FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/28/ :48 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2015

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/28/ :48 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2015"

Transcription

1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/28/ :48 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK CAPITAL ONE TAXI MEDALLION FINANCE, v. Plaintiff, Index No /2015 PATTON R. CORRIGAN and MICHAEL LEVINE, Defendants. DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT Bruce Zirinsky 375 Park Avenue, Suite 2607 New York, New York (212) Steven F. Molo Robert K. Kry Hassan A. Shah (pro hac vice) MOLO LAMKEN LLP 540 Madison Avenue New York, New York (212) (telephone) (212) (facsimile) smolo@mololamken.com Attorneys for Defendants July 28, 2015

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT...1 STATEMENT OF FACTS...2 I. TFA s Medallion Financing Venture with Capital One...2 II. Capital One s Bad-Faith Repudiation of Its Obligations Under the Loan and Security Agreement...4 III. Capital One s Bad-Faith Refusal to Honor the Letter Agreement...6 IV. The Illinois and New York Proceedings...7 STANDARD OF REVIEW...8 ARGUMENT...8 I. There Are Genuine Disputes of Fact over Whether Mr. Corrigan and Mr. Levine Are Liable on the Guarantees...8 A. Capital One Wrongfully Caused the Purported Default Capital One Wrongfully Caused TFA s Purported Default Through Its Bad-Faith Repudiation of the Loan and Security Agreement Capital One Wrongfully Caused TFA s Purported Default Through Its Bad-Faith Refusal to Honor the Letter Agreement...12 B. Capital One Materially Altered the Terms of the Lending Facility and the Risks Assumed by the Guarantors...13 C. Capital One Fraudulently Induced the Guarantee Extensions...15 D. Capital One Negligently Impaired the Collateral Supporting the Lending Facility...15 II. There Are Genuine Disputes of Fact over the Applicability and Enforceability of the Waivers of Defenses...17 A. Waivers of Defenses Do Not Apply Where the Lender Causes the Borrower s Default...17 B. The Waivers of Defenses Are Unenforceable Capital One s Duty of Good Faith Is Not Waivable...19 i

3 2. Capital One s Duty to Preserve Collateral Is Not Waivable Capital One Cannot Insulate Itself from Liability for Its Own Willful Misconduct and Gross Negligence The Waivers Do Not Preclude the Guarantors Fraud Claim...22 C. The Guarantees Expressly Limit the Guarantors Liability to the Extent There Is a Final Adjudication of TFA s Claims Against Capital One...23 D. Capital One Is Judicially Estopped from Invoking the Waivers...24 CONCLUSION...25 ii

4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Abacus Fed. Sav. Bank v. ADT Servs., Inc., 18 N.Y.3d 675 (2012)...21 Accadia Site Contracting, Inc. v. Erie Cnty. Water Auth., 115 A.D.3d 1351 (4th Dep t 2014)...23 Andrews v. Artisans Bank, 26 N.Y. 298 (1863)...23 Barclays Bank of N.Y., N.A. v. Heady Elec. Co., 174 A.D.2d 963 (3d Dep t 1991)...11, 21 Bier Pension Plan Trust v. Estate of Schneierson, 74 N.Y.2d 312 (1989)...14 Bonds Fin., Inc. v. Kestrel Techs., LLC, 48 A.D.3d 230 (1st Dep t 2008)...8 Brown v. Cara, 420 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2005)...12 Canterbury Realty & Equip. Corp. v. Poughkeepsie Sav. Bank, 135 A.D.2d 102 (3d Dep t 1988)... passim Carvel Corp. v. Diversified Mgmt. Grp., Inc., 930 F.2d 228 (2d Cir. 1991)...10 Citibank, N.A. v. Plapinger, 66 N.Y.2d 90 (1985)...22 City of New York v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 253 A.D. 676 (1st Dep t 1938)...24 Cmty. Pres. Corp. v. Wadsworth Condos, LLC, 37 Misc. 3d 1219(A), 2012 WL (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Mar. 9, 2012)...18 Components Direct, Inc. v. European Am. Bank & Trust Co., 175 A.D.2d 227 (2d Dep t 1991)...10, 11 Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A. v. Navarro, No. 54, 2015 WL (N.Y. June 9, 2015)...1, 8, 18, 19 D&L Holdings, LLC v. RCG Goldman Co., LLC, 287 A.D.2d 65 (1st Dep t 2001)...24, 25 Dalton v. Educ. Testing Serv., 87 N.Y.2d 384 (1995)...10 Deutsche Alt-A Sec. Mortg. Loan Trust, Series 2006-OA1 v. DB Structured Prods., Inc., 958 F. Supp. 2d 488 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)...21 Deutsche Bank Nat l Trust Co. v. Decision One Mortg., LLC, No L 5823, 2013 WL (Ill. Cir. Ct. Nov. 19, 2013)...21 iii

5 European Am. Bank v. Mr. Wemmick, Ltd., 160 A.D.2d 905 (2d Dep t 1990)...19 Exec. Bank of Ft. Lauderdale v. Tighe, 66 A.D.2d 70 (2d Dep t 1978)...16 FDIC v. Frank L. Marino Corp., 74 A.D.2d 620 (2d Dep t 1980)...16, 20 Fehr Bros. v. Scheinman, 121 A.D.2d 13 (1st Dep t 1986)...14 First Citizens Bank & Trust Co. of Utica v. Sherman s Estate, 250 A.D. 339 (4th Dep t 1937)...15 Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Kalkstein, 101 A.D.2d 102 (1st Dep t 1984)...15 Goodridge v. Fernandez, 121 A.D.2d 942 (1st Dep t 1986)...22 Greenwood Packing Corp. v. Newman, 147 A.D.2d 673 (2d Dep t 1989)...14 Gross v. Sweet, 49 N.Y.2d 102 (1979)...21 GTE Automatic Elec. Inc. v. Martin s Inc., 127 A.D.2d 545 (1st Dep t 1987)...22 IDT Corp. v. Tyco Grp., 13 N.Y.3d 209 (2009)...12 Kimco of N.Y., Inc. v. Devon, 163 A.D.2d 573 (2d Dep t 1990)...25 Maas v. Cornell Univ., 253 A.D.2d 1 (3d Dep t 1999)...25 Mangold v. Keip, 177 Misc. 2d 953 (App. Term 1st Dep t 1998)...14 Mfrs. Hanover Trust Co. v. Yanakas, 7 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 1993)...22, 23 Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Kristin Int l Ltd., 141 A.D.2d 259 (4th Dep t 1988)...19, 20 Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co. v. Sullivan, 188 A.D.2d 1023 (4th Dep t 1992)...9 Midland Steel Warehouse Corp. v. Godinger Silver Art Ltd., 276 A.D.2d 341 (1st Dep t 2000)...13 Nat l Westminster Bank USA v. Ross, 676 F. Supp. 48 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)...19, 22 NatWest Bank N.A. v. Grauberd, 228 A.D.2d 337 (1st Dep t 1996)...16, 17, 20 New Neth. Bank of N.Y. v. Dernburg, 206 A.D. 212 (1st Dep t 1923)...16 Norcon Power Partners, L.P. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 458 (1998)...23 People v. Metro. Sur. Co., 171 A.D. 15 (3d Dep t 1916)...23 iv

