Monday, January 3, 2022

Distribution Agreement - Contract Drafting

Distribution Agreement

Export

Maquiladora

Contract Drafting

 

 

Exclusive Distribution Agreement, dated November 9, 2016, by and between AmpliTech Inc, and distributor

Republication

Justia Website

https://contracts.justia.com/companies/amplitech-group-inc-4037/contract/141977/

 

Contract Categories: Business Operations - Distribution Agreements

EX-10.8 3 ampg_ex108.htm DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT ampg_ex108.htm

EXHIBIT 10.8

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT

 

 

THIS DISTRIBUTOR AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is dated as of November 9, 2016 (the "Effective Date"), by and between AmpliTech Inc., a New York corporation ("Manufacturer"), and East Coast Microwave Sales & Distribution, LLC. a Massachusetts corporation ("ECM").

 

 

 

RECITALS

 

 

WHEREAS, Manufacturer is a global supplier of microwave and millimeter-wave electronic products to customers in the aerospace, medical, military, telecommunications and other markets;

 

WHEREAS, ECM is a distributor of radio frequency (RF) and microwave coaxial connectors, cable assemblies and components, specializing in distributing coaxial connectors to commercial and military markets;

 

WHEREAS, Manufacturer desires to engage ECM to market and sell Manufacturer's products to customers as set forth herein.

 

 

 

AGREEMENT

 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

 

A ) Appointment. Manufacturer appoints ECM on an exclusive basis to serve during the term of this Agreement as an authorized distributor of the Products within the Territory (as those terms are defined below), and ECM accepts such appointment. Manufacturer will be entitled to market, sell and distribute the Products within the Territory either directly or through other authorized distributors or dealers. However, Manufacturer will inform ECM of the appointment of any other authorized distributor of the Products within the Territory within 30 days of such appointment. ECM shall not be prevented in any way from selling within the Territory similar products or merchandise of other suppliers or manufacturers only if the manufacturer has first right of refusal in providing those products per ECM specifications. ECM shall notify Manufacturer in advance of appointing any new suppliers or manufacturers of products that are similar to that of the Manufacturers.

 

B ) Definition of "Products." The term "Products" means the products listed on the Distributor Price List attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Price List"). Products may be added to or deleted from the Price List by Manufacturer upon 60 days' prior written notice to ECM.

 

C ) Definition of "Territory." The term "Territory" will mean the United States, Canada, Mexico and South Americas.

 

 

Export Compliance.

 

a ) ECM agrees to comply with all applicable U.S. export control laws and regulations, specifically including, by not limited to, the requirements of the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. 2751-2794, including without limitation the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 C.F.R. 120 et seq,; and the Export Administration Act, 50 U.S.C. app. 2401-2420, including without limitation the Export Administration Regulations, 15 C.F.R. 730-774 (EAR); and the requirement for obtaining any export or reexport license or agreement, if applicable. Without limiting the foregoing, ECM agrees that it will not directly or indirectly transfer any export controlled item, data, or services, to include transfer to foreign persons employed by or associated with, or under contract to ECM, without authority of an export license, agreement or applicable exemption or exception, and shall use all reasonable efforts to ensure same.

 

b ) ECM shall provide prompt notification to Manufacturer in the event of any violation or potential violation of any applicable laws or regulations, including without limitation the EAR or ITAR, and the initiation or existence of any government, quasi-government or other regulatory investigation or judicial body.

 

c ) ECM represents that it is registered with the Office of Defense Trade Controls, as required by the ITAR, and it maintains an effective export/import compliance program in accordance with the ITAR.

 

d ) ECM shall not make, offer, agree to make, directly or indirectly, any kind or political contribution to any political candidate, faction or committee, government officer or employee or any other person in the solicitation, promotion or sale of the Products, or on behalf or, or for the benefit of, the Manufacturer.

 

2 . Term. The initial term of this Agreement will continue for twelve months after the Effective Date unless terminated as provided herein. The term will automatically renew upon each one-year anniversary date of the Effective Date until this Agreement is terminated as provided herein.

 

 

3 . Obligations of ECM. ECM will:

 

a ) Effectively promote the sale of the Products and generate and maintain sales of the Products within the Territory;

 

b ) Provide timely delivery and superior customer service to ECM's customers with regard to the Products;

 

c ) Provide Manufacturer with sales activity reports in a mutually agreeable format as follows:

 

i ) A stock status report showing the month-end, on-hand quantities of the Products by device type and warehouse location,; and

 

ii ) A point-of-sale report showing Product sales for the month by device type, customer name and address, quantity and distributor cost for the Products,

 

iii ) Provide an annual sales report (Q3 - Q3) by October 31st of each year of the Term detailing sales of ITAR controlled items manufactured in Manufacturer's maquiladora.

 

d ) Participate in such training programs as may be offered by Manufacturer;

 

 

e ) Promptly investigate and monitor all customer concerns or inquiries regarding the Products and promptly inform Manufacturer of all such concerns and inquiries and any accidents, incidents or other events which may give rise to a claim involving the Products;

 

 

f ) At all times comply with all federal, state and local laws, regulations and ordinances applicable to ECM's business, including but not limited to maintaining all licenses required by such laws;

 

 

g ) Maintain comprehensive general liability and other insurance in accordance with industry standards and provide a Certificate of Insurance upon Manufacturer 's request; and

 

 

h ) In the event of a recall of the Products by Manufacturer, ECM will cooperate with Manufacturer, which will have responsibility and final authority as to the actions taken with respect to ECM's customers and with respect to government authorities in implementing such recall. Such cooperation will include but not be limited to identifying customers and locating and retrieving, if necessary, recalled Products from ECM's customers.

 

 

 

4 ) Obligations of Manufacturer. 

