Atalaya Special Opportunities Fund VII LP v Whited

2023 NY Slip Op 34559(U)

December 31, 2023

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 652767/2020

Judge: Andrea Masley

Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York

State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official

publication.
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/31/2023 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 48 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X 

ATALAYA SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND VII LP and 

MIDTOWN MADISON MANAGEMENT LLC, 

Plaintiffs, 

- V -

JIMMY ERIC WHITED, 

Defendant. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X 

HON. ANDREA MASLEY: 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

MOTION DATE 

MOTION SEQ. NO. 004 

DECISION+ ORDER ON 

MOTION 

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 

85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 103, 104, 105,106,107, 108, 109, 110, 

111,112,113,114,115,116, 117, 118, 119, 120,121,122,123, 124, 125, 126, 127,128,129,130, 

131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 

151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 

171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182, 183 

were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT-SUMMARY 

Plaintiffs Atalaya Special Opportunities Fund VII LP (Atalaya) and Midtown 

Madison Management LLC (Midtown) bring this action to enforce a guaranty executed 

by defendant Jimmy Eric Whited. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract to 

collect on the guaranty and for a declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that 

Whited's liability includes on-demand payment of plaintiffs' out-of-pocket expenses, 

including reasonable attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment on 

both claims. 

Background 

Unless indicated otherwise, the following facts were taken from the parties' joint 

statement of undisputed facts (JSUF) and Rule-19 Statements of Material Fact where 

undisputed. 

652767/2020 AT ALAYA SPECIAL vs. WHITED, JIMMY ERIC 

Motion No. 004 

1 of 20 

Page 1 of 20 

[* 1]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/31/2023 

Whited was, at times, "the chief executive officer, managing member, and/or sole 

member of a group of insurance businesses (the 'Windhaven Entities')." (NYSCEF Doc 

No. [NYSCEF] 101, JSUF ,i 3.) Among these insurance businesses were Wind haven 

Insurance Company (WIC) and Windhaven National Insurance Company (WNIC), 

domiciled in Florida and Texas, respectively. (NYSCEF 166 Defendant's 

Counterstatement of Material Fact [Defendant Counterstatement] ,i 32; NYSCEF 169, 

Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Counterstatement [Plaintiffs' Response] ,i 32.) 

Greenlight Reinsurance, Ltd. (Greenlight) was the Windhaven Entities' reinsurer. 

(Id. ,i 44.) Its reinsurance agreement with WIC provided for "sliding-scale ceding 

commissions," meaning that the ceding commissions, which the reinsurer paid to WIC 

for procuring policies, were subject to adjustment based on those policies' performance. 

(Id. ,i,i 45-47.) Greenlight and WIC agreed to defer the payment of commissions owed 

to Greenlight based on these adjustments. (Id. ,i 48.) 

On March 4, 2019, five Windhaven Entities (Whited and Sons LLC, Windhaven 

Select, LLC, Windhaven Underwriters, LLC, Clutch Analytics, LLC, and Windhaven 

Insurance Holdings Corporation), as borrowers, Atalaya, as lender, and Midtown, as 

Atalaya's administrative and collateral agent, entered into a credit agreement (Credit 

Agreement) in connection with a $35.5 million loan (Loan). (NYSCEF 101, JSUF ,i,i 4, 

5; NYSCEF 83, Credit Agreement.) The Credit Agreement identifies WIC and WNIC as 

"Subsidiaries" of a "Loan Party." (NYSCEF 83, Credit Agreement at 36/90, 1 84/90 [§ 5 

(h), Schedule 5 (h)].) "A 'major point' of the ... Loan was to enable Windhaven to meet 

its sliding scale obligations to Greenlight." (NYSCEF 166 Defendant's 

1 NYSCEF pagination. 

652767/2020 AT ALAYA SPECIAL vs. WHITED, JIMMY ERIC 

Motion No. 004 

2 of 20 

Page 2 of 20 

[* 2]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/31/2023 

Counterstatement Defendant Counterstatement ,i 49; NYSCEF 169, Plaintiffs' 

Response ,i 49.) 

In pertinent part, the Credit Agreement defines an "Event of Default" to include 

the following: 

"(c) (i) the occurrence of a Bankruptcy Event with respect to 

any Loan Party or Whited, (ii) any Loan Party or any of its 

Subsidiaries becomes unable or admits in writing its inability 

or fails generally to pay its debts as they become due or is 

deemed unable to pay its debts as they fall due for the 

purposes of any Debtor Relief Law, or (iii) any Insurance 

Company Subsidiary fails to maintain minimum capital and 

surplus as required by any Insurance Regulatory Agency 

with jurisdiction thereover or over its business that requires 

or permits such regulator to institute liquidation, 

rehabilitation, conservation or other similar supervision of 

such Insurance Subsidiary, unless cured within forty-five (45) 

days." 