6 Porto Rico v. Title Guar. & Sur. Co., 227 U.S. 382 (1913)...8 Powers v. Clarke, 127 N.Y. 417 (1891)...20 Psaty & Fuhrman v. Cont l Cas. Co., 278 A.D. 159 (1st Dep t 1951)...24 Red Tulip, LLC v. Neiva, 44 A.D.3d 204 (1st Dep t 2007)...9 Richbell Info. Servs., Inc. v. Jupiter Partners, L.P., 309 A.D.2d 288 (1st Dep t 2003)...10 Royal Palm Senior Investors, LLC v. Carbon Capital II, Inc., No. 08-cv-4319, 2009 WL (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2009)...19, 20 Schuster v. Dragone Classic Motor Cars, Inc., 98 F. Supp. 2d 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)...22 Signature Bank v. Laro Maint. Corp., No /2009, 2011 WL (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cnty. June 21, 2011)...9, 17, 18 SNC, Ltd. v. Kamine Eng g & Mech. Contracting Co., 238 A.D.2d 146 (1st Dep t 1997)...12 Sterling Nat l Bank v. Goldberg, 277 A.D.2d 45 (1st Dep t 2000)...10 Sweeters v. Hodges, 256 A.D.2d 185 (1st Dep t 1998)...13, 18 TAP Holdings, LLC v. Orix Fin. Corp., 45 Misc. 3d 1217(A), 2014 WL (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Nov. 7, 2014)...11 Zyskind v. FaceCake Mktg. Techs., Inc., 101 A.D.3d 550 (1st Dep t 2012)...22 STATUTES C.P.L.R , 8 U.C.C (b)...19 U.C.C (a)...16 U.C.C cmt OTHER AUTHORITIES A. Barry Cappello, Lender Liability (5th ed. 2014)...9, N.Y. Jur. 2d Guaranty and Suretyship 336 (rev. 2015)...9 v

7 63 N.Y. Jur. 2d Guaranty and Suretyship 344 (rev. 2015)...23 Restatement (Third) of Suretyship & Guaranty 37(2)(b) (1996) Williston on Contracts 63:22 (4th ed. rev. 2005)...10 vi

8 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Capital One seeks summary judgment against defendants on their personal guarantees for more than $57 million pursuant to C.P.L.R In support of that extraordinary relief, it baldly asserts that there are no meritorious defenses to the claims, that there are no triable issues of fact, and that all of the guarantors defenses have been waived as a matter of law. Capital One is wrong. Factual disputes abound in this case over the enforceability, the amount, and indeed even the very existence of the guarantees. And contrary to Capital One s inapposite case law, the waivers in the guarantees do not foreclose those disputes. The New York Court of Appeals reaffirmed just last month that an absolute and unconditional guaranty does not foreclose a guarantor s challenge that the creditor s wrongful post-execution conduct triggered the event that accelerates or causes the guarantor s liability. Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A. v. Navarro, No. 54, 2015 WL (N.Y. June 9, 2015). That is exactly what happened here. For years, Transit Funding Associates LLC ( TFA ) relied on Capital One to fund its taxi medallion loans. But Capital One repudiated its commitments partway through the contract and abandoned the Chicago medallion lending market so it could pursue a competing venture with the ride-sharing service Uber. Now, like the proverbial boy who murders his parents and then pleads for mercy on the ground that he s an orphan, Capital One seeks to collect on its guarantees even though its own bad-faith conduct caused TFA s purported default. Indeed, the guarantees expressly limit the guarantors liability to the extent the Court finds that TFA has a valid defense under the loan agreement. TFA has asserted precisely such claims here, in the companion case against Capital One also now pending before this Court. Under the plain language of the guarantees, the Court cannot determine the guarantors liability while that underlying dispute remains to be adjudicated. 1

9 Those are just a few of the many factual disputes that preclude summary judgment in this case. Capital One s motion should be denied. STATEMENT OF FACTS I. TFA S MEDALLION FINANCING VENTURE WITH CAPITAL ONE In 2006, defendants Patton Corrigan and Michael Levine formed TFA to provide loans to purchasers of taxi medallions in the Chicago market. Corrigan Aff. 2. Those medallions confer the right to operate a taxicab in Chicago. Id. Most of TFA s borrowers are small, minority-owned businesses who rely on the medallion loans to earn their livelihoods. Id. 3. To finance its business, TFA initially entered into an agreement with a local Chicago bank, Cole Taylor. Corrigan Aff. 6. In 2009, however, Capital One induced TFA to leave Cole Taylor and form a new joint venture with Capital One instead. Id. Capital One historically had no real presence in the Chicago market and was eager to exploit TFA s resources. Id. 7. It therefore proposed that the two companies work together, with TFA generating business, handling collections, and performing other back-office functions, while Capital One provided funding. Id. 8. Capital One funded the venture through a series of credit facilities that allowed TFA to draw down advances as it issued medallion loans. Corrigan Aff. 12. Those facilities included an April 6, 2012 Loan and Security Agreement that provided TFA with an $80 million credit line. Id. 12 & Ex. 1. In August 2013, the parties extended that facility to July 1, 2014, with an automatic three-month extension to October 1, Id. 13 & Ex. 2. The Loan and Security Agreement required Capital One to advance funds to TFA upon request throughout the entire term of the agreement. Section 2.1(c), for example, states that Capital One will make Advances to the Borrower from time to time until the [expiration date], in such sums as the Borrower may request, provided that the aggregate principal amount... 2

10 shall not exceed the Maximum Facility Amount. Corrigan Aff. Ex (c) (emphasis added). Sections 2.1(b) and 2.1(d) contain similar mandates. Id. 2.1(b), (d). While the agreement required Capital One to advance funds throughout the facility s full term, Section 2.1(g) permitted Capital One to decline particular requests for advances in its discretion for example, if it had concerns about the creditworthiness of a specific borrower. Corrigan Aff. Ex (g). That provision, however, did not purport to waive Capital One s duty to exercise that discretion in good faith in light of the broader purposes of the agreement. And it contained no language permitting Capital One to abandon the medallion lending business, cease making advances altogether, or terminate the facility prior to its expiration date. Capital One insisted that Mr. Corrigan, Mr. Levine, and several TFA affiliates guarantee TFA s obligations under the credit facility. Corrigan Aff. 17 & Ex. 3; Levine Aff. Ex. 1. And it required them to extend those guarantees when it extended the credit facility in August Corrigan Aff. Ex. 2. Capital One drafted all those documents and presented them on a take-it-orleave-it basis, with no opportunity to negotiate terms. Corrigan Aff The guarantees provide that, upon any default by the Borrower in the timely payment of any monetary Borrower s Liabilities to the Lender, the Guarantor will promptly pay the same. Corrigan Aff. Ex. 3 at 1. They include standard language reciting that they are absolute, irrevocable, and unconditional and purport to waive all defenses [t]o the extent permitted by law. Id. at 2-3. Nonetheless, the guarantees expressly limit the guarantors liability to the extent that there is a final adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction of a valid defense to Borrower s obligations under the Loan Documents to payment of its liabilities. Id. at 3. TFA relied on Capital One s commitments to the venture over many years when it entered into and extended its credit facility. Corrigan Aff. 16. Mr. Corrigan and Mr. Levine relied on that same understanding when they executed and extended the guarantees. Corrigan 3