 

Manufacturer will provide the following at no cost to ECM, in quantities and as otherwise deemed commercially reasonable by Manufacturer:

 

a ) Current pricing and other information on the Products;

 

b ) Marketing materials and samples for sales programs;

 

c ) Training and technical support for the Products sold by ECM; and

 

d ) A monthly status report listing all accepted orders that have not yet been shipped, indicating the part number, quantity, order date, purchase order number and Date of Shipment (as defined below) for each such order.

 

 

5 ) Audits. At any time during the Term, upon reasonable prior written notice, Manufacturer may at its cost:

 

a ) Conduct or authorize its agent to conduct an audit of those records of ECM which pertain to purchases and sales of the Products during the previous twelve months or from and after the last audit, whichever period is shorter; and

 

b ) Conduct a physical inventory (or, in automated facilities, observe cycle counts and related methodology) of the Products at ECM's locations.

 

The audit and inventory will be carried out at reasonable times and in a manner that will not disrupt or otherwise materially adversely impact the conduct of ECM's business. Manufacturer's auditors will sign non-disclosure agreements before being permitted to perform audit. If the results of the audit indicate that ECM has breached its obligations pursuant to this Agreement, the cost of the audit shall be paid ECM.

 

 

Orders; Rescheduling: Cancellation; Acceptance.

 

a ) Orders. Manufacturer will accept each ECM purchase order, in writing, at the earliest practicable date, but in any event within five business days following receipt thereof, and will confirm the requested shipment date or specify an alternative shipment date (the "Date of Shipment"). ECM will have no obligation to order any minimum quantity of Products. All orders for the Products may be accepted or rejected in Manufacturer's sole discretion. ECM's purchase of the Products will be subject to Manufacturer's then-current standard terms and conditions, provided that the terms of this Agreement will control in the event of any conflict between this Agreement and such standard terms and conditions.

 

b ) Rescheduling; Cancellation. ECM may reschedule the delivery of any orders for which a written request for rescheduling is received by Manufacturer at least 30 business days prior to the scheduled Date of Shipment. Orders inside of such 30-business-day lead time may not be rescheduled. ECM may cancel any orders for which a written request for cancellation is received by Manufacturer at least 40 business days prior to the scheduled Date of Shipment. Orders inside of such 40-business-day lead time may not be cancelled. Custom-made Products which are not included on the Price List or are otherwise designated as custom by Manufacturer shall not be cancellable by ECM.

 

c ) Acceptance. ECM's acceptance of the Products will occur upon the earlier of five days after ECM's receipt of the Products or ECM providing written notice to Manufacturer that the Products are defective or do not conform to Manufacturer's applicable warranty, the terms of this Agreement, or ECM's order ("Non- conforming Parts"). Upon receipt of such written notice, Manufacturer will, in its discretion, accept return of such Products for credit to ECM or repair or replace such products at Manufacturer's cost.

 

 

7 . Shipping and Risk of Loss.

 

a ) Packing and Labeling. Packing materials and shipping methods used by Manufacturer for the Products will conform to industry standards. Manufacturer will ensure that the SKU on the packing label matches the SKU on the price list and invoices. Manufacturer will mark each Product and shipping container in accordance with a mutually agreed upon label format.

 

b ) Shipping Cost. ECM will pay the cost to ship the Products to the locations specified by ECM.

 

c ) Title and Risk of Loss. Title and risk of loss of the Products will transfer to ECM upon acceptance of the Products by the carrier selected by ECM (tei.e., shipment of the Products from Manufacturer's locations).

 

 

 

8 ) Prices: Taxes: Payments. ECM will pay the prices for the Products as set forth in the Price List.

 

a ) Price Changes. If Manufacturer offers ECM special pricing, discounts or any other terms pursuant to program offers, ECM may adjust the prices of the Products in its purchase orders to reflect such terms. Manufacturer may change the prices contained in the Price List upon 30 business days prior written notice to ECM.

 

b ) Taxes. The prices set forth in the Price List are exclusive of all taxes. Manufacturer will invoice ECM for all taxes applicable to sales of the Products which Manufacturer is required by law to collect from ECM. ECM shall be responsible for all custom and similar taxes and duties levied upon shipment and sale of the Products

 

c ) Payments. Manufacturer will invoice ECM via electronic or fax transmission no later than the business day after shipment of the Products. Payment of the invoices will be due within 30 days of the invoice date.

 

 

9 ) Return of Products.

 

a ) Annual Rotation. Once during each twelve-month period, ECM may return to Manufacturer for credit a quantity of Products delivered at least twelve months prior to the return date, the value of which (including all returns during such period except returns of Non-Conforming Parts) will not exceed 5% of the total amount invoiced by Manufacturer to ECM for all Products purchased by ECM during the previous twelve-month period. The amount of the credit will equal the price paid by ECM, less any prior credits taken thereon. Such returns will be shipped at ECM's cost to Manufacturer's designated location or locations. ECM must obtain a Return Material Authorization (RMA) from Manufacturer prior to shipment, and all Products returned must be in their original, smallest, unopened packaging, undamaged and in merchantable condition.

 

b ) Recalled Product. ECM may return for credit any Products that are officially recalled by Manufacturer.

 

c ) Non-Cancelable/Non-Returnable. Manufacturer shall inform ECM which Products are "Non-Cancelable/Non-Returnable" (NC/NR) and give ECM at least 90 days' prior written notice of any changes in Manufacturer's NC/NR classification of the Products. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Manufacturer and ECM may agree that a specific Product not otherwise NC/NR may be NC/NR for a particular ECM customer.

 

 

 

10 ) Product Changes.

 

a ) Addition and Deletion of Products. Manufacturer may add or delete Products from the Price List upon 30 days' prior written notice to ECM.