(NYSCEF 83, Credit Agreement at 11/90 [§ 1 (a)].)2 

It defines "Bankruptcy Event" to mean: 

"with respect to any Person, the commencement by such 

Person of a voluntary case or other proceeding involving its 

liquidation, winding-up, bankruptcy or sequestration or 

otherwise seeking reorganization or other relief with respect 

to itself or its debts under any Debtor Relief Law or seeking 

the appointment of a trustee, receiver, liquidator, 

conservator, rehabilitator, custodian or other similar official of 

it or any substantial part of its property, or such Person shall 

consent to any such relief or to the appointment of or taking 

possession by any such official in any involuntary case or 

other proceeding commenced against it, or shall make a 

general assignment for the benefit of creditors, or shall fail 

generally, or admit in writing its inability, to pay its debts as 

2 "Debtor Relief Laws" is defined as "the Bankruptcy Code, and all other liquidation, 

conservatorship, bankruptcy, assignment for the benefit of creditors, moratorium, 

rearrangement, receivership, insolvency, reorganization, or similar debtor relief laws of 

the United States of America, any state, or other applicable jurisdictions from time to 

time in effect affecting the rights of creditors generally, including applicable Insurance 

Laws." (NYSCEF 83, Credit Agreement at 10-11/90 [§ 1 (a)].) 

652767/2020 AT ALAYA SPECIAL vs. WHITED, JIMMY ERIC Page 3 of 20 

Motion No. 004 

3 of 20 [* 3]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/31/2023 

they become due, or shall take any corporate action to 

authorize any of the foregoing; or any involuntary case or 

other proceeding shall be commenced against such Person 

involving its liquidation, winding-up, bankruptcy or 

sequestration or otherwise seeking reorganization or other 

relief with respect to it or its debts under any Debtor Relief 

Law that is not dismissed, discharged, stayed or restrained 

in each case within 45 days of the institution or presentation 

thereof; or an order for relief is entered in any such 

proceeding or such Person becomes the subject of the 

appointment of a trustee, receiver, rehabilitator, conservator, 

liquidator, custodian, or other similar official with respect to a 

substantial part of its property." 

(Id. at 6-7/90.) The Credit Agreement gives Atalaya the right to appoint a single 

representative to receive notices of, and be present at, all meetings of the board of 

directors for each borrower entity and its subsidiaries. (Id. at 47-48/90 [§ 6 (a) (xiv)].) 

In connection with the Loan, Whited, as guarantor, and Midtown, as agent for the 

Credit Agreement's lenders, entered into a validity guaranty (Validity Guaranty). 

(NYSCEF 166 Defendant's Counterstatement ,i 49; NYSCEF 169, Plaintiffs' Response 

,i 49; NYSCEF 84 and 1193 , Validity Guaranty.) The Validity Guaranty is a bad actor 

guaranty, intended to align Atalaya's and Whited's interests during the life of the Loan. 

(NYSCEF 166, Defendant's Counterstatement ,i,i 60, 64; NYSCEF 169, Plaintiffs' 

Response ,i,i 60, 64.) It provides that Whited becomes liable for the borrowers' 

obligations under the Credit Agreement upon the occurrence of any "Trigger Event" 

3 The parties submit two versions of the Validity Guaranty which are identical except for 

the date. (Compare NYSCEF 84 [dated March 4, 2019] with NYSCEF 119 [dated 

March 1, 2019].) The parties dispute whether the Validity Guaranty was executed on 

the first or the fourth of March 2019. (See NYSCEF 166 Defendant's Counterstatement 

,i 49; NYSCEF 169, Plaintiffs' Response ,i 59.) For convenience, the court will cite to 

the first version of the document, NYSCEF 84, when refencing the Validity Guaranty. 

652767/2020 AT ALAYA SPECIAL vs. WHITED, JIMMY ERIC Page 4 of 20 

Motion No. 004 

4 of 20 [* 4]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/31/2023 

(NYSCEF 84, Validity Guaranty at 2-5/15 [§ 1 (a), (b)].) One Trigger Event, "Voluntary 

Bankruptcy" (Voluntary Bankruptcy Provision), states: 

"Voluntary Bankruptcy: any Loan Party or any Subsidiary 

thereof commences a voluntary case or other proceeding 

involving its liquidation, winding-up, bankruptcy or 

sequestration or otherwise seeking reorganization or other 

relief with respect to itself or its debts under any Debtor 

Relief Law or seeking the appointment of a trustee, receiver, 

liquidator, conservator, rehabilitator, custodian or other 

similar official of it or any substantial part of its property, any 

such relief or to the appointment of or taking possession by 

any such official in any involuntary case or other proceeding 

commenced against it (an 'Involuntary Proceeding'), or shall 

make a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, or 

shall fail generally, or admit in writing its inability, to pay its 

debts as they become due, or shall take any corporate 

action to authorize any of the foregoing (unless, in any such 

case, the Agent on behalf of the Lenders, provided its prior 

written consent thereto); or the Guarantor or any Company 

Party shall intentionally collude with any third party in to 

effect the filing or petition of an Involuntary Proceeding 

against a Loan Party or Subsidiary thereof." 

(Id. at 4/15 [§ 1 (b) (viii)].) The Validity Guaranty provides that "capitalized terms used 

but not defined herein have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Credit 

Agreement" (id. at 2 [Recital A]) and that "[t]he Guarantor shall pay on demand all outof-pocket expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses) in any way 

relating to the enforcement or protection of Guaranteed Parties' rights under this 

Guaranty" (id. at 9/15 [§ 7].) 

