Blog

The Dapper Development lawsuit is a business ownership dispute in North Carolina. It involves Dapper Development, L.L.C., Tantalum Holdings, LLC, three company owners, and Andrew Cordell, whose 25% ownership interests became subject to the buyout dispute. The conflict centers on Cordell’s removal, a required buyout, company records, and the value of his ownership interests.

This is not a class action against Dapper Labs. It has no link to NBA Top Shot, NFTs, or crypto investments. I checked the published records from the North Carolina Business Court. The formal case is Dapper Dev., L.L.C. v. Cordell, case number 24CV018718-590. The latest published merits order I found was issued on July 15, 2025. This article reflects the official record available as of June 28, 2026.

What Is the Dapper Development Lawsuit About?

Dapper Development primarily builds new homes and renovates and resells single-family homes. Tantalum Holdings owns and rents residential properties in Mecklenburg County and Watauga County. Four men owned both companies: Brendan Gelson, Kyle Tudor, Mason Harris, and Andrew Cordell.

Each owner held a 25% membership interest. Each also served as a manager under the companies’ operating agreements. This structure gave each partner an equal vote, but Gelson, Tudor, and Harris together controlled 75% of the voting interests.

The dispute began after disagreements arose over company management. Three owners voted to remove Cordell from his employment, membership, and manager roles on June 14, 2023. The legal fight then focused on whether that vote was valid and how the companies should purchase Cordell’s interests. These facts appear in the court’s 2025 order and opinion.

How the Business Dispute Reached Court

The four owners signed restated operating agreements on February 10, 2022. These contracts set rules for management, voting, member removal, and ownership purchases. Section 10.2 allowed a majority vote to remove a member. It also set a purchase process after a member’s employment ended.

Disputes arose in early 2023. The owners discussed a voluntary purchase of Cordell’s interests from April to June but did not reach an agreement. Gelson, Tudor, and Harris sent Cordell a termination notice on June 14, 2023. They offered him $485,000, subject to adjustment, plus title to the Winston Property. Cordell rejected the offer the next day and made a counteroffer, which the other owners declined.

What Did Each Side Claim?

Dapper Development, Tantalum Holdings, Brendan Gelson, Kyle Tudor, and Mason Harris alleged that Cordell breached the operating agreements by failing to comply with the required buyout process. They also claimed that he caused Bank OZK to restrict access to company funds after his removal. Their complaint included claims for breach of good faith and fair dealing, breach of the December 2023 consent order, and abuse of process. These remained allegations unless resolved through evidence, settlement, or a final court ruling.

Cordell denied key allegations and filed counterclaims. He disputed his employee status, the validity and effect of the removal vote, and whether a contractual buyout event had occurred. He also raised issues concerning company accounts, distributions, financial records, expense reimbursement, and the date used to value his ownership interests.

What the Court Decided in 2024

Cordell asked the court to dismiss key claims under Rule 12(b)(6). At that stage, a judge does not hold a trial or decide whose evidence is stronger. The judge reviews the complaint and asks whether its allegations could support a valid legal claim.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded their claims for breach of contract, a declaration of the parties’ rights, and breach of the consent order. Parts of the good-faith claim also survived. Other parts of that claim were dismissed with prejudice.

The court did not decide that Cordell had committed every act alleged in the complaint. It only allowed the surviving claims to continue. The full reasoning appears in the official 2024 North Carolina Business Court opinion.

What the Court Decided in 2025

Plaintiffs sought judgment under Rule 12(c), which allows a court to resolve legal issues based on formal pleadings when no key facts remain disputed.

Cordell could not deny his former employee status because he had taken the opposite position in the earlier case. Judicial estoppel barred that change. A triggering event occurred on June 14, 2023, ending his roles as a member and manager. His record-access and dissolution claims also failed because he no longer held member status.

The judge dismissed Cordell’s separate equitable accounting claim without prejudice. The opinion said an accounting is a possible remedy rather than an independent claim under the pleadings at issue. Cordell could seek that remedy later if the law and remaining claims permit it.

Is There a Settlement or Final Payout?

Published court opinions do not confirm a final settlement or public payout. The $485,000 figure came from a June 2023 offer that remained subject to adjustments. A later property agreement also allowed Dapper to deduct $181,807.51 for the Winston Property transferred to Cordell’s company, Creta Construction LLC.

A final buyout value remained unresolved because the parties disputed the correct valuation date. Plaintiffs supported June 14, 2023, but Cordell sought December 12, 2023. Neither the operating agreements nor the consent order clearly set that date, so the court left the issue open in its 2025 ruling.

What Issues Remained Open?

The July 2025 order narrowed the case but did not end it. The court allowed Cordell’s breach of operating agreement counterclaim to proceed. He alleged errors in capital accounts, distributions, accounting records, and expense reimbursement.

His related good-faith claim also survived at that stage. The court treated it as part of the contract dispute. Cordell’s reimbursement and contribution claim remained because he alleged that he paid company debts for which he served as a secondary obligor or guarantor.

The plaintiffs’ own contract claims also remained unresolved. A surviving claim does not mean that its filer has won. It only means the court did not dispose of it through that motion. The latest published opinion located on the North Carolina Judicial Branch website does not report a trial verdict or final settlement.

Why the Operating Agreements Controlled the Case

North Carolina law gives LLC operating agreements a central role. N.C.G.S. § 57D-2-30 states that an operating agreement governs an LLC’s internal affairs and the rights and duties of owners and managers, subject to legal limits.

The Dapper and Tantalum contracts contained rules for majority votes, manager removal, member termination, appraisals, and purchase payments. The court relied on that language when it upheld the June 2023 removal vote. A single missing detail, the valuation date, left a major financial question open.

Business partners can reduce this risk when their agreement clearly covers:

• The events that permit removal of a member or manager
• The exact date used to value assets and liabilities
• Appraisal steps, deadlines, credits, and payment terms
• Access to records after a member loses management rights
• Treatment of guarantees, expenses, debts, and capital accounts

Written agreements also shape franchise disputes, as seen in the separate Blingle lawsuit, which involves a verified federal franchise-contract case.