 

b ) Obsolescence and Modification. Manufacturer reserves the right, upon at least 90 days' prior written notice to ECM, to (i) discontinue the manufacture or sale of, or otherwise render or treat as obsolete, any Product, (ii) modify the design or manufacture of any Product so as to preclude or limit ECM's sales of such Product, or (iii) modify the status of any Product so as to limit ECM's right to return or obtain price protection for such Product. ECM may, in its discretion, within 60 days of its receipt of such notice, notify Manufacturer in writing of its intention to return any or all such Products which remain in its inventory for a credit equal to the net price paid by ECM for such Products. Such returns will be shipped at ECM's cost to Manufacturer's designated location or locations. ECM must obtain a Return Material Authorization (RMA) from Manufacturer prior to shipment, and all Products returned must be in their original, smallest, unopened packaging, undamaged and in merchantable condition.

 

 

11 ) Limited Warranty.

 

a ) Warranties to ECM. Subject to all subsections of this Section, Manufacturer warrants to ECM and its customers that:

 

i ) The Products will be free from defects in design, workmanship and materials under normal use for one year after the sale of the Products by ECM to its customer;

 

ii ) The Products will be free and clear of all liens at the time of sale to ECM;

 

iii ) The Products will comply with all applicable laws;

 

iv ) The Products will not infringe upon the intellectual property rights of any other person or entity; and

 

v ) ECM is authorized to pass this limited warranty through to ECM's direct customers.

 

 

b ) Remedies. Either ECM or ECM's customer may return any Product to Manufacturer under the terms of this limited warranty. Manufacturer's obligations under this limited warranty are limited to the repair or replacement, at its sole discretion, of the Products which are determined by Manufacturer to be not in compliance with this limited warranty, free of charge to the owner of the Products.

 

c ) Exclusions. Manufacturer makes no representations, statements or warranties either express or implied, in connection with this Agreement or with respect to the Products or any related materials, including without limitation, those concerning merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, or against infringement, other than as expressly specified herein. Any condition, term or warranty relating to this Agreement or the Products that might otherwise be implied or incorporated within this Agreement by reason of statute, common law or otherwise, is expressly excluded.

 

Modification or change of any Product by ECM or any other party may void this limited warranty. Damage due to accidents, misuse, negligence, improper use, unintended use, storage or transport is not covered. Damage due to exposure to the elements or chemicals is not covered.

 

d ) Limitations and Disclaimers. THIS LIMITED WARRANTY IS THE ONLY EXPRESS WARRANTY PROVIDED BY MANUFACTURER FOR THE PRODUCTS. MANUFACTURER ASSUMES NO OTHER OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE PRODUCTS. MANUFACTURER DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ECM OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY TO ALTER, AMEND OR OTHERWISE CHANGE THIS LIMITED WARRANTY IN ANY MANNER. MANUFACTURER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR EXPENSES CLAIMED AS A RESULT OF THE USE OF THE PRODUCTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF INCOME, DOWNTIME EXPENSES AND ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL LOSSES. THIS WARRANTY IS EXPRESSLY IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

 

e ) All warranty and indemnification provisions of this Agreement will survive the termination hereof.

 

 

12 ) Intellectual Property.

 

a ) Indemnification. Manufacturer will indemnify, defend and hold harmless ECM, its shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, successors and assigns, and its customers (the "Indemnified Parties") against all losses, damages, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) ("Losses") based on any claims, demands, suits, proceedings and actions ("Claims") in connection with any actual or alleged infringement of any patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right of a third party, including any Claims that the Products, or the process, design, or methodology used to manufacture the Products, infringes any third party patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right.

 

b ) ECM Assistance. ECM will provide Manufacturer with written notice of any Claims, grants full authority to Manufacturer to defend and settle all Claims, and upon Manufacturer's request, provide reasonable assistance and information, at Manufacturer's reasonable cost and expense.

 

c ) Ownership. ECM acknowledges that Manufacturer retains and will retain exclusive ownership of the Products, including without limitation all intellectual property rights with regard to the Products and any enhancements thereto. ECM further acknowledges that it shall not acquire any rights in respect of the Products and any other property rights associated therewith, including without limitation, the goodwill associated therewith, and that all such rights are, and shall remain vested, in Manufacturer. ECM shall not directly or indirectly reverse engineer or attempt to reverse engineer any aspect of the Products. All rights, title and interest in and to any invention, innovation, design, idea, application, process or improvement, related, directly or indirectly, to the Products, and any written documentation thereof, and all intellectual property which ECM may develop or create related to the Products or made or conceived using Manufacturer's proprietary information are "works made for hire" specifically ordered and commissioned for Manufacturer, and will be and remain forever the sole and exclusive property of Manufacturer.

 

 

13 ) General Indemnification and Damages.

 

a ) Indemnification by Manufacturer. Manufacturer will indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties against any and all Losses based on any Claims in connection with any actual or alleged death, personal injury or damage to property resulting from the Products or the use or operation thereof. Manufacturer will not be liable for any Losses resulting from any Claims arising as a result of ECM's negligence or modification of the Products.

 

b ) Indemnification by ECM. ECM will indemnify, defend and hold harmless Manufacturer, its shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, successors and assigns, and its customers (sic)

 

c ) Damages. The parties will not be liable to any person or entity in any circumstances related to this Agreement for any amounts representing indirect, special, incidental, consequential or punitive damages or damages based on any multiple of earnings or other factors.

 

 

14 ) Termination.

 

a ) Termination for Convenience. Either party may terminate this Agreement without cause and at any time upon giving 30 days' prior written notice to the other party (each, a termination for "Convenience"). Such termination will be effective on the date stated in the notice.

 

b ) Termination for Cause. Either party may terminate this Agreement immediately (each, a termination for "Cause") in the event the other party:

 

i ) Becomes bankrupt or otherwise insolvent;

 

ii ) Assigns or transfers, either voluntarily or by operation of law, any or all of its rights or obligations under this Agreement without having obtained the prior written consent of the other party; or

 

iii ) Fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement and fails to cure such default within 30 days after written notice.

