Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
COMPLAINT
Aquamatrix, Inc. (“Aquamatrix”), a Delaware corporation, for its complaint against H.H.
Brown Shoe Technologies, Inc., dba Dicon Technologies (“Dicon”) and Wayne Celia, states as
follows:
1. Aquamatrix maintains its chief place of business at 305 Madison Ave., Suite 4510,
New York, NY 10165. Aquamatrix is a holding corporation that owns 100 percent of the stock of
Hydrogel Design Systems, Inc. (“Hydrogel”). Hydrogel manufactures gel products that
Greenwich, Connecticut. Dicon is a manufacturer of shoes, cosmetics, and various other personal
3. Wayne Celia (“Celia”) was at all relevant times the President of the Dicon
LITIGATIONCOMPLAINT122107
4. Celia served on the board of directors of Aquamatrix. As a member of
Aquamatrix’s board, and as a representative of Dicon, Celia regularly met with Aquamatrix
executives at their offices in New York City and participated with Aquamatrix in investor
Dicon operates six “SuperShoes” retail stores in New York and has significant other contacts with
6. This action concerns multiple breaches by Celia of the duty of care he owed to
Aquamatrix as a director and the fraud and negligent misrepresentations made by Celia and Dicon
Background
7. In late 2004, Wayne Celia (“Celia”) was appointed to the board of directors of
Nesco, Inc., which subsequently changed its name to Aquamatrix, Inc. At the time, Celia was the
President of the Dicon division of H.H. Brown, a manufacturer of shoes, cosmetics, and various
other personal care products. Celia was appointed to the board of Aquamatrix because of his
background in foam products which are used in markets complimentary to Aquamatrix’s gel
products. Celia served on the board of Aquamatrix in the course of his serving as president of
Dicon.
8. As a member of the Aquamatrix board, Celia had access to all business records and
plans of Aquamatrix and Hydrogel, Inc., its sole subsidiary at the time.
9. Dicon had existing manufacturing capacity for foam products that were either sold
directly to consumers or which were incorporated into other consumer products. In early 2005,
Dicon sought to outsource the manufacture of its products and, accordingly, to divest itself of its
LITIGATIONCOMPLAINT122107 2
foam manufacturing assets. Dicon sought to outsource the manufacture of its foam products to
two firms: a Chinese joint-venture partner and a U.S. licensed manufacturer for, among other
things, foam that would be incorporated into products sold under U.S. government contracts.
10. Through Celia, Dicon proposed to sell two lines of its foam manufacturing
technologies to Aquamatrix, and then to purchase finished foam product from Aquamatrix. In
describing to Aquamatrix the benefits it would enjoy if it acquired the Dicon manufacturing
assets, Celia assured Aquamatrix that the foam business would produce enough revenue and cash
flow to make the company self-sufficient while the existing hydrogel business grew, and that “the
addition of hydrophilic technology will provide Aquamatrix’s Hydrogel subsidiary with a broader
11. On July 10, 2005, Celia met with Matt Harriton, the President and Chief Executive
Officer of Aquamatrix, and Ron Kuzon, a consultant of Aquamatrix, to discuss the details of the
purchase by Aquamatrix (or its Hydrogel subsidiary) of the foam manufacturing assets of Dicon.
In advance of the meeting, Celia provided to the Aquamatrix representatives an agenda that listed,
as discussion points for the meeting, equipment, licenses, and manufacturing and distribution
rights. The agenda described a proposed business arrangement between Dicon and Aquamatrix’s
subsidiary Hydrogel concerning the manufacture and sale of foam products. Prior to and during
the meeting, Celia represented that, if Hydrogel acquired Dicon’s foam manufacturing assets,
Dicon would purchase foam products from Hydrogel of not less than $4 million a year. Celia
further represented that Dicon would pay for foam product that Hydrogel produced at prices
LITIGATIONCOMPLAINT122107 3
12. The July 10, 2005 meeting went well and a few days later Celia advised
Aquamatrix that he was “in the process of drawing up a draft agreement for us to move ahead.”
In the meanwhile, anticipating that the parties would reach an agreement, Celia sought to
establish a working relationship between the plant operations people of Dicon and Aquamatrix.
