Buyers in the firearms manufacturing sector are seeking immediate court action after alleging that sellers failed to deliver key assets and interfered with customer relationships following a $2.3 million transaction. The complaint was filed by Whitworth Tool Holdings, LLC and WT Special Holdings, LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on March 23, 2026, naming Little Mountain Precision, LLC, Maple Leasing, LLC, 3 Precision, LLC, John Habe IV, and Doug Habe as defendants.
According to the verified complaint, Whitworth Tool Holdings and WT Special Holdings (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” or “Buyers”) negotiated an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) with Little Mountain Precision, Maple Leasing, and 3 Precision (referred to as “Defendants” or “Sellers”). The APA was executed effective January 15, 2026. Plaintiffs allege that the purchase price of $2,325,000 was applied to reduce existing debt owed by Sellers to Erie Bank. The sale closed on February 27, 2026.
The Buyers claim they were entitled under the APA to remove purchased assets—including machinery, equipment, tooling, inventory, customer contracts and related materials—from Sellers’ facilities within sixty days of closing. Plaintiffs state they arranged for a private company known as “Riggers” to begin transferring these physical assets immediately after closing.
However, the complaint outlines a series of disputes that arose during this process. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants began removing tooling from acquired machines prior to Buyers’ arrival and intermingled parts with other materials in order to conceal them. Photographic evidence attached as exhibits reportedly shows before-and-after conditions supporting these claims. Additionally, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants imposed unreasonable restrictions on access by limiting Riggers’ hours onsite and requiring constant supervision by Defendant Doug Habe.
The Buyers further contend that certain essential equipment—such as the Fanuc Robot Feed System—was specifically listed in the APA but has not been turned over despite repeated demands. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have wrongfully claimed some items are not part of the sale or constitute “disposable tooling,” even though those items are allegedly excluded from what Buyers seek possession of through this action.
Another point of contention involves customer contracts and business relationships transferred under the APA. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant John Habe IV contacted their largest former customer before closing—Hechler & Koch (HK)—and made disparaging remarks about Whitworth’s principal while Buyers were contractually barred from contacting HK at that time. After closing and receiving HK’s signed consent for assignment on March 20, 2026—which directed Sellers to cooperate in transferring all related assets—Plaintiffs claim Defendants continued refusing access and interfering with execution of both the APA and HK Consent.
The legal filing includes multiple counts: breach of contract; replevin (seeking return of property); tortious interference with business and contractual relations; conversion (wrongful control over property); civil conspiracy; and requests for declaratory judgment regarding assignment of customer contracts. Specifically,
– Plaintiffs assert Defendants breached express terms by withholding purchased assets;
– They seek an order allowing immediate possession pursuant to Ohio law;
– They allege intentional interference with business relationships through false statements made without privilege;
– They claim conversion due to removal or concealment of assets;
– They accuse Defendants—including individual owners John Habe IV and Doug Habe—of conspiring to breach agreements and misappropriate property.
In their prayer for relief,
– Plaintiffs request temporary restraining orders,
– Preliminary and permanent injunctions compelling turnover of all disputed assets,
– Orders preventing further interference with transferred customers,
– Damages exceeding $75,000,
– Compensatory and punitive damages for alleged civil conspiracy,
– Attorney fees,
– And declaratory judgments confirming assignment rights over specific customer contracts such as those with HK and Weatherby Inc.
The case is represented by attorneys Robert T. Glickman (0059579), Hugh D. Berkson (0063997), and Taylor S. Mehalko (0103772) from McCarthy Lebit Crystal & Liffman Co., L.P.A., Cleveland. The case number is 1:26-cv-00686.
