PREC E DENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 1 3

- 3526

____________

CARLYLE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LLC; TC GROUP LLC; TCG HOLDINGS LLC; DAVID M. RUBENSTEIN; WILLIAM E. CONWAY, JR.; JAMES H. HANCE; JOHN C. STOMBER; MICHAEL J. ZUPON;

DANIEL A. D'ANIELLO

v.

MOONMOUTH COMPANY SA; PLAZA MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS SA; PARBOLD OVERSEAS LTD.; LOUIS J.K.J. REIJTENBAGH; STICHTING RECOVERY CCC

PLAZA MANAGEMENT OVERSEAS SA, Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware (D. C. No. 1

- 1 2

- cv

- 0 1 73 2 ) District Judge: Honorable Sue L . Robinson

Argued o n June 4

, 20142 Before: HARDIMAN

, SCIRICA and ROTH

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : F ebruary 25, 2015 )

Michael F. Bonkowski , Esquire J. Kate Stickles, Esquire

Cole

, Schotz , Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A.

500 Delaware Avenue

, Suite 1410 Wilmington, DE 19801

Alan Kolod , Esquire (Argued) Mark N. Parry, Esquire Moses & Singer 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174

Counsel for Appellant

Shannon E . German, Esquire Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell

1201 North Market Street

P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899

Brian C. Rabbitt, Esquire Sarah F. Teich, Esquire (Argued) Robert A. Van Kirk, Esquire Richard H. Wiegmann, Esquire Williams & Connolly

725 12 th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005

Counsel for Appellee s3 O P I N I O N OF THE COURT

ROTH

, Circuit Judge :

Defendant P laza Management Overseas S.A. appeals the District Court’s order remanding th is case to Delaware Chancery Court pursuant to a forum selection clause in a

2006 contract between one of Plaza’s a ffiliated companies and one of p lain tiffs’ affiliated companies

. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

I. Background

Plaintiffs are Carlyle Investment Management, L.L.C.

,

a large publicly traded investment management firm; two affiliated entities, TC Group, L.L.C. and TCG Holdings

, L.L.C.; three founders and officers of Carlyle, David Rubinstein, Daniel D’Aniello, and William Conway, Jr.; and three Carlyle

- affiliated former directors of Carlyle Ca pital Corporation Ltd. (CCC ), James Hance, John Stom ber, and Michael Zupon. Defendants are Louis J.K.J. Reijtenbagh; three entities he owns and controls, Plaza, Moonmouth Company S.A., and Parbold Overseas Ltd.; and an affiliated Dutch company, Stichting Recovery CCC. The record

indicates th at Plaza is th e only corporate d efendant that has

not been dissolved. CCC was an investment fund incorporated in 2006 in Guernsey, a British Crown dependency in the English

Channel. CCC invested primarily in residential mortgage

backed securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In4 December 2006, Moonmouth purchased three million Class B shares of CCC for $60 million under a contract known as the 2006 Subscription Agreement. Only Moonmouth and CCC were parties to the Subscription Agreement. Plaza, in its capaci ty as director of Moonmouth, signed the Subscription Agreement on Moonmouth’s behalf. Plaza and Moonmouth were owned and controlled by Reijtenbagh. Carlyle signed the Subscription Agreement on behalf of CCC as its investment manager. The Subscription Ag reement contained the following forum selection clause, which is the subject of this litigation: “The courts of the State of Delaware shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any action, suit or proceeding with respect to this Subscription Agreement . .

. . ” The Subscription Agreement also included a choice of law clause

, specifying that Delaware law was to govern.

In March 2008, as the global financial crisis depleted

CCC’ s cash reserves

, CCC entered liquidation. A court in

Guern sey appointed liquidator s (the CCC Liquidators ) to oversee liquidation of the company. In July 2010, the CCC Liquidat ors sued Carlyle and the other p laintiffs in Guernsey for alleged breach of fiduciary duties owed to CCC.

