IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
OM ENTERPRISES V LLC;
AMARNATH DEVA, Manager of OM No. 70118-5-1
r-3 c/> O
Enterprises V LLC,
DIVISION ONE rn„-
Appellant,
ro
v.
KAMAL TANDON and ANITA TANDON, o ^
husband and wife and the marital 03
community composed thereof;
SUNIL DHAR and RENUKA DHAR, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
husband and wife, and the marital
community composed thereof; SUNIL FILED: May 27, 2014
DHAR, TRUSTEE OF SUNIL AND
RENUKA DHAR TRUST; AJAY
KOTTAPALLI and MAHIJA
KOTTAPALLI, husband and wife and
the marital community composed
thereof; CHANDRA BHASKARA and
LAKSHMI RAMASUBRAMANIAN,
husband and wife and the marital
community composed thereof; DINESH
NAKKA and SREEDEVI NAKKA,
husband and wife and the marital
community composed thereof; JAMES
POOLEY and JANE DOE POOLEY,
husband and wife and the marital
community composed thereof; JAMES
POOLEY, TRUSTEE OF ANDERSON
POOLEY FAMILY TRUST;
KAMLAWANTI GOUNDER, a single
person; SHYAMAL GOUNDER, a
single person and in his capacity as
legal guardian of KAMLAWANTI
GOUNDER; BALRAJ BAKSHI and
JANE DOE BAKSHI, husband and wife
and the marital community composed
No. 70118-5-1/2
thereof; SUDERSHAN BAKSHI and
JOHN DOE BAKSHI, wife and husband
and the marital community composed
thereof; KERRY NEWMAN and JANE
DOE NEWMAN, husband and wife and
the marital community composed
thereof; MICHAEL BREWSTER and
JANE DOE BREWSTER, husband and
wife and the marital community
composed thereof; BIDAN BREWSTER
and JANE DOE BREWSTER, husband
and wife and the marital community
composed thereof; TAD BREWSTER
and JANE DOE BREWSTER, husband
and wife and the marital community
composed thereof; MUBARAK GROUP
INC., a Washington corporation; P
THREE COMPANIES LLC, a Virginia
limited liability company;
VARAPRASAD BONAGIRI and
SUSHANI PALADI, husband and wife
and the marital community composed
thereof; RAMPAUL GUPTA and
SAROJ GUPTA, husband and wife and
the marital community composed
thereof; RAMPAUL GUPTA, TRUSTEE
OF SAROJ AND PAUL GUPTA TRUST;
PRASAD ILLAPANI and JANE DOE
ILLAPANI, husband and wife and the
marital community composed thereof;
PRITHIPAL SINGH and RAJINDER
SINGH, husband and wife and the
marital community composed thereof;
PRITHIPAL SINGH, TRUSTEE OF
PRITHIPAL SINGH and RAJINDER K.
SINGH TRUST; RAJNEEL NAICKER
and JANE DOE NAICKER, husband
and wife and the marital community
composed thereof; KUVERAN
NAICKER and GYAN DEVI NAICKER,
husband and wife and the marital
community composed thereof; RAM
KUMAR and GEETA SWAMY, husband
and wife and the marital community
composed thereof; RAM PRASAD
and JANE DOE PRASAD, husband and
No. 70118-5-1/3
wife and the marital community
composed thereof; RAMESH BACHALA
and SARALA BACHALA, husband and
wife and the marital community
composed thereof; RAVI MUMMULLA
and SATYA MUDILI, husband and wife
and the marital community composed
thereof; ROHAN SAMUEL LAM and
JANE DOE LAM, husband and wife and
the marital community composed
thereof; SAMANTHAPUDI RAJU and
MADHAVI RAJU, husband and wife and
the marital community composed
thereof; SREENATH GAJULAPALLI and
ARUNA GAJULAPALLI, husband and
wife and the marital community
composed thereof; SRIKANTH KASAM
and JANE DOE KASAM, husband and
wife and the marital community
composed thereof; SURENDER ZUTSHI
and RUCHI ZUTSHI, husband and wife
and the marital community composed
thereof; SURENDER ZUTSHI,
TRUSTEE of ZUTSHI FAMILY R.
