Dapper Development Lawsuit: Court Rulings, Status & Updates 2026

The Dapper Development lawsuit is a North Carolina business dispute, Dapper Dev., L.L.C. v. Cordell. Three owners of two real estate companies sued a fourth owner after they voted to remove him and force a buyout.

It is not the Dapper Labs NFT case. Many search results mix the two, and that confuses a lot of readers.

This guide explains what the North Carolina Business Court has decided, what is still open, and what other business owners can learn. We use plain English and public court records.

What Is the Dapper Development Lawsuit?

The Dapper Development lawsuit is a business ownership dispute in the North Carolina Business Court, filed in Mecklenburg County in April 2024. Three owners of two home-building and rental companies sued a fourth 25% owner, Andrew Cordell, after voting to remove him and force a buyout of his shares. Cordell filed counterclaims.

The case is formally called Dapper Dev., L.L.C. v. Cordell. Its case number is 24CV018718-590.

CourtListener lists the same case under the docket number 24-CVS-18718. The earlier lawsuit between these people was Andrew Cordell v. Brendan Gelson, et al., No. 2023-CVS-10868.

Dapper builds new homes and renovates and resells single-family homes. Tantalum Holdings, LLC buys and rents out homes, mostly in Mecklenburg County. Four people each owned 25% of the companies.

Cordell was a founding member. Dapper was formed in February 2020 and Tantalum in January 2021. All four had equal votes.

The fight began in June 2023. The three owners who held a majority voted to remove Cordell and offered to buy him out for $485,000 in cash, subject to adjustment, plus a property known as the Winston Property. Cordell said no and made a counteroffer. The owners rejected it.

Hypothetical example (not from the case): Picture four friends who each own 25% of a rental business. Three of them vote to remove the fourth. The fourth friend thinks the buyout price is too low. Who is right? The answer usually sits in the operating agreement, and that is exactly where this court looked.

See also Direct Fairways Lawsuit

Is the Dapper Development Lawsuit the Same as the Dapper Labs Lawsuit?

No. Dapper Development, L.L.C. is a North Carolina company that builds and renovates homes. Dapper Labs, Inc. is a blockchain company behind NBA Top Shot. The two cases involve different companies, different courts, and different legal claims. A settlement you read about in the news almost always belongs to Dapper Labs.

We found no public link between the two companies. Do not apply one company’s settlement to the other.

	Dapper Development, L.L.C.	Dapper Labs, Inc.
What it does	Builds, renovates and sells homes in North Carolina	Blockchain and NFT products, including NBA Top Shot
Type of case	Dispute among LLC owners	Investor class action and consumer privacy class actions
Court	North Carolina Business Court	U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, and others
Verified settlement?	None found	$4 million securities settlement, finally approved October 28, 2024
Can you file a claim?	No. It is a private dispute	Only through official, court-approved settlement websites

See also Google Android Cellular Data Lawsuit

Who Are the Parties, Judges and Courts Involved?

The plaintiffs are Dapper Development, L.L.C., Tantalum Holdings, LLC, and owners Brendan Gelson, Kyle Tudor and Mason Harris. The defendant is Andrew Cordell, the fourth 25% owner. Judge A. Todd Brown wrote the July 2025 ruling, and Chief Judge Louis A. Bledsoe III oversaw Cordell’s earlier lawsuit. The case sits in the North Carolina Business Court.

The North Carolina Business Court is a special state court for complex business disputes. Operating agreement fights, like this one, are a common example.

The companies signed their operating agreements on February 10, 2022. Those contracts set the rules for removing an owner and buying out his share. Almost every ruling in the case comes back to that wording.

Each owner was also a manager. Section 5.2 of the agreements says removing a manager takes a majority vote of the ownership interests. It also let Cordell sign real estate documents for the companies without the other managers’ signatures. Venn Law Group represented the three owners, and Wagner Hicks, PLLC represented Cordell, according to the opinion.

