Horizon Holdings v. Genmar Holdings, Inc
387 F.3d 1188, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 22726, 21 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1781 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Delaware law, every contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A party breaches this covenant when, without violating an express contractual term, it uses oppressive or underhanded tactics that frustrate the spirit of the agreement to deny the other party the fruits of the bargain.
Facts:
- In 1997, Geoffrey Pepper formed Horizon Marine LC (Horizon) to manufacture and sell aluminum jon boats he had designed.
- In December 1998, Genmar Holdings, Inc. acquired Horizon, with a significant portion of the purchase price consisting of an 'earn-out consideration' of up to $5.2 million, payable over five years and contingent on the new subsidiary (GMK) achieving certain gross revenue and profit targets.
- The earn-out was based on revenues from sales of Horizon's boat line (or any direct successor) and other Genmar-brand boats manufactured at the former Horizon facility.
- Immediately following the acquisition in early 1999, Genmar changed the Horizon boat brand name to 'Nova' and directed the GMK facility to prioritize the production of Genmar’s own Ranger and Crestliner boat lines.
- Genmar required GMK to bear the costs of designing new Ranger models and only reimbursed GMK at its 'standard cost' for producing Ranger and Crestliner boats, which made it difficult for GMK to achieve the profitability targets required for the earn-out payment.
- While prioritizing Genmar's brands, a backlog of over 600,000 units developed for the potentially more profitable Nova boats.
- In April 2000, Genmar terminated Pepper's employment, subsequently began converting Nova dealers to other Genmar brands, and ceased all production of Nova boats in July 2001.
- Genmar closed the GMK facility in May 2002, having never paid any earn-out consideration beyond an initial $200,000 advance.
Procedural Posture:
- Horizon Holdings, LLC and Geoffrey Pepper sued Genmar Holdings, Inc. and its related entities in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging breach of a purchase agreement.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Horizon and Pepper on the breach of contract claim, awarding them $2.5 million in damages.
- The district court entered judgment on the jury's verdict.
- Genmar filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or, in the alternative, for a new trial, which the district court denied.
- Genmar, as defendant-appellant, appealed the denial of its JMOL motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Delaware law, does a party breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by taking actions not expressly forbidden by a contract that nevertheless frustrate the other party's ability to receive the benefits of the agreement, specifically an earn-out consideration?
Opinions:
Majority - Briscoe, Circuit Judge
Yes. A party breaches the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when its conduct frustrates the other party's ability to realize the benefits of the contract, even if the actions are not expressly prohibited. The court must extrapolate the 'spirit of the agreement' from its express terms. Here, the spirit of the earn-out provision was to give Pepper a fair opportunity to operate the GMK facility in a way that would maximize its revenues and trigger the earn-out payments. Genmar's series of actions—shifting production priorities to its own less profitable (for GMK) brands, imposing design costs, limiting reimbursement, and ultimately discontinuing the Nova line—frustrated the purpose of the earn-out provision. The court reasoned that if the parties had foreseen these circumstances during negotiations, they would have bargained to prohibit such conduct. The court also rejected Genmar's argument that a breach of the implied covenant in a commercial contract requires proof of fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, distinguishing the higher standard applied in at-will employment cases and holding that in a commercial context, bad faith includes conduct that evades the spirit of the bargain.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of Delaware's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to commercial contracts containing contingent payment structures like earn-outs. It establishes that the strict 'fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation' standard from at-will employment cases does not apply in the commercial context. Instead, a court will find a breach if a party uses its contractual discretion to systematically undermine the other party's ability to obtain a key bargained-for benefit. The decision serves as a significant precedent in M&A litigation, signaling that acquirers cannot strategically manage a subsidiary post-acquisition to avoid triggering earn-out obligations, thereby protecting the seller's reasonable expectations.
