Ush Ventures v. Global Telesystems Group, C.A.No. 97C-08-086WTQ.
Citation | 796 A.2d 7 |
Decision Date | 09 May 2000 |
Docket Number | C.A.No. 97C-08-086WTQ. |
Parties | USH VENTURES, a California Corporation, and USH Telecom, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL TELESYSTEMS GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation, GTS Hungaro, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and GTS Hungary Telecom, Ltd., a Hungarian Company, Defendants. |
Court | Superior Court of Delaware |
David L. Finger, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiffs.
John A. Parkins, Jr., Esquire, and Jeffrey L. Moyer, Esquire, Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, Attorneys for Defendants.
MOTION GRANTED
VARIOUS OTHER MOTIONS RENDERED MOOT
This is the Court's Opinion and Order on Plaintiffs' and Defendants' respective Motions for Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated herein, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED because the Plaintiffs have not provided expert testimony or proved that they could have obtained the investors necessary to fulfill the contract. The Motion is also GRANTED because there is no evidence that GTS pursued the "specific application" listed in Schedule B of the non-disclosure/non-compete agreement. By virtue of this ruling, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Defendants' affirmative defenses of misrepresentation, fraud, equitable fraud, duty to investigate, mutual mistake, failure of consideration and standing is rendered moot.
This case arises out of an attempt to create a telecommunications system in Hungary. The Plaintiffs seek damages from an alleged breach of a non-disclosure/non-compete agreement.
Dr. Leslie Jacob began to explore business opportunities in his native Hungary beginning in 1990. He recognized that there was a need for a wireless communications network, and he learned that the Hungarian Water Management Authority ("OVF")1 was interested in enlarging its telecommunications network. Dr. Jacob formed a company to pursue the wireless communications systems which he named USH Ventures ("USHV").
Apparently, after Jacob meet with some Hungarian government officials, the Hungarian government through OVF formed a for-profit corporation which was named the Hydrotel Telecommunications Company ("Hydrotel"). Hydrotel then began soliciting funding to develop the telecommunications project. This invitational tender appeared to also encompass the right to build and develop the communications network.
Dr. Jacob was interested in getting into this communications project. USHV, acting through Dr. Jacob, put together a consortium consisting of itself, Vanguard Telecommunications, Incorporated ("Vanguard"), and California Microwave, Incorporated in order to submit a proposal to provide the funding on the Hungarian communications project. After the bids were counted, this three-way consortium had the winning tender for the project with the Hungarian authorities. It appears that the USHV consortium's tender was the only tender of merit submitted to the Hungarian officials. Varga Dep. at 13, Dkt. No. 149. In April 1995, the consortium signed an agreement with Hydrotel to be the main developer of the project. That agreement had certain conditions precedent to formation. That agreement stated in pertinent part:
Tender Contract Agreement at 10-11, Dkt. No. 136.
Obtaining the funding for the project seemed to be going well at the beginning. In May 1995, Hydrotel secured a grant from the U.S. Trade and Development Agency in the amount of $381,000US to fund the cost of services required for a feasibility study on the telecommunications project. On September 27, 1995, in furtherance of the project, the members of the consortium established USH Telecom, LLC ("USHT") to acquire, own, hold, and dispose of the Hydrotel project and exercise and execute all rights and obligations attributable to it. USH Ventures v. Global Telesystems Group, Inc., Del.Super., 97C-08-086, Quillen, J. (June 9, 1999), Letter Op. at 2.
The September 27, 1995 Limited Liability Company agreement between the consortium members also contained certain conditions precedent to formation. The LLC agreement states:
LLC Agreement at 31, Dkt. No.149.
