Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Walworth Investments-LG, LLC v. Mu Sigma, Inc.
Citation: 2022 IL 127177Docket: 127177
Court: Illinois Supreme Court; November 28, 2022; Illinois; State Supreme Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Walworth Investments-LG, LLC, a former stockholder of Mu Sigma, Inc., initiated legal action against Mu Sigma and its CEO Dhiraj C. Rajaram, alleging a fraudulent scheme to diminish its ownership interest following a $1.5 million investment that significantly contributed to the company’s growth. The Cook County circuit court dismissed the claims based on a stock repurchase agreement (SRA) containing antireliance and general release provisions. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, asserting that the SRA's antireliance clause was ambiguous, allowing the claims to proceed. The Supreme Court of Illinois, led by Justice Overstreet, ultimately reversed the appellate court's ruling, upholding the circuit court’s dismissal. The background indicates that Mu Sigma was founded in 2005 and incorporated in Delaware, with Walworth purchasing a significant stake in the company the following year. This investment reportedly facilitated substantial growth, with revenues increasing dramatically from $219,000 to nearly $14 million from 2006 to 2008. In 2008, Mu Sigma raised additional capital and repurchased some shares from Rajaram. Following this, an investor rights agreement was established, promising regular financial reporting to Walworth. In August 2009, Mu Sigma offered to repurchase shares at a significantly lower price, which implied a substantial drop in company valuation without adequate explanation in the financial reports. Walworth refused the repurchase offer, leading to the legal dispute. In mid-March 2010, Rajaram approached the plaintiff regarding repurchasing its stock shares, expressing that Mu Sigma would no longer experience significant growth and would need to rely on acquisitions for future development. Rajaram suggested it was time for the plaintiff to sell their shares, indicating that there was "no upside left" for Mu Sigma, and he viewed the company as unlikely to be a significant success. He proposed a repurchase price of $1.20 per share for early investors, while Mu Sigma's legal counsel mentioned that the offer was intended for a select few shareholders. Rajaram warned that the anticipated loss of Mu Sigma's largest customer, IMS Health, would negatively impact the company's future prospects and its ability to acquire new clients. The plaintiff alleges that Rajaram’s statements and omissions led them to enter a Stock Repurchase Agreement (SRA) after two months of negotiation, executed on May 27, 2010. Under this agreement, Mu Sigma purchased all of the plaintiff’s 7,764,705 shares of series B preferred stock at $1.20 per share, totaling $9,317,646. The SRA included provisions where the plaintiff acknowledged receipt of necessary information for their decision, stated that no representations were made outside the agreement, released defendants from any claims, confirmed that the SRA superseded prior agreements, and agreed to Delaware law governing the contract. The SRA also contained representations and warranties from both parties. The plaintiff confirmed they had received all necessary information for the sale decision and acknowledged no external representations were made. The company warranted that it was not engaged in discussions that could lead to selling stock at a higher valuation than the repurchased shares, relying on the truth of these warranties in the transaction. The SRA's release provision in section 5 states that the stockholder releases the Company and its Related Parties from all claims, known or unknown, related to events prior to the Agreement's date, except for claims regarding the stockholder's right to payment. Section 6(b) establishes that the Agreement is governed by Delaware law. Section 5(f) confirms that representations and warranties survive the Agreement's execution, and section 5(g) asserts that the Agreement supersedes any prior agreements related to its subject matter. 'Related Parties' includes Mu Sigma’s officers, directors, stockholders, employees, and representatives, extending to Rajaram. The plaintiff alleges that Rajaram made misleading statements before the SRA's execution, particularly regarding the loss of IMS Health as a client, which was portrayed as an opportunity for growth rather than a decline in business. Rajaram allegedly claimed in an internal email that Mu Sigma represented a new age services company poised for significant growth and projected the company's valuation to double within three years, estimating a fair value of $200 million at the time. The plaintiff asserts that 2010 was Mu Sigma’s highest growth year, with over 20 new clients and significant revenue increases. Additionally, the plaintiff claims Rajaram failed to disclose his intention to take Mu Sigma public, the company’s valuation, and the absence of a more lucrative investment option for the plaintiff. Rajaram also allegedly instructed the CFO to withhold monthly investor reports, including a March 2010 report that indicated unprecedented revenue growth exceeding $3 million. The April 2010 report indicated that the company exceeded its first-quarter projections, contradicting Rajaram's negative representations about Mu Sigma's financial status. Plaintiff claimed to have not received these reports. After executing the SRA, the plaintiff discovered an interview in the Chicago Sun-Times where Rajaram forecasted significant growth for Mu Sigma, estimating revenues would double to $100 million within three years. When confronted, Rajaram did not provide an explanation for the discrepancy. By 2015, Mu Sigma's revenues surpassed $250 million, and it was valued at over $1.5 billion by 2019, leading the plaintiff to assert that they would have owned shares worth hundreds of millions had they retained their stake. In 2016, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit, leading to multiple circuit court rulings. The second amended complaint, filed on April 23, 2019, included six counts: 1. **Fraudulent Inducement** - Alleging Rajaram made false representations regarding the company's valuation and prospects. 