IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

PILOT AIR FREIGHT, LLC Plaintiff,

v. MANNA FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., ALA N J. MEEHAN REVOCABLE TRUST, and ALAN J. MEEHAN , Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 2019
- 0992
- JRS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Date Submitted: June 2, 2020 Date Decided: September 18 , 2020
Jody C. Barillare, Esquire of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, Dela ware and Troy S. Brown, Esquire, Margot G. Bloom, Esquire and Brian F. Morris, Esquire of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Attorneys for Plaintiff Pilot Air Freig ht, LLC. Kurt M. Heyman, Esquire and Melissa N. Donim irski, Esquire of Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, Delaware and Michael F. Cockson, Esquire and Nathaniel J. Zylstra, Esquire of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Attorneys for Defendants Manna Freight Systems, Inc., Alan J. Meehan Revocable Trust and Alan J. Meehan.

SLIGHTS, Vice Chancellor1 This Action involves disputes relating to an Asset Purchase Agreement (the “APA”) where by Pl aintiff, Pilot Air Freight, LLC (“Pilot”), purchased substantially all the asse ts of Defendant, Manna Freight Systems, Inc. (“Manna , ” or the “Company” ) (the “Acquisition”)

. 1 As to be expected, Manna and its direct and indirect owners, Defendants, Alan J. Meehan Revoca ble Trust u/a/d/ 8/20/2007 (the “Trust”) and Alan J. Meehan (“Meeh an” ) , as sellers, m ade contractual representations and warranties in the APA to Pilot, as buyer, regarding the fitness of Manna’s trucking business. 2 The parties agreed that Sellers would indemnify Pilot for any breaches of the representations and warrant ies , 3 and that any claim for
indemnif ication must be filed within 15 months of the APA’s closing. 4 Apart from Sellers ’ contractual representations and warranties, however, Pilot promised it was not relying on any extra

- contractual promises, representation s or warranties. 5

1 Verified Compl. Under Sea l (“Compl.”) (D.I. 1) ¶¶ 1

– 4; Compl. Ex. A (the “APA”).

2 See, e.g. , Compl. ¶ 35; APA Art. 5 (“Each of Seller, the Trust and Meehan jointly and severally represent . . . .”). Meehan and the Trust together are referred to in the APA as “Owner.” The APA d esignates Manna as “Seller.” Throughout this Opinion, when quoting from the APA, I will follow this convention. For ease of reference, however, I designate Manna and the Owner, collectively, as “Sellers” when addressing Sellers’ representations and warra nties in order to avoid repeated references to “Seller, the Trust and Meehan jointly and severally” as the actual parties who made the “Representations and Warranties By Seller” as per the APA. APA Art. 5.

3 APA § 9.1 (“Indemnification by Seller”).

4 A PA § 9.1, § 9.3 (“Survival”).

5 APA § 9.8 (“Limitation of Representations and Warranties”).2 A significant aspect of Pilot’s thesis in support of the Acquisition was that it could “market its [own] logistics services to Manna’s customers and therefore expand its customer base.” 6 Given the “critical importance” of Manna’s existi ng customer relationships, a significant component of Pilot ’s valuation of Manna was Manna’s “projected future customer revenues.” 7 To buttress its valuation, Pilot bargained for a specific representation regarding the stability of the Company’s relations hip with its “ 30 largest customers for calendar year 2017.” 8 It also bargained for post

- s igning protection in the form of a representation that, between

s igning and c losing, Sellers had not received notice from any of Manna’s top customers of an intent ma terially to decrease the volume of business with the Company. 9
The Acquisition closed on July 16 , 2018. More than fifteen months later, on December 11, 2019, Pilot filed this Action alleging fraud , breach of representations and warranties and breach of t he implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 10 According to Pilot , at some point after closing, it discovered that three of the

6 Compl. ¶ 2.

7 Id.

8 APA § 5.27 (“Customers”).

9 Compl. ¶ 25; APA § 5.27.

10 Compl. ¶ 96(a) (alleging Sellers breached various representations and warranties)

.3 Company’s top customers from 2017 were “no longer [] customer[s] at all.” 11 This discovery has prompted Pilot to allege t hat Sellers “initiated a scheme to misrepresent to Pilot the declining or essentially ended nature of certain of its material customer relationships” as soon as Sellers realized “the value Pilot placed”

on Manna’s customer relationships

. 12
Manna has moved to dismiss under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state viable claims. According to Manna, the indemnification claim s are untimely and the implied covenant and fraud claim s are not well

- pled. Despite the “critical importance” of customer relationships to Pilot’s plans for
Manna’s assets , it offers no viable excuse for waiting until after the 15

- month contractual limitations period expired to seek indemnification. 13 T o avoid d ismissal of its indemnification claims, Pilot conjures an argumen t that Sellers “put Pilot off the ‘trail of inquiry’” by employing an “ ‘ actual artifice’ to [] prevent Pilot from lear n in g about the true status of [the] customer relationships.” 14 But after giving Pilot the benefit of all reasonable inferences flowing fro m the Complaint, it is not

11 Compl. ¶ 43 (Modus was a “lost customer”), ¶ 55 (Personal Comfort was “no longer a customer at all”), ¶ 72 (Big Fig “no longer intended to be a customer”).

12 Compl. ¶ 34.

13 Compl. ¶ 2.

14 Pl.’s Answering Br. in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Pl.’s Verified Compl. (“PAB”) (D.I. 23) at 22.4 reasonably conceivable that the Sellers did anything to prevent Pilot from discovering w ithin the contractual limitations period that the three “critical”

customers it has identified were , in Pilot’s words , “no longer [] customer [s] at all.” 15
The APA was a “heavily negotiated” contract that “cover[ed] a large number of specific risks explicitly.” 16 One of those risks was that Manna’s top customers would go elsewhere. The APA’s bargained

- for “representations and warranties

serve an important risk allocation function” by allowing Pilot to fine

- tune its risk preferences regarding these top customers. 17 Given that Pilot knowingly bargained away the right to seek indemnification for breaches of the relevant representations and warrant ies after 15 months from closing , Pilot may no t avail itself of a remedy that, by its own hand, no longer exist s . Accordingly , Pilot’s indemnification claims must be dismissed

. The implied covenant claim parrots the allegations supporting the claim for indemnification. This is not surprising given that the gravamen of the claim is that Sellers acted in bad faith by falsely representing in the APA the state of Manna’s

15 Compl. ¶ 55.

16 In re Tibco Software Inc. S’holders Litig. , 2014 WL 6674444, at *18 (Del. Ch. Nov. 25, 2014).

17 Id. ; Julius v. Accurus Aerospace Corp. , 2019 WL 5681610, at *15 (Del. Ch. Oct. 31, 2019).5 relationship with key customers. This topic is covered expressly in the APA; there is no room for the implied covenant. That claim must also be dismissed. Apart from a minor dispute involving Manna’s accounts receivable, 18 this leaves Pilot with f raud c laims. In this regard, Pilot alleges Sellers “fraudulently induce[d] Pilot to proceed to Closing” (later defined) by making certain false statements regarding a number of customers within the Agreement

. 19 After carefully reviewing the Complaint and the APA, I am satisfied the bulk of the alleged fraud is pled with particularity, not barred by the APA’s non

- reliance clause and not otherwise barred as bootstrapped breach of contract claims. The motion to dismiss
the contractual fraud claim s , the refore, must be denied.
I. BACKGROUND I have drawn the facts from well

- pled allegations in the Ver ified Complaint and documents incorporated by reference or integral to th at pleading

. 20 For purposes

18 As exp lained below, the Complaint does well

- plead a breach of contract claim with respect to certain Excluded Liabilities.

19 Compl. ¶ 4.

20 Compl.; Wal

- Mart Stores, Inc. v. AIG Life Ins. Co. , 860 A.2d 312, 320 (Del. 2004) (noting that on a M otion to D ismiss, th e Court may consider documents that are “incorporated by reference” or “integral” to the complaint).6 of Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, as I must, I accep t those well

- pled facts as

true

. 21
A. The Parties and Relevant Non
- Parties Pilot is a “worldwide provi der of transportation and logistics services.” 22 Until Pilot acquired substantially all its assets, Manna was also engaged in the trucking and logistics industry. 23 The Trust is Manna ’s sole shareholder

. 24
Meehan is an individual who resides in Minnesota. 25 He is alleged to be Manna’s founder and the sole settlor and grantor of the Trust. 26 Meehan was Manna’s CEO at all relevant times before the c losing. 27
Non

- Parties, Modus Furniture International (“Modus”), Personal Comfort Beds (“Personal Comfort”) , Big Fi g Mattress (“Big Fig”) and General Electric

21 In re Gen. Motors (Hughes) S’holder Litig. , 897 A.2d 162, 169 (Del. 2006).

22 Compl. ¶¶ 1, 7.

23 Compl. ¶¶ 1, 8.

24 Compl. ¶ 9.

25 Compl. ¶ 10.

26 Id.

27 Id.7 (“GE”) were Manna customers. 28 Non

- party, Forward Air Corp. (“Forward Air”) , was a Manna supplier. 29
B. Pilot and Manna’s Strategic Overlap Prior to the Acquisition, Manna’s business focused on providing “final mil e” delivery services , specializing in more difficult deliveries “( i.e. , mattress delivery).” 30 This business relied heavily on revenue generated from repeat

customers. 31 Pilot saw the Acquisition as a means to expand its global transportation and logistics business by adding “final mile” delivery service to its existing logistics offerings

. 32 By adding this piece of the delivery puzzle, Pilot would be positioned

to “provide customers with a complete package of delivery solutions” and could then

o ffer its “f ull mile” services to Man n a’s “last mile customers.” 33

28 Compl. ¶¶ 36, 55, 68, 77, 84.

29 Compl. ¶ 78.

30 Compl. ¶ 1. “Final (or last) mile” deliveries take product from intermediate depos to the final destination.

31 Id

. 32 Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2, 27.

33 Compl. ¶ 31. “Full mile” deliveries take product fro m origination to final destination.8 C. The APA Pilot , Manna , the Trust and Meehan signed the APA on June 26, 2018 (the “Signing”)

. 34 The Acquisition of substantially all of Man n a’s assets closed three weeks later, on July 16, 2018 (the “Cl osing” or “Closing Date” ). 35 Not surprisingly , the APA contains a series of interrelated provisions whereby Sellers (i) disclaimed all extra

- contractual representations and warranties , (ii) explicitly provided Pilot with a discrete list of contractual repre sentations and warranties about the Company , (iii) represented that the contractual representations and warranties were true as of the Signing and the Closing , ( iv ) set aside a portion of the purchase price in escrow to serve as Pilot’s exclusive source of recovery should Pilot prove that the representations and warranties were untrue as of the date they were made , (v) agreed to indemnify Pilot out of the escrow fund for any losses arising out of a breach of the contractual representations and warranties an d (vi) contractually specified the date by which any claims for breaches of Sellers’ representations and warranties must be brought. 36

34 APA (recitals); Compl. ¶ 1. The APA includes a Delaware choice

- of

- law provision and provides that the exclusive jurisdiction and venue for APA disputes shall be the state and federal courts of the State of Delaware. APA § 14.7; Compl. ¶ 13.

35 APA § 1.1 (“Purchased Assets”); Compl. ¶¶ 17

– 18. The purchase price was $18,000,000 subject to certain net working capital and tax adjustments. APA § 2.1 (“Purchase Price”).

36 APA § 9.8 (“Limitation of Representations and Warr anties”), § 5 (“Representations and Warranties By Seller”), § 5 (Sellers’ Representations and Warranties made as of the Signing), § 8.2 (Sellers’ representations and warranties true as of the Closing), § 9.19 The Non
- Reliance Provision The APA contains a non

- reliance provision whereby Pilot agreed that it was not relying on any extra

- contractual representations or warranties when it entered into the APA

. 37 Specifically, in Section 9. 8 of the APA, capti oned “Limitation of Representations and Warranties,” Pilot agreed: Except for the representations and warranties expressly set f orth in Article 5, the Seller and the Owners are not making and shall not be deemed to have made, any other representations or warranties, written or oral, statutory, express or implied, concerning the Seller, the Owners, the Purchased Assets, the Assumed Liabilities, the Business or any other matter related to this Agreement, all of which are otherwise being accepted by Purchaser “AS IS AND WHERE IS.”

. . . EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 5, NEITHER THE SELLER NOR THE OWNERS HAS MADE, AND THE SELLE R AND THE OWNERS HEREBY EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM AND NEGATE, AND PURCHASER HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVES AND AGREES THAT IT IS NOT RELYING ON, ANY REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, AT COMMON LAW, BY STATUTE OR OTHERWISE RELATING TO, AND PURCHASER HEREBY EX PRESSLY WAIVES AND RELINQUISHES ANY AND ALL RIGHTS, CLAIMS AND CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLER, THE OWNERS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES IN CONNECTION WITH, THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR MATERIALITY OF ANY STATEMENTS, INFORMATION, DATA OR OTHER MATERIALS ( WRITTEN OR ORAL) OR DOCUMENTS HERETOFORE FURNISHED OR MADE AVAILABLE TO PURCHASER AND ITS

(“Indemnification by Seller”), § 9.4(b) (Sellers ’ liability “shall not exceed” the “Escrow Amount” subject to narrow exceptions), § 9.6 (discussing the “Escrow”), § 9.5 (discussing “Survival”).

37 APA § 1.1; Compl. ¶ 17.10 REPRESENTATIVES BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE SELLER OR THE OWNERS. 38 Relatedly, in Section 14.4, the parties agreed the APA, “together with all disclosure schedules,

. . . constitutes the entire agreement between the parties .” 39
To remove all doubt, t he APA reiterates that it was to “ supersede any prior understandings, agreements, or representations and warranties by or among the parties .” 40 When r ead together, Article 9 and Section 14.4 make clear that Pilot had no right to rely on Sellers ’ extra

- contractual statements concerning Manna and its business. 41 The APA distinguishes between Sellers ’ extra

- contractual representations and warranties (on which Pilot agreed it would not rely) and the contractual representations and warranties for which Pilot bargained in the APA. In Section 9.1,

t he APA states: Nothing in this Agreement shall limit or restrict any of Purchaser’s rights to maintain or recover any amounts at any time in connection with any action or claim based upon intentional fraud by Seller or Owner in this Agreement

. 42

38 APA § 9.8 (capitalization in original).

39 APA § 14.4 (“Entire Agreement”).

40 I d

. 41 APA §§ 9.1, 9.8, 14.4.

42 APA § 9.1 (emphasis supplied).11 Accordingly, the APA preserves Pilot’s right to bring a claim for “intentional fraud” at “any time , ” provided the basis for the alleged fraud arises out of Sellers ’ representations and warranties in the APA

. Sellers ’ Representations and Warranties As the relevant provisions make clear, t he risk allocation scheme manifested in the APA placed singular focus on the promises the parties made to each other in the contract itself. Relevant here, Sellers represented and warranted to Pilot that, as of the Signing, and then as of Closing : 43

• Section 5.6 ( Financial Statements ) : except as set forth in the disclosure schedules, the Company’s financial statements fo r the year ended 2016 and 2017 , as well as the interim period ended April 30, 2018 (the “Interim Financial Statements”) “ present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Seller at such dates and the results of operations of Seller for su ch respective periods in conformity with . . . [GAAP].” 44

43 APA Art. V (“Each of Seller, the Trust and Meehan jointly and severally represent and warrant to Purchaser, as of the [Signing], as follows:”); § 8.2(a) (“The representations and warranties o f Seller and Owner contained in Article 5 shall be true and correct in all respects (without giving effect to any update of the Disclosure Schedules pursuant to Section 10.7) on and as of the Closing Date with the same effect as though made at and as of su ch date (except those representations and warranties that address matters only as of a specified date, the accuracy of which shall be determined as of that specified date in all respects), except for any inaccuracy in any representation and warranty that, individually or in the aggregate with any other such inaccuracy, has not had a Material Adverse Effect.”); § 8.2(i) (di scussing officer certificates). Critically, while Sellers made these representations at Signing and then again at Closing, to the extent a specific statement “addresses matters only as of a specified date, the accuracy” of such statement “shall be determined as of that specified date in all respects. ” § 8.2(a) (emphasis supplied).

44 APA § 5.6.12 • Section 5.8 (Absence of Changes) : Except as set forth on the Company’s disclosure schedules , since April 30, 2018 to Closing , there has not been: (a) any Material Adverse Effect, (b) any “damage, des truction or loss” adversely affecting the “properties or assets of the Business in any material respect” or (c) any “transactions with respect to the Business not in the ordinary course.” 45

• Section 5.24 (Accounts Receivable) : except as set forth in disclosu re schedules, all of the accounts receivable reflected on the Company’s financial statements “will be actual and bona fide receivables” that are stated “in accordance with GAAP.” And , to the Knowledge 46 of the Seller, there are not any amounts in excess of $10,000 due in respect of any such individual account receivable that is in dispute. 47

• Section 5.27 (the “Customer Rep”) : “ Set forth on Schedule 5.27 hereof is a true and complete list of Seller’s 30 largest customers for calendar year 2017 (by revenue att ributable to such customers) (“Material Customers”) . . . Except as indicated on Schedule 5.27, . . . neither Seller nor Owner has received written notice or, to the Knowledge of Seller, any oral notice from any Material Customer that any Material Customer intends or expects, after the Closing Date, to stop or materially decrease the volume of, or change, adjust or modify in any materially adverse manner any of the material terms . . . with respect to its purchasing of services from Seller. ” 48

• Section 5.28 ( Vendors) : the Company’s disclosure schedules contain “a true and complete list” of the Company’s “30 larges t vendors for calendar year 2017. . . . Since January 1, 2016, neither Seller nor Owner has received written notice, or to the Knowledge of Seller, a ny oral notice” that any such vendor “intends or expects to stop or materially

45 APA § 5.8; see also APA § 5.6 (discussing t he “Interim Balance Sheet”), § 8 (discussing closing conditions).

46 The APA defines “Knowledge” to mean the actual knowledge of Meehan or the Company’s COO or CFO. APA § 9.1(p).

47 APA § 5.24.

48 APA § 5.27.13 change . . . any of the material terms . . . with respect to its provision of goods or services” to the Company. 49 Two aspects of th e Customer Rep are particularly important to Pilot’s breach and fraud claims. First , Sellers disclosed a list of the Company’s 30 largest customers “for calendar year 2017.” 50 On its face, the Customer Rep says nothing about Manna’s largest customer during any other time period. This leaves a six

m onth gap between the period addressed in the Customer Rep (i.e., the end of 2017) and the Signing (June 26, 2018). 51 Second , Sellers represented that no Material Customer from the list had notified the Company of an intent to “stop or materially
decrease” their purchases “ after the Closing Date ” (a “Bus iness Reduction Notification”). 52 Another key aspect of Sellers ’ disclosure is the “disclosure statements” carve

out. As noted, Sellers ’ representations and warranties are qualified by the phrase “except as s et forth” on the Company’s disclosure statements

. 53 Accordingly, if

49 APA § 5.28.

50 APA § 5.27.

51 Compare APA § 5.27 (disclosing the Company’s largest customers “for calendar year 2017), with Compl. ¶ 16 (signing occurred on June 26, 2018).

52 APA § 5.27 (emphasis supplied).

53 See, e.g. , APA § 5.8 (“Except as set forth on Schedule 5.8”), § 5.6 (“Except as set fo rth on Schedule 5.6”).14 Sellers disclosed a fact in a disclosure statement, that disclosure , in essence, was carved out of Sellers’ representations and warranties. Sellers provided the first disclosure statem ent to Pilot at S igning (the “Original Disclosure Schedules”) . Under Section 10.7, Sellers then had the option to update (or not) the disclosure schedules before Closing (the “Updated Disclosure Schedules”) : 54 Seller and the Owners may from time to time before Closing update the Disclosure Schedules regarding any matter about which they obtain Knowledge after the date hereof that would constitute a breach of any of the representations and warranties in this Agreement in the form of a written supplement or amendment delivered to Purchaser; provided, any such update by Seller and the Ow ners shall be made within seven (7) days of Seller first obtaining such Knowledge. No such supplement or amendment shall have any effect on the satisfaction of the conditions to closing set forth in Section 8.2; provided, however, if Purchaser proceeds with the Closing, then Purchaser and the other Purchaser Indemnified Persons shall be deemed to have waived any right or claim pursuant to the terms of this Agreement or otherwi se, including for indemnification pursuant to Article 9, with respect to any and all matters disclosed pursuant to any such supplement or amendment at or before the Closing, and the representations and warranties shall be qualified by any matters set forth in such supplement or amendment. 55 As the APA makes clear, t he information contained on the Updated Disclosure Schedules would not affect (one way or the other) Pilot’s obligation to close, but if

54 APA § 10.7 (“Updating Disclosure Schedules”); Compl. ¶ 22.

55 APA § 10.7.15 Pilot “proceeds with the Closing, ” then Pilot would waive any claim with respect to the matters disclosed. 56
Indemnification and Survival Section 9.1 of the APA defines Pilot’s indemnification rights : From and after the Closing and subject to the limits set forth in this Article 9, Seller and each Owner , jointly and severally, shall indemnify, defend and hold Purchaser

. . . harmless from and against any and all loss, liability, damage, or expense

. . . (collectively “Losses”) that [ Purchaser may] suffer, sustain, incur or become subject to, arising out of, result ing from or due to: (a) any breach or inaccuracy when made of any representation and warranty of Seller or Owner in this Agreement; (b) the non

- fulfillment of any covenant, agreement or other obligation of Seller or Owner under this Agreement; (c) any Excl uded Liabilities;

. . . (g) IC Liabilities incurred by Seller to the extent arising out of Seller’s operations prior to the Closing Date, up to the remaining Escrow Amount then held in escrow under the Escrow Agreement. 57 While broad, the right to indemni fication under the APA , in most instances, is not indefinite. In a section of the APA entitled “Survival,” Pilot agreed t hat most of the Sellers’ representations and warranties, including the key ones at issue here, would survive for only 15 months after Closing : All representations and warranties set forth in this Agreement shall survive for a period of 15 months after the Closing ; provided, however, that the Fundamental Representations and the representations and warranties made by Purchaser in Sections 6.1 (Corporate Organization and Standing), 6.2 (Authority), and 6.3 (Brokers) shall survive until the

56 APA § 8.2(i), § 8.2(a) (stating that Pilot was not obligated to close unless “[t]he representations and warranties of Seller and Owner contained in Articl e 5 shall be true . . . as of the Closing Date”).