 

 

c ) Effects of Termination:

 

i ) Upon termination of this Agreement, Manufacturer will complete and ship all orders previously accepted, and will reject or cancel all orders not previously accepted. ECM will remain liable for, and timely pay for all orders accepted as of the date of termination of this Agreement.

 

ii ) Upon termination of this Agreement, Manufacturer will, at ECM's option, repurchase any or all unsold Products in ECM's inventory or in transit to ECM on the effective date of termination. The repurchase price for such Products will be the actual net invoice price paid by ECM less any prior credits.

 

iii ) If ECM terminates this Agreement for Cause or if Manufacturer terminates this Agreement for Convenience, then Manufacturer will pay all freight charges associated with the repurchase of Products under this Section without a re-stocking charge.

 

iv ) If Manufacturer terminates this Agreement for Cause or if ECM terminates this Agreement for Convenience, then ECM will pay all freight charges associated with the repurchase of Products under this Section and a re-stocking charge of 15%.

 

v ) All Products returned under this Section will be packaged in the original, smallest, unopened packaging, undamaged and in merchantable condition.

 

 

Confidential Information. Each party will receive and maintain in confidence all technical, pricing, sales data, proprietary information and trade secrets of the other (including but not limited to knowledge of manufacturing or technical processes, financial and systems data and customer information) (collectively, the "Confidential Information"), except and to the extent that (a) disclosure is required by law, regulation or court order, or (b) such information enters into the public domain through no fault of the party obligated to maintain such confidentiality. Each party shall use the same degree of care as it uses to protect its own confidential information, but no less than reasonable care, to prevent the unauthorized use, dissemination or publication of the Confidential Information. Each party agrees to promptly advise the other of any unauthorized disclosure or use of the Confidential Information by any person.

 

 

15 ) No Use of Trademarks/Trade Names. This Agreement does not create, and neither party will have any right in or to the use of, any mark, name or logo of the other party. ECM is, however, hereby granted a nonexclusive right to use Manufacturer's marks, names or logos to identify itself as an authorized distributor of the Products and for advertising and promoting its services under this Agreement solely on or in relation to the Product for the purpose of exercising its rights and performing its obligations under this Agreement. Manufacturer is hereby granted a nonexclusive right to use ECM's marks, names or logos to identify ECM as an authorized distributor of the Products. Such authorization shall cease immediately upon the expiration or termination, for any reason, of this Agreement. All marketing catalogues, sales brochures, manuals and all other information and material relating to the Product shall not be used by ECM without first obtaining the prior approval of Manufacturer. All inventory specific to the Manufacturer at ECM will be returned to the Manufacturer and the Manufacturer will reimburse ECM for the full value of the inventory based on the original price paid.

 

 

16 ) Cooperative Marketing. Manufacturer may in its sole discretion participate in the cost of ECM's promotional programs and other marketing efforts.

 

17 ) General Provisions.

a ) Independent Contractors. Manufacturer and ECM are independent contractors and neither will be considered the representative or agent of the other for any purpose. Nothing contained in this Agreement will be construed to establish a partnership, agency, joint venture, employment relationship or other relationship that would allow either party to make representations or warranties on behalf of the other except as expressly set forth herein.

 

b ) Assignment. Neither party may assign this Agreement in whole or in part without the prior written consent of the other, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld. This Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their permitted successors and assigns.

 

c ) Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter herein and supersedes all prior agreements between the parties. Amendments to this Agreement must be in writing, signed by the duly authorized officers of the parties, specifically stating that such amendments are made pursuant to this Agreement.

 

d ) No Implied Waivers. The failure of either party at any time to require performance by the other of any provision of this Agreement will not affect the right of such party to require performance at any time after, nor will the waiver of either party of a breach of any provision of this Agreement be taken or held to be a waiver of a provision itself.

 

e ) Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement is ruled invalid, illegal or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Agreement will remain in effect and will not in any way be affected or impaired by such ruling.

 

f ) Force Majeure. Neither party will be liable for failure to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement or any purchase order issued hereunder or for delays in delivery due to causes beyond its reasonable control, including, but not limited to, acts of God, acts of terrorism, epidemic, acts or omissions of the other party, man- made or natural disasters, strikes, delays in transportation or inability to obtain labor or materials through its regular sources. The time for performance of any such obligation will be extended for the time period lost by reason of the delay.

 

g ) Conflicting Terms. The parties agree that the terms and conditions of this Agreement will prevail notwithstanding contrary or additional terms in any purchase order, sales acknowledgment, confirmation or any other document issued by either party affecting the purchase or sale of the Products.

 

h ) Notices and Consents. Notices, consents and other communications by either party under this Agreement shall be deemed given when delivered in person or by facsimile, or on the third business day after being deposited in the United States mail as certified mail, postage prepaid, or on the first business day after being delivered to an overnight commercial courier, addressed as follows:

 

 

If to Manufacturer: (…)

 

If to ECM: (…)

 

 

i ) Governing Law; Jurisdiction and Venue. This Agreement will be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Massachusetts without reference to its conflict of laws principles. The parties irrevocably agree that all actions or proceedings in any way, manner or respect arising out of or from or related to this Agreement will be litigated only in courts having sites within Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Each party hereby consents and submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of any local, state or federal court located within Middlesex County, Massachusetts and waives any right such party may have to transfer the venue of any such litigation.

 

j ) Prevailing Party. The prevailing party in any legal action brought by one party against the other and arising out of this Agreement will be entitled, in addition to any other rights and remedies available to it at law or in equity, to reimbursement from the non-prevailing party for its costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, incurred with respect to bringing and maintaining any such action, provided that such costs and expenses are awarded to the prevailing party in the legal action.

 

k ) Headings. The section or paragraph headings or titles herein are for convenience of reference only and will not be deemed a part of this Agreement.