Hypothetical example (not from the case): Sam co-owns a rental LLC with three partners. The agreement makes all four of them managers, so Sam assumes nobody can push him out. Then the other three vote to remove him. Whether that works depends on the removal clause, not on his title. Here, the agreements allowed removal by a majority vote.

See also Nightfall Group Lawsuit

Timeline of the Dapper Development Lawsuit

Dates come from the court’s July 2025 opinion unless noted.

When	What happened
Feb. 2020 and Jan. 2021	Dapper and Tantalum are formed. Cordell is a founding member of both.
Feb. 10, 2022	The four owners sign the operating agreements. Each owns 25% and has an equal vote.
Early 2023	Management disputes begin. From about April to June, the owners try to negotiate a voluntary buyout.
June 14, 2023	The three majority owners vote to terminate Cordell as employee, member and manager. They offer $485,000 in cash, subject to adjustment, plus the Winston Property.
June 15, 2023	Cordell rejects the offer and counters. The owners reject his counteroffer.
June 23, 2023	Cordell sues the other three owners (the “Initial Lawsuit,” No. 2023-CVS-10868).
Nov. 1, 2023	The parties sign a transfer agreement. The Winston Property goes to Cordell’s company as a partial redemption, with a $181,807.51 credit against the buyout price.
Dec. 12-14, 2023	The first appraisal reaches Cordell on December 12. The court enters a Consent Scheduling Order on December 13. The six-month closing deadline falls on December 14.
Feb. 23, 2024	The court grants Cordell’s motion to enforce the Consent Order in part.
April 10, 2024	Cordell voluntarily dismisses the Initial Lawsuit without notice to the other side or the court.
April 23, 2024	The three owners and the two companies file this lawsuit.
Sept. 25, 2024	The court rules on Cordell’s motion to dismiss (2024 NCBC 63).
Oct. 7, 2024	Cordell answers with 15 counterclaims.
Nov. 20, 2024	The owners move for judgment on the pleadings. A hearing follows on February 26, 2025.
July 15, 2025	The court rules on that motion (2025 NCBC 33).
Oct. 28, 2026	We found no verified later ruling, settlement or final judgment.

Case-style takeaway: Look at December 2023. The first appraisal arrived on the 12th, the court entered the Consent Order on the 13th, and the closing deadline fell on the 14th. Those three days feed several of the later arguments. Any buyout timeline should leave room for each step.

See also Janice Griffith Lawsuit

What Did the Court Decide in 2024 (2024 NCBC 63)?

On September 25, 2024, the court let most of the owners’ claims go forward after Cordell asked to dismiss them. The buyout claim, the bank-related breach claim and the declaratory judgment claim all moved ahead. Only parts of the good-faith claim were thrown out. The ruling did not decide who would ultimately win.

Cordell asked the court to dismiss the owners’ claims under Rule 12(b)(6). That rule asks a simple question. If every fact in the claim is true, does it state a legal case? The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.

The buyout claim survived

The owners said Cordell was an employee. They said voting to end his employment was a triggering event under Section 10.2.b of the operating agreements. If so, he had to sell all of his membership and economic interest.

The court found the owners had pleaded enough facts to move forward.

The bank-related claim survived

The owners also said Cordell caused the companies’ bank to make funds unavailable after he lost his manager role. They argued that broke Article 5 of the agreements. The court found the claim met the low Rule 8(a) notice-pleading standard.

The declaratory judgment claim survived

The court saw a real disagreement over each side’s rights and duties. That was enough for a declaratory judgment claim to continue.

The good-faith claim was split

Some allegations about the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing survived. Others only described Cordell using his own contract rights, so the court dismissed them.

The court also held that the 2023 Consent Order is a valid and enforceable contract. It dismissed six of the owners’ good-faith allegations with prejudice and otherwise denied Cordell’s motion. That left the owners’ claims for breach of the operating agreements, breach of the Consent Order, declaratory judgment and abuse of process alive.

What this means in plain English: surviving a motion to dismiss is not a win. It only means the case can keep going.

See also CarGuard Lawsuit

What Did the Court Decide in July 2025 (2025 NCBC 33)?