On March 4, 2019, Whited also executed a validity guaranty with Greenlight. 

(NYSCEF 101, JSUF ,i 6; NYSCEF 85, Greenlight Guaranty.) Atalaya and Green light 

entered into an intercreditor agreement, whereby Greenlight subordinated its debt to 

that of Atalaya's. (NYSCEF 166 Defendant's Counterstatement ,i,i 82, 83; NYSCEF 

169, Plaintiffs' Response ,i,i 82, 83.) 

652767/2020 AT ALAYA SPECIAL vs. WHITED, JIMMY ERIC 

Motion No. 004 

5 of 20 

Page 5 of 20 

[* 5]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/31/2023 

After the Loan closed, Sachin Sarnobat, who was a managing director at Atalaya 

at the time and Atalaya's "deal lead" on the Loan, "attended WIC and WNIC Board 

meetings as an observer, and Atalaya was in regular contact with Windhaven by email, 

phone, and in-person visit." (Id. ,m 37-38, 90.) 

After the Loan closed, the Windhaven Entities experienced financial difficulties. 

(Id. ,i 93.) In April 2019, Ambina Partners (Ambina), a private equity firm retained by 

Atalaya to provide consulting services in connection with the Loan, predicted that a 

Windhaven default was highly likely. (Id. ,i,i 42, 95.) 

On November 15, 2019, Greenlight's General Counsel emailed the Windhaven 

Entities, stating that the ceding commission liability of more than $26 million was 108 

days overdue. (NYSCEF 134, Greenlight Email.) However, Whited claims that this 

amount was "not set." (NYSCEF 160, tr at 447: 17-21 [Whited Depa].) It is undisputed 

that Greenlight owed WNIC more than $10 million in ceding commissions and additional 

capital. (NYSCEF 166 Defendant's Counterstatement ,i 102; NYSCEF 169, Plaintiffs' 

Response ,i 102.) The Wind haven Entities claim that "it is unclear whether Greenlight 

took that amount into consideration as part of its unilateral demand." (NYSCEF 166, 

Defendant's Counterstatement response to ,i 24.) 

Also on November 15, 2019, with the consent of WIC's board of directors, Whited 

executed: (1) a Consent Order for Administrative Supervision (Consent Order) and (2) a 

Consent to Order of Receivership. ( See NYSCEF 166 Defendant's Counterstatement 

,i,i 110-112; NYSCEF 169, Plaintiffs' Response ,i,i 110-112; NYSCEF 137, Consent 

Order and Consent to Order of Receivership.) The Consent Order placed WIC under 

administrative supervision of the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (FLOIR) for a 

652767/2020 AT ALAYA SPECIAL vs. WHITED, JIMMY ERIC 

Motion No. 004 

6 of 20 

Page 6 of 20 

[* 6]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/31/2023 

period of 120 days, during which time WIC had to satisfy the conditions of a corrective 

plan. (NYSCEF 137, Consent Order ,m 3-4, 6.) The Consent Order states that, should 

WIC fail to comply with any of its provisions, WIC "consent[ed] to the entry of an Order 

appointing the [Florida Department of Financial Services ('DFS')] as Receiver and 

acknowledge[d] that [DFS] [could] apply to the Court for an Order of Rehabilitation or 

Liquidation, at the sole discretion of [DFS]." (Id. ,i 16). "In the event that [DFS] initially 

obtained an [Order of Rehabilitation], [WIC] further consent[ed] to [DFS] obtaining a 

subsequent [Order of Liquidation] ... at any time and in its sole discretion." (Id.) 

In the Consent to Order of Receivership, "[WIC] admitted that grounds existed for 

the appointment of a Receiver" and that its board consented to "the entry of an Order of 

Rehabilitation or Liquidation, at the sole discretion of [DFS]." (Id., Consent to Order of 

Receivership at 13/32 ,i,i 2, 3). Annexed as "attachment A" to the Consent to Order of 

Receivership, the resolution of WIC's board of directors, dated November 15, 2019, 

provided unanimous consent to the entry of an Order of Rehabilitation or Liquidation at 

the discretion of DFS. (Id., Board Resolution at 16/32.) 

On November 18, 2019, Midtown sent notices of default to Whited at Whited and 

Sons LLC and Greenlight, stating that four separate events of default occurred under 

the Credit Agreement. (NYSCEF 166 Defendant's Counterstatement ,i 114; NYSCEF 

169, Plaintiffs' Response ,i 114; NYSCEF 135, 136, Notices of Default.) 

On November 22, 2019, Whited stepped down as CEO of the Wind haven Entities 

and was replaced by Greg Hoeg of Alvarez & Marsal (A&M), a management consulting 

firm, who was appointed Chief Restructuring Officer of Wind haven. (NYSCEF 166 

Defendant's Counterstatement ,i 115; NYSCEF 169, Plaintiffs' Response ,i 115.) 

652767/2020 AT ALAYA SPECIAL vs. WHITED, JIMMY ERIC 

Motion No. 004 

7 of 20 

Page 7 of 20 

[* 7]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/31/2023 

The parties dispute who was in control of the Wind haven Entities after this point. 