By August 10, 2005, Hydrogel operations staff had visited Dicon’s plant to evaluate the space
13. An agreement under which Dicon would sell significant manufacturing assets to
Aquamatrix’s Hydrogel subsidiary was negotiated between Dicon and Aquamatrix during
September 2005. Initially, Dicon proposed to sell equipment, and to license related technology,
for the manufacture of hydrophilic urethane foam and gel products (referred to herein as “foam
products”). During the course of negotiations, Dicon also offered to sell equipment and to license
related technology for the manufacture of Dicon’s “Dryz” products. During these negotiations,
Dicon, through Celia, represented that the Dryz production would be highly profitable to
Hydrogel.
14. A definitive agreement between Dicon and Hydrogel was signed on October 3,
2005. In that agreement, Hydrogel agreed to purchase the two lines of production equipment
from Dicon for $620,000 and was granted the exclusive right to manufacture in North America
certain foam products for Dicon. Dicon assured Aquamatrix and Hydrogel that the exclusive
North American manufacturing right was valuable because significant quantities of Dicon foam
products, either because of customer requirements or time limitations, had to be produced in the
United States.
subsidiary to receive the assets and business being transferred by Dicon. Throughout late 2005,
LITIGATIONCOMPLAINT122107 4
Hydrogel worked to implement its agreement with Dicon and to establish Foam as an operating
company. During this time, Dicon, through Celia, represented to Aquamatrix and Hydrogel that
within six months from completion of the transfer of the equipment to Foam that Dicon would be
16. By December 2005, Celia was leading the transition effort for both Dicon and the
“Hydrogel/Dicon USA” plan for the transfer and expansion of the business. In addition to
providing an action plan for the transaction, Celia forecast that the Aquamatrix companies would
enjoy sales of $3.45 million in the first year after the transfer and $5.355 million in the second
year.
17. In order to fund Hydrogel and Foam’s purchase of the Dicon production lines and
the costs of starting production, Aquamatrix needed to raise significant additional capital. Aware
of this need, Celia supplied Aquamatrix with a steady supply of financial projections and
descriptions of new business opportunities that the Aquamatrix companies would enjoy once the
transition was complete. For instance, on December 4, 2005, Celia described several business
opportunities for Hydrogel he was working on, concluding that there was “great interest on the
18. Although by mid-December Hydrogel was late in making the initial $50,000
payment to Dicon for the equipment, Celia assured the Aquamatrix companies that Dicon could
be flexible. In fact, Celia was so sure that any payment delays could be dealt with that on
December 29, 2005 he sent to Aquamatrix an updated presentation prepared by Dicon that
described in detail how the Aquamatrix companies would benefit from its arrangement with
Dicon. The presentation forecast that the Aquamatrix companies would enjoy new revenues from
LITIGATIONCOMPLAINT122107 5
the arrangement of almost $6 million in the first year and over $11 million thereafter. The
presentation listed in detail prospective new business and even discussed how new business could
19. While impressed with the projections Celia had provided, Aquamatrix questioned
Celia as to why there was no historic sales data that supported the level of sales Celia had
projected for the Aquamatrix companies. Celia assured Aquamatrix that the projections were
reliable, and he further committed himself to helping Aquamatrix raise the capital required for the
venture. On February 3, 2006 Celia assured a fellow Aquamatrix board member that “I have
done everything I said I would do for our partnership. Let alone, you truly have to realize that my
involvement at this point in this fund raising really crosses the line.”
20. In fact, Dicon and Celia were the principal authors of written material given to
prospective Aquamatrix investors. In late March 2006, Celia and Dicon prepared for an
Aquamatrix investor meeting a comprehensive presentation that described in glowing terms the
business opportunities for Aquamatrix that would result from its venture with Dicon and provided
21. On March 23, 2006, Aquamatrix advised Celia that Aquamatrix had identified a
potential investor in its business and requested volume projections from Celia. Celia promised
Aquamatrix that it would have hard orders and projections the next day, and that “looks like we
will deliver initial blanket orders between $500-700k … Understand, that in addition to the
blanket order there will be constant interim orders against projections.…” A few days later, on
March 28, 2006, Celia projected a “ramp-up of 50-70k April, May 125k and June 160k. Keep
LITIGATIONCOMPLAINT122107 6
22. Aquamatrix continued to meet with prospective investors through the spring of
2006. It also obtained bridge loan financing from its officers and directors to fund the payments
owed by Hydrogel to Dicon. In fact, as a result of the projections and assurances provided by
Dicon and Celia, Aquamatrix raised from its officers and directors, and advanced to Hydrogel and
Foam for investment in the venture with Dicon, over $1 million in 2006. Aquamatrix also sought
to raise capital from unaffiliated investors, and in that regard on April 21, 2006 Aquamatrix
requested Celia’s attendance at a meeting with a prospective investor. Celia agreed: “I think it
can only help to have HHB’s support. I’m sure that it will lend creditability to your efforts.”