 

l ) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and may be delivered by facsimile or electronic mail in .pdf format, each of which will be considered an original and which, when taken together, shall be considered a single agreement.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Distribution Agreement as of the Effective Date.

 

 

AMPLITECH INC.

a New York Corporation

 

 

EAST COAST MICROWAVE SALES & DISTRIBUTION LLC

A Massachusetts corporation

Monday, December 27, 2021

California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Rice v. Downs, Docket No. B307780

 

Security Interest

 

Security Agreement, Perfected by the Filing of a UCC Financing Statement Filed with the Secretary of State (Perfected before D. Moved for His Charging Order)

 

Charging Order (Not to Confuse with Judgment Lien on Personal Property)

 

Lien (Obtained Through a Charging Order)

Assignment (Deemed to be a Security Interest, Hence, to be Perfected by a Filling with the Secretary of State)

Collateral

 

 

Priority Between Statutory Lien and Prior Security Agreement?

 

Disgorgement

 

Order Disgorging $X. Payment to Attorney Legal Fees

 

Alter Ego Theory

 

Ethics

 

California Law

 

 

When a “money judgment is rendered against” a member of an LLC, but not against the LLC itself, the member’s interest in the LLC “may be applied toward the satisfaction of the judgment by an order charging the judgment debtor’s interest pursuant to Section . . . 17705.03 of the Corporations Code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.310.)

 

 

 

 

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rupert A. Byrdsong, Judge.  Reversed and remanded with directions.

 

 

Appellant Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro, LLC (Glaser Weil), former counsel of plaintiff William Rice, appeals from an order disgorging a $450,000 payment to Glaser Weil by Triton Community Development LLC (Triton), an entity owned and controlled by Rice. The trial court concluded the payment should instead have gone to defendant and respondent Gary Downs, who had obtained an order charging Rice’s interest in Triton to satisfy an earlier judgment entered in Downs’ favor.

 

In contesting disgorgement, Rice and Glaser Weil asserted that before Downs had moved for the charging order, Glaser Weil had entered into agreements with Triton and Rice to ensure payment of Glaser Weil’s legal fees, and those agreements took precedence over the charging order. Specifically, Triton had agreed to become co-obligor on Rice’s debt to Glaser Weil, and Rice had also pledged his interest in Triton to Glaser Weil as security on his debt. Although Rice and Glaser Weil did not provide these agreements to the trial court, Rice and a Glaser Weil partner submitted declarations attesting to the agreements, along with a Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) financing statement filed with the Secretary of State referencing, among other things, Glaser Weil’s security interest in Triton.

 

Glaser Weil argued that Triton made the $450,000 payment for its own obligations as co-obligor on Rice’s debt, and therefore the payment was not a “distribution” to Rice subject to the charging order. Alternatively, if the payment was a distribution to Rice, Glaser Weil contended its security interest, perfected before Downs moved for his charging order, had priority over that order.

 

The trial court found that Triton was Rice’s alter ego, and rejected the argument that the payment was for Triton’s obligation as opposed to Rice’s debt. The court agreed in theory with Glaser Weil’s lien priority argument, but relied on its equitable authority to place the charging order ahead of Glaser Weil’s security interest.

 

Like the trial court, we conclude that when Rice, as sole managing member of Triton, directed the company to disburse funds to pay his legal bills, it constituted a distribution to him subject to the charging order.

 

We disagree with the trial court on the lien priority question, however, and hold that Glaser Weil’s security agreement, perfected by the filing of a financing statement, has priority over the later charging order. In the unpublished portion of the opinion, we further conclude there was no equitable basis to override Glaser Weil’s lien priority here, assuming arguendo a trial court can override a statutory lien priority by exercising its equitable power.

 

(…) Rice filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on January 27, 2020. During that proceeding, he filed a monthly operating report disclosing that in February 2020, Triton had paid $450,000 to Glaser Weil, the firm representing Rice in his litigation against Downs.

 

(…) Attached to Cypers’ declaration, however, was a UCC financing statement filed by Glaser Weil with the Secretary of State on July 15, 2019. The statement identified Rice as debtor and Glaser Weil as the secured party. Exhibit A to the financing statement described the collateral securing Rice’s debt to Glaser Weil. The collateral included, inter alia, “All of Debtor’s right, title and interest in the property described in that certain Pledge and Security Agreement dated June 27, 2019,” and “100% of Debtor’s membership interests in Triton Community Development LLC, a California limited liability company, together with the certificates (if any) evidencing the same . . . .”

 

The full description of the collateral is as follows: “All of Debtor’s right, title and interest in the property described in that certain Pledge and Security Agreement dated June 27, 2019, by Debtor, as pledgor, for the benefit of the Secured Party (‘Pledge and Security Agreement’), whether now owned by Debtor or hereafter acquired and whether now existing or hereafter coming into existence; 100% of Debtor’s membership interests in Triton Community Development LLC, a California limited liability company, together with the certificates (if any) evidencing the same; All ownership interests, membership interests, shares, securities, moneys, instruments or property representing a dividend, a distribution or return of capital upon or in respect of the Pledged Interests, or otherwise received in exchange therefor, and any warrants, rights or options issued to the holders of, or otherwise in respect of, the Pledged Interests; All rights of Debtor under the Relevant Documents or any other agreement or instrument relating to the Pledged Interests, including, without limitation, (i) all rights of Debtor to receive moneys or distributions with respect to the Pledged Interests due and to become due under or pursuant to the Relevant Documents, (ii) all rights of Debtor to receive proceeds of any indemnity, warranty or guaranty with respect to the Pledged Interests, (iii) all claims of Debtor for damages arising out of or for breach of or default under a Relevant Document, and (iv) any right of Debtor to perform thereunder and to compel performance and otherwise exercise all rights and remedies thereunder; and all proceeds of and to any of the property of Debtor described herein and in that certain Pledge and Security Agreement and, to the extent documenting any property described in said clauses or such proceeds, all books, correspondence, credit files, records, invoices and other papers. All Current Fees plus interest, all Costs plus interest and all Deferred Fees plus interest as defined in that certain Engagement Letter dated April 18, 2014, December 10, 2014, June 4, 2015, May 2, 2017 and June 27, 2019, by and between Debtor and Secured Party, as amended and modified (collectively ‘Engagement Letter’). All terms made here but not defined shall have the meaning given to such terms in the Pledge and Security Agreement and the Engagement Letter.”