Plaintiffs claim that Whited, on behalf of "Whited & Sons, LLC and its subsidiaries and 

affiliates and assigns and successors," executed the engagement letter with A&M ( see 

NYSCEF 139, Engagement Letter at 1) and that, as the sole shareholder, Whited 

retained control over the Windhaven Entities (see NYSCEF 98, tr at 367:4 -368:20 

[Spiro4 Depa]; see also NYSCEF 142, WIC Board Meeting Minutes [December 4, 2019] 

[indicating Whited was chairman of the board].) Whited, on the other hand, claims that 

the Windhaven Entities engaged A&M to comply with Atalaya's demands following 

default under the Credit Agreement and that Hoeg exercised managerial control over 

the Windhaven Entities, including WIC and WNIC. (NYSCEF 160, tr at 250:19-251 :2, 

495:4-6 [Whited Depa].) Notably, it does appear that A&M was hired at Atalaya's 

behest. (See NYSCEF 166 Defendant's Counterstatement ,i 96; NYSCEF 169, 

Plaintiffs' Response ,i 96; see also NYSCEF 164, Atalaya's Internal Presentation on 

Windhaven at 12/14 [stating that, "(u)pon and Event of Default, Atalaya has the right to 

appoint a restructuring advisor to help protect value" and that A&M "has been identified 

and can be parachuted in on short notice"]; NYSCEF 125, Ambina's Investment 

Memorandum at ATALAYA00058640 [noting that, "in a downside case (for the Loan) 

Atalaya has the right to appoint a restructuring advisor to help protect value" and that 

"Atalaya anticipates hiring (A&M)"].) 

Atalaya had liens on the Windhaven Entities' assets and declined to permit these 

assets to be used to support WIC. (NYSCEF 166 Defendant's Counterstatement ,i 117; 

4 Matt Spiro is Atalaya's corporate representative. (NYSCEF 98, tr at 4:3-5 [Spiro 

Depa].) 

652767/2020 AT ALAYA SPECIAL vs. WHITED, JIMMY ERIC Page 8 of 20 

Motion No. 004 

8 of 20 [* 8]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/31/2023 

NYSCEF 169, Plaintiffs' Response ,i 117; NYSCEF 140, Letter from Whited to FLOIR 

[November 25, 2019] at ATALAYA00034793.) 

On December 4, 2019, WIC's board of directors held a meeting, attended by 

Sarnobat and another Atalaya representative. (NYSCEF 166 Defendant's 

Counterstatement ,i 119; NYSCEF 169, Plaintiffs' Response ,i 119.) Among the issues 

discussed was FLOIR's request to proceed with WIC's liquidation. (NYSCEF 142, WIC 

Board Meeting Minutes [December 4, 2019].) "Hoeg told the board he believed 

liquidation was inevitable based on the feedback he received from the [FLOIR] 

supervisor so best consent." (NYSCEF 166 Defendant's Counterstatement ,i 120; 

NYSCEF 169, Plaintiffs' Response ,i 120; NYSCEF 142, WIC Board Meeting Minutes 

[December 4, 2019].)5 The board unanimously passed a motion authorizing Whited "to 

sign a consent order regarding liquidation of [WIC] after Greenlight ... and Atalaya ... 

approved." (NYSCEF 142, WIC Board Meeting Minutes [December 4, 2019].) On 

December 6, 2019, during another meeting of WIC's board, Hoeg "relayed that there 

had been no formal approval from Atalaya Capital on consent for liquidation, but it was 

Atalaya's position that their approval isn't necessary." (NYSCEF 166 Defendant's 

Counterstatement ,i 121; NYSCEF 169, Plaintiffs' Response ,i 121; NYSCEF 144, WIC 

Board Meeting Minutes [December 6, 2019] at 1.) 

On December 12, 2019, upon the petition of DFS, a Florida state court issued an 

order appointing DFS as receiver of WIC for purposes of rehabilitation (NYSCEF 145, 

Amended Consent Order.) On December 30, 2019, upon DFS's motion for an order to 

5 It is unclear why this additional consent was requested, considering the consents 

Whited executed on November 15, 2019. 

652767/2020 AT ALAYA SPECIAL vs. WHITED, JIMMY ERIC Page 9 of 20 

Motion No. 004 

9 of 20 [* 9]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/31/2023 

liquidate WIC, the Florida court appointed DFS as receiver of WIC for purposes of 

liquidation, effective January 6, 2020. (NYSCEF 147, Consent Order Appointing DFS 

as Receiver.) 

On January 16, 2020, the Texas Department of Insurance issued a confidential 

order of supervision to WNIC. (NYSCEF 166 Defendant's Counterstatement ,i 130; 

NYSCEF 169, Plaintiffs' Response ,i 130.) On February 21, 2020, the State of Texas 

filed a petition for an order appointing a liquidator and requesting injunctive relief against 

WNIC. (Id. ,i 134; NYSCEF 91, Petition.) On March 5, 2020, a Texas state court 

entered an order appointing a liquidator and issuing a permanent injunction and notice 

of automatic stay against WNIC. (NYSCEF 166 Defendant's Counterstatement ,i 137; 

NYSCEF 169, Plaintiffs' Response ,i 137; NYSCEF 90, Appointment and Pl Order.) 