2. **Fraudulent Concealment** - Claiming Rajaram omitted and concealed material facts despite fiduciary duties. 3. **Negligent Misrepresentation** - Asserting that both defendants made false representations and omissions about the company's business prospects. 4. **Breach of Fiduciary Duty** - Alleging Rajaram acted in his self-interest and failed to disclose critical information to the plaintiff. 5. **Breach of Investor Rights Agreement** - Stating Mu Sigma failed to provide requested financial statements and reports, concealing information before the SRA execution. 6. **Unjust Enrichment** - Claiming the defendants deceived the plaintiff and concealed material information, leading to the repurchase transaction. The plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages or, alternatively, rescission of the SRA. On August 30, 2019, the circuit court dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice following the defendants' motion to dismiss. All claims in the plaintiff's first amended complaint were dismissed or abandoned by the circuit court, which applied Delaware law. The court upheld the general release in section 5 of the SRA, executed by experienced parties, affirming it was unambiguous and barred the plaintiff’s claims related to events before the May 2010 SRA. The court had previously granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants for the plaintiff's fraud and fiduciary duty claims, noting that the plaintiff could not demonstrate reliance due to the antireliance provisions in the SRA. The court reiterated that the antireliance language in section 3(e), in conjunction with the general release, negated any reliance on alleged misrepresentations outside the SRA, thus barring claims of fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. Furthermore, the court determined that a fiduciary duty of full disclosure did not apply in this case as the transaction was individually negotiated, not a request for shareholder action. On October 9, 2018, the court granted the defendants' motion for reconsideration and summary judgment on counts of fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation based on the SRA's language. Subsequent motions for reconsideration reaffirmed that the breach of fiduciary duty claim was also barred by the SRA. The court allowed the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint but noted that section 4(d) of the SRA could have included the alleged misrepresentations. The plaintiff's argument for a 'fiduciary exception' to the SRA’s release language was deemed ineffective, as Mu Sigma did not owe a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff. The court clarified that only officers or directors owe such duties to shareholders. The court also maintained that the release applied to Rajaram, distinguishing the case from Xy Hong Bin v. Heckmann Corp. and emphasizing that Delaware law mandates full disclosure by directors in transactions involving their interests. Ultimately, the court enforced the release terms, dismissing the plaintiff's breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims with prejudice. Delaware's courts are recognized for their expertise in corporate law, with unpublished opinions holding substantial precedential weight. In a recent appeal, the plaintiff argued that the circuit court wrongly dismissed its claims against defendants, asserting the Stock Repurchase Agreement (SRA) lacked a clear antireliance provision and that its general release was unenforceable due to fraud. The appellate court noted the absence of an unqualified disclaimer of reliance from the plaintiff and found the SRA's language ambiguous regarding reliance disclaimers. It examined extrinsic evidence, concluding that whether the SRA was enforceable or obtained through fraud was a factual issue for the jury. The court also addressed whether Rajaram had a fiduciary duty to disclose all material information related to the stock repurchase transaction. It determined that the suggestion of extending the repurchase offer to other stockholders raised factual questions about the nature of the transaction. Following precedent, the court ruled that if a director requests stockholder action without disclosing material facts, the SRA’s reliance clause would not apply, allowing the plaintiff to pursue breach of fiduciary duty claims without proving reliance. Ultimately, the appellate court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the plaintiff's claims of fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. It also ruled that the circuit court erred in dismissing claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment based on the SRA’s release provision, as these depended on the outcome of the fraud claims. The appellate court reversed the circuit