 

(…) Glaser Weil’s argument focused on MDQ, LLC v. Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett LLP (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 702 (MDQ), a case involving priority between a charging order and a security interest granted by a judgment debtor to his attorneys. (See id. at pp. 704–705.) After taking a recess to review the case, the trial court stated, “It does appear that Glaser Weil is on the right side of the law with regard to having the priority, even over my charging order.

 

A. The Payment Was a Distribution Subject to the Charging Order

For the reasons that follow, we reject Glaser Weil’s position that the $450,000 payment was not a distribution subject to the charging order.

When a “money judgment is rendered against” a member of an LLC, but not against the LLC itself, the member’s interest in the LLC “may be applied toward the satisfaction of the judgment by an order charging the judgment debtor’s interest pursuant to Section . . . 17705.03 of the Corporations Code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.310.)

 

Corporations Code section 17705.03, subdivision (a), empowers a court to “enter a charging order against the transferable interest of the judgment debtor for the unsatisfied amount of the judgment. A charging order constitutes a lien on a judgment debtor’s transferable interest and requires the limited liability company to pay over to the person to which the charging order was issued any distribution that would otherwise be paid to the judgment debtor.”

 

As used in Corporations Code section 17705.03, a “transferable interest” is “the right, as originally associated with a person’s capacity as a member, to receive distributions from a limited liability company in accordance with the operating agreement, whether or not the person remains a member or continues to own any part of the right.” (Corp. Code, § 17701.02, subd. (aa).) A “distribution” is “a transfer of money or other property from a limited liability company to another person on account of a transferable interest.” (Id., subd. (f).)

 

By emphasizing the statutory language referring to the LLC’s operating agreement, Glaser Weil appears to be limiting the reach of a charging order to distributions formalized under that agreement, such as dividends or other entitlements granted to members. This narrow reading disregards the reality that many LLCs, like Triton, are completely controlled by a single person who may distribute funds at his or her discretion. (See Curci Investments, LLC v. Baldwin (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 214, 224 [managing member with “near complete interest” in LLC “effectively has complete control over what the LLC does and does not do, including whether it makes any disbursements to its members”].) Under Glaser Weil’s interpretation, such entities easily could evade charging orders by eschewing formal distributions and instead taking funds out of the LLC as the need arose.

 

The language of the applicable statutes does not compel this result. Again, a charging order is against an LLC’s member’s “transferable interest,” defined as “the right, as originally associated with a person’s capacity as a member, to receive distributions from a limited liability company in accordance with the operating agreement . . . .” (Corp. Code, § 17701.02, subd. (aa).) When a managing member of an LLC directs the LLC to disburse funds for the managing member’s own purposes, the managing member does so based on the
“right . . . associated with his or her capacity as a member,” invoking powers “in accordance with the operating agreement.” (See ibid.) Put another way, the managing member has access to that money only by virtue of his or her status as managing member, just as members have the right to formal distributions by virtue of their status as members
. We see no basis to treat the two types of disbursements differently, particularly when doing so would encourage evasion of charging orders.

 

We express no opinion as to how a charging order might affect disbursements made to a member for reasons other than membership, for example if the member were also an employee drawing a salary. Nor do we suggest that a charging order compels a managing member to disburse funds from an LLC, only that when the managing member does so for his or her own purposes, that disbursement is subject to a charging order (fn. 4).

 

(…) Given its unchallenged finding that Triton was Rice’s alter ego, the trial court could look past the corporate formalities and deem the transaction as Rice distributing money to himself from Triton to pay his legal bills. The fact that as a technical matter it was Triton that made the payment pursuant to its own purported obligations was immaterial because Triton and Rice were effectively one and the same.

 

B. Glaser Weil’s Security Interest Has Priority Over the Charging Order, But Remand Is Necessary To Determine the Terms of That Security Interest

Turning to Glaser Weil’s second argument, we agree that Glaser Weil’s security interest, perfected by filing the financing statement with the Secretary of State, has priority over the charging order that Downs later requested and obtained. We further agree there was no equitable basis for the trial court to override that priority. We therefore reverse the disgorgement order. Remand is necessary, however, for the trial court to determine the terms of Glaser Weil’s security interest. The trial court has yet to make this determination, having instead relied on its equitable authority to place the charging order ahead of Glaser Weil’s security interest.

 

“Other things being equal, different liens upon the same property have priority according to the time of their creation . . . .” (Civ. Code, § 2897.) Numerous statutes apply this general first-in-time principle to specific types of liens or security interests. For example, Commercial Code section 9322 governs priorities between competing security interests, ranking them “according to priority in time of filing or perfection.” (Com. Code, § 9322, subd. (a)(1).) Similarly, Code of Civil Procedure
section 697.590 governs priorities between judgment liens on personal property and security interests in the same property, ranking those interests “according to priority in time of filing or perfection.” (§ 697.590, subd. (b).)

 

We have not found, nor have the parties identified, a statute specifically addressing the priority of charging orders in relation to other liens and security interests.

 

As Glaser Weil correctly notes elsewhere, however, a charging order is not equivalent to a judgment lien on personal property, the subject of section 697.590. Judgment liens on personal property are created pursuant to section 697.510 by filing a notice with the Secretary of State. (§ 697.510, subd. (a); § 697.590, subd. (a)(1)(A).) Charging order liens, in contrast, are created under section 708.320 “by service of a notice of motion for a charging order . . . .” (§ 708.320, subd. (a).) “If a charging order is issued, the lien . . . continues under the terms of the order. If issuance of the charging order is denied, the lien is extinguished.” (Id., subd. (b).)