57 APA § 9.1.16 expiration of the statute of limitations plus sixty (60) days. All covenants, indemnities and agreements of [Manna] and the Owners shall survive for thre e (3) years after the Closing Date (after which such obligations shall terminate), except (i) e ach of Section 10.2 and Section 10.3 shall survive in accordance with its terms, and (ii) the indemnification obligations of Seller and Owners with respect to Fu ndamental Representations shall continue in accordance wit h the terms of this Section 9.3

. . . . No claim for indemnification as to representations and warranties under this Agreement may be made after the expiration of the applicable period set forth in t his Section 9.3 and [Manna] and the Owners shall have no Liability for any claims made after the expiration of such applicable period for breach of or an inaccuracy when made of a representation or warranty . All demands or claims for indemnification under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall set forth with reasonable specificity the basis for such demand or claim and the amount of such claim (if known). 58 The practical impact of the Survival clause is that claims for breach of representations and wa rranties subject to the c lause must be brought within
15 months of C losing. Thereafter, the claims are time barred. On the same day as the Closing, the parties entered into an escrow agreement, which required that $1,500,000 be placed into escrow to cover timely claims brought by the buyer (Pilot) for indemnification (the “Escrow Property”). 59 If no claims for indemnification were presented within 15 months after Closing, any amount remaining in the esc row was to be distributed to Sellers

. 60

58 APA § 9.3 (emphasis supplied).

59 Compl. ¶ 19.

60 Compl. ¶ 20.17 D. Business Reduc tion Notifications

“ I n 2017 and 2018, Manna’s business relationships with certain key customers fell into jeopardy.” 61 Indeed, several customers “advised Manna that they intended to terminate their relationship with Manna.” 62 According to Pilot , when Manna learned that several of the Company’s key clients would be leaving the fold, its management (including Meehan) “ initiated a scheme to misrepresent to Pilot the declining or essentially ended nature of [these] material customer relationships.” 63 Pilot flag s three t roubled customer relationships that it believes Manna had a duty to disclose under the APA.
Modus In the Original Disclosure Schedules , Sellers identified Modus as Manna’s fourth largest customer by revenue “for calendar year 2017.” 64 Specificall y, the Sellers represented Modus’ billed revenue for 2017 was $2,317,000. 65 Pursuant to Sellers’ contractual obligation to disclose Business Reduction Notifications, the Original Disclosure Statement revealed that “[i]n 2018 and in the ordinary course of

61 Compl. ¶ 3.

62 Id

. 63 Compl. ¶ 34.

64 Compl. ¶ 36; APA § 5.27.

65 Compl. ¶ 36.18 b usiness, Modus . . . decreased the volume of services purchased from [Manna].” 66 The Original Disclosure Statement did not reveal, however, that six months before Signing , Modus notified Manna that it intended to terminate its business with the Company

. 67 Upon receiving this notice, Manna ’s management began to identify Modus as a “lost customer

. ” 68
Personal Comfort The Sellers ’ Original Disclosure Schedule listed Personal Comfort as the Company’s twenty

- fifth largest customer during 2017 with aggregated b illed revenue of $446,000. 69 Despite this significant business during 2017, by Signing, Personal Comfort was no longer a Manna customer. 70 Indeed, Sellers knew at least a month before S igning that Personal Comfort was no longer transacting business with th e Company due to customer service issues

. 71 By the time Sellers received Personal Comfort’s Business Reduction Notification before Signing, t he Original Disclosure Schedules had been issued and

66 Compl. ¶ 49.

67 Compl. ¶¶ 37, 38.

68 Compl. ¶ 39.

69 Comp. ¶ 55.

70 Id

. 71 Compl. ¶ 63.19 made no mention of Personal Comfort’ s cessation of business

. 72 It was not until well after receiving Personal Comfort ’s Business Reduction Notification that Sellers finally disclosed the bad news regarding the loss of Personal Comfort’s business on the Updated Disclosure Schedule. 73 Big Fig On the Original Disclosur e Schedule, Sellers listed Big Fig as the Company’s twenty

- fourth largest customer in 2017 with revenue of $452,000. 74 Pilot alleges Sellers were aware, as of April 20, 2018, that Big Fig was “dissatisf[ied]” with Manna’s services. 75 A nd, on information an d belief , Pilot alleges “Big Fig advised Sellers prior to Closing that it no longer intended to be a customer of Manna’s.” 76 Neither the Original nor the Updated Disclosure Schedule contained any mention of Big Fig ’s Business Reduction Notification

. 77

72 Compl. ¶¶ 63

– 64.

73 Compl. ¶¶ 63, 64, 67.

74 Compl. ¶ 68.

75 Compl. ¶¶ 70

– 72.

76 Compl. ¶ 72.

77 Id

.20 Sep arately, Pilot maintains Sellers never disclosed that a $127,144 receivable from Big Fig was “uncollectible and in dispute.” 78 Even though Sellers disclosed a $50,000 reserve against this receivable, Pilot claims Sellers “had actual knowledge that the full amount of the receivable was uncollectible.” 79

***** The chart below summarizes the Business Reduction Notifications Pilot alleges S ellers received and yet failed to disclose in order to induce Pilot to sign the APA and close the Acquisition : 80

78 Compl. ¶ 75.

79 Id

. 80 Compl. ¶¶ 16, 18. As noted, t he APA was signed on June 26, 2018, and the Acquisition closed on July 16, 2018. Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank21 A lleged date Sellers received Business Reduction Notification from a customer Method and d ate of Sellers’ d isclosure of Business Reduction Notification Content of d isclosure

Modus December 29, 2017 [1] Footnote to Original Disclosure Schedule, dated June 2 6, 2018 [2] “ In 2018 and in the ordinary course of business, Modus . . . [has] decreased the volume of services purchased from Seller.” [3]

Personal Comfort May 24, 2018 or June 27, 2018 at the latest [4] Updated Disclosure Schedules, dated July 16, 2018 (more than 7 days

after Sellers received Business Reduction

Notification) [5] “ In 2018 and in the ordinary course of business, Personal Comfort [] no longer purchases services from Seller.” [6]

Big Fig On April 20, 2018, the Sellers knew Bi g Fig had made complaints. [7] “ Upon information and belief, Big Fig advised Sellers prior to Closing that it no lo nger intended to be a customer.” [8] No disclosure [9] No disclosure

[1] Compl. ¶ 37; [2] Compl. ¶ 49; [3] Compl. ¶ 49; [4] Compl. ¶¶ 59, 63; [5] Compl. ¶ 64; [6] Compl. ¶ 64; [7] Compl. ¶ 70; [8] Compl. ¶ 72; [9] Compl. ¶ 72.

E. Vendor Rates and Customer Service Setoff Disputes In addition to negative customer relationship developments pre - S igning and
pre - C losing, Manna experienced negative pre

- Closing developments related to its vendors and shipping liabilities. According to Pilot, n either of these issues were adequately disclosed in either the Original or the Updated Disclosure Schedules. 81
First , i n the Original Disclosure Schedule , Sellers disclose d that Forward Air was Manna’s third largest vendor. 82 Sellers also disclosed that “in 2018 and in the

81 Compl. ¶¶ 77

– 82, 83

– 86.

82 Compl. ¶ 79.22 ordinary course of business, Forward Air [] has increased its prices.” 83 Sellers included this disclosure because “Forward Air gave [notice of] a rate in crease of 5.9%” that would “go effective” on “9

- 1.18” ( two months after Closing). 84 Pilot alleges Sellers’ actual disclosure (i.e., “in 2018” and in the “ordinary course,” Forward Air increased its prices) led it to believe that Forward Air’s price increas e “had already occurred and was already reflected in” the Company’s financial disclosures. 85
Second , GE was a pre - Closing customer of Manna’s. 86 After the Closing, GE informed Pilot that it was claiming a set

- off of payments owed in the aggregate
amount of $69,440 due to certain “shipment issues.” 87 Originally, GE c laimed these losses occurred post

- Closing. 88 After an investigation, however, GE determined it

83 Compl. ¶ 79.

84 Compl. ¶ 81. It is unclear when Pilot alleges the price increase took place. Compare Compl. ¶ 81 (“beginning of June”), with Compl. ¶ 81 (stating an increase will “go effective [] 9

- 1.18”).

85 Compl. ¶ 80.

86 Compl. ¶ 84.

87 Compl. ¶¶ 84

– 85.

88 Compl. ¶¶ 84

– 86.23 “had made an administrative error, and realized that all of the complained of losses occurred prior t o Closing.” 89
F. Procedural History Pilot sent Sellers an indemnification demand (the “Demand”) on October 14, 2019. 90 The Demand claimed Pilot suffered damages in excess of $6.9 million
because of Sellers ’ alleged wrongdoing in connection with the APA. 91 Sell ers disagreed and rejected the Demand. With this dispute unresolved, the Escrow Property cannot be released unless and until the parties issue written joint instructions for release of the funds to the escrow agent or a court of competent jurisdiction ent ers a final , non - appealable judgment resolving the claims

. 92 After negotiations proved unsuccessful, Pilot filed the Complaint in this Court on December 11, 2019 (more than 15 months post

- Closing). 93 The Complaint comprises six counts. I n Counts I and II, Pilot claims Sellers breached the APA,

89 Compl. ¶ 86.

90 Compl. ¶ 88.

91 Id

. 92 Compl. ¶ 89.

93 Compl. ¶ 1.24 giving Pilot a right to indemnification and release of the Escrow Property. 94 Pilot’s breach of contract claims fall into four buckets

. First , Pilot alleges it received inadequate disclosure of the Business Reduction Notifications from Modus, Personal Comfort and Big Fig before the Closing. 95 With respect to Modus, Pilot concedes the Original Disclosure Schedules revealed that , “[i] n 2018 and in the ordinary course of business,” Modus “decreased the volume of services purchased from Seller. ” 96 B ut Pilot a lleges this disclosure was false and intentionally misleading because Modus’ 90% purchasing reduction was not “ordinary course

. ” 97 A s for Personal Comfort, Pilot concedes Sellers disclosed that “in 2018 and in the ordi nary course of business, Personal Comfort Beds no longer purchases services from Seller.” 98 Despite this disclosure, Pilot argues it came too late because it (a) should have been included on the Original Disclosure Statement and (b) was added to the Update d Disclosure Schedules more than 7 days after Sellers received notice from Personal Comfort. 99 Finally, a s for Big Fig, Pilot

94 Compl. ¶¶ 91

– 110.

95 Compl. ¶¶ 37, 55, 71

– 72.

96 Compl. ¶ 49.

97 Id

. 98 Compl. ¶¶ 64, 67.

99 Compl. ¶ 67; see APA § 10.7 (stating that, to be effective, any updated disclosure must be made “within seven (7) days of [Manna] first obtaining such Knowledge”).25 contends Sellers did not make any disclosure of Big Fig’s Business Reduction Notification even though it was received pre - Closing. 100 Taken together, Pilot argues these factual allegations state viable claims for breach of the Customer Rep (requiring disclosure of Business Reduction Notifications)

— as well as the representations in Section 5.6 (accuracy of financial statements) and Sect ion 5.8 (absence of material adverse effect). 101 On the latter claim, it appears Pilot would have the Court conclude that these three customers’ departure had such a severe impact on the Company as a whole that it caused a “Material Adverse Effect.” 102 Pilot levels this claim e ven tho ugh the total loss of Modus, Personal Comfort and Big Fig w ould have accounted for no more than 6% of the Company’s total revenue even if the Company added no new customers during
2018

. 103 Pilot’s theory as to Section 5.6 is even l ess clear. Pilot does not allege the Company’s financial statements were inaccurate (i.e., that the Company made more

100 Compl. ¶¶ 71

– 72.

101 Compl. ¶¶ 51

– 52, 66

– 67, 73.

102 Compl. ¶¶ 50, 65.

103 See Compl. ¶ 36 ($ 2,317,000 revenue attributed to Modus during 2017), ¶ 47 (Modus’ 2017 revenue was 4% of total revenue), ¶ 55 ($446,000 revenue attributed to Personal Comfort during 2017), ¶ 68 ($452,000 revenue attributed to Big Fig during 2017). The product of $2,317,00 0 and 100 divided by 4 renders the Company’s total revenue during 2017 ( i.e. , $57,925,000).26 or less money than Sellers reported ) . Rather, Pilot appears to argue that because Manna failed to disclose the Business Reduction Notifi cations, the Company’s financial statements no longer “present fairly . . . the financial position of [Manna]”

on a prospective basis. 104 And yet , to be clear, Pilot does not allege Sellers provided it with any financial forecasts

— only backwards

- looking fin ancial statements. Second , and unrelated to the Business Reduction Notification claims , Pilot

a lleges Sellers br eached the representation in Section 5.24 of the APA because the Big Fig receivable of $127,114 on the Company’s disclosure statements was not a “bona fide” receivable

. 105 The Complaint alleges Sellers had “actual knowledge that the full amount of the receivable was uncollectible.” 106
Third , Pilot brings a claim predicated on the verb tense of Sellers’ disclosure related to Forward Air’s price inc rease. Specifically, Pilot argues that when it was told Forward Air “ has increased its prices,” it was misled to believe that “the price increase . . . was already reflected” in the Company’s financial statements

104 Compl. ¶ 51; PAB at 29

– 31.

