January 24, 2022 – Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors announced that its clients, 250 Fourth Development L.P., Paradigm Hotels Group, LLC, et al. (“Hotel Owner”), prevailed in a key round of its closely-watched dispute with Virgin Hotels San Francisco (“Virgin Hotels”) – paving the way for trial.
In a decision, dated January 21, 2022, the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, denied Virgin Hotels’ plea to escape trial on the Hotel Owner’s claims of breach of fiduciary duties by Virgin Hotels. The brand had argued, as to its own complaint, that there existed no triable issue of material fact pertaining to Hotel Owner’s duties under the Hotel Management Agreement (“HMA”) related to the termination provisions. Specifically, the brand argued that Hotel Owner’s only method for termination was to be found with the HMA and that Hotel Owner did not comply.
The Court agreed with the Hotel Owner that contrary to the brand’s arguments, there was evidence sufficient for a jury to conclude that various provisions of the HMA were waived by the parties during the business relationship. Specifically, the Court held that there is a triable issue of material fact concerning Hotel Owner’s allegations that the brand waived all termination related provisions, including a provision Virgin Hotels argued required written notice of termination, rather than notices sent in electronic format. The Court denied Virgin Hotels’ motion and held that the brand did not submit sufficient evidence to disprove the claims and that it failed to meet its evidentiary burden. This ruling sets the stage for trial proceedings to begin on February 7, 2022.
It has been well chronicled that the Virgin brand is struggling to establish its promised national hotel brand, with properties open in only five locations. In 2010, the brand announced plans to operate up to 25 hotels within seven years. The Hotel Owner’s San Francisco property opened with great fanfare in 2019 under the Virgin name, but currently remains closed.
“In our clients’ view, this prized hotel asset fell victim to false promises, fraud and mismanagement,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer and counsel to 250 Fourth Development, L.P. “They believe that not only has Virgin Hotels failed to deliver on the ‘brand’ it promised, it mismanaged the San Francisco property in an effort to boost its own bottom line. Our clients look forward to this trial.”
The underlying legal dispute began on May 6, 2020, when Virgin Hotels filed a lawsuit alleging the Hotel Owner’s termination of the HMA on April 8, 2020, violated that agreement. On July 16, 2020, the Hotel Owner filed its Original Cross-Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. A month later, on August 19, 2020, the Hotel Owner filed its First Amended Cross-Complaint, alleging that Virgin Hotels made misrepresentations to Hotel Owner by, among other things, knowingly overstating Hotel gross revenues to inflate its management fee and misrepresenting bonus amounts due to Hotel employees. As a result, the Hotel Owner claims the loss of tens of millions of dollars in unrealized hotel profits and the lost value of the property.
In total, the Hotel Owner asserts five causes of action against Virgin Hotels, including breach of contract and fraud. Virgin Hotels demurred, or moved to dismiss, the claims. On October 30, 2020, the court entered an order overruling the demurer in its entirety, vindicating each and every one of the Hotel Owner’s claims. In so doing, the court noted that the First Amended Cross-Complaint “adequately pleads constructive fraud.”
In November 2021, the court overruled Virgin Hotels’ attempts to avoid having to face Hotel Owner’s claims against Virgin Hotels for damages done to the project before the Hotel Owner terminated the management agreement. The court also denied Virgin Hotels’ efforts to freeze more than $2 million of Hotel Owner’s property. After failing to obtain dismissal of Hotel Owner’s claims, Virgin Hotels filed an application for a writ of attachment on Hotel Owner’s property – to secure what Virgin Hotels claimed was over $2 million in expenses that Virgin Hotels had either paid or was owed to third parties. The court denied this request in its entirety.