court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants and remanded the case for further proceedings. Justice Pucinski concurred but expressed concern over the majority's approach to the parol evidence rule. On September 29, 2021, the court granted the defendants' petition for leave to appeal and permitted several legal clinics and associations to file amicus curiae briefs in support of the plaintiff. The circuit court determined that the express language of the Shareholders' Rights Agreement (SRA) barred the plaintiff’s claims in the second amended complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under section 2-619.1 of the Illinois Code, which allows dismissal based on affirmative defenses or easily proven factual issues. This section combines motions to dismiss for legal insufficiency under section 2-615 and for affirmative matters under section 2-619. Section 2-615 addresses defects apparent on the face of the complaint, requiring courts to accept well-pleaded facts as true and construe them favorably toward the plaintiff. In contrast, section 2-619 allows dismissal when the claim is defeated by other affirmative matters, acknowledging the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's claims. Appeals from dismissals under these sections are reviewed de novo, meaning the appellate court reassesses the legal questions without deferring to the lower court's conclusions. Furthermore, the SRA stipulates that it is governed by Delaware law, and since Mu Sigma is incorporated in Delaware, Rajaram's fiduciary obligations to its stockholders are also governed by Delaware law, following Illinois choice-of-law principles regarding fiduciary duty claims. Counts I through IV of the plaintiff’s second amended complaint assert claims of fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. To establish a claim for common-law fraud in Delaware, the plaintiff must demonstrate five elements: (1) the defendant made a false representation or omitted facts they had a duty to disclose, (2) the defendant knew or believed the representation was false, or acted with reckless indifference, (3) the intent to induce the plaintiff to act or refrain from acting, (4) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff on the representation, and (5) injury resulting from that reliance. Delaware law mandates that reliance is a necessary element for claims of fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation. For intentional representation claims, the plaintiff must prove the defendant's intent to induce reliance through deliberate concealment. In negligence claims, the plaintiff must show that they suffered a pecuniary loss due to justifiable reliance on false information. Breach of fiduciary duty claims similarly require proof of reliance, causation, and damages. The circuit court found that the antireliance language in the SRA, which stated the plaintiff had received all necessary information and that no additional representations or warranties were made, barred the first four counts. However, the appellate court ruled that the SRA language did not clearly disclaim reliance on extracontractual statements or omissions, allowing the fraud and fiduciary duty claims to proceed. Delaware follows the objective theory of contracts, interpreting agreements as a reasonable third party would. Courts must consider the entire contract, ensuring every provision is meaningful and not rendered illusory. Clear and unambiguous contracts are enforced according to their plain language. Courts prioritize the intentions of the parties as expressed in the contract. A contract's ambiguity is not established merely by differing interpretations among the parties or case law. Under Delaware law, a contract is deemed ambiguous only when its terms can be interpreted in multiple ways. Courts should not interpret contractual language to create ambiguity when its ordinary meaning is clear. When a contract is unambiguous, extrinsic evidence cannot be used to alter its terms or interpret the parties' intent. In the case of O'Brien v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co., the defendants contend that the plaintiff disclaimed reliance on any representations outside the contract by agreeing to terms in the Stock Redemption Agreement (SRA) stating that no representations about financial conditions were made, thereby barring the plaintiff's claims that require reliance. The defendants assert that the appellate court erred by not enforcing the SRA's anti-reliance provisions, which Delaware courts typically uphold. Conversely, the plaintiff argues that the SRA's language does not meet Delaware's stringent requirements for explicit anti-reliance disclaimers, as it lacks a clear statement that the plaintiff did not rely on defendants' extracontractual statements. Delaware law supports clauses that clearly identify the relied-upon information and prohibit reliance on any other information, aiming to balance the enforcement of contracts with protections against fraud. For a contract to preclude claims of fraud based on information outside its terms, it must clearly state that the aggrieved party disclaimed reliance on such statements. This disclaimer must be articulated from the perspective of the aggrieved party to effectively bar fraud claims. The contract's language must collectively demonstrate a clear anti-reliance clause, indicating that the party did not rely on extracontractual statements when entering into the agreement. Vague integration clauses without explicit anti-reliance language do