105 Compl. ¶¶ 74

– 76; see APA § 5.24 (Sellers’ representation that “[a]ll of the accounts receivable reflected on the Interim Balance She et are . . . actual and bona fide recei vables

. . . . Such accounts receivable . . . are stated [] in accordance with GAAP . . .

. Except as set forth on [the Original Disclosure Schedule], to the Knowledge of [Manna], there are not (i) any amounts in ex cess of $10,000 due . . . that is in dispute”).

106 Compl. ¶¶ 74

– 76.27 (it was not). 107 This, by Pilot’s lights, c onstitutes a breach of Sellers’ representation in Section 5.28 ( captioned “Vendors”). 108
Fourth , Pilot makes breach claim s unrelated to Sellers’ representations and warranties . Specifically, it alleges Sellers breached Sections 10.7 and 3.2 of the
APA by fa iling to update the Original Disclosure Schedules within 7 days of becoming a ware of any matter that would constitute a breach of their representations and warranties (Section 10.7) and failing to accept responsibility for GE’s offset claim of $69,440 as a n “Excluded Liability” (Section 3.2). 109
In Counts III

– VI, Pilot re purposes the factual predicates of its breach of
contract claims to plead breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepres entation, respectively. 110

107 Compl. ¶¶ 79

– 80 (emphasis in original).

108 Compl. ¶¶ 77

– 82; see APA § 5.28 (“Set forth on [the Original Disclosure Schedules] is a true and complete list of [Manna’s] 30 largest vendors . . . . Since January 1, 2016, neither [Manna] nor Owner has received written notice . . . that any Material Vendor intends or expects to . . . materially change . . . any of the material terms . . . with respect to its provision of goods.”).

109 Compl. ¶ ¶ 23, 83

– 86; PAB at 9, 20.

110 Compl. ¶¶ 111

– 165.28 In response, Sellers have moved to d ismiss the Complaint under Court of Chancery R ule 12(b)(6) for failure to plead viable claims a nd Rule 9(b) for failure to plead fraud with particularity

. 111
II. ANALYSIS The standard s for deciding a m otion to d ismiss under Court of Chancery
Rule 12(b)(6) is well

- settled: (i) all well

- pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true; ( ii) even vague allegations are “well

- pleaded” if they give the opposing party notice of the claim; (iii) the Court mu st draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non

- moving party; and (iv) dismissal is inappropriate unless the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof. 112
A. Breach of Contract C laims (Counts I

– II) To prevail on a breach of contract claim, Pilot must plead and prove “(1) the existence of a contract; (2) the breach of an obligation imposed by the contract; and (3) damages that the plaintiff suffered as a result of the breach.” 113 O f these elements, only the second is in dispute. 114

111 D.I. 12; Ct. Ch. R. 12(b)(6); Ct. Ch. R. 9(b).

112 Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp. , 812 A.2d 89 4, 896

– 97 (Del. 2002) (citation omitted).

113 Osram Sylvania Inc. v. Townsend Ventures, LLC , 2013 WL 6199554, at *6 (De l. Ch. Nov. 19, 2013).

114 See Defs .’ Opening Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss Pl.’s Verified Compl. (“DOB”) (D.I. 14) at 29.29 Breach of contract claims are susceptible to disposition on a motion to dismiss “[w]hen the language of [the] contract is plain and unambiguous.” 115 Contract language is ambiguous “only when the provisions i n controversy are reasonably or fairly susceptible of different interpretations or may have two or more different meanings.” 116 I f the plaintiff has proffered a reasonable construction upon which its claim of breach rests, the motion to dismiss must be deni ed. 117
Pilot ’ s Indemnification Claims The main thrust of Pilot’s breach of contract claim is that certain Seller representat ions and warranties were untrue ( both at S igning and again at C losing ) and that Pilot is thus entitled to indemnification under Sect ion 9.1 of the APA

. 118
In particular, many of Pilot’s claims turn on the Customer Rep in Section 5.27 and the allegation s that while Modus, Personal Comfort and Big Fig were top customers during 2017, by the summer of 2018, Sellers knew those customers woul d no longer do business with Manna

. 119 Pilot maintains th ese customer departure s triggered

115 Id

. 116 AT&T Corp. v. Lillis , 953 A.2d 241, 252 (Del. 2008) (quotations omitted).

117 Caspian Alpha Long Credit Fund, L.P. v. GS Mezz anine P’rs 2006, L.P. , 93 A.3d 1203, 1205 (Del. 2014); Kahn v. Portnoy , 2008 WL 5197164 , at *1 (Del. Ch. Dec. 11, 2008).

118 Compl. ¶ 96 (alleging breaches of Sections 5.6, 5.8, 5.24, 5.27 and 5.28).

119 Compl. ¶¶ 37

– 39, 55, 68

– 69.30 Sellers’ obligation to disclose their receipt of a Business Reduction Notification under Section 5.27. 120 Even though Sellers did disclose that Modus and Personal Comf ort had reduced their purchases during 2018 , Pilot alleges the disclosure schedules were misleading because they stated Modus and Personal Comfort had decreased purchases “in the ordinary course” of business, and there was no disclosure as to Big Fig. 121
T he default s tatute of l imitations for breach of contract is three years. 122
Delaware law , however, permits parties to shorten the three

- year statute of limitations by contract if “(1) the claims are based on a written contract; (2) the contract involved at least $100,000; and (3) the contract specifies a period for claims
to accrue.” 123 There is no dispute that Pilot’s indemnification claims are based on a written contract that involves at least $100,000. 124 The parties dispute the third
element

— whether the AP A sets a contractual limitations period.

120 Compl. ¶¶ 49, 64, 72.

121 Id

. 122 10 Del. C. § 8106(a).

123 10 Del. C. § 8106(c); AssuredPartners of Va. v. William Patrick Sheehan , 2020 WL 2789706, at *15 (Del. Super. Ct. May 29, 2020).

124 See APA § 2.2(c) (discussing the “Estimated Cash Purchase Price”).31 In Delaware , the default rule is that representations and warranties do not survive c losing, but parties may agree to create a contractual survival period if they
so choose : Absent contract language providing to t he contrary, pre

- closing representations about the acquired property interest become ineffective post

- closing under the same rationale that causes representations about real property to merge with a warranty deed.

. . . [But] [p] arties can contract for re presentations to survive closing by incorporating a survival clause in the transaction agreement. 125
T o the extent representations and warranties survive closing, claims that a party’s representations were false must be brought within the applicable limitat ions period , whether contractual or statutory as the case may be

. 126
“T here is no special rule requiring that in order to contractually shorten the statute of limitations, parties [must] utilize clear and explicit language.” 127 Rather,

“ Delaware courts have interpreted contractual provisions that limit the survival of representations and warranties as evidencing an intent to shorten the period of time

125 Bear Stearns Mortg. Funding Tr. 2006

- SL1 v. EMC Mortg. LLC , 2015 WL 139731, at *14 (Del. Ch. Jan. 12, 2015) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

126 See Shaw v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. , 395 A.2d 384, 386 (Del. Super. Ct. 1978) (“The Delaware decisions follow the general prin ciple that contractual limitation of actions periods are valid if they are reasonable.”).

127 GRT, Inc. v. Marathon GTF Tech., Ltd. , 2011 WL 2682898, at *12 (Del. Ch. July 11, 2011) (internal quotation omitted).32 in which a claim for breach of those representations and warranties may be brought, i.e., the statute of lim itations.” 128 In the APA, the parties agreed Sellers ’ representations and warranties (other than fundamental representations and warranties that are not at issue) “shall survive for a period of 15 months after the Closing.” 129 Pilot filed the Complaint more t han 15 months after the Closing. 130 Given this express limitations period, and the settled law that cl aims for breaches of representations and warranties accrue at closing, Pilot’s claims for breaches of Sellers ’ representations and warranties are untimely

. 131
Pilot attempts to escape this conclusion by making four arguments , each of which i t foreswore in the APA itself. First , Pilot reasons that because Manna’s indemnity obligations survive for “3 years after the Closing date,” that must mean that Pilot can sue Manna for breached representations and warranties any time within

128 Id

. 129 APA § 9.3.

130 Compare APA § 9.3 (st ating “all” representations and warranties “shall survive for a period of 15 months after the Closing”), and Compl. ¶ 18 (The APA closed on July 16, 2018.), with D.I. 1 (showing that the Complaint was filed on December 11, 2019).

131 GRT , 2011 WL 2682898, a t *6 (“ Because representations and warranties about facts pre - existing, or contemporaneous with, a contract's closing are to be true and accurate when made, a breach occurs on the date of the contract's closing and hence the cause of action accrues on that date.”).33 three years post

- Closing. 132 This is wrong. In Section 9.3 , Pilot expressly acknowledged that : No claim for indemnification as to representations and warranties under this Agreement ma y be made after [15 Months] . . . and Seller and the Owners shall have no Liability for any claims made after the expiration of such applicable period for breach of or an inaccuracy when made of a representation or warranty

. 133 Because I must “interpret con tractual provisions in a way that gives effect to every term of the instrument,” I must give effect to Section 9.3 , which specifically and explicitly subjects breach of representation and warranty claims to a truncated
15

- month survival period. 134 This read ing dovetails with the more general 3

- year indemnification period because other indemnification obligations (such as the obligation to defend against certain third party claims ) are not swept into the 15

- month survival clause for inaccurate representations and warranties

. 135 Stated differently, Sellers ’ obligation s to indemnify Pilot for damages caused by inaccurate representations and warranties subject to the 15

- month limitations period are a

132 PAB at 16.

133 APA § 9.3 (emphasis supplied).

134 Aircraft Serv. Int’l, Inc. v. TBI Overseas Hldgs., Inc. , 2014 WL 4101660, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 5, 2014); see also DCV Hldgs., Inc. v. Con Agra, Inc. , 889 A.2d 954, 961 (Del. 2005) (“Specif ic language in a contract controls over general language, and where specific and general provisions conflict, the specific provision ordinarily qualifies the meaning of the general one.”).

135 See APA § 9.5 (captioned “Notice and Opportunity to Defend”).34 subset of the loss es for which Pilot is entitled indemnity. 136 Bu t, as to this subset, Pilot committed that any c laims would be brought within 15 months of Closing. Second , Pilot argues “written notice is plainly sufficient to” toll the 15

- month survival perio d. 137 A s Pilot sees it, because it gave Sellers a written dema nd notice

on October 14, 2019 (within 15 months of Closing), it had until the expiration of the
3

- year indemnification period to file its claims

. 138 Pilot points to the following language from Section 9.3 as support for its tolling argument : All demands or claims for indemnification under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall set forth with reasonable specificity the basis for such demand or claim and the amount of such claim (if known). 139 No matter how emphatically Pilot argues “written notice is plainly sufficient,”

n othing in the APA says that an indemnification demand (rather than filing suit) will toll the survival period

. 140 Pilot expressly agreed that “[n]o claim for indemnification” would be filed after 15 months post

- C losing; its post hoc sp in is unreasonable.

136 See APA § 9.1 (obligating Sellers to indemnify Pilot for, among other things, “(a) any breach . . . of any representation and warranty of [Manna],” “(b) the non

- fulfillment of any covenant,” “(c) any Excluded Liabilities,” “(d) any Excluded Taxes”).

137 PAB at 18.

138 Compl. ¶ 88; PAB at 17

– 18.