Discussion 

Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to summary judgment for breach of the 

Validity Guaranty, because the following Trigger Events occurred under the Voluntary 

Bankruptcy Provision: (1) WIC's consent to administrative supervision and subsequent 

liquidation (Florida Liquidation) satisfies the "Loan Party or any Subsidiary thereof 

commences a voluntary case or other proceeding involving its liquidation ... or seeking 

the appointment of receiver" trigger (Voluntary Proceeding Trigger); (2) WNIC's 

liquidation (Texas Liquidation) satisfies the "any Loan Party or any Subsidiary thereof 

... any such relief or to the appointment of or taking possession by any such official in 

any involuntary case or other proceeding commenced against it" trigger (Involuntary 

Proceeding Trigger); and (3) the failure to pay Greenlight satisfies the "Loan Party or 

any Subsidiary thereof ... shall fail generally ... to pay its debts as they become due" 

652767/2020 AT ALAYA SPECIAL vs. WHITED, JIMMY ERIC 

Motion No. 004 

10 of 20 

Page 10 of 20 

[* 10]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/31/2023 

trigger (General Failure to Pay Debts Trigger). (NYSCEF 84, Validity Guaranty at 4 [§ 1 

(b) (viii)].) 

As concerns the Involuntary Proceeding Trigger, plaintiffs concede that "the 

wording is awkward" (NYSCEF 170, Memo in Support at 23/26) and suggest that "[t]he 

word 'to' appears to have been substituted for the word 'seeking' just before the words 

'the appointment of,"' such that the corrected clause would read, "any such relief or 

seeking the appointment of ... " (Id. at n 11.) They, nonetheless, contend that there is 

no ambiguity, because "the language is susceptible to only one reasonable 

interpretation: that the parties intended that an involuntary bankruptcy filing, like the 

Texas Liquidation, would be a Trigger Event." (Id. at 23.) 

Whited counters that the Validity Guaranty is a bad actor guaranty rather than an 

absolute guaranty against default under the Credit Agreement and that, as such, the 

parties intentionally omitted involuntary proceedings brought by an insurance regulator 

from the Trigger Events. He argues that if the parties intended to protect against 

involuntary bankruptcies and similar occurrences, the language of the Voluntary 

Bankruptcy Provision would mirror that of the contemporaneously executed Credit 

Agreement, which expressly includes such occurrences under Events of Default. 

Instead, he argues, the parties made a conscious choice to exclude that language, 

opting to use language that protected Atalaya from Whited's intentional bad acts. 

Therefore, neither the Florida nor the Texas Liquidation, which were involuntary and 

commenced by operation of state law, constitutes a Trigger Event. At the very least, 

Whited argues, the language is ambiguous, and the parties' intentions constitute an 

issue of fact. He also argues that, because Atalaya effectively controlled Wind haven 

652767/2020 AT ALAYA SPECIAL vs. WHITED, JIMMY ERIC 

Motion No. 004 

11 of 2 O 

Page 11 of20 

[* 11]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/31/2023 

from November 22, 2019, it should be estopped from denying its role in the events that 

led up to the Florida and Texas Liquidations. 

Lastly, he asserts that the failure to pay Greenlight is not a Trigger Event. 

Whited contends the "shall fail generally ... to pay its debts as they become due" 

language (NYSCEF 84, Validity Guaranty at 4 [§ 1 (b) (viii)]), "which echoes definitions 

of insolvency in the Bankruptcy Code and the [New York Debtor and Creditor Law 

("DCL"), unambiguously restricts Whited or Windhaven from intentionally bringing about 

insolvency proceedings by indirect means" and is not intended "to force Whited to 

personally guarantee the solvency of his distressed business." (NYSCEF 165, Memo in 

Opp at 25-26/29.) Moreover, he argues, liability cannot be triggered by debts embodied 

in the underlying loan agreements, i.e., Atalaya was aware of Windhaven's liability to 

Greenlight, and this was the subject of a simultaneously executed intercreditor 

agreement. 

Pursuant to CPLR 3212, to obtain summary judgment, the movant "must make a 

prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient 

evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact." (Alvarez v 

Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986].) "Failure to make such prima facie showing 

requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers." 

(Id.) Once the movant satisfies its burden, the opposing party must "produce 

evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material 

issues of fact which require a trial of the action." (Id.) 

A cause of action for breach of contract requires a plaintiff to demonstrate "the 

existence of a contract, the plaintiff's performance thereunder, the defendant's breach 

652767/2020 AT ALAYA SPECIAL vs. WHITED, JIMMY ERIC 

Motion No. 004 

12 of 20 

Page 12 of 20 

[* 12]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/31/2023 

thereof, and resulting damages." (Harris v Seward Park Haus. Corp., 79 AD3d 425, 426 

[1st Dept 2010] [citation omitted].) "A contract of guaranty is subject to the fulfillment of 

any condition precedent to the liability imposed on the guarantor." (Madison Ave. 

Leasehold, LLC v Madison Bentley Assoc. LLC, 30 AD3d 1, 10 [1st Dept 2006], affd 8 

NY3d 59 [2006] [internal citations omitted].) Because "a bad [actor] guarantee is 

triggered when one of the enumerated bad acts occurs" (Nexbank, SSB v Soffer, 2014 

NY Slip Op 31433[U], *3 [Sup Ct, NY County 2014], affd 129 AD3d 485 [1st Dept 

2015]), on summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that such 

a condition precedent was satisfied. (See Madison Ave. Leasehold, LLC, 30 AD3d at 

10-11.) 

