Editor: Brian JM QuinnBoston College Law School
Sponsored by Wolters Kluwer
Thursday, April 10, 2008
By Steven M. Davidoff
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
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support M & A Law Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
PageViews Since May 17, 2009