11 Aff. 20; Levine Aff TFA and its guarantors also relied on that understanding when TFA granted Capital One a security interest in its medallion loan portfolio and virtually all other assets, and the guarantors granted a security interest in their portfolio of 48 medallions worth about $17 million. Corrigan Aff. 21 & Ex (c)(v)-(vi), 3.1; Levine Aff. 7. II. CAPITAL ONE S BAD-FAITH REPUDIATION OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT In early 2014, the medallion market was thriving, and TFA was poised to take advantage of those conditions. Corrigan Aff. 28. TFA had just renewed its credit facility with Capital One in August Id. That facility was far from expiring and substantially below its lending limit, and TFA was not in default in any respect. Id. Without warning or explanation, however, Capital One suddenly began denying TFA s requests for advances. On February 25, 2014, Capital One denied a request for $1.3 million to fund three loans, even though it had previously approved them. Corrigan Aff. 29 & Ex. 4. Capital One did not claim there was any credit defect but instead simply stated that it was no longer interested in funding these applications that were approved. Id. Concerned about Capital One s intentions, TFA inquired whether Capital One was still lending in the Chicago medallion market. Id. 30 & Ex. 5. Capital One responded that it was not. Id. It then denied all of TFA s requests for the remainder of the facility s term. Id. 32. Capital One s motives were unclear at the time. More recently, however, it has emerged that Capital One made a strategic decision to abandon the taxi medallion financing business nationwide in favor of a new partnership with the ride-sharing service Uber. Corrigan Aff. 33. Capital One began offering significant discounts on Uber fares if consumers paid with a Capital One credit card. Id. 34 & Ex. 6. Capital One heavily promoted that new venture. Id

12 Uber competes directly with the taxi services financed by TFA s medallion loans. Corrigan Aff. 36. A leading industry publication noted that Capital One s partnership with Uber ironically[] puts additional pressure on its medallion-lending business, and that taxi companies, some of which rely on Capital One for financing, will get hurt by cheaper pricing for ride-sharing services. Id. 36 & Ex. 8. It quoted a financial analyst as observing that Capital One was partnering with someone who s cannibalizing some of [its] own business. Id. Capital One secretly formed those plans to exit the medallion financing business before TFA and its guarantors renewed the credit facility in August A Capital One employee almost exposed the plans in April 2013 when she posted to her Facebook page that she was [c]elebrat[ing] the demise of specialty funding the group responsible for medallion loans. Corrigan Aff. 43 & Ex. 11. Upon seeing that post, Mr. Corrigan expressed serious concerns to Capital One s executives. Id. 44. But they dismissed the post and falsely reassured him that Capital One remained committed to the venture. Id. Mr. Corrigan and Mr. Levine would not have extended their guarantees absent those assurances. Id. 45; Levine Aff. 8. Given the dominant position that Capital One had obtained in the Chicago market by that time, Capital One s withdrawal effectively caused a run on the bank, as other lenders ceased making new loans as well. Corrigan Aff. 37. As a result, TFA was unable to carry on its business and had no other source of funding to refinance its credit facility. Id. Capital One s actions also destroyed liquidity in the medallion market and thus the value of the medallions and medallion loans securing TFA s facility. Id. 38. Finally, Capital One thwarted the guarantors efforts to sell their 48 medallions to raise cash to pay down or further secure the loan. Even though the guarantors had located buyers for the medallions worth about $17 million at the time Capital One arbitrarily refused to release its liens on them. Id. 39 & Exs

13 III. CAPITAL ONE S BAD-FAITH REFUSAL TO HONOR THE LETTER AGREEMENT Capital One s actions left TFA with no choice but to wind down its business. Corrigan Aff. 50. To that end, on September 16, 2014, Capital One and TFA agreed to a detailed Letter Agreement to allow TFA to avoid a default while liquidating its remaining loans. Corrigan Aff. Ex. 20. That agreement extended TFA s facility but required TFA to apply all proceeds from its loan portfolio to pay down the facility rather than making new loans. Id. at 1-2. Capital One, however, failed to live up to its obligations under that agreement as well. Despite promising that the transaction would close by September 30, 2014, Capital One did not provide an initial draft of the closing documents until November 7. Corrigan Aff TFA promptly provided comments and was assured that final documents would be forthcoming shortly. Id. 62. But Capital One never provided them. Id. 63, 71. Capital One also insisted on burdensome, unauthorized field examinations. It demanded over twenty categories of documents from TFA, over five different time periods. Corrigan Aff. 64 & Ex. 22. It also required field examinations of some of TFA s guarantors that were not authorized by the agreement. Id. 65. During a phone call, Capital One Senior Vice President Paul Dell Aquilo admitted that those examinations were not authorized and described them as an emotional issue of his colleagues, who were on a witch hunt. Id. 67. Capital One also began trying to extort additional payments from TFA. It demanded that TFA pay $1.1 million to cure a supposed borrowing base deficiency, even though that requirement had been specifically deleted during negotiations. Corrigan Aff. 69. Mr. Dell Aquilo admitted that the requirement had been deleted and that the bank had not previously demanded such a payment under the Letter Agreement. Id. 70. He was unable to explain why his colleagues were insisting on the payment and described it as a proposed change in terms. 6

14 Id. 70 & Exs The bank fired Mr. Dell Aquilo two weeks later. Id. 71. Capital One then insisted that TFA sign a purported standstill agreement as a condition of further discussions. Corrigan Aff & Ex. 28. Far from providing for a standstill, however, the agreement contained a lengthy list of waivers and admissions designed to insulate Capital One from liability. Id. When TFA protested, Capital One responded with an even more oppressive draft and threatened to sue if TFA did not sign. Id. 79 & Ex. 30. IV. THE ILLINOIS AND NEW YORK PROCEEDINGS TFA and its guarantors had no choice but to file suit against Capital One in Illinois on May 19, Corrigan Aff. Ex. 31. Capital One responded by suing Mr. Corrigan and Mr. Levine in this Court on May 27. On June 3, the Illinois court dismissed TFA s suit based on an expansive reading of a forum selection clause. Corrigan Aff. Ex. 32. TFA and its guarantors appealed and moved to expedite the appeal. Corrigan Aff. Ex. 33. Capital One opposed that motion, urging that expedition was unnecessary because, even if Capital One succeeds in enforcing its rights under the guarantees of the loan agreement, it would not be before Plaintiffs were afforded their day in court, where they could raise any and all defenses to collection, including the claims raised in the action below. Corrigan Aff. Ex. 34 at 2 (emphasis added); see also id. at 8 ( Plaintiffs are in no way prevented from bringing all their Illinois claims as defenses to the New York Action should they choose to do so. ). The Illinois court agreed and denied TFA s motion. Corrigan Aff. Ex. 35. Lacking any prospect of timely relief in Illinois, TFA and its guarantors sued Capital One in this Court on June 30, 2015, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and other claims based on Capital One s history of wrongful conduct throughout the parties relationship. Corrigan Aff. Ex. 36. The suit seeks a declaration that TFA is not liable under the Loan and Security Agreement and that the guarantors are not liable on their guarantees. Id That case 7