On July 15, 2025, the court ruled that Cordell was validly removed as a member and manager. It dismissed several of his counterclaims, including his wage claim and his books-and-records claim. But it left the buyout valuation date and some breach claims for later. Neither side won everything.

This time, the owners asked for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). That is a request to win a point using only the court papers, without a trial. A Charlotte law firm, Rayburn Cooper & Durham, summarized the ruling in its Business Court roundup. Here is how it broke down.

Issue	Ruling	Why it mattered
Removal as member and manager	Valid	The agreements said a majority vote of the membership interests ends a member’s status. Once he was out as a member, he was out as a manager.
Triggering event	The June 2023 vote to end his employment counted	The agreements’ plain wording applied, and judicial estoppel blocked his opposite argument.
Employee-status counterclaim	Dismissed with prejudice	He had called himself an employee in his earlier lawsuit.
Wage and Hour Act counterclaim	Dismissed	The bona fide executive exemption in N.C.G.S. § 95-25.14(b)(4) applied to a 25% owner who actively helped manage the business.
Misrepresentation counterclaims	Dismissed	He did not plead reasonable reliance. He had been with the companies since formation and helped draft the agreements.
Books and records claim	Dismissed	The inspection right in N.C.G.S. § 57D-3-04 belongs to members. His demand came after his membership ended.
Judicial dissolution	Dismissed	A former member lacks standing to ask for it.
Fiduciary duty counterclaim	Dismissed	He did not plead the kind of complete control needed for a de facto fiduciary duty.
Offset against the buyout price	Owners won a declaration	A November 2023 transfer agreement and the Consent Order both set a $181,807.51 credit for the Winston Property against the buyout price.

The scorecard: Cordell filed 15 counterclaims. The court dismissed ten with prejudice and one, equitable accounting, without prejudice. Four survived: the valuation date, breach of contract, good faith and fair dealing, and reimbursement.

Details that show how the court thought

The wage claim. North Carolina’s Wage and Hour Act borrows the federal definition of an executive. Under 29 C.F.R. § 541.101, that includes an employee who owns at least a bona fide 20% equity interest and is actively engaged in management. Cordell owned 25%. He also signed a purchase contract for a Kensington Drive property on Dapper’s behalf, and the agreements let him bind the companies alone on property deals.

The books-and-records claim. Cordell’s first demand came on June 16, 2023, two days after the vote. Under N.C.G.S. § 57D-3-04, a member must give written notice at least seven days before an inspection. The notice must say what records he wants and why. The right belongs to members, and he had just been removed.

The fiduciary claim. LLC managers generally owe duties to the company, not to individual members. A de facto duty arises only when one side holds nearly all the power. Cordell said the owners cut off his bank access. But he also said he called the Bank OZK branch manager and got his access back the next day. The court said he still held “a card or two.”

The dissolution claim. Under N.C.G.S. § 57D-6-02, the Attorney General or a member can ask a court to dissolve an LLC. Cordell pointed to City of Charlotte nuisance and permit letters and a homeowners association fee demand. Because he was no longer a member, the court said he could not ask.

The reimbursement claim. Cordell says he paid company debts after his removal because he was a secondary obligor. The court noted that North Carolina law (N.C.G.S. § 26-3.1) lets a guarantor who pays a principal’s debt seek reimbursement. So that claim stayed alive.

What stayed alive for Cordell

The court did not give the owners everything. These issues continued:

• Breach of the operating agreements and good-faith counterclaims, because his pleading met North Carolina’s notice-pleading standard.
• The valuation date, because neither the operating agreements nor the earlier Consent Order clearly named one.
• A reimbursement or contribution counterclaim.
• The owners’ own breach claims about the June 2023 buyout and the Consent Order. The court denied judgment on the buyout-refusal claim because Cordell says the first appraisal arrived only two days before the closing deadline. It also denied judgment on the Consent Order and bank-freeze claims because the owners’ brief did not address them.
• Equitable accounting, which was dismissed as a stand-alone claim but without prejudice to seeking it later as a remedy.