23. In early 2006, as new investors were sought, the parties worked to relocate the
Dicon production lines to a new facility leased by Foam. Celia was intimately involved with the
details of the move, and advised the Aquamatrix companies on a number of operational issues,
including environmental permits, and gave directions to Aquamatrix personnel on the installation
24. The Aquamatrix companies completed installation of the first production line
purchased from Dicon in early May 2006. Because the equipment did not work as Dicon had
warranted, production was lost until it was convenient for Dicon to address the production
problems.
Celia, of significant orders of product from Dicon to produce on the line were totally unmet.
From the start, Dicon failed to provide orders for product at anywhere near the levels described in
operating the equipment purchased from Dicon because Celia and Dicon had given false
LITIGATIONCOMPLAINT122107 7
information about the equipment’s operating requirements and condition. For instance, it
required twice as much electricity to operate the equipment as Dicon had warranted, resulting in
two lost weeks of production and an expenditure of $170,000 to upgrade the plant’s electrical
capacity. Also, some of the equipment was in exhausted condition and required replacement or
expensive repairs. Celia and Dicon had represented that the equipment was in newly refurbished
27. In fact, the equipment failed to conform to the warranties Dicon had made in the
Agreement. For both lines of equipment, Dicon warranted that the equipment would produce
product that would satisfy certain defined specifications. The equipment fell far short of meeting
equipment to the level warranted by Dicon. Not only did Aquamatrix incur the cost of the
28. Aquamatrix worked steadily in late 2006 and early 2007 to locate additional
capital that would, among other things, support the venture with Dicon. Celia was intimately
involved in this effort to raise new capital. In February 2007, he prepared for an “Aquamatrix
Investor Presentation” for distribution to potential investors. In March 2007, Celia prepared a
comprehensive investor presentation for Aquamatrix that projected revenues on product lines
acquired from Dicon of almost $4.9 million. Based on these projections, Aquamatrix was
successful in raising capital in early 2007 of over $4 million, over one million of which was
29. After Foam had installed the production line for the foam product, it began
installation of the second line for the Dryz product. Installation of the Dryz line was completed in
March 2007. Again, however, Dicon failed to order the quantity of products that could be
LITIGATIONCOMPLAINT122107 8
produced from the line that it had repeatedly promised, including promises made just several
weeks before the completion of the Dryz line. In fact, Dicon ordered less than 10 percent of the
30. On March 13, 2007, an Aquamatrix board member challenged Celia on the failure
of Dicon to issue the expected orders: “This sort of shortfall as against an already extremely
reduced forecast will not lend confidence to anyone in the financing community about the ability
to hit the quarter, much less the forecast you handed out for the year that shows a nearly three
times jump from these numbers to where we would have to be to achieve those. I do hope that we
can find a customer to fill this ‘hole.’” Celia replied that he “understood” and represented that the
Aquamatrix companies would receive orders from Dicon of at least $275,000 in May and June of
31. Aquamatrix now understands that sales were much lower than Celia and Dicon had
projected because (i) Dicon had in fact never used the volume of foam products on which the
projections were based and (ii) Dicon ordered most of the foam product from another joint
venture it had entered into with a company in China. The involvement of the Aquamatrix
companies with the business they were promised was largely limited to unloading, storing,
packing, and loading for Dicon the finished goods manufactured in China. Even for these
services, which required that Aquamatrix lease additional space at its facility in Trenton, New
32. Not only did Dicon fail to deliver the orders it had promised, but the
representations it and Celia had made regarding the cost of producing Dicon products on the
LITIGATIONCOMPLAINT122107 9
enjoying margins in the range of 30 to 40 percent, Aquamatrix in fact experienced negative
33. To bolster sales, in early 2007 Aquamatrix sought to hire a senior sales executive
for the products that could be manufactured with the equipment purchased from Dicon. Celia had
advised the Aquamatrix board that he had identified a qualified candidate and that he would
negotiate employment terms with the candidate of behalf of Aquamatrix. Instead, Celia caused
35. By June 2007, the orders from Dicon had trickled to a small fraction of the
business promised by Celia and Dicon. Relying on Celia’s and Dicon’s projections, Aquamatrix
had invested in a plant that had much greater capacity than what was needed, and accordingly
much higher fixed operating costs that what Aquamatrix could afford. Although Aquamatrix
supported the operation and covered its losses for several months, by September 2007 in could no
longer do so and thus closed the Trenton plant and all operations run on the equipment acquired
from Dicon.