TRUST; MADHUSUDHAN REDDY and
VINAYA REDDY, husband and wife and
the marital community composed
thereof; VIPAN GUPTA and SUNITA
GUPTA, husband and wife and the
marital community composed thereof;
ZAFAR RIZVI and YOSHIKO RIZVI,
husband and wife and the marital
community composed thereof;
HARNINDER SANGHA and JANE DOE
SANGHA, husband and wife and the
marital community composed thereof;
KIRAN ELLANTI and JANE DOE
ELLANTI, husband and wife and the
marital community composed thereof;
MAHIDHAR REDDY and JANE DOE
REDDY, husband and wife and the
marital community composed
thereof; SOVITA RIMAL and RAJ
SHARMA, wife and husband and the
marital community composed thereof;
AMARNATH DEVA and JAYA DEVA,
No. 70118-5-1/4
husband and wife and the marital
community composed thereof; VENU
GOPAUL and JANE DOE GOPAUL,
husband and wife and the marital
community composed thereof; FLOYD
MCEWEN, individually; GILBERT
MCEWEN, individually; ARDELLA
HARN, individually; VIRGINIA
BRAESCH, individually; and LONDA
BLAKE, individually,
Defendants,
SHIVANCHAL ENTERPRISES LLC, a
Washington limited liability company;
RAVI MITTAL and RIPU MITTAL,
husband and wife and the marital
community composed thereof;
Respondents.
Becker, J. — In an accounting incident to the winding up of a limited
liability company, each member's capital account is valued. The valuation of a
capital account is distinct from the litigation of any claim the company may have
against the member. The company has a right to reduce the member's capital
account to zero because his withdrawals exceeded contributions. Instead of
recognizing this right, the trial court ruled on summary judgment that the
company was obliged to act as though the member's share consisted of his
contributions without any offset for his improper withdrawals. We reverse. Even
if it was too late for the company to bring a legal claim against the member to
recover the improper withdrawals, the company was entitled to take the
withdrawals into consideration in computing the value of the member's capital
account.
No. 70118-5-1/5
This case arises out of the dissolution of OM Enterprises V LLC, a
Washington limited liability company—hereafter "OM." The appellants are OM
and Amaranth Deva, the current member manager of the company. The
respondents are Ravi and Ripu Mittal and their solely owned limited liability
company. The Mittals are the successors to the OM account of Kamal Tandon,
the company's founding member manager and initial president. The decision
under review is the order granting the Mittals' motion for summary judgment
dismissal of OM's dissolution plan.
We review de novo a trial court's decision on summary judgment,
performing the same inquiry as the trial court. Roger Crane & Assocs.. Inc. v.
Felice. 74 Wn. App. 769, 773, 875 P.2d 705 (1994). We consider the evidence in
the light most favorable to OM, the nonmoving party. CR 56. Any findings of fact
or conclusions of law entered by the trial court are superfluous and do not affect
the inquiry on appeal. Skimming v. Boxer. 119 Wn. App. 748, 755, 82 P.3d 707,
review denied, 152 Wn.2d 1016 (2004). Unless otherwise indicated, our
discussion of the facts is taken from Deva's declaration.
On September 5, 2005, OM was formed. OM negotiated an agreement
with Papa John's International to operate its franchises in India. OM owned one
subsidiary—OM India. OM's primary function was to raise money to fund the
operations of OM India.
Tandon was the member manager of OM from formation to March 9,
2007. Deva was the acting vice president. Deva worked in India, overseeing
day-to-day operations of the restaurants. When Tandon resigned, Deva took
No. 70118-5-1/6
over company operations. Deva discovered that Tandon had failed to keep
accurate records of the members' capital accounts and had made several
hundred thousand dollars in unauthorized payments from company funds.
OM India fell behind on the development schedule required by the
franchise agreement. Papa John's threatened to revoke its agreement with OM.
To avoid revocation or cancellation of the agreement, OM agreed to sell its
shares in OM India and its rights under the franchise agreement to another
company. On May 24, 2007, the members of OM approved the sale. On
September 10, 2007, Deva completed the sale.
According to the declaration of Ravi Mittal, in July 2006, the Mittals and
their company sued Tandon, his wife, and several commonly held entities
including OM. The Mittals asserted dishonor of checks, securities act violations,
and breach of contract. On December 10, 2007, they received a judgment
against Tandon personally for $116,795.81. On July 9, 2008, the Mittals got a
charging order, charging the Tandons' interest in OM with payment of the
unsatisfied amount of judgment.