15 is pending before this Court and has been designated a related case. See Transit Funding Associates LLC v. Capital One Equipment Finance Corp., No /2015. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under C.P.L.R. 3213, the Court must deny summary judgment whenever outside proof is needed, other than simple proof of nonpayment or a similarly de minimis deviation from the face of the document. Bonds Fin., Inc. v. Kestrel Techs., LLC, 48 A.D.3d 230, 231 (1st Dep t 2008). The Court must also deny summary judgment whenever there are triable issues of fact. Id. The Court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of defendants. Id. ARGUMENT There are multiple factual disputes over Mr. Corrigan s and Mr. Levine s liability on their guarantees. Contrary to Capital One s claims, the waivers in the guarantees do not foreclose their arguments. Capital One s motion should be denied. I. THERE ARE GENUINE DISPUTES OF FACT OVER WHETHER MR. CORRIGAN AND MR. LEVINE ARE LIABLE ON THE GUARANTEES A. Capital One Wrongfully Caused the Purported Default Under New York law, a lender cannot enforce a guarantee if it unfairly brought about the occurrence of the very [purported default] upon which it relie[s] to accelerate the loan against the guarantors. Canterbury Realty & Equip. Corp. v. Poughkeepsie Sav. Bank, 135 A.D.2d 102, 107 (3d Dep t 1988). That rule precludes liability whenever the creditor s wrongful postexecution conduct triggered the event that accelerates or causes the guarantor s liability. Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A. v. Navarro, No. 54, 2015 WL (N.Y. June 9, 2015). If the plaintiff made performance [by the borrower] impossible, it is unimaginable that any civilized system of law would allow it to recover upon the [guarantee]. Porto Rico v. Title Guar. & Sur. Co., 227 U.S. 382, 389 (1913) (Holmes, J.). 8

16 In Canterbury, for example, the lender tried to enforce a guarantee by invoking the borrower s suspension of business and adverse change in... financial condition. 135 A.D.2d at 106. The court denied summary judgment based on evidence that the bank s own actions caused those supposed defaults: The bank had improperly refused to honor the borrower s checks and withheld alternative financing. Id. at Similar cases abound. 1 Those same principles apply here. Capital One wrongfully caused TFA s purported default, both when it abandoned the Chicago market and repudiated its commitment to advance funds to TFA and when it later reneged on its obligations under the Letter Agreement. 1. Capital One Wrongfully Caused TFA s Purported Default Through Its Bad-Faith Repudiation of the Loan and Security Agreement The Loan and Security Agreement required Capital One to advance funds upon request throughout the entire term of the agreement. It expressly provides that Capital One will make Advances to the Borrower from time to time until the [expiration date]. Corrigan Aff. Ex (c) (emphasis added); see also id. 2.1(b), (d). It contains no provisions authorizing Capital One to terminate the agreement at will or otherwise abandon its funding commitments partway through. Capital One flouted those obligations by refusing to make new loans, or even roll over existing ones, after February 2014 even though the agreement was far from expiring and well below its lending limit, and TFA was not in default in any way. Corrigan Aff See, e.g., Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co. v. Sullivan, 188 A.D.2d 1023, 1023 (4th Dep t 1992) (denying summary judgment because factual issues exist whether plaintiff interfered with or prevented the occurrence of conditions which would have terminated defendants liability under the guaranties ); Signature Bank v. Laro Maint. Corp., No /2009, 2011 WL (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cnty. June 21, 2011) (similar); 63 N.Y. Jur. 2d Guaranty and Suretyship 336 (rev. 2015) ( If the creditor makes performance by the principal impossible, the creditor cannot recover against the surety or guarantor for failure of the principal to perform. ); A. Barry Cappello, Lender Liability at 72 (5th ed. 2014) (similar); cf. Red Tulip, LLC v. Neiva, 44 A.D.3d 204, (1st Dep t 2007) (applying Canterbury). 9

17 Section 2.1(g) gave Capital One discretion over particular advances. Corrigan Aff. Ex (g). But that discretion did not include the right to abandon the lending market or stop advancing funds altogether. Even where a contract contemplates the exercise of discretion, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing includes a promise not to act arbitrarily or irrationally in exercising that discretion. Dalton v. Educ. Testing Serv., 87 N.Y.2d 384, 389 (1995) (emphasis added). [E]ven an explicitly discretionary contract right may not be exercised in bad faith so as to frustrate the other party s right to the benefit under the agreement. Richbell Info. Servs., Inc. v. Jupiter Partners, L.P., 309 A.D.2d 288, 302 (1st Dep t 2003); see also Carvel Corp. v. Diversified Mgmt. Grp., Inc., 930 F.2d 228, (2d Cir. 1991) (similar); 23 Williston on Contracts 63:22 (4th ed. rev. 2005) ( [E]ven where a defendant is given absolute discretion, it must exercise that discretion in good faith. ). Courts have repeatedly invoked that rule to prohibit lenders from exercising discretionary powers in bad faith. In Canterbury, the court denied summary judgment against a guarantor based on evidence that the bank had accelerated the loan in bad faith. 135 A.D.2d at 109. Such a clause does not authorize a lender to accelerate payment arbitrarily, the court explained; at a minimum, it must be motivated by good faith. Id. And [t]ypically, the question of whether the lender has invoked the clause in good faith is a question of fact. Id. Likewise, in Sterling National Bank v. Goldberg, 277 A.D.2d 45 (1st Dep t 2000), the court denied summary judgment against a guarantor because issues of fact exist[ed] as to whether [the lender] breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it precipitously cut off the debtors line of credit without notice. Id. at 47. In Components Direct, Inc. v. European American Bank & Trust Co., 175 A.D.2d 227 (2d Dep t 1991), the court held that, even where a lender has an absolute right to terminate credit (unlike Capital One here), absent valid business reasons... the obligation of good faith would require a period of notice to 10

18 allow the corporate plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to seek alternate credit. Id. at And in TAP Holdings, LLC v. Orix Finance Corp., 45 Misc. 3d 1217(A), 2014 WL (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Nov. 7, 2014), the court held that a bad-faith disposition of collateral violated the implied covenant, observing that even where a party is granted complete discretion, such discretion is not unfettered. Id. at *14; see also Barclays Bank of N.Y., N.A. v. Heady Elec. Co., 174 A.D.2d 963, (3d Dep t 1991). Capital One violated its duty of good faith here. While the contract granted Capital One discretion over particular advances, Corrigan Aff. Ex (g), it also required Capital One to advance funds throughout the entire term of the facility, id. 2.1(c). The necessary implication is that Capital One would exercise its discretion in good faith and not simply walk away from its funding obligations without notice and abandon the market altogether. Capital One s bad faith is even more egregious in light of its motives. The evidence shows that Capital One abandoned its venture with TFA so it could collaborate with the competing ride-sharing service Uber instead. Corrigan Aff That is the opposite of good faith. Capital One s discretion did not include jumping ship to back TFA s competitors. Capital One s actions caused TFA s purported default. Given Capital One s dominant market position, its withdrawal from the market caused a run on the bank that dried up liquidity and eliminated alternative sources of financing. Corrigan Aff. 37. By failing to give TFA advance notice of its plans, Capital One denied TFA the opportunity to refinance its facility at a time when financing was still available from other banks. Id. Absent that funding, TFA could not carry on its business and could not pay back or refinance its facility upon the stated expiration date. Id. 40. Capital One s actions thus led directly to TFA s purported default. Id. At a minimum, there are genuine factual disputes that preclude summary judgment. 11