139 PAB at 18 (citing APA § 9.3).

140 PAB at 18.35 This is not a novel proposition. While it is true that “[p]arties may contractually agree that an indemnification notice tolls the limitation period until the underlying claim is resolved,” the APA contains no such tolling provision. 141
In Delaware, by default: when parties have shortened the statute of limitations by providing that representations and warranties survive only through a specified date, the party claiming breach must file suit within the specified time period. Providin g notice within the speci fied time period is not enough. 142
T o be sure, the APA requires that indemnification “demands” be made in writing, but Pilot’s argument conflates contractual conditions precedent to asserting an
indemnification claim (i.e., writte n notice) with the contractual 15

- month limitations period. There is nothing inconsistent with “a contractual limitations period that requires the parties to preserve rights by filing a lawsuit, but that still provides for extrajudicial dispute resolution procedures.” 143

141 See, e.g. , Aircraft , 2014 WL 4101660, at *4 (involving the following contractual language: “if written notice of a violation or breach of any specified representatio n . . . is given to the party charged with such violation or breach during the period provided . . . such representation [or] warranty . . . shall continue to survive ”).

142 Friedman Fleischer & Lowe, LLC v. Accentcare, Inc. , 2016 WL 6967898, at *3 (Del. Ch . Nov. 29, 2016) (citing ENI Hldgs. , LLC v. KBR Gp. Hldgs

. , LLC , 2013 WL 6186326, at *9

– 10 (Del. Ch. Nov. 27, 2013); GRT , 2011 WL 2682898, at *9

– 10) (emphasis supplied).

143 ENI , 2013 WL 6186326, at *10 (stating “[i]t is not a reasonable interpretation of the SPA that KBR can preserve a lawsuit based on an expired representation or warranty merely by providing notice before the applicable Termination Date”); see also Kilcullen v. Spectro Sci., Inc. , 2019 WL 3074569, at *6 (Del. Ch. July 15, 2019) (“Because Spectro’s claim notice did not toll the statute of limitation, Spectro’s Indemnification Counterclaims36 Third , Pilot argues the APA did not require it to file suit within 15 months because the APA did not expressly state that representations and warranties

“ terminated on the survival expiration date.” 144 As noted, Delaware does not require

ex plicit language to set a contractual limitations period. 145 Where, as here, a contract provides “the representations and warranties of the Seller . . . shall survive until” a specified date, such language unambiguously sets a contractual limitations period

. 146 And even if this language were not enough to set a limitations period (it is), to reiterate, Section 9.3 states “ no claim ” for inaccurate representations and warranties “may be made after” 15 months of Closing. 147 Finally , Pilot claims the contractual l imitations period should be t olled because Sellers “acted to affirmatively conceal the wrong.” 148 In this regard, I gather

based on the representations provision are dismissed as time

- barred.”); GRT , 2011 WL 2682898, at *15 (“The most persuasive authorities conclude that [a] survival clause with a discrete survival period has the effect of granting the non

- representing and warranting party a limited period of time in which to file a post

- closing lawsuit .”) (emphasis supplied).

144 PAB at 16 (emphasis in original).

145 GRT , 2011 WL 2682898, at *12.

146 See Aircraft , 2014 WL 4101660, at *3 (holding the following language set a contractual limitations period: “ the representations and warranties of the Seller contained in Section 2.15 hereof shall survive until the second anniversary o f the Closing Date ”).

147 APA § 9.3.

148 PAB at 21 (citing Lincoln v. Snyder , 722 F. Supp. 546, 563 (D. Del. 2010)).37 P i lot seeks to invoke the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. 149 “Under this doctrine, a plaintiff must allege an affirmative act of ‘a ctual artifice’ by the defendant that either prevented the plaintiff from gaining knowledge of material facts or led the plaintiff away from the truth.” 150 While not stated clearly in its briefs, Pilot’s theory seems to be that the t op Customer Rep “put Pil ot off the ‘trail of inquiry,’” meaning that Pilot relied on the t op Customer Rep and did not notice the departure of key customers until it was too late. 151
The fraudulent concealment doctrine cannot resuscitate Pilot’s indemnification claims because “relie f” from the limitations period “extends only until the plaintiff is put on inquiry notice.” 152 “ N o theory will toll the statute beyond the point where the plaintiff was objectively aware, or should have been aware, of facts giving rise to the wrong.” 153 Impo rtantly, “inquiry notice does not require actual discovery of the reason for injury , ” but instead “exists when plaintiff becomes

149 PAB at 21 (citing CertainTeed Corp. v. Celotex Corp. , 2005 WL 217032, at *8 (Del. Ch. Jan. 24, 2005)).

150 In re Tyson Foods, Inc. , 919 A.2 d 563, 585 (Del. Ch. 2007).

151 PAB at 22.

152 Tyson Foods , 919 A.2d at 585.

153 Id

.38 aware of facts sufficient to put a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence on inquiry which, if pursued, would lead to the discovery of injury.” 154 Pilot has pled that when it took over Manna’s business, the Company’s “fo u rth” largest customer (accounting for $2,317,000 in revenue) had reduced its purchases by “90%,” and the Company’s “twenty

- fifth” largest customer “was no
lon ger a customer at all.” 155 Pilot alleges these departures were so significant that they caused a M aterial A dverse E ffect (as defined in the APA) on the Company before Closing. 156 This means that Pilot believes the Company had experienced such a “significant deterioration” in its business that the “fundamentals of the deal” were threatened. 157 In other words, by the time Pilot took the helm at the Company, ship’s alarms had been ringing for months

. Against this backdrop, even after affording it all reasonable inferences, Pilot cannot make a reasonably conceivable case for fraudulent concealment given that it was indisputably on inquiry notice of the alleged breach well within the limitations period

. 158

154 Certainteed , 2005 WL 217032, at *7 (internal quotation omitted).

155 Compl. ¶¶ 48, 54

– 55.

156 Compl. ¶ 101; PAB at 32.

157 Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi AG , 2018 WL 4719347, at *47 (Del. Ch. Oct 1, 2018) (construing a contractual “MAE Condition”).

158 See, e.g. , Compl. ¶ 55 (“Personal Comfort was no longer a customer at all” by “June 26, 2018”). Pilot’s citation to Vice Chancellor Glasscock’s decision in MKE Holdings v. Schwartz is misplaced. PAB at 22 (citing MKE Hldgs. LTD., v. Schwartz , 202039 The S urvival clause represents bargained

- for “risk allocati on . ” 159 If Pilot wanted a longer period within which to ascertain whether Sellers ’ representations and warranties were accurate, it could have shifted that risk to the Sellers by negotiating a longer survival period. Now that Pilot memorialized the terms o f its agreement with Sellers in the form of a clear and unambiguous contract, the Court cannot allow Pilot to re

- trade rights it knowingly bargained away. 160 For this reason, Pilot ’ s claims for breaches of Sections 5.6, 5.8, 5.24, 5. 27 and 5.28 must be dism issed. 161

WL 467937, at *11 (Del. Ch. Jan. 29, 2020)). There, defendants solicited a $7 million investment by touting a company’s financial performance while taking affirmative steps to shield spe cific, negative accounting reports from plaintiffs’ due diligence review

. The plaintiffs received the relevant accounting memoranda only after they made a books and records demand. Id. at *11

– 12. Here, on the other hand, Pilot has not pled that Sellers stashed away unflattering documents in a forgotten filing cabinet. Rather, key customers that had been a focus of Pilot’s due diligence review stopped sending any business to Manna before the APA closed. U nder any reasonably conceivable set of circumstan ces susceptible of proof, i f Pilot had exercised “reasonable diligence,” it would have discovered its injury from these lost customers immediately after the Closing. Certainteed , 2005 WL 217032, at *7.

159 In re Tibco , 2014 WL 6674444, at *18.

160 GMG Capita l Inv., LLC v. Athenian Venture P’rs I, L.P. , 36 A.3d 776, 779 (Del. 2012) (“The Court will give priority to the parties’ intentions as reflected in the four corners of the agreement.”).

161 See Compl. ¶¶ 96(a), 101.40 Pilot ’s Remaining Breach of Contract Claims Having determined that Pilot’s claims for breach of Sellers ’ representations and warranties are untimely, I turn to Pilot’s remaining breach of contract claims. Pilot maintains that even if its claim s under Article 5 ( Sellers ’ representations and warranties) are untimely, it has stated a viable claim under two provisions of the APA that are not subject to the 15

- month survival period. I agree, at least as to one of the remaining breach claims

. E ven though not separately pled in the Complaint, Pilot has argued in its Answering Brief that it stated a separate claim for breach of Section 10.7. 162 Pilot’s newfound claim appears to rest on its interpretation of the APA that Sellers “were required to update ” the Original Disclosure Schedules if they received a Business Reduction Notification. 163 That is not what Section 10.7 says. To the contrary, it states, in relevant part: [Manna] and the Owners may from time to time before Closing update the Disclosure Schedules regarding any matter about which they obtain Knowledge . . . that would constitute a breach of any of the representations and warranties in this Agreement . . . provided, any such update . . . shall be made within seven [] days of [Manna] first o btaining such Knowledge. No such supplement or amendment shall have any effect on the satisfaction of the conditions to closing . . . provided , however , if [Pilot] proceeds with the Closing, then [Pilot] . . . shall be

162 Compare PAB at 20 (arguing Pilot bre ached Section 10.7), with Compl. ¶¶ 96, 101 (alleging breaches of Sections 3.2, 5.6, 5.8, 5.24, 5.27, 5.28 and 9.1 of the APA).

163 See Compl. ¶ 23 (citing APA § 10.7).41 deemed to have waived any right or c laim pursuant to the terms of this Agreement . . . with respect to any and all matters disclosed. 164 On its face, Section 10.7 is permissive not mandatory

. 165 It does not create new obligations. Indeed, to the extent Sellers provide updated disclosures, t he supplemental disclosure has no impact on whether (or not) their representations and warranties were accurat e when made. 166 It is true that if updated disclosures were given more than seven days after Manna obtained the relevant Knowledge, then Sellers co uld not rely on the Updated Disclosure Schedules to argue that Pilot had waived its right to seek indemnification by proceeding to C losing. But that is a separate question from whether Section 10.7 creates an obligation. On its face, it does not. Pilot next a lleges it is entitled to indemnification for certain “Excluded Liabilities” under Section s 3.2 and 9.1(c) of the APA related to Manna’s customer,

164 APA § 10.7 (emphasis supplied).

165 See Miller v. Spicer , 602 A.2d 65, 67 (Del. 1991) (“The use of the verb ‘shall’ . . . generally connotes a mandatory requirement while the verb ‘may’ is deemed permissive.”) (citation omitted).

166 APA § 10.7.42 GE

. 167 Since this allegation does not involve an inaccurate representation or warranty subject to the 15

- month survival period , it is not time barred

. 168 According to Pilot , after Closing, “GE [] determined that it had made an administrative error, ” and asserted that it had suffered a loss of $69,440 due to a “shipment issue[]” that Manna caused “ prior to Closi ng.” 169 After it discovered the “shipment issue , ” G E “ set

- off and reduced its payments to Pilot.” 170 Tracing this factual allegation through the APA, Pilot argues this pre

- Closing “shipment issue”

was an “ Excluded Liability ” for which it is entitled t o indem nification under Section 9.1(c). 171 The APA defines “Excluded Liabilities” as, among other things, “ [a] ny liabilities or obligations with respect to [Manna’s shipping business] ar ising prior to the Closing Date ” ; but , “for the avoidance of doubt,” Excluded L iabilities do not include any “Assumed Liabilities”

— even if they arose prior to Closing. 172 In turn,

167 Compl. ¶ 83.

168 See APA § 3.2 (stating Pilot “shall not assume or in any way become liable for

. . . Excluded Liabilities”); § 9.1 (requiring Sellers to indemnify Pilot for “Excluded Liabilities”).