In 2011, OM received the funds from India and commenced the process of
winding up. The OM LLC agreement provides that company assets are
distributed to members according to each member's capital account balance:
17.3 Winding Up. Liquidation and Distribution of
Assets. Upon dissolution, the Board of Managers shall
immediately proceed to wind up the affairs of the Company, unless
the business of the Company is continued as provided in Section
17.1.3. The Board of Managers shall sell or otherwise liquidate all
of the Company's assets as promptly as practicable (except to the
extent the Board of Managers may determine to distribute any
assets to the Unit Holders in kind) and shall apply the proceeds of
No. 70118-5-1/7
such sale and the remaining Company assets in the following order
of priority:
17.3.1 Payment of creditors, including Members and
Managers who are creditors, to the extent otherwise
permitted by law, in satisfaction of liabilities of the Company,
other than liabilities for distributions to Members;
17.3.2 To establish any reserves that the Board of
Managers deems reasonably necessary for contingent or
unforeseen obligations of the Company and, at the
expiration of such period as the Board of Managers shall
deem advisable, the balance then remaining in the manner
provided below;
17.3.3 To the Unit Holders in proportion to the
positive balances of their respective capital Accounts, as
determined after taking into account all Capital Account
adjustments for the taxable year during which the liquidation
occurs;
17.3.4 Any remaining assets shall be distributed to
the Unit Holders in proportion to their Percentage Interests.
(Emphasis added.) Capital accounts are valued by adding all contributions made
by the member and subtracting any payments made to or on behalf of any
member:
10.2.1 Capital Accounts. A capital account
("Capital Account") shall be maintained for each Unit Holder.
The Capital Account maintained for such Unit Holder shall
be increased by (a) the amount of cash and the Fair Market
Value of property (net of related liabilities) originally
contributed to the Company by such Unit Holder as a capital
contribution, (b) the amount of additional cash or the Fair
Market Value of additional property (net of related liabilities)
contributed to the Company by the Unit Holder, and (c) such
Unit Holder's share of Net Profits and Gain on Sale of the
Company; and shall be decreased by (x) all distributions to
such Unit Holder from the Company other than repayment of
loans or interest thereon, (y) such Unit Holder's share of the
Net Losses and Loss on Sale of the Company and (z) all
other payments allocated to such Unit Holder. The foregoing
provisions defining a Unit Holder's Capital Account are
No. 70118-5-1/8
intended to comply with capital account maintenance
provisions of Treasury Regulation 1.704-1 (b) and shall be
interpreted and applied consistent with such Regulation. In
the event that the Manager determines that it is prudent to
modify the manner in which the Capital Accounts, or any
debits or credits thereto, are computed in order to comply
with such Regulation, the Manager may make such
modification, provided that it is not likely to have a material
effect on the amounts distributable to any Unit Holder or on
the obligations of any Unit Holder to restore a deficit balance
in its Capital Account.
(Emphasis added.)
Tandon did not keep accurate records. The best evidence of members'
capital account balances was an email sent by Tandon dated January 3, 2007,
purporting to list the capital account balances of all members. Deva used the
balances listed in that email as a baseline. He asked each member to provide
affirmative proof of their claimed contributions. This proof included cancelled
checks, transfer slips, deposit slips, wire transfer information, bank records, and
receipts issued by OM itself. Each member was credited with only the
contributions they could prove.
The January 2007 email listed the value of the Tandon capital account at
$513,400. But Tandon did not provide affirmative proof of his contributions.
Deva reviewed the company's bank records to determine whether deposits were
made on or about the dates and in the amounts identified and attributed to
Tandon in his email. Deva identified $440,800 of deposits that approximately
corresponded with amounts and dates of contributions claimed by Tandon in the
email and were not returned for insufficient funds. Two other members provided
proof that $25,000 of the contributions claimed by Tandon were actually made by
8
No. 70118-5-1/9
them for their own benefit. Deva thus determined that the sum of contributions
possibly made by Tandon was $415,800.
Deva also found a number of unauthorized payments made by Tandon.
The bank accounts for OM were properly used for two things: (1) to make
payments to OM's two domestic vendors—Papa John's and United Source
One—and (2) to transfer funds into OM India's bank accounts in India. Deva
identified 62 payments or withdrawals made by Tandon between March 25,
2005, and June 2, 2006, totaling $490,401.95, that were unrelated to either of
these purposes. Included were payments to Tandon's personal creditors and to
companies owned by Tandon in which OM was not involved.