not absolve a party from claims based on oral or extracontractual misrepresentations. Delaware courts have upheld disclaimers of reliance on extra-contractual representations, preventing a party from later claiming fraud based on statements they previously acknowledged were not made to them or did not influence their decision. Delaware law enforces clear anti-reliance language in contracts to bar subsequent fraud claims, particularly when sophisticated parties insert explicit disclaimers. Integration clauses may not suffice on their own to negate reliance on extracontractual statements. In the case analyzed, the integration provision in the SRA asserts that it embodies the complete agreement between parties and supersedes prior representations. However, this alone may not adequately disclaim reliance on statements made outside the contract. The combination of this integration clause with specific language indicating that the plaintiff received all necessary information and that no representations beyond those in the SRA were made contributes to a clear anti-reliance stance. Despite the sophistication of the parties and legal representation, the plaintiff's second amended complaint alleged fraud based on pre-contract statements. Under Delaware law, a party cannot reasonably rely on information it has contractually agreed does not form the basis of the contract. The SRA as a whole illustrates a clear disclaimer of reliance on extracontractual statements, supported by additional clauses that reinforce this intent, thereby barring fraud claims. The plaintiff acknowledged that the only representations made by the defendant were those included in the Stock Redemption Agreement (SRA), supported by an integration clause that explicitly aimed to prevent reliance on any extracontractual statements, effectively barring fraud claims. The antireliance language limits the representations concerning the company's financial condition and the value of repurchased stock solely to those made in the SRA. The SRA also includes a general release, wherein the plaintiff waives all known and unknown claims related to events prior to the SRA's date, reinforcing the antireliance provision. Delaware law does not necessitate specific wording to disclaim reliance, and the language of the SRA is deemed a clear anti-reliance clause that precludes claims based on representations outside the agreement. Although an appellate court previously declined to enforce this language, arguing it was not aligned with the plaintiff's perspective, the SRA explicitly states that the plaintiff received all necessary information and acknowledges that no other representations were made. The plaintiff contends that the SRA should not shield defendants from liability for fraud; however, Delaware’s Supreme Court has affirmed the enforcement of contractual disclaimers of reliance in final agreements, emphasizing the importance of honoring negotiated contracts and promoting truthful representations. The public policy interest in truthfulness strengthens the enforcement of non-reliance clauses, as they are essential for maintaining the integrity of contractual agreements. A contracting party's written lie regarding reliance solely on contractual representations undermines its claim of fraudulent inducement against another party. The plaintiff, by asserting claims of fraud, reveals itself as a 'Double Liar,' as it had previously acknowledged in writing that no outside representations were made and that the contract contained the complete agreement. Allowing such claims would effectively endorse the plaintiff's own fraudulent behavior. The plaintiff's assertions of reliance on additional representations about Mu Sigma contradict its prior representations and are barred by the non-reliance disclaimer in the contract. Although the plaintiff contends that the antireliance provisions do not preclude claims based on omissions of information, defendants argue that the plaintiff cannot bypass these provisions by characterizing omissions as extracontractual statements. Delaware law recognizes fraud through overt misrepresentation, omissions where there is a duty to disclose, or deliberate concealment of essential facts. A claim of fraud based on active concealment does not necessitate a pre-existing duty for the defendant to disclose information. In the case of Prairie Capital, the Delaware Court of Chancery determined that a stock purchase agreement's clause, which stipulated that the buyer relied solely on the representations within the agreement and contained an integration clause, precluded fraud claims based on extracontractual misrepresentations. The court highlighted that, without a special relationship, there is no obligation to disclose facts known to one party if the other party is unaware, even if the omitted facts are deemed material. It clarified that in arm's-length transactions, no duty to speak exists, and fraud claims cannot originate from mere omissions. The court emphasized that the relevant distinction lies between information specified in the agreement and information outside of it, rather than between misrepresentations and omissions. It rejected the notion that a clause must explicitly mention omissions to negate a fraudulent omission claim. The court asserted that rephrasing a misrepresentation as an omission does not bypass the agreed-upon informational limits of the contract. It further explained that every misrepresentation inherently involves an omission, and allowing plaintiffs to recast allegations could nullify