M & A Law Prof Blog

Editor: Brian JM Quinn
Boston College Law School

Thursday, April 10, 2008

CCU Summary J. Motion

Download Memorandum_of_Law.pdf


| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference CCU Summary J. Motion:


If the NY case was a claim only for breach, the banks would easily have things ring-fenced

If I was the sitting Justice on the NY case, I'd want to hear more about the Buyer/Sponsors' claims for Fraud and Conspiracy

Further evidence might lead to a finding of "conspiracy to breach" using "bait and switch" (fraudulent representation) tactics, which if found existing, might result in a specific performance directive

So, I'd deny banks' motion for summary judgement, to see what parol evidence related to fraud and conspiracy comes out in the discovery process.

As for the breach claim, banks are likely correct, ie no breach with time remaining

Posted by: mike | Apr 11, 2008 6:44:09 PM

Post a comment