In the f all of 2009, Reijtenbagh sought Carlyle’s

perm ission to sell to various third parties portions of investments in Carlyle

- affiliated funds that he held through a different investment entity, Bun dora Associates Inc. These investments were subject to transfer restrictions, so Reijtenbagh needed Carlyle’ s approval and assistance to execute the sales. The sales were accomplished through the

execution of seven T ransfer A greements between Bundora (through Plaza, its director), several Carlyle affiliates, and the

third

- party purchasers. Each Transfer Agree ment contained a5 broad and materially identical release under which Bundora

and its affiliates released all their then

- existing claims against Carlyle and its affiliates. One of the T ransfer Agreements,

the Carlyle Europe Partners III , L.P. ( CEP III ) Tran sfer Agreement , also included a forum selection clause requiring any litigation “relating in any way” to the agreement to be brought in either English courts , Delaware state court, New York state court, or the U.S. District Court for the Southern

District of New York.

In June 2012, a Dutch law firm representing Moonmouth sent letters on behalf of Moonmouth, Plaza, Parbold, and Reijtenbagh to p laintiffs and former independent

directors of CCC alleging that p laintiffs took “irresponsible and unacceptable ri sks” in connection with the investments

that CCC managed and that they would hold p laintiffs liable for all damages that the investors sustained in connection with

their investment in CCC.

In response, p laintiffs filed this action in the Delaware

Court o f Chancery to enforce the Subscription Agreement’s forum selection clause as well as the releases from liability contained in the Bundora Transfer Agreements. Moonmouth, Plaza, and Parbold were served on November 19, 2012.

Moonmouth was dissolved a week later, apparently pursuant to the laws of the British Virgin Islands, where it was incorporated. 1 Plaintiffs’ a mended c omplai nt added a claim alleging that d efendants have been providing financial support for the CCC Liquidators’ suit in Guernsey against

1 Stichting has also been dissolved though it is not clear when

this occurred.6 Carlyle and its affiliates in breach of the releases in the Bundora Transfer Agreements.

Plaza removed the case to federal court on December 18, 2012. Plaintiffs moved to remand on January 17, 2013. The District Court granted the motion and remanded to state

court on August 14, 2013. Plaza appealed.

II. Discussion

A. Jurisdiction

Carlyle contends that we lack jurisdiction to hear Plaza’s appeal. We disagree. Generally, an order “remanding a case to the State court from which it was

removed is not reviewable on appeal . . ..” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). We have r ecognized an exception to th is rule when

the remand is not based on the reasons set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c )

. See New Jersey v. Merrill Lynch & Co. , 640 F.3d 545, 547 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing F oster v. Chesapeake Ins. Co.

, 933 F.2d 1207, 1210

– 11 (3d Cir. 1991)). It is well established that a remand pursuant to a forum selection clause

does not fall within the reasons for remand listed in § 1447(c )

. See id. ; Suter v. Munich Reinsurance Co. , 223 F.3d 150, 152 (3d Cir. 2000); Foster , 933 F.2d at 1211. Thus,

because the District Court remanded due to the forum

selection clause and not due to a § 1447(c) reason, we have jurisdiction over the appeal. 2 Plaintiffs argue that the act of mailing the re mand order divests a federal court of jurisdiction, citing Agostini v. Piper Aircraft Corp. , 729 F.3d

2 A remand to state court is also considered a final order.

Suter , 223 F.3d at 152.7 350, 356 (3d Cir. 2013), and Trans Penn Wax Corp. v.

McCandless , 50 F.3d 217, 225 (3d Cir. 1995). These cases are easily distinguishable because they inv olve remands under § 1447(c). A c ourt of a ppeals, however, retains jurisdiction over appeals of remand orders that are not made pursuant to § 1447(c) . Therefore, we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

1291.

B. Standard of Review

The federal removal st atute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, is strictly construed, requiring remand if any doubt exists over whether removal was proper. Abels v. State Farm Fire &

Cas. Co. , 770 F.2d 26, 29 (3d Cir. 1985). The party seeking removal carries the burden of proving that remova l is proper.