169 Compl. ¶ 86.

170 Compl. ¶ 85.

171 See APA § 9.1(c).

172 APA § 3.2(a).43 “Assumed Liabilities” include “all Services Liabilities to the extent of the reserves, accruals, and allowances in the Final Net Working Capital.” 173 Finally , the APA defines “Services Liabilities” as “all liabilities and obligations incurred in connection with Seller’s delivery of products in the ordinary course of business , including related to customer claims for cargo damages or loss, or related to propert y damage incurred in the ordinary course of business in connection with the delivery of products.” 174 The upshot is that the APA allocates Manna’s pre

- Closing liabilities to Sellers

— except for all “Services Liabilities” which Pilot assumes up to the net work ing capital target. 175 Pilot has not alleged the G E liability would cause Services Liabilities to exceed the net working capital target . This means the parties’ dispute turns on whether (or not) it is reasonably conceivable the G E liability is something

ot her than a “Services Liability .” 176 To put an even finer point on the disagreement, I must decide whether it is reasonably conceivable that GE’s set

- off of $69,440

— caused by “shipment issue[s]”

— is a liability “incurred in connection with [Manna’s]

173 APA § 3.1(c).

174 APA § 12(aa) (definition of “Services Liabilities”) (emphasis supplied).

175 See APA §§ 3.1

– 3.2.

176 APA § 3.1(c) (stating Pilot assumed all “Services Liabilities to the extent of . . . the Final Net Working Capital”).44 delivery of products in the ordinary course of business” (i.e., a “Services Liability”). 177
If the GE liability is a “Services Liability,” then the GE liability is Pilot’s to bear a s an “Assumed Liability.” 178 While Pilot has pled nothing more about the GE liab ilit y than a vague reference to its origin (“shipment issues”) and its amount, I am satisfied there exists a “reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof” in which a reasonable factfinder could conclude the GE liability was incurred outsid e the ordinary course of business. 179 As such, it is reasonably conceivable that Pilot is entitled to indemnification for the GE liability as an Excluded Liability under Section 3.2, and Pilot has stated a viable (albeit narrow) claim for breach of contract on that basis

. B. Pilot’s Implied Covenant Claim (Count III)
In Count III , Pilot alleges Sellers breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by: (i) intentionally misrepresenting and omitting material information in order to fraudulently in duce Pilot into signing the Asset Purchase Agreement and to subsequently close the acquisition; (ii) falsely engineering its disclosures to misrepresent and overstate customer revenue; (iii) intentionally delaying making disclosures and making disclosures that are intentionally ambiguous and misleading;

177 APA § 12(aa) (definition of “Services Liabilities”).

178 Id

. 179 CML V, LLC v. Bax , 28 A.3d 1037, 1040 (Del. 2011).45 (iv) manipulating [Manna’s] gross revenue calculations to reflect a time period that did not fairly and accurately portray the financial condition of Manna prior to closing; and (v) refusing to execute the j oint written instructions in order to release the Escrow Property. 180 While the laundry list of g eneralized grievances is lengthy , Count III rests on the same factual allegations that support Pilot’s breach of contract claims. 181 And for that reason, none of the grievances can sustain a v iable claim for breach of the implied covenant. The implied covenant of good faith and fair d ealing “involves a ‘cautious enterprise,’ inferring contractual terms to handle developments or contractual gaps that the asserting party pleads neither party anticipated. ” 182 Courts will not “rewrite the contract to appease a party who later wishes to rewrite a contract he now believes to have been a bad deal. Parties have a right to enter into good and bad contracts, the law enforces both.” 183
Each of Pilot’s implied covenant allegations fails for two reasons. First , Pilot cannot state a viable implied covenant claim by recycling its allegations that Sellers

180 APA § 120.

181 Compl. ¶¶ 111

– 124 (“Sellers covenanted that [they] would act in good faith to provide accurate and truthful representations.”).

182 Nemec v. Schrader , 991 A.2d 1120, 1125 (Del. 2010).

183 Id

. at 1126.46 breached express provisions in the APA

. 184 It is black letter law that where t he APA “expressly addresses a particular matter” ( such as Manna’s top C ustomers and the absence of Business Reduction Notifications ) , Manna cannot salvage its untimely breach of contract claim s by recasting them under the implied covenant

. 185
Second , and relatedly, Pilot has not identified a “gap that the implied covenant might fill.” 186 Pilot would have the Court infer a “free

- floating duty , ” unattached to the APA , requiring Sellers to “provide accurate and honest representations of Manna’s financial condi tion.” 187 Specifically, Pilot takes issue with Sellers ’ strategic negotiation of the Customer Rep ( by only agreeing to disclos e Manna’s top customers in 2017 rather than 2018 ), and argues this negotiation tactic amounted to bad faith “manipulat[ion]” of the “ substance and timing” of Sellers ’

184 Narrowstep, Inc. v. Ons tream Media Corp. , 2010 WL 5422405, at *10 (Del. Ch. Dec. 22, 2010) (finding implied covenant claim not available when “the subject at issue is expressly covered by the contract”) (internal quotations & citation omitted); see also Fortis Advisors LLC v. Di alog Semiconductor PLC , 2015 WL 401371, at *3 (Del. Ch. Jan. 30, 2015) (“Where the contract speaks directly regarding the issue in dispute, existing contract terms control . . . such that implied good faith cannot be used to circumvent the parties’ bargain .”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

185 Brightstar Corp. v. PCS Wireless, LLC , 2019 WL 3714917, at *12 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 7, 2019) (“Where a contract expressly addresses a particular matter, ‘an implied covenant claim respecting that matter i s duplicative and not viable.’”) (quoting Edinburgh Hldgs. v. Educ. Affiliates, Inc. , 2018 WL 2727542, at *9 (Del. Ch. June 6, 2018)).

186 Allen v. El Paso Pipeline GP Co., L.L.C. , 113 A.3d 167, 183 (Del. Ch. June 20, 2014).

187 PAB at 39; Longerman v. EPE H ldgs., LLC , 5 A.3d 1008, 1017 (Del. Ch. 2010) (“Implied good faith cannot be used to circumvent the parties’ bargain, or to create a free

floating duty unattached to the underlying legal documents.”).47 disclosures. 188 If the implied covenant worked to circumvent carefully negotiated representations and warranties in this manner, then it could be weaponized by any dissatisfied deal party to re

- trade the deal regardless o f what was bargained

- for. That is not how contractarian expectations or the implied covenant work. Contrary to Pilot’s argument, it is precisely because the parties carefully negotiated the “substance and timing” of Sellers ’ represen tations and warranti es that Pilot cannot identify a gap within which the implied covenant might fit. 189 Indeed, the representations and warranties Sellers are alleged to have breached served an “important risk allocation function” regarding the possibility that Manna’s financi al position would deteriorate before Closing. 190 B ecause the parties explicitly addressed the issues about which Pilot now complains , the implied covenant cannot

188 PAB at 39; see, e.g. , APA § 5.27 (requiring disclosu re of the Company’s to customers for “calendar year 2017”).

189 See PAB at 39.

190 In re Tibco , 2014 WL 6674444, at *18 (discussing the role of representations and warranties in “heavily negotiated” agreements and their “important risk allocation function”) (internal quotations omitted); see also Emp.’s Ret. Sys. of City of St. Louis v. TC Pipelines GP, Inc. , 2016 WL 2859790, at *6 (Del. Ch. May 11, 2016) (“The Courts apply the implied covenant . . . cautiously to infer contractual terms or gaps to address si tuations that the contracting parties did not anticipate.”).48 “create rights that contradict an express contractual provision” of the APA

. 191
Count III fails as a matter of law. C. Fraud Claims (Counts IV
- VI) Even though Pilot packages its fraud claims in three , separate counts , it is hard to tell them apart

— not only from each other, but also from the breach of contract claims I have addressed above

. In Count s I V

– VI , Pilot alleges that the same course of conduct underlying its breach of contract claims also gives rise to actionable fraud , fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation

. 192 In response, Sellers maintain all of Pilot’s fraud claims should be d ismissed because they (i) are untimely, ( i i) impermissibly bypass the APA’s non - reliance provision, (iii ) fail to plead fraud with particularity as required by Court of Chancery Rule 9(b) and ( iv ) are duplicative of Pilot’s breach of contract claims. 193 I a ddress each argument seriatim

.

191 Great

- West Inv’rs LP v. Thomas H. Lee P’rs, L.P. , 2011 WL 284992, at *5 (Del. Ch. Jan. 14, 2011); see APA § 5.8 (captioned “Absence of Changes”); § 5.27 (requiring notice of Business Reduction Notifications).

192 See Compl. ¶ 127(a) (alleging representations regarding Modus were false), ¶ 129 (alleging representations in Section 5.6, 5.8, 5.24 and 5.28 were false), ¶¶ 139

– 54, 156

– 65 (similar); see also Fortis Advisors , 2015 WL 401371, at *9 (notin g that “a claim for negligent misrepresentation is often referred to interchangeably as equitable fraud”).

193 DOB at 44

– 52, 54

– 55.49 The APA Does Not Unambiguously Require Pilot’s Fraud Claims to be Brought Within 15 Months Before turning to the other aspects of Pilot’s fraud claims, I address Sellers’ threshold argument that Pilot’s fraud claims are un timely. “Delaware’s statu t e of limitations for claims sounding in fraud

. . . is three years.” 194 Even though Pilot has brought this action within the statutory limitations period, Sellers argue that Section 9.3 not only bars Pilot’s breach of representati on and warranty claims (as discussed above) , but also requires dismissal of Pilot’s fraud claims. 195 Sellers concede that no Delaware court has adopted this line of reasoning, but urges the Court to embark on a three

- step analytical expedition to reach their heretofore

- uncharted destination. 196 First , the default rule in Delaware is that representations and warranties do not survive closing. 197 A survival clause, in essence, gives breath to any claim predicated on a party’s representations and warranties only f or as long as the clause allows

. Second , Pilot promised not to rely on any statements about the Company other than those embodied in Sellers’

194 Winklevoss Capital Fund, LLC v. Shaw , 2019 WL 994534, at *5 (Del. Ch. Mar. 1, 2019) (citing 10 Del. C. § 8106).

195 Telephon ic Oral Arg. on Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss (D.I. 34) at 18

– 20.

196 Id

. 197 Bear Stearns , 2015 WL 139731, at *14 (“ Absent contract language providing to the contrary, pre

- closing representations about the acquired property interest become ineffective post

- closing .” ).50 contractual representations and warranties. 198 Third , in the APA, Pilot agreed that Sellers would have “no Liabili ty for any claims made after the expiration” of the 15

- month survival period “for breach of or an inaccuracy when made of a representation or warranty.” 199 Together, Sellers argue the se three steps lead to the inescapable conclusion that Pilot ’s fraud claim s , which must be based on Sellers’ representations and warranties in the APA , come too late

. 200 In other words, while Delaware law does not permit a party to “‘lie’ intentionally” in a contract, and a non

- reliance provision cannot bar claims for “intentiona l fraud” predicated upon knowing falsehoods in a party’s “written representations,” nothing in our law prohibits a party from agreeing not to bring such a claim after a prescribed limitations period expires

. 201

198 APA § 9.3.

199 Id

. (emphasis supplied).

200 H

- M Wexford LLC v. Encorp, Inc. , 832 A.2d 129, 144 (Del. Ch. 2003) (stating a plaintiff must plead he “acted or did not act in justifiable reliance on” defendant’s representation) (emphasis supplied).

201 See Abry P’rs V, L.P. v. F&W Acq. LLC , 891 A.2d 1032, 1062 (Del. Ch. 2006) (cited approvingly in RAA Mgmt., LLC v. Savage Sports Hldgs., Inc. , 45 A.3d 107, 116 (Del. 2012)) (stating “there is little support for the notion that it is efficient to exculpate part ies when they lie about the material facts on which a contract is premised” ( i.e. , contractual representations and warranties); CLP Toxicology, Inc. v. Casla Bio Hldgs. LLC , 2020 WL 3564622, at *17 (Del. Ch. June 29, 2020) (discussing “intentional fraud” c laims generally and stating that, even though plaintiffs “expressly represented . . . that they were not relying on any extra

- contractual representations,” their “fraud claims may proceed based on the written representations in the SPA”).51 I do not dwell on the soundness of Sellers’ arg ument because the APA does not purport to limit “intentional fraud” claims to a 15

- month contractual limitations period. While Section 9.3 does provide that Sellers will have “no Liability for any claims ” based upon “breach” or “inaccuracy” of their repre sentations and warranties beyond 15 months , 202 Section 9.1 makes clear that “[n]othing in this Agreement shall limit” Pilot’s right to recover “any amounts at any time in connection with any action or claim based upon intentional fraud by [Sellers] in this A greement.” 203
Section 9.1 can be reconciled with Section 9.3 because the former expressly trumps the latt er’s broad language when it states “ nothing in this agreement ” shall limit Pilot’s right to bring a claim for “intentional fraud.” 204 At some point, in

an other case, this c ourt may be called upon to assess the enforceability of a party’s unambiguous promise to bring intentional fraud claims only within a contractual limitations period, but the APA does not call this question. Indeed, Section 9.1 unambiguou sly preserves Pilot’s right to bring intentional fraud claims “at any time.” 205 Given this clear language, Sellers cannot credibly argue that Pilot’s
intentional fraud claims are untimely.