See also Warren Sapp Lawsuit

What Is Judicial Estoppel, and Why Did It Matter Here?

Judicial estoppel stops a person from taking one position in court and the opposite position later to gain an advantage. Here, Cordell had called himself an employee in his earlier lawsuit. The court said he could not now argue the opposite. That helped defeat his declaratory counterclaim.

Courts use this rule to protect fairness. They do not want parties changing their story to fit each new goal.

North Carolina’s Supreme Court first recognized the doctrine in Whitacre Partnership v. Biosignia, Inc. (2004). It said the rule protects courts from parties who “play ‘fast and loose'” with the system. Judges look at three things: whether the new position is clearly inconsistent, whether a court accepted the first one, and whether the party would gain an unfair advantage. Only the first is required.

Cordell had dismissed his first lawsuit, but a voluntary dismissal does not stop the doctrine. The court also said it had relied on his earlier statements when it entered the Consent Order. The owners told the court they spent nearly two years and more than $100,000 on the earlier case and the buyout process.

Hypothetical example (not from the case): Priya tells one judge she was an employee, so she can claim certain benefits. Later, she tells another judge she was never an employee, to avoid a buyout clause. The second judge can hold her to what she said the first time.

Common mistake: treating each lawsuit as a fresh start. Everything you say in one filing can follow you into the next.

See also Tyler Perry Lawsuit

Dapper Development Lawsuit Status: Did It Settle? (October 28, 2026)

We found no verified public report of a settlement, trial result or final judgment in this case. The last ruling we could confirm is dated July 15, 2025. At that point, the buyout valuation date was still undecided. Settlement figures you see online usually belong to the Dapper Labs lawsuits, not this one.

Some “case update” websites claim a settlement or a fixed trial date. We could not verify those claims. A few appear to mix this case with the Dapper Labs litigation.

We checked the court’s July 15, 2025 opinion and the linked sources on October 28, 2026. Court records change, so check them yourself too.

Hypothetical example (not from the case): A reader finds a blog post saying “Dapper settles for $4 million.” Before sharing it, she checks two things. Does the post name a court and a case number? Does the number match a docket? The $4 million figure belongs to Dapper Labs in New York, not to the North Carolina case.

How to check the case yourself

1. Write down the case number: 24CV018718-590.
2. Search it in North Carolina’s online court case search.
3. Read recent opinions on the North Carolina Business Court opinions page.
4. Note the date of the newest order and compare it to July 15, 2025.
5. If you cannot find a filing, ask the Mecklenburg County Clerk of Superior Court or a lawyer. Some filings may not appear in public online search.

See also Pima County Sheriff Lawsuit

What Is a “Triggering Event” in an LLC Buyout?

A triggering event is a moment the operating agreement names as the start of a forced sale. In this case, the court held that the owners’ vote to end Cordell’s employment counted as one. That required him to sell his membership interest, so a key open question became the price.

Think of it as a tripwire written into the contract. Once someone steps on it, the buyout process starts.

In his earlier lawsuit, Cordell told the court he did not dispute that a triggering event had happened. He disputed only what it meant. The 2025 ruling held him to that.

How the buyout price is set

According to Section 10.2(d), as quoted in the court’s opinion, the agreements use an appraisal process. The agreement values the company’s assets at fair market value, subtracts its debts, and multiplies the result by the departing member’s percentage. If the sides cannot agree on the asset value, the process has three steps.

1. If the sides cannot agree on the value of the company’s assets, the company hires and pays a qualified appraiser. For real estate, that means an appraiser with an MAI designation unless everyone agrees otherwise.
2. If the departing member disagrees, he can hire a second appraiser at his own expense.
3. If the company disagrees with the second value, the two appraisers pick a third. The company and the departing member split the third appraiser’s cost. That value binds everyone.

Two more rules matter. The appraisers value the company’s assets but leave out goodwill. And Section 10.2(a) says the sale should close within six months of the triggering event.

Why the valuation date matters

The valuation date is the day the business is valued. It can change the price a lot.