See Samuel

- Bassett v. KIA Motors Am., Inc. , 357 F.3d 392, 396 (3d Cir. 2004). That burden is particularly heavy when the party seeks to avoid a forum selection clause through use

of removal. M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off

- Shore Co. , 407 U.S. 1, 1 5 (1972). In addition, in matters of contract construction

, we exercise plenary review

. Merrill Lynch , 640 F.3d at 547.

C. Merits of the Appeal

1. Whether the Subscription Agreement Forum Selection Clause is Binding

The District Cour t agreed with p laintiffs that Plaza is bound by the forum selection clause despite not having been a signatory. Delaware courts have set forth a three

- part test for determining whether a non

- signatory to an agreement should be bound by its forum selection clause: (1) is t he forum

selection clause valid

, (2) is the non

- signatory a third

- party8 beneficiary of the agreement or closely related to the
agreement

, and (3) does the claim at hand arise from the non

signatory’s sta tus related to the agreement? See Baker v. Impac t Holding, Inc. , No. CIVA 4960

- VCP, 2010 WL 1931032, at *3 (Del. Ch. May 13, 2010) (citing Capital Grp.

Co s. v. Armour , No. CIV. A. 422

- N, 2004 WL 2521295, at *5 (Del. Ch. Oct. 29, 2004)); Weygandt v. Weco, LLC , No. 4056

- VCS, 2009 WL 1351808, at *4 (Del. C h. May 14, 2009)

.

For the first element, forum selection cla uses are presumed to be valid. See Ingres Corp. v. CA, Inc. , 8 A.3d

1143 , 1146 (Del. 2010). The clause is considered valid un less the challenging party “clearly show [s] that enforcement

would be unreasonable and unjust, or that the clause [is] invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). Plaza challenges the validity of the clause, but it provides no argument that it is

invalid for any of tho se reasons . Plaza’s arguments are better characterized as arguments that the clause is inapplicable,

rather than invalid. We will address those arguments later in the opinion . At this point, we will focus on whether the

forum selection clause is valid.

With respect to the second element, e v en if d efendants are not parties to the agreement or third

- party beneficiaries of it, they may be bound by the forum selection clause if they are closely related to the agreement in such a way that it

would be forese eable that they would be bound. See Weygandt

, 2009 WL 1351808 , at *4. In determining whe ther

a non

- signatory is closely related to a contract, courts

consider the non

- signato ry’s ownership of the signatory, its

in volvement in the negotiations, the relati onship between the two parties and whether the non

- signatory received a direct9 benefit from the agreement

. See i d. at *4

- 5 ; Capital Grp.

, 2004 WL 2521295, at *6

- 7.

The District Court found that Plaza was closely related to the Subscription Agreement. It did not err in doing so.

Plaza was Moonmouth’s director and it executed the Subscription Agreement on Moonmouth’s behalf . Plaza and

Moonmouth are affiliated entities that are both owned and controlled by Reijtenbagh. Several provisions of the

Subscr iption Agreement itself indicate the close relationship between Moonmouth, Plaza, and Reijtenbagh. Reijtenbagh is listed as Moonmouth’s primary contact person and his address includes “c/o Plaza.” He is also listed as a person authorized to give and rece ive instructions on behalf of

Moonmouth. Negotiations related to the Subscription Agreement were conducted by Moonmouth, Plaza, and Reijtenbagh. The Sub scription Agreement states that the

“source of funds” for Moonmouth’s investment in CCC was

Plaza’s in come. Additionally, the letter from the Dutch law firm to the p laintiffs

, complaining of losses related to the

CCC investment

, was sent on behalf of Moonmouth, Plaza, and Reijtenbagh. Thus, we agree with the District Court that the three parties were clo sely related to the Subscription Agreement. 3

This result is consistent with Delaware cases in which affiliates, officers, and directors have been held to be bound by forum selection clauses. See, e.g.

, Baker , 2010 WL

3 It is not the case that Plaza is bound merely because it signed the Subscription Ag reement as Moonmouth’s director. Rather, it is bound because of Plaza’s close relationship to the agreement itself.10 1931032 , at *4 ; Weygandt , 2009 WL 13 51808 , at *5 (foreseeable that multiple entities controlled by same control person would be subject to forum clause)

.