202 APA § 9.3 (emp hasis supplied).

203 APA § 9.1 (emphasis supplied).

204 Id

. 205 Id

.52 The APA Precludes E xtra - Contractual Fraud Claim s Seller s read the APA as precluding fraud claims based on extra

- contractual promises, representations or warranties. 206 I agree.
In his seminal Abry Partners decision, then

- Vice Chancellor Strine reinforced this c ourt’s dedication to upholding the “free will” of sophistica ted parties by enforcing non

- reliance provisions like those in the APA

. 207 Abry offers the following guidance : do not disavow reliance on extra

- contractual statements unless you mean it. 208 If a sophisticated party agrees he is relying only on those
represen tations and warranties in a written contract, and says as much in the contract,
he “ may not reasonab ly rely on information that [he] contractually agreed did not form a part of the basis for [h is ] decision to contract.” 209 With this in mind, this

c ourt does not hesitate to dismiss fraud claims premised on extra

- contractual representations when the parties’ contract contains an unambiguous mutual covenant

206 See DOB at 46.

207 Abry , 891 A.2d at 1058.

208 Id . (“The enforcement of non

- reliance clauses recognizes that parties with free will should say no rather than lie in a contract.”).

209 H

- M Wexfo rd , 832 A.2d at 142 n.18; see also ev3, Inc. v. Lesh , 114 A.3d 527, 529 n.3 (Del. 2014) (“Delaware courts seek to ensure freedom of contract and promote clarity in the law in order to facilitate commerce.”) ; RAA Mgmt. , 45 A.3d at 118

– 19 (“ Abry Partners acc urately states Delaware law and explains Delaware’s public policy in favor of enforcing contractually binding written disclaimers of reliance on representations outside of a final agreement of sale or merger.”).53 that neither relied upon extra

- contractual promises in connection with the ir decision

t o enter the contra ct or to make (or receive) promises within the contract

. 210 In Section 9.8, Pilot agreed Sellers did not make and “shall not be deemed to have made, any [] representations or warranties, written or oral, statutory, express or implied.” 211 And Pilot “EXPRESS LY WAIVE[D] AND AGREE[D] THAT IT IS NOT RELYING ON, ANY REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY” (other than those embodied in the APA) whether “EXPRESS” or “IMPLIED.” 212 In other words, if Sellers did not say it in the APA, as a matter of law, it was not said. In a fu tile effort to escape the legal consequence of its promise, Pilot attempts to expand the universe of statements (or omissions) on which it is entitled to rely in t wo ways;

n either are persuasive

. First , Pilot argues the non

- reliance provision does not ext end to “Pilot’s
fraudulent omission and concealment claims” because Pilot did not disclaim reliance

210 Abry , 891 A.2d at 1057

. 211 APA § 9.8.

212 Id. (emphasis in original); see also id . (Pilot “expressly waives and relinquishes any and all rights, claims and causes of action against the [Sellers] . . . in connection with, the accuracy, completeness or materiality of any statements, information dat a or other materials (written or oral) or documents heretofore furnished or made available to [Pilot]

. . . by or on behalf of the [Sellers.]”); APA § 14.4 (“This Agreement . . . constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subj ect matter hereof . . . and supersede any prior understandings, agreements, or representations and warranties by or among the parties, written or oral, to the extent they related in any way to the subject matter hereof or thereof.”).54 on the “omission” of information or the “completeness” of the information in Sellers’ representations and warranties. 213 Wrong. P ilot promised not to rely o n the

“ completeness or materiality of any statements, information, data or other materials (written or oral) or documents heretofore furnished . . . to [it]. ” 214 T his non - reliance provision is unambiguous, explicit and comprehensive; Pilot “forthrightly aff irm [ed] that [it was] not relying upon any representation or statement of fact not contained [in the contract] , ” including whether a ny statement was “complete.” 215

213 PAB at 49.

214 APA § 9.8 (emphasis supplied, original in all caps).

215 Kronenberg v. Katz , 872 A.2d 568, 591 (Del. Ch. 2004); see also Infomedia Gp., Inc. v. Orange Health Sols., Inc. , 2020 WL 4384087, at *8 (Del. Super. Ct. July 31, 2020) (“[T]he TransDigm court distinguish ed its holding from other Delaware precedent on the basis that the anti

- reliance clause at issue did not refer to ‘omissions’ and did not disclaim the ‘accuracy or completeness’ of information provided in due diligence.”) (citing TransDigm Inc. v. Alcoa Gl ob. Fasteners, Inc. , 2013 WL 2326881, at *8 (Del. Ch. May 29, 2013) (“There is no argument, however, that Alcoa agreed in the Purchase Agreement that TransDigm was making no representation as to the ‘accuracy and completeness’ of the information TransDigm provided to Alcoa.”)) ; RAA Mgmt. , 45 A.3d at 115 (addressing a non - reliance provision including “completeness” language, “ RAA acknowledged that . . . Savage would have no liability, and could not be sued, for any allegedly inaccurate or incomplete informat ion provided by Savage to RAA during the due diligence process.”); Infomedia , 2020 WL 4384087, at *8 (“That express repudiation of the validity and completeness of information provided during due diligence distinguishes the Purchase Agreement from the sto ck purchase agreement at issue in TransDigm .”); Wind Point P’rs VII

- A, L.P. v. Insight Equity A.P. X Co., LLC , 2020 WL 5054791, at *17 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 17, 2020) (noting that in the absence of an “accuracy and completeness” clause, “Wind Point has ade quately pleaded fraudulent concealment in the Complaint” not withstanding the non

- reliance provision). I note that some aspects of TransDigm have been questioned (or, at least, distinguished) by some Delaware authority

— see, e.g. , Prairie Capital III, L.P. v. Double E Hldg. Corp. , 132 A.3d 35, 54 (Del. Ch. 2015) (noting that “[t]o the extent TransDigm suggests that an agreement must use a magic word like “omissions,” then I respectfully disagree with that interpretation”

— but TransDigm ’s55 Pilot concede s that when there is “an express waiver with respect to the accuracy or complet eness of the information provided,” all extra

- contractual fraudulent omission claims are waived. 216 As illustrated in TransDigm , where the parties elect not to include a “completeness” provision in their non

- reliance clause , they are expressing an intent no t to include fraudulent omission claims within the prohibitive scope of the clause. 217 Their decision to include the “completeness” language, on the other hand, exemplifies an unambiguous intent to preclude extra

contractual fraudulent concealment and omiss ion claims. 218
Second , Pilot argues that Sellers deceptively negotiated limitations on the scope of the Customer Rep, thereby rendering those pre

- contract negotiations fraudulent and yet not barred by the non - reliance clause because they resulted in a know ingly false contractual promise

. 219 I gather the theory is that while the APA was being negotiated, Pilot requested a representation of the Company’s 30 largest

observation regarding t he effect of “completeness” language has not been questioned and, in my view, the court got the construction of a non

- reliance clause with that language just right.

216 PAB at 49 (“ Delaware Courts have long held that even when a buyer promises not to re ly on representations outside a contract, this does not waive otherwise

- viable claims for fraudulent omissions in the absence of . . . ‘ an express waiver with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the informat ion provided by the Defendants.’” )

. 217 TransDigm Inc. , 2013 WL 2326881, at *8.

218 Id. ; RAA Mgmt. , 45 A.3d at 115; Wind Point , 2020 WL 5054791, at *17.

219 Compl. ¶¶ 45

– 50.56 customers during 2018

— which would have revealed falling revenue attributed to Modus, Personal Co mfort and Big Fig. 220 Sellers allegedly recognized that a top customer list for 2018 would torpedo the deal , so they pushed Pilot to agree that the top customer list would be limited to 2017

. This dynamic, according to Pilot, takes the non - reliance clause out of the picture. Pilot misapprehends the scope of the clause it agreed to as interpreted under

our law. If a dissatisfied buyer could bring a fraud claim against a seller for truthful representations and warranties that allegedly are the product of a failure to “fairly and accurately portray the financial condition” of a company, non - reliance provisio ns would be meaningless , and sellers would have a free

- floating (legally enforceable) duty to disclose any and all information relevant to a company’s val ue , whether asked for or not

. 221 If critical information lurks within the interstices of a

220 Id .; ¶ 127(f) (alleging Se llers fraudulently “manipulate[ed] [Manna’s] gross revenue calculations to reflect a time period that did not fairly and accurately portray the financial condition of Manna prior to closing.”) (emphasis supplied); PAB at 47 (“Pilot seeks fraud damages beca use it has discovered damning emails that reveal that Sellers intentionally manipulated and engineered the disclosures in the APA to misrepresent the true status of Manna’s pre

- Closing customer relationships.”) (emphasis supplied).

221 Compl. ¶ 127(f). Ind eed, if a seller negotiated an agreement with no representations and warranties, a dissatisfied buyer could bring a claim for fraud arguing (as Pilot does here) that the seller had “engineered” its disclosures to “misrepresent the true status” of the Compa ny. PAB at 47.57 counterparty’s truthful rep resentations and warranties, a sophisticated party has a means to flush that out : ne gotiate for more fulsome disclosures, full stop. 222
Th e net effect of an enforceable non - r eliance provision and carefully negotiated representations and warranties is to “define what information the Buyer relied upon in deciding to execute the Agreement.” 223 In connection with Pilot’s investigation of the Comp any’s value, each representation and warranty is like a piece of a puzzle that Sellers placed on the puzzle table for Pilot’ s benefit. Once Pilot was satisfied it had seen enough of the picture, it stopped negotiating for additional puzzle pieces and agre ed to purchase the Company

. 224 Of cou r se , e ach of
the individual puzzle pieces must be free from defect so that the image depicted is

true

. But now that Pilot has assumed control of the Company a fter assembling the puzzle to its satisfaction , it cannot con struct a fraud claim upon the notion that it

222 For example, if a seller represents that a car has not been crashed any time during 2012

– 2017 or 2019

– 2020, and a buyer purchases a car promising to rely only on that representation, the buyer cannot bring a fraud claim if the car was, i n fact, crashed during 2018. In the face of a non

- reliance provision, the parties’ representations and warranties “form[] the reality upon which the parties premise[] their decision to bargain.” Abry , 891 A.2d at 1058. With that said, nothing here shoul d be read as prohibiting a buyer from presenting evidence of extra

- contractual omissions as part of its broader presentation in support of a contractual fraud claim. The point is that the omissions, themselves, cannot be the bases of fraud claims when the contract contains a non

- reliance clause as broad as the one in the APA.