Deva calculated the value of the Tandon capital account by subtracting
the unauthorized payments from the contributions. He relied in part on section
10.2.1 (z) of the LLC agreement which provides that capital accounts are
decreased by "all other payments allocated to such Unit Holder." This resulted in
a balance of -$74,601.95. Deva chose to value the account at zero. If Deva's
valuation is approved, the Mittals—as the holders of a charging order against
Tandon's interest in the company—will receive nothing from proceeds of the sale
of OM when the company's assets are distributed upon dissolution.
On January 26, 2012, OM filed an action for dissolution. OM and Deva
were the plaintiffs. The defendants were all possible members of the LLC. The
Mittals were among the named defendants. The complaint asked for an order
authorizing dissolution of the company:
1.1 Plaintiff brings this action for dissolution under Section
25.15.275 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) which
No. 70118-5-1/10
authorizes this Court to decree dissolution of a limited liability
company when it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the
business in conformity with a limited liability company agreement or
other circumstances render dissolution equitable.
The complaint also requested a declaratory judgment that Deva's system for
calculating capital account values was permissible:
1.2 Plaintiff brings this action for declaratory judgment under
RCW Chapter 7.24 declaring the validity of the distribution of
remaining assets, following the winding up of OM's affairs, to OM's
members in accordance with their pro rata share of capital
contributions as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto.
On November 6, 2012, the Mittals filed a motion for summary judgment,
asking the court to find that OM had no authority to offset Tandon's capital
account contributions by the unauthorized payments.
On January 23, 2013, the motion was granted. The court ordered the
company to "make returns of capital or distributions, as appropriate, to the Mittals
based on the entire capital account associated with the Tandon share that is
subject to the King County Charging Order." The court denied Deva's request for
approval of his proposed disbursements. The court also denied Deva's motion
for reconsideration. This appeal followed.
Deva argues that the trial court erred when it found that the company
lacked authority to adjust Tandon's capital account to reflect his unauthorized
withdrawals. The Mittals' arguments in response depend on their assumption
that calculating Tandon's share by subtracting withdrawals from contributions
was an attempt to recover against Tandon on a legal claim for mismanagement.
Deva's position is that the valuation of Tandon's share was a necessary incident
to winding up. Because we agree with Deva that the action is in the nature of an
10
No. 70118-5-1/11
accounting rather than a legal claim against Tandon, the arguments made by the
Mittals in support of summary judgment miss the mark.
The company filed for dissolution. Under the terms of the operating
agreement, the company has to calculate the value of each member's capital
account to distribute the proceeds of the sale. Even the Mittals acknowledge that
the action is one for winding up. Because the action is for dissolution of the
company, not for a judgment against Tandon, it is appropriate to consider Deva's
calculation of Tandon's share as an accounting, not as a legal action.
EFFECT OF THE MITTALS' CHARGING ORDER
The Mittals hold a charging order against Tandon's interest in OM. The
Mittals argue that, as holders of that charging order, they have the right to
receive distributions to the extent necessary to satisfy their judgment plus
interest. The Mittals insist that Deva is attempting to offset Tandon's interest by
unadjudicated claims and that such an offset is tantamount to holding them liable
for debts associated with membership in contravention of RCW 25.15.250(4).1
The Mittals are not being held liable for debts associated with
membership. As holders of a charging order, the Mittals are assignees of
1"Unless otherwise provided in a limited liability company agreement and except
to the extent assumed by agreement, until an assignee of a limited liability company
interest becomes a member, the assignee shall have no liability as a member solely as a
result of the assignment." RCW 25.15.250(4).
11
No. 70118-5-1/12
Tandon's interest. RCW 25.15.255.2 As assignees, the Mittals are entitled to
Tandon's interest and cannot recover more than Tandon could have. See Havsy
v. Flvnn, 88 Wn. App. 514, 519, 945 P.2d 221 (1997).
In an accounting to wind up the LLC, Tandon's interest is equal to his
capital contributions minus the unauthorized payments. The Mittals' charging
order does not affect the value of Tandon's interest in the LLC. They take from
the company what Tandon has—which is nothing—unless they can show Deva's
computation of Tandon's contributions and withdrawals is inaccurate. As yet,
they have not shown that.
