Heineman Lawsuit
Heineman Lawsuit
Heineman Lawsuit
In re: )
) Case No. 19-14873
ROLLIN G. COOKE, III, )
) Judge Arthur I. Harris
Debtor )
_______________________________________ )
) COMPLAINT TO DETERMINE
CHERYL HEINEMAN ) DISCHARGEABILITY OF DEBT,
1436 Loop Road ) FRAUDULENT TRANSFER,
Kent, Ohio 44240 ) MISREPRESENTATION, AND/OR
) CONVERSION
Plaintiff, )
) JURY DEMAND ENDORSED
v. ) HEREON
)
ROLLIN G. COOKE, III, ) AP CASE NO.____________________
11785 Julie Drive )
Chardon, OH 44024 )
Geauga - OH )
)
Defendant )
Bankruptcy Code Section 523 and other applicable Sections, Bankruptcy Rules 4007 and 7001
and under state law, to determine the dischargeability of the Defendant-Debtor, Rollin G. Cooke
III (“Debtor” or “Defendant”), to recover money and property in the above-captioned bankruptcy
proceeding. Plaintiff, by and through her undersigned counsel, for her complaint against
PARTIES
Ohio.
Ohio.
3. This Court has jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1334. The claims alleged herein are core proceedings under 28 USC § 157(b)(2).
Resolution of the claims alleged herein will impact the distributions to be received by creditors
and the value of the estate. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157 (a) and (b)(1) and Local General Order
No. 84 as entered on July 16, 1984, by the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio, this Court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction in this case; and, supplemental
4. This is a core proceeding over which this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28
Bankruptcy Procedure 4007 and 7001 et seq., in which Plaintiff is mainly seeking a
COUNT ONE
(Section 523(a)(2), 523(a)(4) and/or 523(a)(6))
high school graduate with no prior investing experience and has no formal legal or business
training.
9. Plaintiff was the rightful, fifty-three percent (53%) owner of the Willo Brew,
LLC, d/b/a Willoughby Brewing Company (the “Company”). Plaintiff was therefore majority
member.
10. The Company was a highly successful and profitable brewery and restaurant
11. Plaintiff acquired the interest in the Company on January 1, 2013, in a transfer
from her son and daughter-in-law to provide for Plaintiff and for Plaintiff’s grandchildren.
12. Beginning in 2017, third party, Van Horn, introduced Defendant to the other
members of the Company and invited him to purchase an interest in the Company.
13. In late 2017, Defendant borrowed forty-eight thousand dollars ($48,000) from
Plaintiff to purchase a thirty-seven percent (37%) minority stake in the Company, which sale was
14. To date, Defendant has repaid twenty-seven thousand dollars ($27,000) of the
15. During this time, Defendant made at least one unauthorized transfer of the
Company funds to his car dealership company in the amount of two thousand three hundred
16. From January 1 to April 9, 2018, Defendant began badgering Plaintiff to convince
Nonetheless, Defendant continued to harass and intimidate Plaintiff in order to induce her to sell
her shares. Defendant made material misrepresentations about the Company to Plaintiff to
confuse her, to weaken her resolve, and to fraudulently induce Plaintiff to sell her interest in the
Company to Defendant.
18. In March 2018, Defendant falsely and fraudulently misrepresented to Plaintiff that
a civil action filed March 30, 2018, against Plaintiff’s son would force Plaintiff to “lose her
19. Defendant knew of this suit, knew that it was a tool to further weaken Plaintiff’s
resolve not to sell her interest to him, and fraudulently used his knowledge of this civil action to
his unfair advantage. Defendant knew at the time that these representations were untruthful and
20. During this time, Defendant falsely told Plaintiff that Defendant was her friend,
and that he was the only one that would be able to protect her interest for her grandchildren.
21. Defendant’s misrepresentations and demands confused Plaintiff and caused her to
enter a state of duress and panic to the extent that her will was overcome and she was induced to
and demands, Plaintiff was forced to sell her interest in the Company to Defendant per an
23. Defendant gave Plaintiff the Agreement and informed her that she needed to sign
Plaintiff was ill and vulnerable. Plaintiff further told Defendant that she would like to consider
the sale, discuss the sale with other parties, and have the Agreement reviewed by legal counsel.
