## Facts

- Starchem Laboratories, LLC (Starchem) developed and sold nutritional supplements and placed manufacturing orders with Kabco Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Kabco). Futurebiotics, LLC (Futurebiotics) was a related supplement manufacturer under the same ownership as Kabco.
- Starchem had a history of late payments and carried unpaid balances: $3,192.60 owed to Kabco for a prior order (PO 63) and approximately $27,880 owed to Futurebiotics on two orders.
- Starchem issued Purchase Order 64 (PO 64) to Kabco for manufacturing and packaging supplements. After revisions, the final PO 64 (June 2008) called for 13,000 bottles of “Armageddon” and 4,000 bottles of “Evolution” for $190,120, with payment terms of 30 days.
- Kabco ordered custom bottles and raw materials from third-party vendors for PO 64, but it did not commence manufacturing or deliver product.
- By letter dated August 28, 2008, Kabco informed Starchem that PO 64 far exceeded Starchem’s $25,000 credit limit, referenced Starchem’s delayed payment history, noted Starchem’s failure to pay Futurebiotics despite promises, and stated Kabco would process PO 64 upon receipt of a bank-certified check for $165,120 (leaving $25,000 on net-30 terms) and requested payment of the outstanding Futurebiotics balance.
- In early September 2008, Kabco emailed that it would begin manufacturing if Starchem accepted the $25,000 credit limit, and it discussed starting production and sampling; Starchem responded by requesting expanded credit of $60,000–$90,000. Kabco reiterated in a final email that Futurebiotics remained unpaid. Starchem did not respond further.
- Starchem sued Kabco for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and estoppel based on Kabco’s insistence on a $25,000 credit limit and payment conditions. Starchem sued Futurebiotics for tortious interference with PO 64 and breach of a separate nondisclosure agreement.
- Kabco and Futurebiotics counterclaimed for the unpaid invoice amounts and moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and awarding judgment on their counterclaims.

## Issues

1. Whether Kabco’s conditioning performance on substantial upfront payment and satisfaction of past-due balances constituted a breach/repudiation of PO 64 or a permissible response to reasonable insecurity about Starchem’s performance.
2. Whether Starchem’s fraudulent inducement claim stated an independent tort or merely repackaged an alleged breach of PO 64.
3. Whether Starchem established the elements of equitable estoppel to bar Kabco from enforcing a credit limit or requesting stronger payment protection.
4. Whether Starchem produced admissible evidence supporting claims against Futurebiotics for tortious interference with PO 64 and breach of the nondisclosure agreement.
5. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on their counterclaims for unpaid invoices and prejudgment interest.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing Starchem’s complaint in its entirety.
- The court awarded Kabco $3,192.60 on its counterclaim, with interest from April 1, 2008.
- The court awarded Futurebiotics $27,800.00 on its counterclaim, with interest from October 16, 2008.

## Legal Principles

- In a sales transaction governed by UCC concepts, when a seller has reasonable grounds for insecurity (including a buyer’s nonpayment history and outstanding arrears), the seller may suspend performance and request adequate assurance of due performance; a demand for security or advance payment, if commercially reasonable in context, is not necessarily an anticipatory repudiation.
- A party in default on payment obligations may be unable to sustain a breach claim based on the counterparty’s suspension of performance pending payment protection.
- Under New York law, fraudulent inducement must be based on a misrepresentation that is collateral to the contract and not merely an alleged intent not to perform contractual promises; otherwise, the claim is duplicative of the contract claim.
- Equitable estoppel requires a clear representation, reasonable reliance, and resulting injury; reliance is not reasonable where the record shows unpaid obligations and written communications setting payment conditions and credit limits.
- Tortious interference with contract requires proof of a valid contract, knowledge, intentional procurement of a breach, and damages, together with wrongful conduct or lack of justification; conclusory allegations are insufficient on summary judgment.
- Summary judgment on unpaid-invoice counterclaims is proper where documentary proof establishes the debt and the opposing party fails to raise a triable issue of fact; prejudgment interest may be awarded from the dates specified by the court.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court, Suffolk County granted summary judgment for Kabco and Futurebiotics, dismissing Starchem’s breach of contract, fraud, estoppel, tortious interference, and nondisclosure claims, and entered judgment for defendants on undisputed unpaid invoices, awarding Kabco $3,192.60 (interest from April 1, 2008) and Futurebiotics $27,800.00 (interest from October 16, 2008).


Starchem Laboratories, LLC v. Kabco Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 Misc. 3d 1213(A) (2014)