the effectiveness of antireliance clauses. Consequently, if a contract states that reliance is limited to its representations, a party may only challenge the veracity of those representations and cannot assert claims based on external information that was not included in the contract. Defendants argued that the plaintiff's omission claims essentially recast misrepresentation claims regarding Mu Sigma's growth prospects, which the court agreed with, noting that many of the plaintiff's claims about misrepresentations and omissions concerning the company's valuation and transaction motives were merely recharacterized misrepresentation claims and were thus barred by the contract's antireliance provisions. Plaintiff's claim in count II of the second amended complaint alleges that defendants engaged in fraudulent concealment by actively withholding investment reports that the plaintiff was contractually entitled to receive, which contained significant information regarding Mu Sigma's value. This situation is compared to the TransDigm case but distinguished due to key differences in the agreements. In TransDigm, the Delaware Court of Chancery found that the antireliance clause did not prevent claims of fraudulent concealment based on omissions, as the clause lacked language disclaiming reliance on omitted information. The court ruled that the seller's active concealment of material facts during negotiations allowed the buyer's claims to proceed. In the current case, plaintiff alleges that Rajaram directed Mu Sigma’s CFO to withhold crucial financial reports, including a March 2010 report indicating significant revenue growth and an April 2010 report showing strong first-quarter performance. These reports contradicted Rajaram's negative representations about Mu Sigma’s financial health. Similar to TransDigm, the agreement in this case states that the buyer had received necessary information to make an informed decision. However, the court in TransDigm allowed claims to proceed because the agreement did not explicitly state that the company was not actively concealing information. Thus, the current situation is distinguished from TransDigm based on the nature of the concealment and the reliance on the agreement’s language. Plaintiff acknowledged the absence of investor reports as stipulated in its investor rights agreement but consented in the Stock Repurchase Agreement (SRA) that it had received sufficient information to decide on the sale of Repurchased Stock to the Company. Additionally, the plaintiff released claims related to omissions, thereby discharging the Company and its Related Parties from all known and unknown claims arising prior to the agreement date. Delaware courts assess contracts holistically to identify clear anti-reliance clauses, which in this case indicate that the plaintiff is barred from asserting claims based on undisclosed information, as the SRA's antireliance provisions reflect the plaintiff's satisfaction with the information received. The plaintiff contends that even if the SRA contains enforceable antireliance language, it should not apply due to the fiduciary relationship between the parties, particularly arguing that Rajaram, as a director and CEO, owed a fiduciary duty of loyalty to the plaintiff as a stockholder. Delaware law establishes that directors owe fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to both the corporation and its shareholders, reflecting a separation between legal control and beneficial ownership. This legal framework is designed to protect shareholders who cannot protect their interests independently. The fiduciary duty encompasses due care, good faith, and loyalty, emphasizing that directors must manage corporate affairs for the benefit of shareholders. Ultimately, Delaware corporate law mandates that a board of directors must oversee the corporation's business to enhance shareholder value. Corporate directors have fiduciary duties primarily to the corporation and its shareholders as a collective entity, rather than to individual shareholders. Their actions should enhance the corporation's value and benefit residual claimants, which encompasses all shareholders in aggregate. Delaware law clarifies that while directors owe duties to the corporation and the collective group of stockholders, they do not have fiduciary obligations to individual stockholders or specific classes of stockholders, such as preferred stockholders, in relation to their contractual rights. This principle is reinforced by various case law, which indicates that directors are not required to consider the interests of preferred stockholders when their rights are contractual in nature. Moreover, once a board honors preferred stockholders' contractual rights, it may prioritize the interests of common stockholders. Lastly, Delaware law does not impose a general fiduciary duty of disclosure on corporations for individual transactions. An antireliance provision does not prevent a beneficiary from making claims against a fiduciary, as demonstrated in McDonald’s Corp. v. Easterbrook, where the former CEO was identified as a fiduciary to the company. However, in the case at hand, neither Mu Sigma nor Rajaram had fiduciary duties to the plaintiff due to the nature of the stockholder’s status in a negotiated repurchase transaction. The court referenced Nemec v. Shrader, noting that fiduciary duties in such contexts are typically defined by contract, and any separate claims based on fiduciary duties were not applicable. The negotiation between the plaintiff and Mu