Plaza contends , however, that p laintiffs lack standing to invoke the forum selection clause because they were not parties to the Subscri ption Agreement. A non

- signatory has standing to invoke a forum selection clause when it is “closely related to one of the signatories such that the non

party ’s enforcement of the clause is foreseeable by virtue of the relationship between the signatory a nd the party sought to

be bound.” Ashall Homes Ltd. v. ROK Ent m’t Grp. Inc. , 992 A.2d 1239, 1249 (Del. Ch. 2010)

. W e f ind that the non

signatory p laintiffs are closely related to CCC s o that it would

be for e seeable to d efendants th at they would enforce the

clause. All of the corporate p laintiffs are affiliates of Carlyle

. CCC was managed by Carlyle at the time the Subscription Agreement was executed. A “Carlyle Group Privacy Statement” was attached to the Subscription Agreement explaining how Carlyle managed the confidentiality and security of information provided by investors for CCC a nd other Carlyle

- affiliated investments. The Subscription Agreement’s indemnification provision also extended beyond CCC to Carlyle’s officers, directors, employees, ag ents, and

contro lling persons. The individual p laintiffs were directors of CCC or senior executives of Carlyle. Further more, the

letters sent by d efendants via Dutch counsel were sent not only to C C C but to the p laintiffs individually. In short, it is

c lear that p laintiffs are closely related to CCC in such a way that they may enforce the forum selection clause.

The third issue we consider in determining whether the forum clause may be enforced is whether the claims against11 d efendants arise from their status relating to the agreement. Capital Grp. , 2004 WL 2521295, at *5 . This question is very similar to the question of whether the forum selection cla use applies to this dispute

. We answer bot h questions in the

affirmative. The claims in this case ar e “with respect to” 4 the Subscription Agreement and the claims against defendants therefore arise from the Subscription Agreement.

Courts generally interpret language in a forum clause encompassing any claims “with respect to” an agreement broadly to mea n “connected by reason of an established or

discoverable relation.” Huffington v. T.C. Grp., LLC , 637 F.3d 18, 22 (1st Cir. 2011) ( quoting Coregis Ins. Co. v. Am. Health Found., Inc. , 241 F.3d 123, 128

- 29 (2d Cir. 2001));

accord John Wyeth & Brother Ltd. v. CIGNA Int’l Corp. , 119 F.3d 1070, 1074

- 75 (3d Cir. 1997). An action need not even allege contract

- based claims in order for a forum selection

clause in a contract to be enforced. See Ashall Homes , 992 A.2d at 1252 (forum clause applies when claims “gr ow out of

the contractual relationship”) ; Crescent Int’l Inc. v. Avatar
Communities, Inc. , 857 F.2d 943, 944 (3d Cir. 1988) . If this were not the rule, a plaintiff could easily avoid a forum selection clause by artfully pleading non

- contract claims that

s tem from the contractual relationship. See Ashall Homes

, 992 A.2d at 1252; Crescent Int’l , 857 F.2d at 945.

This case is similar to Huffington v. T.C. Group, LLC

, a case from the First Circuit involving some of the same parties as this litigation. Ther e, the plaintiff artfully avoided

4 Carlyle Inv. Mgmt. LLC v. Plaza Mgmt. Overseas, S.A. , Civ.

No. 12

- 1732

- SLR, 2013 WL 4407685, at *2 (D. Del. Aug. 14, 2013).12 contract claims in his pleadings and did not mention the purchase agreement that contained the forum selection clause. Huffington , 637 F.3d at 21. The Court of Appeals nonetheless found the forum clause applicable, notin g that none of the claims would have arisen without the original purchase contract. Id. at 22.

Here, Carlyle’s claims stem from Moonmouth’s initial investment in CCC. Although the releases Carlyle seeks to enforce were part of later agr eements, the d ef endants would not have any claims, nor would Carlyle need to seek release from any claims, but for the original Subscription Agreement

that contains the forum selection clause. It is clear that the relationship between plaintiffs and d efendants , including the letters from defendants’ Dutch counsel and p lai ntiff s ’ present efforts to be released from any claims, stem from the Subscription Agreement. Thus, the claims are “with respect to” the Subscription Agreement.