19 2. Capital One Wrongfully Caused TFA s Purported Default Through Its Bad-Faith Refusal to Honor the Letter Agreement Capital One also wrongfully caused the alleged default by failing to consummate the Letter Agreement. Recognizing that TFA could no longer refinance its lending facility, Capital One agreed to restructure the facility to prevent TFA from defaulting while it wound down its loan portfolio. Corrigan Aff & Ex. 20. But Capital One then refused in bad faith to close on that transaction. Id It now seeks to collect from the guarantors based on the very default the Letter Agreement was designed to avoid. The Letter Agreement recites that it is a mere proposal subject to credit approval rather than a binding final agreement. Corrigan Aff. Ex 20 at 1, 5-6. But that qualification did not relieve Capital One of its duty to proceed in good faith. Even where an agreement does not commit the parties to their ultimate contractual objective, it may still obligate them to negotiate the open issues in good faith in an attempt to reach the... objective within the agreed framework. Brown v. Cara, 420 F.3d 148, 157 (2d Cir. 2005); see also IDT Corp. v. Tyco Grp., 13 N.Y.3d 209, & n.2 (2009) (finding duty to negotiate the terms of the... agreements in good faith ); SNC, Ltd. v. Kamine Eng g & Mech. Contracting Co., 238 A.D.2d 146, 146 (1st Dep t 1997) (finding issues of fact as to whether [parties] reached a binding preliminary contract giving rise to a duty to negotiate in good faith ). That is the case here. Courts weigh several factors in determining whether a preliminary agreement imposes a duty to negotiate in good faith: (1) the language of the agreement; (2) the context of the negotiations; (3) the existence of open terms; (4) partial performance; and (5) the necessity of putting the agreement in final form. Brown, 420 F.3d at 157. Here, those factors favor TFA. The Letter Agreement expressly sets forth the terms on which Capital One would consider modifying and extending the... credit facility. Corrigan Aff. Ex. 20 at 1 (emphasis 12

20 added). It is signed by both TFA and Capital One. Id. at 7. It specifies all necessary terms. Id. at 1-5. TFA fully performed by paying all interest due. Corrigan Aff. 73 & Exs Capital One repeatedly promised to provide the closing documents necessary to put the agreement in final form. Id And the agreement was negotiated in the context of a longstanding relationship that the bank had repeatedly extended in the past. Id , 24. At a minimum, there are genuine factual disputes over whether the Letter Agreement imposed a duty to negotiate and consummate the transaction in good faith. Capital One clearly violated that duty. It refused to provide closing documents. Corrigan Aff It demanded burdensome field examinations that its own vice president admitted were unauthorized. Id It demanded a deficiency payment that its own vice president described as a proposed change in terms. Id & Exs And it tried to impose an oppressive standstill agreement releasing all claims against it. Id That bad-faith conduct caused TFA s purported default. Had Capital One closed the transaction as promised, the bank could not claim any default. See Sweeters v. Hodges, 256 A.D.2d 185, 185 (1st Dep t 1998) (no claim against guarantor where debt was duly suspended pursuant to [a] subordination agreement ). The whole point of the Letter Agreement was to avoid a default by restructuring the facility after Capital One s actions destroyed any means of refinancing. By reneging on that commitment, Capital One again caused the supposed default. B. Capital One Materially Altered the Terms of the Lending Facility and the Risks Assumed by the Guarantors Summary judgment should also be denied because Capital One materially altered its relationship with TFA without the guarantors consent. Under New York law, any material or substantial alteration of the terms of a contract, for whose performance a surety is bound, when made without the surety s consent, releases the surety from his or her obligations. Midland 13

21 Steel Warehouse Corp. v. Godinger Silver Art Ltd., 276 A.D.2d 341, 343 (1st Dep t 2000); see also Bier Pension Plan Trust v. Estate of Schneierson, 74 N.Y.2d 312, 315 (1989). The same principle applies to changes in the business format of a borrower that materially alter the nature of the guarantee. Fehr Bros. v. Scheinman, 121 A.D.2d 13, 19 (1st Dep t 1986). The test is whether the changes significantly alter the business dealings between the debtor and the creditor and the nature of the guarantor s undertaking. Id. The critical issue is the degree of risk the guarantor is being obligated to assume. Id. (emphasis added); see also Restatement (Third) of Suretyship & Guaranty 37(2)(b) (1996) (guarantor discharged if lender imposes risks on the [guarantor] fundamentally different from those assumed). Capital One substantially increased those risks here. Mr. Corrigan and Mr. Levine guaranteed TFA s debts on the understanding that Capital One would fund TFA s business for the entire duration of the agreement. Corrigan Aff. 20; Levine Aff. 6. Capital One s commitment to remain in the Chicago market was critical to their risk analysis. Corrigan Aff. 41. The bank s abrupt withdrawal and the resulting impact on other financing sources transformed TFA from a vibrant medallion lending business into a mere fixed loan portfolio in run-off mode with no means to pay off its debt when the facility expired. Capital One s actions thus fundamentally altered the guarantors risks. Cf. Greenwood Packing Corp. v. Newman, 147 A.D.2d 673, 674 (2d Dep t 1989) (finding guarantor discharged where lender allowed borrower to exceed lending limit and thereby increased the guarantors risk without their consent ). Capital One altered its relationship with TFA yet again in the Letter Agreement. That agreement affirmatively prohibited TFA from using proceeds for any purpose other than paying down its debt. Corrigan Aff. Ex. 20 at 1. Capital One then departed from even those revised terms. Corrigan Aff By changing terms without the guarantors consent, Capital One discharged the guarantors. See Mangold v. Keip, 177 Misc. 2d 953, 954 (App. Term 1st Dep t 14

22 1998) (addition of new lease term discharged guarantors even though they were principals of the tenant who signed the lease). C. Capital One Fraudulently Induced the Guarantee Extensions Capital One also defrauded Mr. Corrigan and Mr. Levine into extending their guarantees when TFA renewed its facility in August Under New York law, a creditor cannot recover from a guarantor where the creditor has practiced any fraud to induce the guarantor to assume the obligation. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Kalkstein, 101 A.D.2d 102, 105 (1st Dep t 1984). A creditor must deal[] with his surety with the utmost good faith at every step in the transaction and speak out, and correct the [guarantor s] false impression. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co. of Utica v. Sherman s Estate, 250 A.D. 339, 345 (4th Dep t 1937). Capital One flouted those duties here. Capital One s employees were secretly discussing plans to exit the market as early as April Corrigan Aff When an employee almost revealed those plans in a Facebook post celebrating the demise of specialty funding, Capital One executives dismissed the post and falsely assured Mr. Corrigan and Mr. Levine that Capital One had no such plans. Id & Ex.11. The guarantors relied on Capital One s false assurances when they extended their guarantees. Id. 45; Levine Aff. 8. Mr. Corrigan and Mr. Levine now face crippling liability as a result of Capital One s fraud a liability they could not have anticipated and never agreed to assume. What is worse, TFA turned down multiple concrete offers to sell its business in reliance on TFA s false statements. Corrigan Aff. 46 & Exs Had TFA and its guarantors known the truth, they could have used those sale proceeds to pay off the loan. D. Capital One Negligently Impaired the Collateral Supporting the Lending Facility Finally, the guarantors have valid defenses based on Capital One s impairment of 15