Sigma was conducted at arm's length, indicating that the plaintiff's interests were contrary to those of Mu Sigma and its shareholders, which does not establish a fiduciary relationship, as supported by Blaustein v. Lord Baltimore Capital Corp. Moreover, while directors have a general duty to disclose material information when soliciting shareholder action, this duty is not present in the absence of such requests, as stated in Malone. The plaintiff argues that defendants owed a fiduciary duty of disclosure regarding Mu Sigma's stock repurchase request and claims that they breached this duty by failing to disclose material information. According to Delaware law, this claim does not require reliance, allowing it to proceed despite any antireliance provisions in the stock repurchase agreement. In conclusion, without a request for shareholder action, directors are not obligated to disclose financial information to shareholders. Misrepresentations tied to requests for discretionary actions activate fiduciary disclosure duties. Fiduciaries must disclose all material facts relevant to decisions beneficiaries need to make. A director's failure to fulfill this duty may lead to personal liability, contingent on the nature of the stockholder action requested and the inaccuracies involved. Breaches of disclosure duties in these contexts are deemed "per se" liabilities, meaning stockholders do not need to prove reliance, causation, or specific damages for a breach of fiduciary duty claim to succeed. The materiality of any omission or misrepresentation is assessed based on the specific shareholder action sought. However, this per se rule only applies to nominal damages; to recover compensatory damages, stockholders must demonstrate reliance, causation, and actual damages. The Delaware Court of Chancery case, Latesco, L.P. v. Wayport, Inc., highlighted that the fiduciary duty of disclosure is crucial when collective action is required from stockholders. The court declined to classify a transaction involving corporate insiders' rights of first refusal as a request for stockholder action due to the lack of collective decision-making factors. Individual stockholders can choose to withhold consent until they receive sufficient information, which is not the case in collective voting scenarios where stockholders need comprehensive disclosures to make informed decisions. The Delaware court, in Wayport, clarified that the duty of disclosure for corporate boards arises when seeking stockholder consent on discretionary decisions, such as proxy grants or mergers. This requirement does not extend to individual transactions, as established in Sims v. Tezak, where an offer to buy shares from a single shareholder did not necessitate such disclosure. The Supreme Court of Delaware supported this view in Dohmen, affirming that no affirmative duty of disclosure exists for individual transactions unless a collective shareholder action is in play. In the present case, the plaintiff had direct access to negotiate an arm's-length transaction with the corporation, which was the result of extensive negotiations involving legal counsel. The Stockholder Representative Agreement (SRA) explicitly noted that it was negotiated between the parties' counsels. Delaware law mandates corporate directors to disclose material information when soliciting shareholder action, but it does not impose a similar duty during share repurchases. Regarding the SRA's general release, defendants argued that the appellate court wrongly declined to enforce it against the plaintiff's breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims, which the lower circuit court had dismissed. The plaintiff contended that the defendants had not preserved their challenge to the appellate court's ruling since it was not included in their petition for leave to appeal. Nevertheless, the court retains the discretion to address unpreserved issues that are closely related to those that have been preserved. Waiver and forfeiture serve as limitations on the parties involved rather than the court, which has the discretion to overlook forfeiture when necessary to ensure justice or uphold precedent. The appellate court's decision to reinstate the plaintiff's breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims was deemed incorrect. Both claims fail under Delaware and Illinois law due to the existence of a release agreement, which signifies the abandonment of claims governed by contract law. The intention of the parties must be derived from the agreement itself, and unambiguous contract language should be interpreted as a matter of law. Section 5 of the Settlement Release Agreement (SRA) explicitly provides that the plaintiff releases the defendants from all claims related to events prior to the agreement, with the exception of Stockholder's rights to payment. The court agreed with the circuit court that the broad release clearly includes the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff's breach of contract claim alleged a failure to provide investor reports prior to the SRA, while the unjust enrichment claim pertained to misleading statements during negotiations. The plaintiff argued that the release was unenforceable due to alleged fiduciary misconduct by Rajaram, but the court found Rajaram was not acting in a fiduciary capacity. Consequently, the claims were dismissed as a matter of law. The SRA's language invalidated the plaintiff's claims, leading to a reversal of the appellate court's judgment and affirmation of the circuit court's ruling.