"Whether or not a writing is ambiguous is a question of law to be resolved by the 

courts." (W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 [1990] [citation omitted].) 

"[A] contract is ambiguous when read as a whole, [it] fails to disclose its purpose and 

the parties' intent, or when specific language is susceptible of two reasonable 

interpretations." (Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v E & M Assoc., 163 AD3d 176, 185 [1st 

Dept 2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].) 

"[T]he best evidence of what parties to a written agreement intend is what they 

say in their writing." (Banco Espirito Santo, S.A. v Concessionaria Do Rodoanel Oeste 

S.A., 100 AD3d 100, 106 [1st Dept 2012] [internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted].) "[A]greements executed at substantially the same time and related to the 

same subject matter are regarded as contemporaneous writings and must be read 

together as one." ( 1471 Second Corp. v NAT of NY Corp., 162 AD3d 449, 450 [1st 

Dept 2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].) The writing must be read 

652767/2020 AT ALAYA SPECIAL vs. WHITED, JIMMY ERIC 

Motion No. 004 

13 of 2 O 

Page 13 of 20 

[* 13]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/31/2023 

as a whole, as its "meaning ... may be distorted where undue force is given to single 

words or phrases." (Matter of Westmoreland Coal Co. v Entech, Inc., 100 NY2d 352, 

358 [2003] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].) "[C]ourts must construe 

contracts in a manner which gives effect to each and every part, so as not to render any 

provision meaningless or without force or effect." (Western & S. Life Ins. Co. v U.S. 

Bank N.A., 209 AD3d 6, 13 [1st Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted].) 

Here, plaintiffs fail to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to summary 

judgment. First, they fail to demonstrate that the Florida Liquidation satisfies the 

Voluntary Proceeding Trigger. Under this trigger, the guarantor is liable when "any 

Loan Party or any Subsidiary thereof commences a voluntary case or other proceeding 

involving its liquidation ... or seeking the appointment of a ... receiver." (NYSCEF 84, 

Validity Guaranty at 4 [§ 1 (b) (viii)]). The triggering event is "any Loan Party or any 

Subsidiary ... commenc[ing] a voluntary case or other proceeding." (Id.) The language 

that follows, set off by "involving its" and "or seeking the appointment of," merely 

describes the "voluntary case or other proceeding." (Id.) Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate 

that WIG commenced any action or proceeding for its liquidation. 

The November 15, 2019 Consent Order for Administrative Supervision placed 

WIG in administrative supervision for 120 days. (See NYSCEF 137, exhibit A at 18/32). 

To the extent that plaintiffs contend that FLOIR's administrative supervision constitutes 

a case or a proceeding involving WIC's liquidation (see NYSCEF 183, oral arguments tr 

at 5:10 - 6:13), they offer nothing in support of this proposition. The consent order itself 

indicates that the supervision was not an administrative proceeding (see NYSCEF Doc 

652767/2020 AT ALAYA SPECIAL vs. WHITED, JIMMY ERIC 

Motion No. 004 

14 of 20 

Page 14 of 20 

[* 14]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/31/2023 

No. 137, exhibit A, ,i 19) and that WIC's compliance with FLOIR's corrective plan could 

have avoided receivership for purposes of rehabilitation or liquidation. (See id, ,i,i 6, 

16.) 

As for the subsequent court orders, neither was initiated by WIC. On December 

12, 2019, upon the petition of DFS, a Florida court appointed DFS as receiver of WIC 

for purposes of rehabilitation. (NYCEF 145, Petition.) On December 30, 2019, upon 

DFS's motion, the court appointed DFS as receiver of WIC for purposes of liquidation 

(NYSCEF 147, Motion.) DFS commenced the proceeding and WIC was the 

"respondent" (see NYCEF 145, 147.) That WIC consented to the Florida Liquidation is 

immaterial and plaintiffs mistakenly focus on this conduct being voluntary. (See 

NYSCEF 170, Plaintiffs' MOL in support, at 6/26 n 3.) The plain language of the 

Voluntary Proceeding Trigger requires that WIC be the one to "commence[] a voluntary 

case or other proceeding." As this did not occur, plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that the 

Florida Liquidation constitutes a Trigger Event. 6 

6 Notably, if the intention of the parties was for the Involuntary Proceeding Trigger to 

mirror similar language found in the Credit Agreement (see NYSCEF 83, Credit 

Agreement at 7, 2 [defining "Event of Default" and "Bankruptcy Event"]), it would read: 

"any Loan Party or any Subsidiary thereof commences a 

voluntary case or other proceeding involving its liquidation .. 

. or seeking the appointment of a ... receiver ... , [or 

consents to] any such relief or to the appointment of or 

taking possession by any such official in any involuntary 

case or other proceeding commenced against it (an 

'Involuntary Proceeding')." 

Under such a provision, the Florida Liquidation would be a Trigger Event. However, 

plaintiffs do not make this argument. In fact, they insist that the Validity Guaranty 

should not be read in this way. (See NYSCEF 183, oral arguments tr at 37:8 - 38: 13). 