EFFECT OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS
The Mittals have argued that the company's action is barred by a three-
year statute of limitation because it is an action to recover on unadjudicated
claims against Tandon. Because this is not a claim against Tandon, but rather
an accounting to wind up business, the statutes of limitation cited by Mittals are
inapplicable.
EFFECT OF TANDON'S BANKRUPTCY
The Mittals argued below that Tandon's liability for negligence or
mismanagement was discharged in bankruptcy by order dated April 5, 2012, and
as a result the company was enjoined from attempting to collect a discharged
debt. Again, the company was winding up its business, not suing Tandon for
2"Rights of judgment creditor. On application to a court of competent
jurisdiction by any judgment creditor of a member, the court may charge the limited
liability company interest of the member with payment of the unsatisfied amount of the
judgment with interest. To the extent so charged, the judgment creditor has only the
rights of an assignee of the limited liability company interest. This chapter does not
deprive any member of the benefit of any exemption laws applicable to the member's
limited liability company interest." RCW 25.15.255.
12
No. 70118-5-1/13
negligence or mismanagement. To wind up its business, the company calculated
Tandon's capital account as the sum of his contributions minus unauthorized
payments, as called for by the operating agreement. Tandon's unauthorized
payments were made between March 25, 2005, and June 2, 2006. They
exceeded the amount of previous contributions. Thus, the value of Tandon's
interest was negative as of June 2, 2006, almost six years before entry of the
bankruptcy order. The bankruptcy has no effect on the valuation of Tandon's
capital account.
AUTHORITY TO OFFSET
The Mittals argue there is no authority permitting the company an offset
for unadjudicated claims against Tandon. It is unnecessary to consider that
argument because the action is for winding up the LLC, not for collecting on the
company's unadjudicated claims against Tandon. In winding up, a company's
distribution of cash or assets is controlled by the terms of the LLC agreement.
RCW 25.15.205. Here, the agreement provided for company assets to be
distributed to members according to each member's capital account balance.
After payments to creditors and reserve accounts, proceeds from the sale or
liquidation of the company's assets go to "the Unit Holders in proportion to the
positive balances of their respective capital Accounts, as determined after taking
into account all Capital Account adjustments for the taxable year during which
the liquidation occurs." Capital accounts are calculated as Deva proposed, by
adding all contributions made by the member and subtracting any payments
made to or on behalf of that member. The unauthorized payments made by
13
No. 70118-5-1/14
Tandon while he was manager were appropriately treated as payments allocated
to him under section 10.2.1(z).
The Mittals argue that deducting the unauthorized payments from
Tandon's capital account is contrary to section 17.3.3 of the agreement which
states that the balance of a capital account is to be determined "after taking into
account all Capital Account adjustments for the taxable year during which the
liquidation occurs." They also refer to section 10.2.1, which limits the extent of
modifications OM's management can make to the manner in which a member's
capital account is computed. The Mittals misapprehend the meaning of the
language cited. As Deva explains, the language in section 17 means that
adjustments made in the year of liquidation must be made before the positive
balance (if any) used in the final distribution is determined. The language in
section 12 is inapplicable because OM's management has not modified the
contractual formula for valuing the capital accounts.
EFFECT OF RCW 25.15.235(3)
Upon OM's motion for reconsideration, the trial court ruled that the
adjustment Deva proposed to make to Tandon's capital account was time barred
under RCW 25.15.235(3). RCW 25.15.235 sets out circumstances in which a
member is liable to the company for distributions received when the company
has insufficient funds to pay creditors:
(1) A limited liability company shall not make a distribution to
a member to the extent that at the time of the distribution, after
giving effect to the distribution (a) the limited liability company
would not be able to pay its debts as they became due in the usual
course of business, or (b) all liabilities of the limited liability
company, other than liabilities to members on account of their
14
No. 70118-5-1/15
limited liability company interests and liabilities for which the
recourse of creditors is limited to specified property of the limited
liability company, exceed the fair value of the assets of the limited
liability company, except that the fair value of property that is
subject to a liability for which the recourse of creditors is limited
shall be included in the assets of the limited liability company only
to the extent that the fair value of that property exceeds that liability.