What if the homes the companies own were worth more in June 2023 than they are today? Then a June 2023 valuation date helps the seller. A later date helps the buyer. The court found a real dispute here because the documents did not clearly say which date applies.

Real numbers from the case: The owners say the valuation date is June 14, 2023, the day of the vote. Cordell says it is December 12, 2023, the day he received the first appraisal. The six-month closing deadline fell on December 14, 2023. Cordell says that left him almost no time to use his right to a second appraisal.

What Can LLC Owners Learn From the Dapper Development Lawsuit?

Write your operating agreement clearly, and follow it exactly. Name the valuation date, the appraisal steps and who pays. Keep your statements consistent in every lawsuit. Know that former members may lose inspection and dissolution rights. A small drafting gap can turn into a long fight.

Here are seven lessons from the ruling.

1. Operating agreements control. The LLC Act has default rules, such as N.C.G.S. § 57D-3-02 on when someone stops being a member. But an agreement can change them (§ 57D-2-30). The court followed the agreement.
2. Say the same thing everywhere. Cordell’s earlier statements came back through judicial estoppel, even though he had dismissed that first lawsuit.
3. Name the valuation date and leave time. The agreements never named one. Cordell says the first appraisal arrived two days before the six-month closing deadline.
4. Know your member rights. Inspection rights (§ 57D-3-04) and the right to ask for dissolution (§ 57D-6-02) depend on being a member when you ask. Cordell’s first demand came two days after his removal.
5. Watch the wage rules. An owner with at least a 20% stake who actively manages the business may fall under the executive exemption.
6. Document every buyout step. Offers, counteroffers, transfer agreements, consent orders and dismissals all became part of the record.
7. Brief every issue you want decided. The owners lost a chance at judgment on two claims because their brief skipped them (N.C. Business Court Rule 7.2).

Common mistake: signing a short, template operating agreement and never reading the buyout section. That section is the one everyone reads once there is a fight.

See also MyLawyer360

What Happened in the Dapper Labs Securities Lawsuit?

Investors said NBA Top Shot Moments were unregistered securities. A federal judge in New York let the case proceed in 2023. Dapper Labs then agreed to a $4 million settlement. The court gave final approval on October 28, 2024, and approved about $1.3 million, one-third of the fund, in attorneys’ fees.

Many readers who search for this keyword are really looking for this case. It involves Dapper Labs, Inc., the company behind NBA Top Shot. It has nothing to do with the North Carolina LLC dispute above.

How the case started

A class action filed in May 2021 in the Southern District of New York said Top Shot Moments were unregistered securities. The plaintiffs argued their value depended on the project’s overall popularity. They also said Dapper Labs kept buyers from cashing out for months and did not allow trading on outside platforms.

On February 22, 2023, Judge Victor Marrero denied Dapper Labs’ motion to dismiss. Baker McKenzie lawyers noted he was the first district judge to hold that an NFT issuer offered an investment contract. Judges often use a test from the 1946 Supreme Court case SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. to decide that question.

One Baker McKenzie partner stressed it was “certainly not a holding that all NFTs are securities.”

Under that test, an investment contract exists when someone invests money in a common enterprise and expects profits from others’ efforts. The SEC explains the test on its digital asset framework page. That page now marks the 2019 framework as withdrawn and superseded by newer SEC guidance on crypto assets, so check the SEC’s current materials.

The $4 million settlement

On June 4, 2024, Judge Marrero gave initial approval to a $4 million settlement fund. That one amount covered payments to class members, attorneys’ fees and administration costs. Final approval came on October 28, 2024, and the court approved fees of one-third of the fund, about $1.3 million, according to Bloomberg Law.

The New York Law Journal used those numbers to discuss broader NFT settlement trends.

The deal also included business changes, according to CoinDesk’s report. Dapper Labs agreed to mandatory employee training on securities-law compliance and ethical marketing, faster payments and withdrawals, and giving up control of its remaining FLOW tokens to the Flow Foundation. The settlement binds only the parties to the suit. It does not bind regulators.

