Levine v. Phycogen, Inc.

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedOctober 31, 2003
DocketANDcv-01-170
StatusUnpublished

This text of Levine v. Phycogen, Inc. (Levine v. Phycogen, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Levine v. Phycogen, Inc., (Me. Super. Ct. 2003).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE sont Soe SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, SS. — CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-01-170

. ~ det we f

IRA A. LEVINE, ates

Plaintiff v. DECISION AND JUDGMENT PHYCOGEN, INC., Defendant, and RQNALD 0 EAT KEYBANK, N.A.,, LAVAS Trustee

WUV 5 pO

I. BACKGROUND '

Ira A. Levine was the founder, president, and chief executive of PhycoGen, Inc., a Maine Corporation based in Portland.

On March 31, 2000, Levine and PhycoGen’s Board of Directors entered into a written severance agreement (pl. ex. 1) which provided inter alia, that Levine would “relinquish [his] position in favor of a person with more business experience and to work on such special projects as the Board might assign to him.” As compensation for his resignation, PhycoGen would pay him his base salary at the rate of $165,000.00 per year, his fringe benefits, and expenses through the termination date of March 31, 2000. Fe would also receive severance pay under part 4 of the agreement, which provides as follows:

4. Severance Pay. The Company shall pay to Levine, and Levine

shall accept, in full accord and satisfaction of all claims to base salary and

bonuses for the remaining term of his Employment Agreement (to wit:

approximately 5 years), severance pay in the gross amount of One Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($125,000) per year for five

' The factual circumstances of this case are fairly straight forward. To the extent that they are set out in this Decision and Judgment, they constitute the findings of the court unless otherwise noted. (5) years (total: $625,000). Such severance pay shall be paid in bi-monthly installments commencing April 1, 2000, provided that the remaining balance of the severance pay shall be paid to Levine without discount no later than thirty (30) days following the first to occur of the following events:

(a) | the Company makes a private offering of its stock which nets the Company not less [than] $10,000,000 in new capital;

(b) the Company makes an initial public offering of its stock;

(c) the Company merges or consolidates with a publicly-held company; or

(d) the Company sells all or substantially all of its assets in accordance with a plan of liquidation; or

(e) | the Company sells an interest in any one technology for not less than $20,000,000.

The company made the severance payments to Levine as due up into the fall of 2001. At that time he was told by Eric Saunders, legal counsel for PhycoGen, that the company was experiencing financial difficulties and that the check for September 9, 2000, would be his last. Levine had been paid $180,288.75 of the $625,000.00 due him under the agreement.

When the payments stopped, Levine instituted this action to enforce payment. He obtained an Ex Parte Order for Attachment and Trustee Process in the amount of $450,000. KeyBank was served a copy of the Attachment Order and a trustee summons, but failed to respond timely and was defaulted. M.R. Civ. P. 55(a). Levine’s request for a default judgment against KeyBank as trustee was denied without prejudice pending entry of judgment against PhycoGen.’ In that Order the court found that the default conclusively established KeyBank as trustee and that it may be liable for up to $450,000.00 to satisfy any judgment for plaintiff against PhycoGen. The Order

further provided that even though KeyBank was in default, it would become liable only after a judgment is rendered against PhycoGen: “The court cannot grant a judgment against KeyBank until the liability of PhycoGen has been established and that a final judgment in a certain amount has been entered.”

On January 11, 2002, Levine requested that a default and default judgment be entered against PhycoGen, Inc. The clerk entered a default against Phycogen on January 14, 2002 pursuant to MLR. Civ. P. 55(a).*

KeyBank appeared through counsel on January 11, 2002, and filed a general denial as an “equitable subrogee” for itself and on behalf of PhycoGen; however, KeyBank was not in a position to be acting for PhycoGen and had no standing to do so. The bank also moved to dissolve the Order of Attachment and Declaration as Trustee. MLR. Civ. P. 4B(j). The motion was denied.’

The bank then moved to set aside the default against both PhycoGen and the bank. Both motions were denied; however, the court did allow KeyBank intervenor status solely to “participate and defend in any hearing to set damages for the judgment.”

While Levine and KeyBank continued to spar and jockey for position in Superior Court, PhycoGen, Inc. was in Chapter 7 in the United States Bankruptcy Court. On August 21, 2002, Levine obtained an Order for Relief from [Bankruptcy] Stay to proceed to judgment against PhycoGen. The Bankruptcy Court further ordered the funds held

by KeyBank be turned over to the bankruptcy trustee.

The court subsequently held an evidentiary hearing as to damages.

* See Order dated January 2, 2002. > See Order dated January 2, 2002.

* A default judgment for an amount certain was not entered. > See Order dated February 7, 2002.

° See Order dated June 17, 2002. II]. CLAIMS AGAINST PHYCOGEN It is clear from all the evidence presented that a valid and enforceable contract (Severance Agreement) existed between Levine and PhycoGen, Inc.; that Levine received all sums due him until September 9, 2001 ($180,288.75); and that a balance of $444,711.25 remained to be paid over the term of the contract.’ Levine is entitled to judgment against Phycogen, Inc. for the full amount, but for all practical and legal purposes, it is uncollectible as against PhycoGen. Ill. CLAIMS AGAINST KEYBANK Levine asserts that because of its default, KeyBank must be “adjudged trustee as alleged,” i.e., for the full amount of the claim. 14 M.R.S.A. § 2614. Clearly, the total amount of legal liability for Phycogen, Inc. is $444,711.25 over the life of the contract. Although the bank is liable, it strikes the court that it would be an unwarranted windfall for the plaintiff, and a substantial injustice to KeyBank as trustee if the court granted judgment for the full amount, a sum that plaintiff would likely never collect. Nevertheless, in the only cases found by this court, where the Law Court has reviewed cases of a defaulted trustee, liability has been enforced for the full amount. Michael A. Butler et al. v. D/ Wave Seafood, et al., 2002 ME 41, 791 A.2d 928, is a case remarkably similar to the present case,* where KeyBank was held liable for the full

$80,000.00 settlement agreed to by the principal parties. It must be noted, however,

’ Payments were $4,807.70 every two weeks commencing April 1, 2000 for $125,000 per year for five years.

* The case was decided by the Law Court on March, 2002 at a time that this court was dealing with issues surrounding Key Bank’s default in this case. Counsel for the bank never disclosed that a similar issue was before the Law Court also involving Key Bank’s failure to respond to a trustee summons. that Key Bank’s primary challenge was to the issue of liability by default, not to the methodology of determining responsibility after the default. Id. n.7.?

In 1987, an insurer / trustee was adjudged fully liable after default when the Superior Court denied a hearing on the issue of damages. Coombs v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 534 A.2d 676 (Me. 1987). GEICO’s liability, however, was limited to the lesser of the amount alleged in the trustee summons ($50,000.00) or “the amount for which the principal defendant . . . is ultimately liable in the underlying action.” Id. at 679. This holding means that the trustee’s responsibility can be other than “as alleged,” 14 M.LR.S.A.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Coombs v. Government Employees Insurance
534 A.2d 676 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1987)
Butler v. D/Wave Seafood
2002 ME 41 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2002)
Briggs v. Briggs
1998 ME 120 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Levine v. Phycogen, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levine-v-phycogen-inc-mesuperct-2003.