While the project at the beginning seemed to be on track, the financing necessary for the project did not come through like the parties had wished. The consortium did not meet the 90-day deadline to satisfy the conditions precedent in the tender contract agreement with Hydrotel and the Hungarian authorities. A strategic investor was never identified and it does not appear that the Boards of all three of the consortium members ratified the agreement within the 90-day period to satisfy the conditions precedent. The consortium members were granted a written extension by the Hungarian representative to fulfill the conditions precedent in the Hydrotel contract. This extension gave Vanguard the exclusive right until February 28, 1996 to solicit potential investment in the Hydrotel project. That extension was given in exchange for a $100,000 capital contribution by Vanguard to the Hungarian authorities. Vanguard 12/15/95 Letter of Intent, Dkt. No. 136, Ex. 19. Vanguard claims that it pledged the $100,000 "to give us the opportunity to make something out of what we perceived to be very little or nothing" so that "somebody else ... would be able to make an equity investment into this." A. Whiting, Dep. at 31, Dkt. No. 135, Ex. 6. The financing never did materialize and the conditions precedent to the original written Hydrotel/USHT contract were never fulfilled. By March 1996, the parties understood that the extension expired and the original agreement with the Hungarian authorities was no longer in effect. Thereafter, Vanguard decided to reduce the level of its involvement with the project.2
While it is clear that the contract had expired, USHT through Jacob now claims that it was given an oral first right of refusal contract from Hydrotel so that USHT could participate in financing the Hydrotel telecommunication project. Such an oral contract appears to be valid under Hungarian law.
Armed with only this alleged oral first right of refusal contract, USHT started to again search for investors for the project. Dr. Jacob did not want to let the project die. He began negotiations with United International Holdings ("UIH") to obtain funding. UIH raised the idea of bringing in Global Telesystems Group, Incorporated ("GTS"), with whom UIH was in negotiations on other strategic business alliances. After some initial discussions, UIH3, GTS4 and USHT5 signed a mutual non-disclosure and non-compete agreement so each could deal with each other candidly on the Hungarian project. The agreement stated in pertinent part:
Jacob alleges that he then turned over certain materials which were reviewed by GTS. Dr. Jacob claims that while he was trying to get financing with and through GTS, he had received oral assurances by Dr. Milos Varga6 that, so long as he and USHT were working in good faith toward getting the Hydrotel project done, that OVF would not seek additional investors for the communications project.
Plaintiffs argue that after the non-disclosure/non-compete agreement was signed with GTS, Istvan Pesti of GTS Hungary Telecom, Ltd. approached Dr. Varga and stated that GTS would be willing to implement a development project in Hungary. Varga Dep. at 27, Dkt. No. 135,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Am. Healthcare Admin. Servs., Inc. v. Aizen
...and are now regularly used in purely legal cases, along with equitable defenses generally."); see also USH Ventures v. Glob. Telesystems Grp., Inc. , 796 A.2d 7, 14 (Del. Super. 2000) ("[E]quitable defenses generally, a long time ago, worked their way into purely legal cases."); T. Leigh An......
-
XRI Investment Holdings LLC v. Holifield
...century.") (quoting Fleming James, Jr. et al., Civil Procedure § 8.2, at 415 (4th ed. 1992)); see also USH Ventures v. Glob. Teleystems Gp., Inc. , 796 A.2d 7, 14 (Del. Super. 2000) ("[E]quitable defenses generally, a long time ago, worked their way into purely legal cases.").45 See Petrell......
-
XRI Inv. Holdings v. Holifield
...... at a capital raise / debt from a group out of New York- the. terms of which were ...1992)); see also USH Ventures v. Glob. Teleystems Gp., Inc. , 796 A.2d 7, ......
-
XRI Inv. Holdings v. Holifield
...(quoting Fleming James, Jr. et al., Civil Procedure § 8.2, at 415 (4th ed. 1992)); see also USH Ventures v. Glob. Teleystems Gp., Inc., 796 A.2d 7, 14 (Del. Super. 2000) ("[E]quitable defenses generally, a long time ago, worked their way into purely legal cases."). [45] See Petrella v. Metr......