Dapper Labs’ CEO, Roham Gharegozlou, said after the deal that digital collectibles are “not securities in the same way trading cards are not securities.” The investors’ claims, of course, said otherwise.

CoinDesk reported that Gharegozlou was not aware of any regulator claiming Moments are securities. Fortune had reported that the SEC once investigated Dapper Labs but closed that probe in September 2023.

What if you bought Top Shot Moments in 2021? You may have been a class member. Final approval was in October 2024, so the claim period for that case has likely closed. Check the official settlement website, not a news article, for exact rules.

See also Samsung S22 Software Update Lawsuit

What About the Dapper Labs Privacy Lawsuits and Settlement Claims?

Separate from the securities case, Dapper Labs also faced a privacy class action over online tracking. News reports put that settlement at about $7 million. Claim rules, deadlines and eligibility differ by case, and some deadlines may have passed. Always use the official court-approved settlement website, never a third-party site.

Privacy cases like this are different from the securities case. They involve consumers, not investors. The class definitions and payments differ too.

Hypothetical example (not from the case): You get a text that says, “Claim your Top Shot payout now. Pay a $5 processing fee.” A legitimate class settlement does not charge you to file a claim. Skip the text and look up the case number instead.

How to spot an official settlement website

Settlement scams exist. Before you enter any personal information, check four things:

• It names the court and case number.
• It is linked from the law firm’s or court’s official notice.
• It never charges a fee to file a claim.
• It lists a real claims administrator with a mailing address.

See also Emuaid Lawsuit

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the Dapper Development lawsuit settle?

We could not verify any settlement, trial result or final judgment. The last confirmed ruling is from July 15, 2025, and the buyout valuation date was still open then. Reports of a “Dapper settlement” usually involve Dapper Labs, a different company. Check the court docket for the latest updates.

Who is winning the Dapper Development lawsuit?

It is mixed. The owners won rulings on Cordell’s removal, the triggering event and several counterclaims. Cordell kept some breach of contract, good faith and reimbursement claims alive. Because the buyout price was still open in July 2025, neither side had a final win. Courts often decide these questions in stages.

Is Dapper Development the same as Dapper Labs?

No. Dapper Development, L.L.C. builds and renovates homes in North Carolina. Dapper Labs, Inc. runs blockchain products such as NBA Top Shot. They are in different courts with different claims. We found no public link between the two companies, so do not apply one company’s settlement to the other.

Can I join the Dapper Development lawsuit?

No. This is a private dispute among business owners, not a class action. Only the named companies and owners are parties. If you are looking for a class action, you may mean the Dapper Labs cases. Those have their own official settlement websites and rules.

Can the rulings be appealed?

Generally, North Carolina appeals wait until a final judgment. Orders that leave claims unresolved are usually called interlocutory, and they are hard to appeal right away. There are limited exceptions. The parties’ lawyers would need to decide whether one applies. This article cannot say whether any appeal is pending.

Can a majority of LLC owners remove a minority owner?

It depends on the operating agreement. In this case, the agreements said a member is terminated by a majority vote of the membership interests, and the court enforced that. Your own agreement may differ, so have a lawyer read it before you vote on anything. The exact words matter.

How do I check the current status of the case?

Search the case number, 24CV018718-590, in the North Carolina court system’s online case search. You can also read recent opinions on the North Carolina Business Court opinions page. Commercial legal-news sites may help, but court records are the best source. A lawyer or the clerk’s office can help if you get stuck.

Can I get money from a Dapper Labs settlement?

Possibly, but only through an official, court-approved settlement website for the specific case. The $4 million securities settlement received final approval in October 2024, so its claim period has likely closed. Privacy settlement rules differ. Confirm deadlines and eligibility on the official site before you submit anything.

Conclusion

The Dapper Development lawsuit is a North Carolina LLC ownership fight, not the Dapper Labs NFT case. The court has enforced Cordell’s removal and found a triggering event. At the last ruling we could confirm, the buyout price was still open.

The big lesson is simple. Your operating agreement is the rulebook, and small gaps can become big fights.

Disclaimer: This content is general information only and not legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction about your situation.