Indeed, as will be discussed shortly, they argue that the Involuntary Proceeding Trigger 

means something different. 

652767/2020 ATALAYASPECIAL vs. WHITED, JIMMY ERIC Page 15of20 

Motion No. 004 

15 of 20 [* 15]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/31/2023 

Second, plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that the Texas Liquidation satisfies the 

Involuntary Proceeding Trigger. Plaintiffs' contention, that the only reasonable 

interpretation is that the parties intended an involuntary bankruptcy to be a Trigger 

Event, is untenable. While the language of this clause is unclear, due to one or more 

missing words, when the Voluntary Bankruptcy Provision is read as a whole, it does not 

entirely fail to disclose the parties' intent. Rather, when the provision is read as a while, 

it could not have been the intention of the parties that an involuntary proceeding, without 

more, be a Trigger Event. A contrary interpretation would render the last clause of the 

Voluntary Bankruptcy Provision-defining a Trigger Event to include "the Guarantor or 

any Company Party ... intentionally collud[ing] with any third party in to effect the filing 

or petition of an Involuntary Proceeding against a Loan Party or Subsidiary thereof"-

superfluous. Such an interpretation must be avoided. (See Western & S. Life Ins. Co., 

209 AD3d at 13; see also Georgia Malone & Co., Inc., 163 AD3d at 187) 

Further, a review of the Credit Agreement makes clear that the parties 

intentionally omitted an involuntary proceeding as a Trigger Event. The Credit 

Agreement was executed at the same time and addresses the same subject matter as 

the Validity Guaranty. Hence, the two must be read together. (See 1471 Second Corp., 

162 AD3d at 450 [reading a guaranty and the related lease together].) The Credit 

Agreement uses language nearly identical to that of the Voluntary Bankruptcy Provision 

in defining what constitutes an Event of Default. The two provisions track each other, 

nearly word for word, until the final clause, where they diverge drastically. The Credit 

Agreement treats the commencement of an involuntary proceeding against the borrower 

or the appointment of a receiver over its property as an Event of Default, whereas the 

652767/2020 AT ALAYA SPECIAL vs. WHITED, JIMMY ERIC 

Motion No. 004 

16 of 20 

Page 16 of 20 

[* 16]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/31/2023 

Validity Guaranty requires the Guarantor to collude in the commencement of an 

involuntary proceeding against a Loan Party or its Subsidiary for it to constitute a 

Trigger Event. (Compare NYSCEF 83, Credit Agreement at 7, 2 [defining "Event of 

Default" and "Bankruptcy Event"], with NYSCEF 84, Validity Guaranty§ 1 [b] [viii].) 

"Even where there is ambiguity, if parties to a contract omit terms-particularly, terms 

that are readily found in other, similar contracts-the inescapable conclusion is that the 

parties intended the omission." (Quadrant Structured Prods. Co., Ltd. v Vertin, 23 NY3d 

549, 560 [2014].) Here, the inescapable conclusion is that the parties intended for an 

involuntary proceeding to be an Event of Default under the Credit Agreement, but not a 

Trigger Event under the Validity Guaranty. Whatever else the parties intended by the 

Involuntary Proceeding Trigger, they did not intend for an involuntary proceeding, 

without more, to constitute a Trigger Event. To the extent that plaintiffs point to 

deposition testimony in support of their interpretation. (See NYSCEF 170, Plaintiffs' 

MOL in Support, at 11-12, 20), because the language of the agreement is clear on this 

point, the court may not consider testimony that reveals a contrary intention. ( See 

Riverside S. Planning Corp. v CRP/Exte/1 Riverside, L.P., 60 AD3d 61, 66 [1st Dept 

2008], ["(p)arol evidence cannot be used to create an ambiguity where the words of the 

parties' agreement are otherwise clear and unambiguous"], affd 13 NY3d 398 [2009].) 

For the foregoing reasons, the Texas Liquidation, which plaintiffs concede was 

"an involuntary bankruptcy filing." (See NYSCEF 170, Plaintiffs' MOL in Supoort at 19), 

is not a Trigger Event under the Validity Guaranty. 

Finally, plaintiffs fail to demonstrate, prima facie, that Windhaven's debt to 

Greenlight satisfies "General Failure to Pay Debts Trigger." "'[G]enerally' imports 

652767/2020 AT ALAYA SPECIAL vs. WHITED, JIMMY ERIC 

Motion No. 004 

17 of 20 

Page 17 of 20 

[* 17]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/31/2023 

something that involves or is applicable to the 'whole' and with regard to the overall 

picture, as opposed to specific instances." (Matter of B. D. Intl. Discount Corp., 15 BR 

755,762 [BankrSD NY 1981], affd24 BR876 [SD NY 1982], affd701 F2d 1071 [2d Cir 

1983] [discussing cases interpreting 11 USC 303 (h) (1)], cert denied 464 US 830); see 

also Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, generally [https://www. merriamwebster.com/dictionary/generally] [defining "generally" as "in a general manner" and "in 

disregard of specific instances and with regard to an overall picture"].) As such, when 

bankruptcy courts determine whether a "debtor is generally not paying such debtor's 

debts as such debts become due" (11 USC 303 [h] [1]), they consider: "(1) the number 

of unpaid claims; (2) the amount of such claims; (3) the materiality of the non-payments; 

and (4) the debtor's overall conduct of its financial affairs." (Matter of A & J Quality 

