Opinion ID: 213071
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Agreement’s Ambiguity

Text: Alkek also argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because § 5.03 is ambiguous.3 “[A] contract is ambiguous only when the provisions in controversy are reasonably or fairly susceptible of different interpretations or may have two or more different meanings”. Rhone–Poulenc Basic Chems. Co. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 616 A.2d 1192, 1196 (Del. 1992). Alkek argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because the relevant portion of § 5.03 could reasonably be read as allowing the limited partners to withdraw if Banerjee ceases to be either (1) directly involved in the activities of GSS GP as portfolio manager of GSS, or (2) indirectly involved in the activities of GSS GP as a managing member of GSS GP. This interpretation is unnecessarily narrow. The language at issue in this appeal focuses Banerjee’s involvement vel non; it does not hinge on his title as portfolio manager of GSS. If Banerjee’s removal from the position of portfolio manager was to be sufficient to trigger the limited partners’ withdrawal rights, such a term would have been stated in the Agreement. See id. (“Courts will not torture contractual terms to impart ambiguity where ordinary meaning leaves no room for uncertainty.”). Furthermore, Alkek’s proposed reading incorrectly suggests that the portfolio manager is the only party that exerts direct control over the activities of GSS GP. Under the Agreement, both the portfolio manager and GSS GP (and therefore the managing members of GSS GP) exert authority over the activities of GSS GP. The Agreement vests the portfolio manager with the responsibility 3 Defendants argue that Alkek waived this argument because Alkek raised it in its response to Defendants’ first motion for summary judgment but failed to raise it again in response to Defendants’ second motion for summary judgment. Because we dispose of Alkek’s issue on the merits, we need not decide this issue. 7 Case: 10-20395 Document: 00511419977 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/22/2011 No. 10-20395 of allocating the amount of time GSS GP will spend on certain matters, but it does not diminish the enumerated powers of GSS GP. These enumerated powers include, among other things, providing investment strategies to the limited partners, making reports to the limited partners, collecting fees, and closing accounts, all of which are activities Banerjee participated in after his termination as portfolio manager. Alkek has a further argument (which appeared only periodically in the district court) about the phrase “ceases to be directly or indirectly involved” in the activities of GSS GP that can only be described as strained. It is enough to say that the words “direct” and “indirect” are obviously intended to clarify that the word “involved” has a broad scope. Alkek’s reading of § 5.03 is unreasonable and does not create the type of contract ambiguity that requires reversal of the district court’s order granting summary judgment.