 

In the absence of a statute specifically addressing the priority of charging orders, we rely on the general first-in-time rule stated in Civil Code section 2897. (See Bluxome Street Associates v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1149, 1158; cf. Ahart, Cal. Prac. Guide: Enforcement of Judgments and Debts (The Rutter Group 2015) ¶ 6:1472.1 [citing Civil Code section 2897 in support of proposition that “Where judgment creditors have obtained charging order liens on the same interests, priority should be given to the first creditor that obtained a lien”].)

 

Under this principle, it is evident that Glaser Weil’s security interest has priority over Downs’ charging order. As stated, the priority of a security interest is determined “according to priority in time of filing or perfection.” (Com. Code, § 9322, subd. (a)(1).) A security interest is perfected by filing a financing statement with the Secretary of State. (Id., § 9310, subd. (a); id., § 9501, subd. (a)(2); MDQ, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 711.) Glaser Weil filed a financing statement with the Secretary of State in July 2019.

 

Downs obtained his lien several months later, in October 2019, when he served notice of his second motion for a charging order, which motion—in contrast to his first motion— was granted. (§ 708.320, subd. (a).) Glaser Weil’s earlier perfected security interest therefore has priority.

 

Our conclusion that Glaser Weil’s security interest has priority over the charging order is supported by MDQ, which to some degree presents the converse of the factual pattern in the instant case. The underlying litigation in MDQ concerned plaintiff Cleopatra Records, Inc. (Cleopatra), and defendant Floyd Mutrux. (MDQ, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 705.) The trial court issued a proposed statement of decision awarding Cleopatra over a million dollars. (Ibid.) Shortly thereafter, Mutrux assigned to his attorneys, the law firm of Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett LLP (Gilbert Kelly), a portion of his economic interests in four LLCs “ ‘in consideration for legal services provided . . . and to be provided hereafter . . . .’ ” (Ibid.) In the assignment, Mutrux directed the LLCs to make specified percentages of payments due to Mutrux to Gilbert Kelly instead. (Ibid.) Gilbert Kelly did not file a UCC financing statement. (Id. at p. 707.)

 

Months later, the trial court entered judgment of just under a million dollars in favor of Cleopatra. (MDQ, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 706.) Cleopatra recorded a judgment lien under section 697.590. (Id. at p. 707.) Cleopatra then moved for a charging order against Mutrux’s interests in the LLCs, which the trial court granted, directing the LLCs “ ‘to pay any and all profits, distributions, disbursements or other payments otherwise due to” Mutrux to Cleopatra. (Id. at 706.)

 

The LLCs filed an interpleader action to resolve the competing interests of Cleopatra and Gilbert Kelly. (MDQ, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 706.) The trial court found that because Gilbert Kelly had never filed a financing statement, Cleopatra’s judgment lien had priority over Gilbert Kelly’s assignment. (Id. at p. 707.)

 

Our colleagues in Division Eight affirmed the trial court’s ruling. (MDQ, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 704.) The appellate court rejected Gilbert Kelly’s argument that the assignment was not a security interest: “While Gilbert Kelly’s assignment may differ from some other secured transactions, in that the collateral securing Mutrux’s obligation to Gilbert Kelly is being paid as it accrues to satisfy that obligation, rather than securing payment from another source, Gilbert Kelly offers us no rationale under which we can conclude that it is not a security interest within the meaning of the California Uniform Commercial Code.” (Id. at p. 710.)

 

Downs argues that Glaser Weil did not notify him of the security interest, but he identifies no authority that Glaser Weil had an obligation to do so. As discussed, the law requires that a secured party perfect its interest by filing a financing statement with the Secretary of State, a rule “premised upon the assumption that the filing . . . will permit prospective purchasers and encumbrancers to ascertain the existence of security interest in the property by checking a centralized record system.” (T & O Mobile Homes, Inc. v. United California Bank (1985) 40 Cal.3d 441, 448.) Thus Downs, like any other creditor, could look to that “centralized record system” to determine if there were any competing claims to Rice’s interest in Triton.

 

Ethics

(…) Nor does Downs or anyone else suggest it is inappropriate for a law firm to obtain a security interest to ensure payment of its fees, assuming the firm complies with all ethical and other requirements concerning contracts with clients.

 

 

Secondary sources: Ahart, Cal. Prac. Guide: Enforcement of Judgments and Debts (The Rutter Group 2015).

 

 

 

(California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Dec 27, 2021, Rice v. Downs, Docket No. B307780, Certified for Partial Publication)

Tuesday, December 14, 2021

Pouvoir de marché relatif : nouvelles dispositions de la loi suisse sur les cartels & Nouvelle norme relative au géoblocage

 

1)            Pouvoir de marché relatif : nouvelles dispositions de la loi suisse sur les cartels

2)            Nouvelle norme relative au géoblocage introduite dans la loi fédérale suisse contre la concurrence déloyale (LCD)

 

Republication

https://www.admin.ch/gov/fr/accueil/documentation/communiques.msg-id-86248.html

 

 

Berne, 14.12.2021 - Dès le début de l'année 2022, les nouvelles dispositions sur le pouvoir de marché relatif trouveront application. La Commission de la concurrence (COMCO) publie à cet effet une note explicative et un formulaire de dénonciation.