Diamonds, Inc., 377 BR 460, 463 [Bankr SD NY 2007] [internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted]; see also Matter of Manolo Blahnik USA, Ltd., 619 BR 81, 99 [Bankr 

SD NY 2020].) Additionally, "[t]he failure to pay just one significant creditor can support 

a finding that the debtor is generally not paying its debts if the creditor represents a 

significant amount of the total debt." (Matter of A & J Quality Diamonds, Inc., 377 BR at 

464 [internal citations omitted]; see also Matter of Manolo Blahnik USA, Ltd., 619 BR at 

99.) Here, plaintiffs point to Greenlight's demand for payment, without any evidence of 

Windhaven's overall financial condition or what portion of Windhaven's overall debt was 

represented by the commissions owed to Greenlight. Therefore, plaintiffs fail to 

demonstrate, prima facie, that there has been a general failure to pay debts as they 

come due. ( See Matter of A & J Quality Diamonds, Inc., 377 BR at 464 [finding that the 

petitioner failed to demonstrate that the debtor was generally not paying its debts as 

652767/2020 AT ALAYA SPECIAL vs. WHITED, JIMMY ERIC 

Motion No. 004 

18 of 20 

Page 18 of 20 

[* 18]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/31/2023 

they became due in the "the absence of proof about the number and amount of other 

creditors' claims, and the Debtor's overall conduct of its financial affairs"].) 

Plaintiffs' argument, that bankruptcy cases interpreting the Bankruptcy Code are 

unrelated to the Voluntary Bankruptcy Provision and do not provide guidance in 

interpreting the contractual language at issue in this case. ( See NYSCEF 168, 

Plaintiffs' Reply MOL, at 11; NYSCEF 183, oral arguments tr at 10:5-17), is 

disingenuous. "Besides the common meaning of the language employed, the 

expectations and purposes of the parties in view of the factual context in which the 

agreement was made must be considered in interpreting a contract term, with due 

regard to the parties' sophistication." (Madison Ave. Leasehold, LLC, 30 AD3d at 8 

[internal citations omitted].) Furthermore, "[w]hile words are generally assigned their 

ordinary meaning, where a word has attained the status of a term of art and is used in a 

technical context ... , the technical meaning is preferred over the common or ordinary 

meaning" (id. [internal citation omitted].) Here, the Validity Agreement was drafted by 

attorneys, the provision in question was expressly concerned with relief available to 

Windhaven under "any Debtor Relief Law" (NYSCEF 84, Validity Agreement§ 1 [b] 

[viii]), and the parties chose to employ a phrase common to such laws. ( See e.g. 11 

USC 303 [h] [1 ]; DCL § 271 [b] [providing that "(a) debtor that is generally not paying the 

debtor's debts as they become due ... is presumed to be insolvent"].) Bearing in mind 

the sophistication of the parties and the context, consideration of bankruptcy cases 

interpreting similar language in the Bankruptcy Code is appropriate. 

For the foregoing reasons, to the extent that plaintiffs seek summary judgment on 

their first cause of action for breach of contract, the motion is denied. 

652767/2020 AT ALAYA SPECIAL vs. WHITED, JIMMY ERIC 

Motion No. 004 

19 of 20 

Page 19 of 20 

[* 19]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 184 

INDEX NO. 652767/2020 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/31/2023 

To the extent that plaintiffs seek summary judgment on their second cause of 

action for declaratory judgment, they have made no showing of entitlement to such 

relief. Their memorandum of law in support of the motion briefly mentions that Whited 

agreed to provide "on-demand payment of any out-of-pocket costs, including 

reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, arising from the enforcement of rights under 

the Validity Guaranty." (NYSCEF 170, Plaintiffs' MOL in Support at 3.) This occurs in 

the memorandum's facts section and no further reference is made to this claim, not 

even in the concluding request for relief, which is limited to the breach of contract claim. 

(see id. at 22.) Therefore, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate, prima facie, their 

entitlement to this relief and denial is appropriate. (See Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 324.) 

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the motion by plaintiffs, Atalaya Special Opportunities Fund VII 

LP and Midtown Madison Management LLC, for summary judgment is denied; and it is 

further 

ORDERED that parties may file motions in limine by February 29, 2024. 

Otherwise waived. If the parties fail to file motions in limine, they shall appear for a trial 

scheduling conference on March 4, 2024 at 4 pm. 

12/31/2023 

DATE 

CHECK ONE: 

APPLICATION: 

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: 

~ CASE DISPOSED 

GRANTED 0 DENIED 

SETTLE ORDER 

INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN 

652767/2020 AT ALAYA SPECIAL vs. WHITED, JIMMY ERIC 

Motion No. 004 

20 of 20 

ANDREA MASLEY, J.S.C. 

NON-FINAL DISPOSITION 

GRANTED IN PART 

SUBMIT ORDER 

FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 

□ OTHER 

□ REFERENCE 

Page 20 of 20 

[* 20]