(2) A member who receives a distribution in violation of
subsection (1) of this section, and who knew at the time of the
distribution that the distribution violated subsection (1) of this
section, shall be liable to a limited liability company for the amount
of the distribution. A member who receives a distribution in
violation of subsection (1) of this section, and who did not know at
the time of the distribution that the distribution violated subsection
(1) of this section, shall not be liable for the amount of the
distribution. Subject to subsection (3) of this section, this
subsection (2) shall not affect any obligation or liability of a member
under a limited liability company agreement or other applicable law
for the amount of a distribution.
(3) Unless otherwise agreed, a member who receives a
distribution from a limited liability company shall have no liability
under this chapter or other applicable law for the amount of the
distribution after the expiration of three years from the date of the
distribution unless an action to recover the distribution from such
member is commenced prior to the expiration of the said three-year
period and an adjudication of liability against such member is made
in the said action.
RCW 25.15.235 (emphasis added).
The Mittals argue that Tandon's account cannot be reduced by his
withdrawals because the company did not bring an action against him to recover
the withdrawn funds within the three-year period specified in subsection (3) of the
statute. The statute does not apply. The company is not bringing an action to
recover distributions from Tandon and is not obligated to. What the company is
doing is giving effect to the provisions of the LLC agreement for winding up. This
requires the calculation of the value of each member's interest and involves
decreasing that value by "payments allocated to" the member. It does not
15
No. 70118-5-1/16
require an action to establish the member's liability to the company under RCW
25.15.235(3).
Even if the statute could be interpreted to require a recovery action within
three years against a member like Tandon who made withdrawals for his own
benefit, the subsection begins with the phrase, "Unless otherwise agreed." The
LLC agreement expressly directs the company to reduce a member's capital
account balances by subtracting payments allocated to the member from that
member's contributions.
Our conclusion that summary judgment was improperly granted is
supported by partnership case law. The role of members in a member-managed
LLC is analogous to that of partners in a general partnership, and partners are
held accountable to each other and the partnership as fiduciaries. Maple Court
Seattle Condominium Ass'n v. Roosevelt. LLC. 139 Wn. App. 257, 262, 160 P.3d
1068 (2007). Washington courts use case law interpreting partnership
agreements and partnership statutes to decide limited liability company issues.
Koh v. Inno-Pac. Holdings. Ltd.. 114 Wn. App. 268, 271, 54 P.3d 1270 (2002).
Our Supreme Court confronted a similar situation in Crofton v. Bargreen,
53 Wn.2d 243, 332 P.2d 1081 (1958). In that case, Crofton and Bargreen
formed a partnership engaged in a wholesale beer distribution business. Crofton
made an initial capital contribution of $27,900.09. As part of the partnership
agreement, Crofton granted Bargreen the option to repurchase his interest in the
partnership at any time. The terms of repurchase required that Bargreen pay
Crofton his initial capital contribution ($27,900.09) plus interest. Eight years later,
16
No. 70118-5-1/17
Bargreen exercised his right to repurchase Crofton's interest, triggering
dissolution of the partnership. At the time of dissolution, Crofton's account
revealed that, since formation, Crofton's withdrawals totaled $280,718.17 while
his capital account totaled $287,786.23, leaving $7,786.23 in his capital account.
Bargreen filed suit for dissolution and paid Crofton $9,141.84 (the balance of his
capital account plus interest). Crofton demanded he be paid his entire capital
contribution of $27,900.09, plus interest. Bargreen argued that, since Crofton
had overdrawn his share of the profits, he should be required to pay only the
$7,786.23 remaining in Crofton's capital account. The Court of Appeals found for
Crofton. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that it would do violence to the
intent of the parties to compel Bargreen to disregard Crofton's overdrafts and pay
him the same amount as if he had maintained his capital account intact. Crofton.
53 Wn.2d at 253.
To find for the Mittals in this case would do more violence to the intent of
the LLC agreement than finding for Crofton in Crofton. Crofton had the authority
to draw funds out of the partnership. Tandon did not have authority to withdraw
funds from OM for his personal use. Unless section 10.2.1(z) is interpreted to
permit subtracting the withdrawn funds from Tandon's original investment when
calculating the value of his capital account, Tandon, through his successors, the
Mittals, will receive a windfall.
We conclude that OM had authority to decrease the value of Tandon's
share in the company by the amount of his unauthorized withdrawals.
The order granting summary judgment is reversed.
17
No. 70118-5-1/18
WE CONCUR:
M CbXt J.
18