2. The Forum Selection Clause in the CEP III Transfer Agreement

Carlyle argues that we c ould also affirm the District Court’s remand on the alternative ground that one of the agreements containing a release that Carlyle seeks to enforce

also contains an enforceable forum selection clause. We

agree. 5

5 “We may aff

irm a district court for any reason supported by

the record.” Brightwell v. Lehman , 637 F.3d 187, 191 (3d Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted).13 The CEP III Transfer Agreement’s forum clause allows for litigation in English courts, Delaware state court, New York state court, or the U.S. District Court for the

Southern District of New York. The clause’s reach in terms of parties covered and disputes covered is broader than the forum clause in the Subscription Agreement. It applies to “any Affiliate of any party” to any action or dispute “arising out of or relating in any way” to the agreement. R. at 870a.

Thus, all parties to the CE P III Transfer Agreement agreed that any litigation , including litigation brought by or against their affiliates, relating “in any way” to the agreement

, would be brought only in one of the four specified jurisdictions. This included Delaware state court, but did not permit litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of

Delaware. Removal i s only permitted when the case could have originally been brought in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); In re Briscoe , 448 F.3d 201, 215 (3d Cir. 2006).

Be cause the forum selection clause does not designate

Delaware federal court as a possible forum, Count I could not have been brought there

. Thus, under terms of th is clause, which plainly binds d efendants as affiliates of signatory Bundora Associates, Inc. , Count I is not removable to federal

court. Furthermore, i f one claim is not removable due to a forum selection clause, the other claims may not be severed

and removed. To hold otherwise would be to invite piecemeal litigation and to allow plaintiffs to circumvent forum selection clauses through artful pleading of additional

claims. See Crescent Int’l , 857 F.2d at 945

3. Plaza’s Remaining Arguments14 Finally, Plaza contends that p laintiffs are judicially estopped from enforcing the forum selection c lause in the Subscription Agreement because their c omplaint alleges that the Bundora Transfer Agreements released the Subscription Agreement. This argument fails for two reasons.

First, Plaza’s characterization of the com plaint is inaccurate. As p laint iffs point out, the releases in the Bundora Transfer Agreements released only pre

- existing claims. They did not release or terminate the Subscription Agreement itself or its forum selection clause. The a mended

c omplaint is clear in pleading that only pre

- existing claims stemming from the Subscription Agreement, not the entire agreement itself, were released by the Bundora Transfer Agreement releases . In fact, the a mended c omplaint pleaded

that the forum selection clause was valid and enforceable.

Secon d, the facts here do not meet the elements required for judicial estoppel. The doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents a party from prevailing in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail in another phase. New Hampshire v.

Maine , 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001). Judicial estoppel requires

that : (1) a party adopts a position clearly inconsistent with an earlier position and (2) the party had succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party’s earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create “the perception that either the first or the second

court was misled.” Id. at 750. Here, Plaza fails to show inconsistency because p laintiffs’ argument that prior claims were released by the Bundora Transfer Agreements is consistent with their argument that the forum selection clause from the 2006 Agreement remains valid.15 Plaza also argues that p laintiffs waived their right to

move for remand by seeking enforcem ent of the releases from the Bundora Transfer Agreements which do not have an

exclusive forum clause and therefore allow removal. This argument is unavailing for the reasons previously discussed. First, Carlyle’s claim regarding the Bundora Transfer Agre ements is “with respect to” the Subscription Agreement. Second, one of the Bundora Transfer Agreements, the CEP III Transfer Agreement, contained a forum selection clause prohibiting removal to Delaware federal court. Plaintiffs have not waived their rig ht to seek remand of the case.

III. Conclusion

In sum, we agree with the District Court that the forum

selection clause in the Subscr iption Agreement pertains to

this case, may be enforced against d ef endants, and may be invoked by plaintiffs. We also ag ree with p laintiffs that the forum selection clause in the CEP III Transfer Agreement provides a valid alternative ground supporting remand to state

court. We will therefore affirm the District Court’s order

remand ing the case to the Delaware Court of Cha ncery

.