36. As a director of Aquamatrix, Celia owed a duty of loyalty to the corporation which
prohibited him from using his relationship with the corporation to his personal advantage.
37. Celia repeatedly breached the duty of loyalty owed to Aquamatrix by knowingly
and/or negligently making false representations regarding the business and profits that
Aquamatrix would enjoy if it purchased certain assets of Dicon, and by misrepresenting the
condition of the assets. By making the false representations, Celia induced Aquamatrix to cause
Hydrogel and Foam to enter into the Agreement with Dicon and to commit themselves to the
LITIGATIONCOMPLAINT122107 10
outlays required thereunder and induced Aquamatrix to borrow funds that were advanced to
38. Celia, as President of Dicon, further breached the duly of loyalty owed to
Aquamatrix by diverting to Dicon a senior marketing candidate that Celia had undertaken to
39. Celia sought to receive personal benefit from the actions of Aquamatrix that were
induced by his false representations. As President of Dicon and with his own compensation tied
to the success of Dicon, Celia benefited from Dicon’s sale of assets to the Aquamatrix companies.
Celia succeeded in removing from the books of Dicon manufacturing assets that he knew were
low performing, and dragging down Dicon’s overall return on assets, a measurement of
40. Celia also sought to receive personal benefit by diverting to Dicon the senior
marketing executive that he had undertaken to recruit for Aquamatrix. After the transfer of its
manufacturing assets to the Aquamatrix companies, Dicon retained its marketing and sales
functions for which it needed new senior marketing talent. As the President of Dicon, any
improvement in Dicon’s sales and marketing efforts would redound to Celia personally.
by investing over $2 million in a subsidiary specially created to receive the Dicon assets that
failed.
42. At all times in his dealings with Aquamatrix, and in serving as a member of the
board of directors of Aquamatrix, Celia was performing his duties as an employee and senior
officer of Dicon and was working for the benefit of Dicon. Dicon aided and abetted the breach of
LITIGATIONCOMPLAINT122107 11
the duty of loyalty committed by Celia and is thus responsible for the misconduct of Celia alleged
herein.
WHEREFORE, Aquamatrix prays for judgment against Celia and Dicon in an amount
43. In order to induce Aquamatrix to financially support it and its subsidaries’ venture
with Dicon, including providing funds so that Hydrogel and Foam could pay the purchase price
for the equipment purchased from Dicon and providing funds to support the working capital
needs associated with the Dicon venture, Dicon, through its President, Celia, represented to
Aquamatrix that (i) Dicon would annually purchase from the Aquamatrix companies not less than
$4 million of product manufactured by them with the equipment, (ii) the costs of manufacturing
the Dicon foam products on the equipment would allow the Aquamatrix companies to earn a
gross margin of at least 30 percent, and (iii) the equipment was in a newly refurbished condition.
Not only were these representations untrue, but Dicon and Celia knew or should have known that
they were untrue at the time the representations were made. Aquamatrix relied on the
representations in its decision to invest over $2 million into Hydrogel and Foam to fund the
has suffered losses in excess of $2 million for which it seeks judgment, plus interest and
attorneys’ fees.
44. At the time it was negotiating with Aquamatrix for it or its subsidiaries to enter
into the Agreement, and as Aquamatrix invested over $2 million in Hydrogel and Foam to fund
LITIGATIONCOMPLAINT122107 12
the purchase, installation, and modification of the equipment sold to them under the Agreement,
Dicon, through its President, Celia, represented to Aquamatrix that (i) Dicon would annually
purchase from the Aquamatrix companies not less than $4 million of product manufactured by
them with the equipment and (ii) the costs of manufacturing the specified foam products on the
equipment would allow the Aquamatrix companies to earn a gross margin of at least 30 percent.
Not only were these representations untrue, but Dicon should have known that they were untrue at
the time the representations were made. Aquamatrix relied on the representations in its decision
to invest over $2 million into Hydrogel and Foam to fund the venture with Dicon.
LITIGATIONCOMPLAINT122107 13