223 Id . at 1041.

224 Id . at 1058 (Representations and warranties “form[] the reality upon which the parties premised their decision to bargain.”).58 needed more, or different, pieces in the APA to see the full picture

. 225 Aggressive bargaining is not fraud. Pilot Has Pled Contractual Fraud With Particularity Having determined that Pilot may only rely upon t he representations and warranties within the APA to state a claim for fraud, I address the Sellers ’ third ground for dismissal

— that Pilot has failed to ple a d f raud with the particularity required by our law

. The prima facie elements of fraud are well sett led : (1) the defendant falsely represented or omitted facts that the defendant had a duty to disclose; (2) the defendant knew or believed that the representation was false or made the representation with a reckless indifference to the truth; (3) the defend ant intended to induce the plaintiff to act or refrain from acting; (4) the plaintiff acted in justifiable reliance on the representation; and (5) the plaintiff was injured by its reliance. 226 To meet the particularity requirement, Rule 9(b) often will requ ire a plaintiff making a fraud claim to allege: “the time, place, and contents of the false representation , the identity of the person (s) making the representation , and what he intended to obtain thereby .” 227 “ When a party sues based on a written contract, as

225 Cf. Compl. ¶ 127(f); PAB at 42 (“S ellers fraudulently manipulated the disclosures they made regarding the status of Manna’s customer relationships to make it appear that the business was worth more than it actually was in order to induce Pilot to purchase Manna at an inflated price.” (citi ng Compl. ¶¶ 37

– 49, 67, 72, 129

– 133, 142

– 48, 150)).

226 Abry , 891 A.2d at 1050.

227 Wexford , 832 A.2d at 145; see also Trenwick Am. Litig. Tr. v. Ernst & Young LLP, 906 A.2d 168, 207

– 08 (Del. Ch. 2006) (Strine, V.C.), aff’ d sub nom. Trenwick Am. Litig. Tr. v. Billett , 931 A.2d 438 (Del. 2007) (noting that the relevant factors include “ the time, place,59 [Pilot] has done here, it is relatively easy to plead a particularized claim of fraud

. ” 228
“T he plaintiff can readily identify who made what representations where and when, because the specific representations app ear in the contract. The plaintiff likew ise can readily identify what the defendant gained, which was to induce the plaintiff to enter into the contract. ” 229 Given that state of mind and knowledge may be averred generally when pleading fraud, an allegation that a contractual representation is kno wingly false typically will be deemed well pled (even if ultimately difficult to prove)

. 230 The Complaint well

- pleads that Sellers made three knowingly false statements
in the APA that conceivably amount to fraud

. 231 First , Pilot alleges Sellers stated in

and contents of the false representations; the facts misrepresented; the identity of the person(s) making the misrepresentation; and what that person(s) gained fr om making the misrepresentation ”).

228 Prairie Capital , 132 A.3d at 62 ; see also Swipe Acq

. Corp. v. Peter M

. Krauss , et al. , 2020 WL 5015863 , at *9 (Del. Ch. Aug. 25, 2020) (same).

229 Prairie Capital , 132 A.3d at 62; see also Swipe , 2020 WL 5015863 , at *9 (s ame).

230 Abry , 891 A.2d at 1050.

231 Pilot’s allegations with respect to Forward Air fall short of a viable fraud claim. Pilot alleges that Sellers disclosed that Forward Air, a vendor of Manna, had increased its prices and made it seem as if “the price incr ease had already occurred and was already reflect ed in the Interim Balance Sheet.” Compl. ¶ 80. Pilot stops short of alleging that the balance sheet or income statements t hemselves were fraudulent, instead insisting that Sellers intentionally misled Pilo t into thinking “the price increase was already booked as an expense in Manna’s Financial Statement.” Compl. ¶ 82. Yet, nothing in either Schedule 5.28 or the related representation says or even implies the price increase was or was not reflected in the Interim Balance Sheet. And Pilot does not even gener ally plead that Sellers intended or had knowledge that the representation they made to Pilot regarding60 th e APA that Modus “decreased the volume of services purchased” from the Company “ in the ordinary course of business .” 232 In reality, Modus had decreased its purchases by “90% , ” a reduction that “can hardly be considered ‘ordinary
course.’” 233
Second , Sellers disclosed in the APA that Personal Comfort “ no longer purchases services from” the Company “in the ordinary course of business.” 234 This statement is alleged to be false because Sellers knew Personal Comfort’s de cision to terminate its business with Manna w as anything but “ ordinary course

. ” Instead, the

the price increase was false when made. Even if Sellers had knowledge of a price increase, this doe s not support an inference they knew that their disclosures gave the impression that the price increase had already occurred . It is not surprising, therefore, that the Complaint makes no such allegation. The fraud claim based on allegedly manipulated “gr oss revenue calculations to reflect a time period that did not fairly and accurately portray the financial condi tion of Manna prior to Closing” also fails. Compl. ¶ 127f. Pilot fails to cite a single case where the court found a plaintiff had pled a viab le fraud claim based on revenue calculations that were the subject of highly fluid negotiations between the parties

. Pilot could have negotiated for access to gross revenue calculations for the time periods in question, but it surely cannot blame Sellers for failing to give it something that it did not bargain for in the agreement. Finally, the fraud claim based upon Big Fig’s accounts receivable likewise fails to state a claim. The Updated Disclosure Schedule plainly refutes that the Sellers “had actual knowledge that the full amount of the receivable was uncollectible.” Compl. ¶ 74; DOB, Ex. 2 at 28. The schedule indicates that Big Fig had in fact paid down some of its accounts receivable and Pilot alleges nothing to suggest that Big Fig had given any i ndication the payments would stop. DOB, Ex. 2 at 28.

232 Compl. ¶ 49.

233 Id . (emphasis in original).

234 Compl. ¶ 64 (emphasis omitted).61 abrupt departure “resulted from, among other things, ‘several failures that went horribly wrong.’” 235
Third , Pilot alleges Sellers represented they had not received a B usiness
R eduction N otification from Bi g Fig even though Big Fig “advised Sellers prior to Closing that it no longer intended to be a customer of Manna’s.” 236 According to
Pilot , Sellers affirmatively made “the false statement that Big Fig was Sellers’ twenty

- fourth largest customer . . . despit e having Knowledg e that Big Fig was no longer a customer at all.” 237 While the APA makes no specific reference to “the size of various customers at any time after December 31, 2017,” 238 Section 5.27 of the
APA does provide that “neither Seller nor Owner has r eceived written notice or, to the Knowledge of the Seller, any oral notice from any Material Customer that any Material Customer intends or expects, after the Closing Date, to stop or materially decrease” its business. 239 Pilot alleges Big Fig did precisely that, a nd that S ellers knew it when they made the Customer Rep

. 240

235 Compl. ¶ 65.

236 Compl. ¶ 72.

237 Compl. ¶ 127c.

238 DOB at 17

– 18.

239 APA § 5.27.

240 Compl. ¶ 127a

– b. Sellers argue that “after the Closing Date” implies that if Big Fig notifies Sellers of their intent to end their relationship pre

- Closing, that information need not be disclosed. APA § 5.27; DOB 30

– 32. Pilot responds that this is an “absurd” reading62 ***** Pilot has pled reasonably conceivable fraud claims regarding the status of Modus, Personal Comfort and Big Fig as Manna customers. Otherwise, its claims of contractual fraud are not well

- pled and must be dismissed. Pilot’s Fraud Claims Are Not Bootstrapped Breach of Contract Claims As has become customary in cases involving fraud claims asserted alongside breach of contract claims, Sellers argue Pilot ’s fraud claim s must be dismis sed because they are nothing more than “bootstrapped” breach of contract claim s . 241 Delaware courts will find that improper b ootstrapping has occurred when the plaintiff simply “ add [s] the words ‘fraudulently induced’ or alleg [es] that the contracting partie s never intended to perform” as a means to plead fraud in cases

of Section 5.27. PAB at 24. While I do not favor the characterization, I agree that Sellers’ construction is unreasonable. Under Sellers ’ reading, even if Sellers knew pre

- Closing that a major customer they had disclosed as in the fold had, in fact, left the fold, they would have no obligation to alert Pilot to that fact since Pilot bargained only for an assurance that a major customer would not leave after Closing. That is not what the contract says. Sellers also contend that Pilot categorically cannot rest its allegations of fraud with respect to Big Fig on mere “information and belief.” Compl. ¶ 72; DOB at 51. I reject that argument as well. See H

- M Wexford , 832 A.2d at 145

– 46 (allowing a fraud claim based upon “information and belief” to survive dismissal when plainti ff well pled “ the representations [in a contract] were false when made” and “the defendants knew they were false”). Given the facts pled regarding the circumstances of Big Fig’s departure, the Complaint places Sellers on heightened notice of the bases for Pilot’s allegation that Sellers knew prior to Closing that Big Fig would cease doing business with Manna. Compl. ¶¶ 69

– 71, 75, 143.

241 A key word search on the WestlawTM Legal Research site, Delaware database, for “bootstrap! /s fraud!” revealed 64 hits as of this writing.63 where the parties are bound by contract. 242 The bootstrapping is deemed improper because the plaintiff has simply tacked on conclusory allegations that the defendant made the contract knowing i t would not or could not deliver on its promises

. 243 As our law in this area has evolved, it is now clear that improper bootstrapping does not occur : (1) “ where a plaintiff has made particularized allegations that a seller knew contractual representations w ere false or lied regarding the contractual representation ,” 244 (2) “ where damages for plaintiff's fraud claim may be different from plaintiff's breach of contract claim , ” 245 (3) when the conduct occurs prior to the execution of the contract “and thus with the goal of inducing the plaintiff’s signature and willingn ess to close on the transaction ” 246 or (4) when the breach of contract

242 Iotex Comm c’ ns, Inc. v. Defries , 1998 WL 914265, at *5 (Del. Ch. Dec. 21, 1998)

. 243 Swipe , 2020 WL 5015863 , at *11; Smash Franchise P ’ rs, LLC v. Kanda Hldgs., Inc. , 2020 WL 4692287, at *16 (Del. Ch. Aug. 13, 2020) (“A bootstrapped frau d claim thus takes the simple fact of nonperformance, adds a dollop of the counterparty’ s subjective intent not to perform, and claims fraud.”).

244 Swipe , 2020 WL 5015863 , at *11; Anschutz Corp. v. Brown Robin Capital, LLC , 2020 WL 3096744, at *15 (Del. Ch . June 11, 2020) (recognizing that the bootstrapping rule does not apply where the plaintiff/buyer

. . . can plead “ either: (1) that t he Seller knew that the Company’ s contractual representations and warranties were false; (2) that the Seller itself lied t o Buyer about a contractual representation and warranty ” or (3) because damages for fraud would be distinct from damages for b reach of contract (quoting Abry , 891 A.2d at 1064) ).

245 Swipe , 2020 WL 5015863 , at *11.

246 In re Bracket Hldg. Corp. Litig. , 2017 WL 3283169 , at *8

– 9 (Del. Super. Ct. July 31, 2017)

.64 claim is not well

- pled such that there is no breach claim on which to “bootstrap” the fraud claim

. Pilot’s fraud claims fall squar ely with in several, if not all, of these non

bootst r apping spaces. At the outset, this clearly is not a case where Sellers are alleged to have entered into the APA with no intent to perform. According to Pilot, Sellers had every intent
to sell Manna’s a ssets. They just hoped Pilot would not discover that the business was not as valuable as Sellers represented it was. In this regard, Pilot has alleged with particularity three instances in which Sellers knew that its contractual representations with resp ect to its customers were false

. Pilot alleges these statements were made in the APA to induce Pilot into Closing; a separate and distinct claim from any of its breach of contract claims. 247 And Pilot’s fraud damages are arguably distinct from its breach d amages. As the APA makes clear, Pilot’s breach of contract damages are capped at the Escrow amount. 248 Finally, no breach of contract claim implicated by the fraud claims has survived dismissal. There is, therefore, no claim to which the fraud claims can be bootstrap ped

.

247 Compl. ¶ 4.

248 APA § 9.1; Swipe , 2020 WL 5015863 , at *12 (“ The anti

- bootstrapping rule also does not apply here because Plaintiff might be entitled to greater damages through its fraud claim than its breac h of contract claim. ”).65 III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Counts I, II, III, and VI, except as to the breach of contract claim regarding GE and the “Excluded Liability.” The Motion to Dismiss Count IV and V is DEN IED, except to the extent the claims rest on alleged Forward Air price increases , manipulation of gross revenue calculations , the Big Figs accounts receivable or
extra

- contractual statements or omissions

. IT IS SO ORDERED.