 

Une entreprise dispose d’un pouvoir de marché relatif lorsque d'autres entreprises sont dépendantes en matière d’offre ou de demande d'un produit ou d'une prestation de telle sorte qu'il n'existe pas de possibilités suffisantes et raisonnables de se tourner vers des sources alternatives. Les entreprises concernées peuvent déposer une dénonciation auprès de la COMCO si elles sont entravées ou désavantagées dans l’exercice de la concurrence. Une entreprise disposant d’un pouvoir de marché relatif pourrait par exemple se comporter de manière abusive si elle refuse, sans raison, de livrer à un producteur des composants dont celui-ci est tributaire. Il pourrait également y avoir un abus lorsqu'une entreprise disposant d’un pouvoir de marché relatif empêche d'autres entreprises de se procurer une marchandise proposée en Suisse et à l'étranger aux conditions étrangères.

 

Une intervention de la COMCO n’est possible que si celle-ci dispose d’informations de la part des entreprises concernées. Afin de faciliter la dénonciation, elle publie une note explicative et un formulaire de dénonciation.

 

Les nouvelles dispositions de la loi sur les cartels sur le pouvoir de marché relatif sont issues du contre-projet indirect du Parlement à l'initiative pour des prix équitables. Cette révision de la loi étend l'interdiction d'abus prévue par le droit des cartels aux entreprises disposant d’un pouvoir de marché relatif. Les entreprises ne seront pas amendées en cas de violation des nouvelles dispositions. La COMCO peut toutefois leur imposer des obligations d'agir et de s'abstenir. 

 

En même temps que les dispositions sur le pouvoir de marché relatif, une nouvelle norme relative au géoblocage a été introduite dans la loi fédérale contre la concurrence déloyale (LCD). Les citoyens et les entreprises peuvent-ils également s'adresser aux autorités de la concurrence à ce sujet ?

 

La modification de la loi sur la concurrence déloyale concerne l'utilisation par les entreprises de mesures de géoblocage non imposées par l'Etat (géoblocage privé). Selon les nouvelles dispositions, le géoblocage privé est qualifié de déloyal au sens de la LCD et donc illicite. Par conséquent, dans le commerce à distance (Internet, téléphone, catalogue), une discrimination des consommateurs suisses en matière de prix ou de conditions de paiement ne sera en principe possible qu'en présence d'un motif objectif.

 

Les autorités de la concurrence ne sont pas compétentes pour l'application de la LCD. Les personnes concernées peuvent s'adresser au Secrétariat d'Etat à l'économie (SECO) ou à des professionnels du droit et faire valoir leurs droits éventuels par la voie civile. Vous trouverez de plus amples informations ainsi qu'un formulaire de plainte sur le site Internet du SECO.

 

Sunday, November 28, 2021

FTC Launches Inquiry into Supply Chain Disruptions

 

Federal Trade Commission

November 29, 2021

Republication

 

FTC Launches Inquiry into Supply Chain Disruptions

 

Orders Walmart, Amazon, Kroger and other large wholesalers and suppliers to turn over information to help study causes of empty shelves and sky-high prices.

The Federal Trade Commission is ordering nine large retailers, wholesalers, and consumer good suppliers to provide detailed information that will help the FTC shed light on the causes behind ongoing supply chain disruptions and how these disruptions are causing serious and ongoing hardships for consumers and harming competition in the U.S. economy.

 

The FTC is issuing the orders under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act, which authorizes the Commission to conduct wide-ranging studies that do not have a specific law enforcement purpose. The orders are being sent to Walmart Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., Kroger Co., C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., McLane Co, Inc. Procter & Gamble Co., Tyson Foods, Inc., and Kraft Heinz Co. The companies will have 45 days from the date they received the order to respond.

 

“Supply chain disruptions are upending the provision and delivery of a wide array of goods, ranging from computer chips and medicines to meat and lumber. I am hopeful the FTC’s new 6(b) study will shed light on market conditions and business practices that may have worsened these disruptions or led to asymmetric effects,” said Chair Lina M. Khan. “The FTC has a long history of pursuing market studies to deepen our understanding of economic conditions and business conduct, and we should continue to make nimble and timely use of these information-gathering tools and authorities.”

In addition to better understanding the reasons behind the disruptions, the study will examine whether supply chain disruptions are leading to specific bottlenecks, shortages, anticompetitive practices, or contributing to rising consumer prices.

 

The orders require the companies to detail the primary factors disrupting their ability to obtain, transport and distribute their products; the impact these disruptions are having in terms of delayed and canceled orders, increased costs and prices; the products, suppliers and inputs most affected; and the steps the companies are taking to alleviate disruptions; and how they allocate products among their stores when they are in short supply.

 

The FTC also is requiring the companies to provide internal documents regarding the supply chain disruptions, including strategies related to supply chains; pricing; marketing and promotions; costs, profit margins and sales volumes; selection of suppliers and brands; and market shares.

 

In addition, the agency is soliciting voluntary comments from retailers, consumer goods suppliers, wholesalers, and consumers regarding their views on how supply chain issues are affecting competition in consumer goods markets. These comments provide an opportunity for market participants to surface additional issues and examples of how supply chain disruptions are affecting competition.

 

The Commission vote to approve issuing the Special Orders was 4-0.

6(b) Orders to File Special Report on the Competitive Impact of Supply Chain Disruptions in Consumer Goods

 

Swiss Customs - HS (Jan. 1, 2022)

 

Le tarif des douanes sera adapté avec effet au 1er janvier 2022 suite à la révision de la convention sur le Système harmonisé de désignation et de codification des marchandises (SH).
La page internet «Modifications du 1.1.2022» qui regroupe des informations utiles a été complétée.
Les droits de douane des chapitres 1 à 30 sont susceptibles d'être encore modifiés au 1er janvier 2022 suite à une éventuelle modification de l’ordonnance sur les importations agricoles (OIAgr, RS 916.01). La version définitive des «droits de douane (chap. 1 à 30)» sera publiée au plus tard le 29 décembre 2021.

 

Administration fédérale des douanes (CH)

29 novembre 2021

Republication

 

https://www.ezv.admin.ch/ezv/fr/home/infos-pour-entreprises/tarif-des-douanes---tares/modification-entrant-en-vigueur-le-1-1-2022.html