23 collateral. Under New York law, any improper dealing with collateral deposited to secure an indebtedness guaranteed by another is available to the guarantor as a defense. New Neth. Bank of N.Y. v. Dernburg, 206 A.D. 212, 213 (1st Dep t 1923); see also NatWest Bank N.A. v. Grauberd, 228 A.D.2d 337, 338 (1st Dep t 1996). Both at common law and under the Uniform Commercial Code the creditor bears a special duty toward the surety to take reasonable care to protect and preserve collateral. Exec. Bank of Ft. Lauderdale v. Tighe, 66 A.D.2d 70, 75 (2d Dep t 1978); see U.C.C (a). Because the impairment of any collateral can affect a guarantor s liability, guarantors can challenge impairment whether the collateral is owned by the borrower, the guarantor, or a third party. See New Neth. Bank, 206 A.D. at 213. The Loan and Security Agreement gave Capital One a security interest in virtually all of TFA s property, including its medallion loans. Corrigan Aff. Ex The bank also took a security interest in the guarantors 48 medallions worth about $17 million. Corrigan Aff. 21 & Ex (c)(v)-(vi). Capital One had custody of all that collateral. Id. 22. Capital One impaired that collateral in two ways. First, it arbitrarily refused to release its liens on the 48 medallions, preventing the guarantors from selling them and using the proceeds to pay down or further secure the lending facility. Corrigan Aff. 39. Where... a demand is made of the creditor to liquidate the collateral and subsequent to the refusal to liquidate the collateral substantially declines in value, the failure to liquidate, if negligent, is a breach of the secured party s duty to use reasonable care in the custody and preservation of collateral. FDIC v. Frank L. Marino Corp., 74 A.D.2d 620, 621 (2d Dep t 1980). TFA s guarantors had buyers lined up to purchase the medallions at a time when prices were at record highs, and they repeatedly demanded that Capital One release its liens so they could complete the sales. Corrigan Aff. 39. Capital One refused even though the sales would have benefited it by substituting cash collateral for medallions. Id. Capital One s refusal caused substantial losses, 16

24 since the market has now dried up and medallion values have fallen. Id. Capital One s actions were wholly arbitrary and, at a minimum, grossly negligent. Capital One also impaired the collateral by abruptly withdrawing from the Chicago medallion lending market. Capital One s withdrawal caused other lenders to cease making new loans and dramatically reduced market liquidity and medallion prices. Corrigan Aff Its actions thus impaired the value of both the guarantors 48 medallions and TFA s medallion loans secured by other medallions. Id. 38. Those actions amounted to willful misconduct they were directly contrary to Capital One s contractual obligations and undertaken in bad faith to pursue a competing venture with Uber. Capital One s wrongful impairment of collateral provides yet another defense. At a minimum, the guarantors are entitled to offset any judgment by the amount of the impairment. That dispute likewise precludes summary judgment. See NatWest, 228 A.D.2d at 338 (amount of impairment would also be a triable issue of fact ). II. THERE ARE GENUINE DISPUTES OF FACT OVER THE APPLICABILITY AND ENFORCEABILITY OF THE WAIVERS OF DEFENSES Capital One tries to avoid responsibility for its wrongdoing by invoking language in the guarantees reciting that they are absolute, irrevocable, and unconditional and purporting to waive all defenses [t]o the extent permitted by law. Corrigan Aff. Ex 3 at 2-3. For multiple reasons, those provisions do not help Capital One here. A. Waivers of Defenses Do Not Apply Where the Lender Causes the Borrower s Default New York courts have repeatedly rejected the argument that a waiver of defenses bars a claim that the lender caused the borrower s default. See Canterbury, 135 A.D.2d at 107 (unconditional guarantee and waiver of defenses did not apply to claim that wrongful conduct on the part of the Bank directly caused the default); Signature Bank v. Laro Maint. Corp., No. 17

25 016790/2009, 2011 WL (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nassau Cnty. June 21, 2011) ( broad waiver clauses did not bar claim that bank orchestrated the alleged default ); Cmty. Pres. Corp. v. Wadsworth Condos, LLC, 37 Misc. 3d 1219(A), 2012 WL , at *2 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Mar. 9, 2012) ( A showing that plaintiff wrongfully caused defendants default... may survive even a waiver of defenses. ). The Court of Appeals said as much last month: Even an absolute and unconditional guaranty does not foreclose a guarantor s challenge that the creditor s wrongful post-execution conduct triggered the event that accelerates or causes the guarantor s liability. Cooperatieve Centrale, 2015 WL (emphasis added). Canterbury explained why that is so. Even if a guarantor waives defenses, the lender must still establish, as part of its affirmative case, the default that triggers its right to collect. See Canterbury, 135 A.D.2d at 106 (guarantors only obligated themselves unconditionally to make payments on Canterbury s liabilities when due and thus did not waive arguments regarding the triggering events permitting the Bank to accelerate the indebtedness ). A claim that a lender wrongfully caused the alleged default is not a mere defense but rather a claim that no default occurred in the first place. See id. at 108 (contrasting traditional guarantor s defenses with arguments over whether the postexecution conduct of the parties affected the existence of a necessary condition precedent to acceleration of liability under the express terms of the guarantee ); Signature Bank, 2011 WL (argument is not a defense but rather a basic fact question that the Plaintiff must resolve in order to establish a prima facie case ); cf. Sweeters, 256 A.D.2d at 185. That logic applies here. The guarantees allow Capital One to collect only upon a default by [TFA] in the timely payment... to the Lender. Corrigan Aff. Ex. 3 at 1 (emphasis added). Capital One must therefore prove an actual default as part of its affirmative case something it cannot do if the bank itself caused the condition. TFA made all interest payments due 18

26 throughout the term of the facility and for many months thereafter. Corrigan Aff. 73. Its inability to pay back or refinance the principal upon the facility s stated expiration date resulted only from Capital One s own misconduct. Because there is a genuine dispute over whether Capital One s wrongful post-execution conduct triggered the event that... cause[d] the guarantor s liability, the waivers do not apply. Cooperatieve Centrale, 2015 WL B. The Waivers of Defenses Are Unenforceable The waivers of defenses are also unenforceable for multiple reasons. 1. Capital One s Duty of Good Faith Is Not Waivable First, the waivers are unenforceable to the extent they apply to breaches of Capital One s duty of good faith. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the obligation[] of good faith... may not be disclaimed by agreement. U.C.C (b) (emphasis added). Courts thus refuse to enforce waivers of defenses to the extent they bar claims for bad faith. See Royal Palm Senior Investors, LLC v. Carbon Capital II, Inc., No. 08-cv-4319, 2009 WL , at *11-12 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2009) (defendant could not waive his right to assert [the lender s] breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing as a defense under the Guaranty Agreement ); European Am. Bank v. Mr. Wemmick, Ltd., 160 A.D.2d 905, 906 (2d Dep t 1990) (refusing to enforce the waiver provision in the face of a triable issue of fact as to the plaintiff s breach of its good-faith obligation ); Nat l Westminster Bank USA v. Ross, 676 F. Supp. 48, 54 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (same); A. Barry Cappello, Lender Liability at 72 (5th ed. 2014) (same). The U.C.C. clearly applies to the Loan and Security Agreement: That contract invokes the U.C.C. throughout. See, e.g., Corrigan Aff. Ex (a), 4.11(c), 4.11(g), 5.10(e), 7.2(D). The U.C.C. also applies to the guarantees because they are ancillary to [that] UCC transaction. Royal Palm, 2009 WL , at *11 (collecting cases); see also Cappello, supra, at 71-72; Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Kristin Int l Ltd., 141 A.D.2d 259, (4th Dep t 1988). 19

