Vis Vires Grp., Inc. v. Endonovo Therapeutics, Inc.
Decision Date | 24 October 2016 |
Docket Number | 16-cv-470 (ADS)(AYS) |
Parties | VIS VIRES GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. ENDONOVO THERAPEUTICS, INC. and ALAN COLLIER, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
APPEARANCES:
Naidich Wurman LLP
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
Great Neck, NY 11021
By: Richard S. Naidich, Esq.
Bernard S. Feldman, Esq.
Robert P. Johnson, Esq., Of Counsel
1164 Manhattan Avenue, Suite 100
Brooklyn, NY 11222
By: Robert J. Young, Esq., Of Counsel
Presently before the Court in this diversity breach of contract and tortious interference action is a motion by the Defendants Endonovo Therapeutics, Inc. ("Endonovo") and Alan Collier ("Collier," together with Endonovo, the "Defendants"), seeking an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FED. R. CIV. P.") 12(b)(6) dismissing the amended complaint filed by the Plaintiff Vis Vires Group, Inc. (the "Plaintiff") on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
For the reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are drawn from the amended complaint and construed in favor of the Plaintiff.
On July 9, 2015, Endonovo, a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in California, entered into a contract, styled a Securities Purchase Agreement (the "July Loan Agreement") with the Plaintiff, a domestic corporation with a principal place of business in Great Neck.
Although the July Loan Agreement is not annexed to the amended complaint; and although, in general, extrinsic evidence may not be consulted in connection with a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), in resolving this motion, the Court, in its discretion, will consider the July Agreement, which was previously submitted in connection with an earlier motion. See Jan. 28, 2016 Affidavit of Seth Kramer in Support of Motion for Provisional Remedies ("Kramer Aff."), DE [5-1], at Ex. "B".
In the Court's view, this document and the other documents forming the basis of the Plaintiff's claims, are plainly integral to, and incorporated by reference in the amended complaint. See Global Network Communs, Inc. v. City of New York, 458 F.3d 150, 157 (2d Cir. 2006) ( ).
Pursuant to the July Loan Agreement, the Plaintiff made a loan to Endonovo in the amount of $33,000. To ensure repayment of the loan, Endonovo executed a convertible promissory note (the "July Note"), with a maturity date of April 13, 2016, in an equal amount in favor of the Plaintiff. Again, although the July Note is not attached to the amended complaint, it is also contained in the Court record from a prior motion, and, for substantially the same reason as outlined above, will be considered here. See Kramer Aff., Ex. "A."
The Plaintiff alleges that the July Note "provided for certain issuance of, and conversion rights in and to common stock of [Endonovo]." Am. Compl. ¶ 17. In particular, by the terms of the July Note, the Plaintiff alleges that it was entitled to elect to convert the outstanding balance due on the loan into shares of Endonovo common stock (the "Debt-to-Equity Option").
In relevant part, the July Note provides, in part, the following:
Kramer Aff., Ex. "A," at pp. 5-6, 20.
Further, the terms of the July Note set forth various events constituting a default, including the following "Events of Default" referenced in the amended complaint:
Article III goes on to state, in pertinent part, that the occurrence of any Event of Default set forth in §§ 3.1, 3.2 and/or 3.15 would result in, among other penalties, the Promissory Notes becoming immediately due and payable. See id. at p. 17.
On August 10, 2015, Endonovo entered into a second contract with the Plaintiff, again styled a Securities Purchase Agreement (the "August Loan Agreement," together with the July Loan Agreement, the "Loan Agreements").
Pursuant to the August Loan Agreement, the Plaintiff made a second $33,000 loan to Endonovo, in exchange for which Endonovo executed a second convertible promissory note (the"August Note," together with the July Note, the "Promissory Notes") in an equal amount in favor of the Plaintiff.
Other than the maturity date of the August Note, which was not provided to the Court, it allegedly contained the same relevant language as the July Note regarding: (1) the Debt-to-Equity Option; and (2) the Plaintiff's entitlement to an Irrevocable Transfer Agent Letter.
On January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff sought to partially exercise its Debt-to-Equity Option under the July Note by converting $15,000 of the remaining balance due under the July Loan Agreement to 95,663 shares of Endonovo common stock. In this regard, the Plaintiff allegedly executed and delivered to Endonovo a Notice of Conversion, in accordance with the terms of the July Note.
However, allegedly at the direction of its chief executive officer, namely, the individual Defendant Collier, Endonovo refused to effectuate the conversion. According to the Plaintiff, this failure constitutes an Event of Default under Article III of the July Note.
In this regard, the Plaintiff alleges that, in directing Endonovo to breach its obligations under the July Note, Collier was acting outside the scope of his role as a corporate officer and for his own personal benefit. Therefore, according to the Plaintiff, Collier's conduct constitutes tortious interference with the July Loan Agreement.
The Plaintiff further alleges that, on an unspecified date after the execution of the Promissory Notes, without providing the required notice to the Plaintiff, Endonovo replaced its stock transfer agent with a corporation called Clear Trust LLC, and then instructed Clear Trust LLC not to honor the Plaintiff's otherwise valid Notice of Conversion. According to the Plaintiff, each of...
To continue reading
Request your trial