guaranties by Shoot the Moon's principals, and UCC-1 financing statements).⁵ The Merchant Agreements are generally similar but contain minor variations.

The economic core of these transactions was that CapCall provided the Shoot the Moon entities with immediate cash (and hence liquidity to operate) upon closing. In exchange, CapCall received a portion of future receivables generated through the restaurant operations. The amounts promised to CapCall substantially exceeded the amount of cash CapCall paid, which created possible profit for CapCall and represented the cost to the Shoot the Moon entities of obtaining financing in this fashion.

Return transfers to CapCall were effected via fixed daily ACH debits (in the "Specified Daily Amount" per each agreement) against bank accounts Mr. Hatzenbeller specified. The debits continued regarding a given agreement until CapCall received a total "Receipts Purchased Amount" set forth in that agreement. A significant majority of the transfers were made using the bank account of an entity – Shoot the Moon Grizzly, LLC – that was not party to any of the agreements and did not operate any restaurants generating receivables.⁶ Jason Leak, the primary representative of CapCall, knew about this mismatch between the contractual counterparty entities and the entity used to fund payments. Mr. Leak expressed no concern other than to request that there was "an account that will clear all the time."⁷

Mr. Hatzenbeller and Mr. Leak arranged each transaction via email.⁸ In these emails, the two primarily addressed the amount CapCall would advance to a particular Shoot the Moon entity. Before funding, Mr. Leak emailed Mr. Hatzenbeller legal documents for signature – CapCall apparently never countersigned any of the agreements. CapCall and each specific entity documented each transaction via a separate, standalone Merchant Agreement. CapCall selected the terms and conditions of these agreements by using its form documents; Mr. Hatzenbeller testified that the two negotiated no specific terms beyond the basic economics and that he in fact did not read the documents before signing them. Although Mr. Leak occasionally suggested to Mr. Hatzenbeller that he could obtain regular financing, there was no binding commitment to lend or make future advances and each new transaction was subject to separate investor approval and documentation.⁹ Emails between Mr. Hatzenbeller and Mr. Leak often referred to the transactions as "loans" or "notes" and on at least one occasion, there was specific negotiation regarding the temporal "term" of a transaction.¹⁰

The Shoot the Moon Bankruptcy Generally

On October 20, 2015, all nineteen Shoot the Moon entities merged into Shoot the Moon, LLC.¹¹ The following day, this entity filed the underlying chapter 11 bankruptcy petition here.¹²

During the bankruptcy case, Jeremiah J. Foster (the "Trustee") was appointed as the chapter 11 trustee and then as trustee of the STM Liquidating Trust pursuant to the confirmed chapter 11 plan.¹³

For purposes of this dispute, material events during the course of the bankruptcy case include:

• The Trustee sold substantially all of the bankruptcy estate's business assets via Bankruptcy Code section 363(b). The net proceeds realized from this sale were substantially less than the amount of the claims of numerous secured creditors (including those with perfected security interests senior to CapCall), leaving them with significant unsecured deficiency claims under Bankruptcy Code section 506(a).¹⁴ CapCall did not object to the sale or to a stipulation regarding distribution of the proceeds to certain of the senior secured creditors.

• The Trustee moved to obtain turnover of certain funds held by Heartland consisting of restaurant customer credit card payments processed prepetition but not transferred to any Shoot the Moon accounts before the petition date.¹⁵ The Trustee and CapCall subsequently stipulated to segregate these funds pending resolution of the parties’ disputes. The balance is $228,449.93.¹⁶

• CapCall filed a proof of claim asserting a claim for conversion of receivables that CapCall contended it owned. CapCall acknowledged that the claim was unsecured and that CapCall held no security interest in property of the debtor.¹⁷

Posture of This Adversary Proceeding

In August 2017, CapCall commenced this adversary proceeding. CapCall seeks declaratory relief that it owns the remaining balance deposited in the segregated account, a judgment against the Trustee for converting postpetition receipts, and other miscellaneous fees, costs, and interest components. The Trustee counterclaimed seeking declaratory relief about which state's law applies to the transactions and that the transactions are disguised loans rather than sales. The Trustee also seeks unencumbered title to the segregated account, avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential transfers, and remedies stemming from CapCall's alleged usurious interest rates.

The court conducted a trial commencing June 29, 2021, and concluding the following day. At trial, the court admitted numerous exhibits and deposition excerpts.¹⁸ The parties presented the following testimony:

• Evan Marmott . Mr. Marmott is the CEO and owner of CapCall. He testified about the general nature of CapCall's business and his understanding of how the Merchant Agreements operate, including features of the documents that he believes are standard industry practice. Mr. Marmott testified about the due diligence CapCall did before entering into transactions, including reviewing account statements from the credit-card payment processer and checking Mr. Hatzenbeller's credit report. Mr. Marmott conceded on cross-examination that he had no direct personal contact with Mr. Hatzenbeller and that such interactions occurred with CapCall's "outside brokers" such as Mr. Leak. Aside from this basic background information, the court did not find Mr. Marmott credible or persuasive. He was often evasive, his description of the relationship between CapCall and the Shoot the Moon entities was largely conclusory and self-serving (and hearsay due to his lack of interaction with Mr. Hatzenbeller), and his description of the Merchant Agreements frequently conflicted with the plain terms of the documents. For example, Mr. Marmott adamantly disclaimed the expansive scope of the collateral package granted to CapCall in the documents despite being

...