27 As in Royal Palm, the guarantees were executed contemporaneously with the loan agreement, relate exclusively to that agreement, and are an integral part of the agreement. Corrigan Aff. 17. The Loan and Security Agreement contains numerous references to the guarantees and makes them an express condition precedent. Corrigan Aff. Ex (c)(iv). And the August 2013 extensions of the Loan and Security Agreement and the guarantees are in the same contract. Corrigan Aff. Ex. 2. Because the guarantees are thoroughly intertwined with the Loan and Security Agreement, and the Loan and Security Agreement is indisputably subject to the U.C.C., the U.C.C. s non-waivable duty of good faith applies. Capital One s violations of that duty permeate this case. Capital One wrongfully caused the purported default by breaching its implied covenant of good faith under the Loan and Security Agreement. Capital One breached its duty of good faith under the Letter Agreement as well. The other defenses fraud, impairment of collateral, and alteration of risk likewise implicate Capital One s duty of good faith. See Powers v. Clarke, 127 N.Y. 417, 422 (1891) ( [T]he law requires the creditor to act in good faith towards the guarantor.... ). Capital One cannot disclaim responsibility for its bad-faith conduct. 2. Capital One s Duty to Preserve Collateral Is Not Waivable The guarantors defense of impairment of collateral is not waivable either. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the duty to exercise reasonable care [over collateral] may not be disclaimed by agreement. U.C.C cmt. 2. Accordingly, a lender s obligation to deal in a commercially reasonable manner with collateral securing a loan may not be waived by a guarantor as a matter of law. NatWest, 228 A.D.2d at 338 (emphasis added); see also Marine Midland, 141 A.D.2d at 260. In particular, where a viable setoff... is asserted based upon the creditor s negligence in failing to liquidate collateral upon the guarantor s demand, such a waiver provision will not be enforced. Frank L. Marino, 74 A.D.2d at (emphasis added); see 20

28 also Barclays, 174 A.D.2d at 965 ( [A] waiver provision will not be enforced to bar a viable setoff... based upon the creditor s negligence in failing to liquidate collateral.... ). Those authorities apply squarely here. Capital One breached its duty of care over the collateral by recklessly refusing to release its liens on the 48 medallions TFA s guarantors sought to sell to raise cash to substitute as collateral. Capital One also breached that duty by willfully destroying the value of the medallions and medallion loans. Those non-waivable breaches are a defense to liability or at a minimum, a setoff that reduces the amount of any judgment Capital One Cannot Insulate Itself from Liability for Its Own Willful Misconduct and Gross Negligence The waivers are also ineffective to bar defenses based on Capital One s gross negligence and willful misconduct. [I]t is New York s public policy that a party cannot insulate itself from damages caused by grossly negligent conduct. Abacus Fed. Sav. Bank v. ADT Servs., Inc., 18 N.Y.3d 675, 683 (2012). Agreements exculpating willful or grossly negligent acts are thus wholly void. Gross v. Sweet, 49 N.Y.2d 102, 106 (1979); see also Deutsche Alt-A Sec. Mortg. Loan Trust, Series 2006-OA1 v. DB Structured Prods., Inc., 958 F. Supp. 2d 488, (S.D.N.Y. 2013); Deutsche Bank Nat l Trust Co. v. Decision One Mortg., LLC, No L 5823, 2013 WL , at *5 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Nov. 19, 2013) (New York law). Capital One s actions were rife with gross negligence and willful misconduct. If New York public policy prohibits Capital One from insulating itself from liability for that misconduct, it surely also precludes Capital One from recovering damages from another party despite defenses that would otherwise preclude the claims. 2 The Loan and Security Agreement purports to waive Capital One s duty of care over collateral, at least absent gross negligence or willful misconduct. Corrigan Ex (D), 7.4(c). Those provisions are unenforceable for the reasons above. Even if they were not, Capital One s actions amounted to gross negligence and willful misconduct here. 21

Bullet Proof Guaranties

Bullet Proof Guaranties Bullet Proof Guaranties David M. Mannion, Esq. DMannion@BlakeleyLLP.com Blakeley LLP 54 W. 40th Street New York, NY 10018 V. (917) 472-9587 F. (949) 260-0613 www.blakeleyllp.com New York Los Angeles Orange

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/27/ :00 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/27/2015

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/27/ :00 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/27/2015 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/27/2015 09:00 PM INDEX NO. 651992/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/27/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY -----------------------------------------------------------------------X

More information

Transit Funding Assoc. LLC v Capital One Equip. Fin. Corp NY Slip Op 32631(U) December 14, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:

Transit Funding Assoc. LLC v Capital One Equip. Fin. Corp NY Slip Op 32631(U) December 14, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Transit Funding Assoc. LLC v Capital One Equip. Fin. Corp. 2017 NY Slip Op 32631(U) December 14, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 652346/2015 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla Cases posted with

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/ :07 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/21/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/ :07 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/21/2016 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/2016 0507 PM INDEX NO. 651546/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF 09/21/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

More information

In these difficult economic times, well-drafted guaranties are a hedge against a

In these difficult economic times, well-drafted guaranties are a hedge against a WINNING GUARANTIES In these difficult economic times, well-drafted guaranties are a hedge against a borrower s bankruptcy filing or the return of damaged collateral. Under a properly crafted guaranty,

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/28/ :08 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/28/ :08 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2016 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2016 0908 PM INDEX NO. 651639/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF 03/28/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More information

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/23/2016 04:12 PM INDEX NO. 650806/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/23/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------x

More information

Securing the Delinquent Account & Alternative Legal Theories to Collect on Delinquent Accounts

Securing the Delinquent Account & Alternative Legal Theories to Collect on Delinquent Accounts Securing the Delinquent Account & Alternative Legal Theories to Collect on Delinquent Accounts David M. Mannion, Esq. DMannion@BlakeleyLLP.com Blakeley LLP 54 W. 40th Street New York, NY 10018 V. (917)

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/ :25 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2014

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/ :25 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2014 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2014 0525 PM INDEX NO. 652450/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF 08/26/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------x

More information

Absolute And Unconditional Guarantees Under New York Law

Absolute And Unconditional Guarantees Under New York Law Absolute And Unconditional Guarantees Under New York Law By Steven P. Caley and Philip D. Robben * This article is republished with permission from the July 2003 edition of The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel.

More information

PNC Bank, N.A. v Walsh 2013 NY Slip Op 31740(U) July 29, 2013 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /2012 Judge: Eileen Bransten Republished from

PNC Bank, N.A. v Walsh 2013 NY Slip Op 31740(U) July 29, 2013 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /2012 Judge: Eileen Bransten Republished from PNC Bank, N.A. v Walsh 2013 NY Slip Op 31740(U) July 29, 2013 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 653154/2012 Judge: Eileen Bransten Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service.