25. Defendant denied Plaintiff the opportunity to have the Agreement reviewed or for
Plaintiff to discuss it with her attorney or other parties, stating that she needed to sign it
26. To ease Plaintiff’s concerns about the sale, Defendant represented that Plaintiff
was not entering into a complete transfer of her interest in the Company, rather a partial one and
that there was a provision in the Agreement to return Plaintiff’s units to her at a later date.
28. Defendant coerced and induced Plaintiff to sign the Agreement at their meeting
29. Further, Defendant forced Plaintiff to back-date her signature to March 2, 2018,
which he instructed her was to avoid any implication in Plaintiff’s son’s civil action.
30. Plaintiff was surprised to learn after the meeting that the Agreement included a
complete transfer of her interest in the Company and that there was no provision in the
Agreement to return her interest or units to her in the event Defendant failed to pay the agreed
amount.
31. The amount of the sale was five hundred thirty thousand dollars ($530,000),
which was well below the fair market value of Plaintiff’s units at the time of the sale.
32. Defendant had agreed to pay Plaintiff this amount in one hundred twenty (120)
equal monthly payments, over ten (10) years, at an interest rate of one tenth of one percent
(0.1%) per annum. These terms of the Agreement are commercially unreasonable and are further
33. Upon information and belief, Defendant purchased other percentages in the
membership of the Company and now owns ninety percent (90%), of the interest in the
Company.
34. Defendant Cooke’s actions caused irreparable and damage and interference with
Plaintiff’s legal rights in the Company and the Lake County Court of Common Pleas granted a
temporary restraining order against Defendant in Heineman v. Cooke, et al. Lake County Court
of Common Pleas Case No. 18CV001552, which, among other things, prohibited Defendant(s)
from engaging in certain financial transactions during the pendency of this lawsuit to protect the
value of the business. Importantly, the Lake County Court of Common Pleas determined that
Plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
prior to, and on to induce Plaintiff to sell her ownership interest in the Company.
these misrepresentations to her detriment given that she no longer has interest in the Company.
37. Defendant knew that his misrepresentations were false and knew that the threats
duress and induced her into selling her share of the Company to Defendant.
or with utter disregard and recklessness as to whether the misrepresentations or omissions were
41. Defendant’s false or fraudulent misrepresentations were made with the intent that
Plaintiff rely upon them, and upon which Plaintiff justifiably relied.
or $530,000.
43. As a further result of Defendant’s fraudulent actions and failure to pay the agreed
price for the Agreement, Plaintiff moves the Court to rescind the Agreement as a matter of law.
44. From January to March 2, 2018, Plaintiff and Defendant were members of the
Company.
45. As set forth above, Defendant made misrepresentations, demands, and fraudulent
46. These actions were made in bad faith and in violation of the duties of care and
47. As a result of Defendant’s fraudulent actions, committed in bad faith, Plaintiff has
48. Defendant’s misconduct and breach of fiduciary duty warrants the imposition of
this Court to determine the dischargeability of Plaintiff’s debt and declare it non-dischargeable.
51. Plaintiff had a property interest in the Company as she is the rightful controlling
52. Plaintiff’s status as controlling member is undisputed given her control of fifty-
the Company by fraudulently inducing Plaintiff to enter into the unconscionable Agreement and
has not paid her the consideration of $530,000 for her units.
54. Accordingly, Defendant has converted Plaintiff’s units and Plaintiff has been
damaged due to Defendant’s improper and unlawful conversion of her ownership interests in the
Company.
(a) Under Count One, a judgment declaring that amount or consideration owed by
(b) Under County Two, a judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against the Defendants
for conversion;
(c) A declaration that the Agreement is null and void and hereby rescinded due lack
(f) Award Plaintiff interest, plus costs, attorney’s fees, and other such relief as this
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Duriya Dhinojwala______
Duriya Dhinojwala (#0074982)
Christopher B. Congeni (#0078160)
Kyle A. Johnson (#0091050)
BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND, LLC
75 East Market Street
Akron, Ohio 44308
Ph: (330) 253-5060; Fax: (330) 374-6896
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Counsel for Plaintiff
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, Cheryl Heineman, respectfully requests a trial by jury on all triable issues set
/s/Duriya Dhinojwala______
Duriya Dhinojwala (#0074982)