• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
- 1 -=================================================================This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision beforepublication in the New York Reports.-----------------------------------------------------------------No. 153Richard E. Snyder,Appellant,v.Edgar M. Bronfman, Jr.,Respondent.Paul Shechtman, for appellant.Orin Snyder, for respondent.Business Council of New York State, Inc., amicuscuriae.SMITH, J.:We hold that quantum meruit and unjust enrichmentclaims brought to recover the value of plaintiff's services inhelping to achieve a corporate acquisition are barred by thestatute of frauds contained in General Obligations Law § 5-701(a) (10).
 
- 2 -No. 153- 2 -
I
Because this case arises on a motion to dismiss thefirst amended complaint (complaint) under CPLR 3211, we take thefacts alleged by plaintiff to be true. Where the allegations areambiguous, we resolve the ambiguities in plaintiff's favor.Plaintiff and defendant, who had been casualacquaintances, ran into each other while vacationing in theCaribbean in the winter of 2001-2002. Their meeting led to anoral agreement, characterized by plaintiff as a joint venture, toacquire and operate companies in the media business. Thoughdefendant was a member of a wealthy family, the acquisitionswould be made principally with funds from non-family sources.It was agreed that plaintiff would function asdefendant's "'experienced right hand', 'sounding board', 'loyalally', 'principal advisor', and most importantly, his'consigliere.'" The parties agreed that each of them would payhis own expenses and draw no salary, except that defendant, whohad already leased new office space, would bear most of theoffice costs. Defendant assured plaintiff that he would be ableto "share in the proceeds on any consummated transaction" withoutputting up his own funds. He also guaranteed that "on anyconsummated deal, [plaintiff] would receive a share of the valuecreated that would be 'fair and equitable.'" It is not allegedthat this agreement was reduced to writing, or that any note ormemorandum of it exists.
 
- 3 -No. 153- 3 -Beginning in January 2002, plaintiff worked on tryingto put together acquisitions for the joint venture. Plaintiff"developed for the Joint Venture a series of businessrelationships with key figures in the corporate and investmentbanking communities." He also met with defendant and defendant'sother business associates to discuss possible acquisitions. Andhe worked on several aborted deals: proposed acquisitions of aninterest in the Columbia House Company, of Prestige Brands, andof Vivendi Universal's media assets.Finally, a deal came to fruition: defendant and a groupof other investors agreed to acquire Warner Music from TimeWarner for approximately $2.6 billion in cash. Plaintiff was amajor contributor to this success: he identified the opportunity,persuaded defendant of its merits, helped to get debt financingand obtained financial information from the target company.After the deal was announced, plaintiff pursued an effort tomerge Warner Music with one of its competitors, EMI. Theproposed EMI merger collapsed, but the deal to acquire WarnerMusic closed in March 2004.Defendant invited plaintiff to make an investment inthe acquired company, and plaintiff put $1.3 million into thedeal. The following month, however, defendant told plaintiff"[T]here's no room here for you at Warner's" and refusedplaintiff's demand for "a lot of money" for plaintiff'scontribution to the transaction. This lawsuit followed.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...