More information

Think Twice About That Liability Disclaimer

Think Twice About That Liability Disclaimer Page 1 of 5 Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Think Twice About That Liability Disclaimer

More information

CF Notes, LLC v Johnson 2014 NY Slip Op 31598(U) June 19, 2014 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla Cases

CF Notes, LLC v Johnson 2014 NY Slip Op 31598(U) June 19, 2014 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla Cases CF Notes, LLC v Johnson 2014 NY Slip Op 31598(U) June 19, 2014 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 653423/2013 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op

More information

International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers v Bank of New York Mellon 2014 NY Slip Op 30177(U) January 17, 2014 Supreme Court, New York

International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers v Bank of New York Mellon 2014 NY Slip Op 30177(U) January 17, 2014 Supreme Court, New York International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers v Bank of New York Mellon 2014 NY Slip Op 30177(U) January 17, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 653441/2012 Judge: Marcy S. Friedman

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/14/ :26 AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2017

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/14/ :26 AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2017 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/14/2017 1126 AM INDEX NO. 650803/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF 02/14/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------

More information

Goddard Inv. II, LLC v Goddard Dev. Partners II, LLC 2014 NY Slip Op 31335(U) May 20, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013

Goddard Inv. II, LLC v Goddard Dev. Partners II, LLC 2014 NY Slip Op 31335(U) May 20, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Goddard Inv. II, LLC v Goddard Dev. Partners II, LLC 2014 NY Slip Op 31335(U) May 20, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 653907/2013 Judge: O. Peter Sherwood Cases posted with a "30000"

More information

Schon Family Found. v Brinkley Capital Ltd NY Slip Op 33027(U) November 27, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2015

Schon Family Found. v Brinkley Capital Ltd NY Slip Op 33027(U) November 27, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2015 Schon Family Found. v Brinkley Capital Ltd. 2018 NY Slip Op 33027(U) November 27, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 653664/2015 Judge: Eileen Bransten Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,

More information

Stewart v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP et al Doc. 32 ELLIE STEWART v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff, BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP,

More information

WGLO BREAKOUT SESSION - Opinion Issues Relating to the Difference between Amendments and Novations.

WGLO BREAKOUT SESSION - Opinion Issues Relating to the Difference between Amendments and Novations. WGLO BREAKOUT SESSION - Opinion Issues Relating to the Difference between Amendments and Novations. Bash v Textron Financial Corporation (In re Fair Finance Company) 834 F.3d 651 (6 th Cir. 2016) Does

More information

What To Do With Performance Bonds When Projects Default

What To Do With Performance Bonds When Projects Default What To Do With Performance Bonds When Projects Default By Gary Strong January 18, 2018, 3:12 PM EST In today s economic climate, performance bonds are important for construction contracts. While performance

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. BARRY NUSSBAUM, Appellant V. ONEWEST BANK, FSB, Appellee

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. BARRY NUSSBAUM, Appellant V. ONEWEST BANK, FSB, Appellee AFFIRM; Opinion Filed May 21, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-00081-CV BARRY NUSSBAUM, Appellant V. ONEWEST BANK, FSB, Appellee On Appeal from the 44th Judicial

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PETER R. MORRIS, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant- Appellant, UNPUBLISHED August 12, 2004 v No. 245563 Wayne Circuit Court COMERICA BANK, LC No. 00-013298-CZ Defendant/Counter

More information

BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. S & S DEVELOPMENT, INC., Brian K. Swain and Donald K. Stephens, Defendants.

BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. S & S DEVELOPMENT, INC., Brian K. Swain and Donald K. Stephens, Defendants. BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. S & S DEVELOPMENT, INC., Brian K. Swain and Donald K. Stephens, Defendants. No. 8:13 cv 1419 T 30TGW. Signed May 28, 2014. ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, JR., District

More information

Delmarva Power and Light Maryland TPS Financial Information

Delmarva Power and Light Maryland TPS Financial Information (302) 283-6012 and Light Maryland TPS Financial Information This form is used to provide financial information to establish credit with DPL MD. Please send the completed executed form along with your remaining

More information

Case 0:14-cv WPD Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2014 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 0:14-cv WPD Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2014 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 0:14-cv-60975-WPD Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2014 Page 1 of 8 WENDY GRAVE and JOSEPH GRAVE, vs. Plaintiffs, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF

More information

(01/31/13) Principal Name /PIA No. PAYMENT AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT No.

(01/31/13) Principal Name /PIA No. PAYMENT AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT No. PAYMENT AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT No. THIS PAYMENT AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT (as amended and supplemented, this Agreement ) is executed by each of the undersigned on behalf of each Principal (as defined below)

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY OWENSBORO DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY OWENSBORO DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13CV-00071-JHM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY OWENSBORO DIVISION HALIFAX CENTER, LLC, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. PBI BANK, INC. DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/09/ :39 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/09/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/09/ :39 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/09/2016 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/09/2016 07:39 PM INDEX NO. 654157/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/09/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK JFURTI, LLC, -against- Plaintiff,

More information

Wells Fargo Trade Capital Servs., Inc. v Sinetos 2012 NY Slip Op 33373(U) December 19, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2010

Wells Fargo Trade Capital Servs., Inc. v Sinetos 2012 NY Slip Op 33373(U) December 19, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2010 Wells Fargo Trade Capital Servs., Inc. v Sinetos 2012 NY Slip Op 33373(U) December 19, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 652317/2010 Judge: Shirley Werner Kornreich Cases posted with a

More information

CNH Diversified Opportunities Master Account, L.P. v Cleveland Unlimited, Inc NY Slip Op 30071(U) January 11, 2018 Supreme Court, New York

CNH Diversified Opportunities Master Account, L.P. v Cleveland Unlimited, Inc NY Slip Op 30071(U) January 11, 2018 Supreme Court, New York CNH Diversified Opportunities Master Account, L.P. v Cleveland Unlimited, Inc. 2018 NY Slip Op 30071(U) January 11, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 650140/2012 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla

More information

ICB System Standard Terms and Conditions

ICB System Standard Terms and Conditions ICB System Standard Terms and Conditions Effective: February 12, 2007 U.S. Customs and Border Protection requires that international carriers, including participants in the Automated Manifest System (as

More information

Oak Tree Farm Dairy, Inc. v Beyer Farms, Inc NY Slip Op 31482(U) July 1, 2013 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /13 Judge: Melvin L.

Oak Tree Farm Dairy, Inc. v Beyer Farms, Inc NY Slip Op 31482(U) July 1, 2013 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /13 Judge: Melvin L. Oak Tree Farm Dairy, Inc. v Beyer Farms, Inc. 2013 NY Slip Op 31482(U) July 1, 2013 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 650568/13 Judge: Melvin L. Schweitzer Republished from New York State Unified Court

More information

GUARANTY OF PERFORMANCE AND COMPLETION

GUARANTY OF PERFORMANCE AND COMPLETION EXHIBIT C-1 GUARANTY OF PERFORMANCE AND COMPLETION This GUARANTY OF PERFORMANCE AND COMPLETION ( Guaranty ) is made as of, 200, by FLUOR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the Guarantor ), to the VIRGINIA

More information

Capital One Equip. v Deus 2018 NY Slip Op 31819(U) July 30, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2017 Judge: O.

Capital One Equip. v Deus 2018 NY Slip Op 31819(U) July 30, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2017 Judge: O. Capital One Equip. v Deus 2018 NY Slip Op 31819(U) July 30, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 656088/2017 Judge: O. Peter Sherwood Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY

More information

THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.

THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Date of Report (Date of earliest event

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 15-60683 Document: 00513486795 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Summary Calendar EDWARDS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, L.P.; BEHER HOLDINGS TRUST,

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/22/ :05 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/22/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/22/ :05 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/22/2016 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/22/2016 11:05 AM INDEX NO. 654548/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/22/2016 CONTRACT This Contract ("Contract") is made effective as of September 8th, 2016, by

More information

When are Debtors and Creditors Bound to the Provisions of Confirmed Reorganization Plans? Gabriella Labita, J.D. Candidate 2018

When are Debtors and Creditors Bound to the Provisions of Confirmed Reorganization Plans? Gabriella Labita, J.D. Candidate 2018 When are Debtors and Creditors Bound to the Provisions of Confirmed Reorganization Plans? 2017 Volume IX No. 13 When are Debtors and Creditors Bound to the Provisions of Confirmed Reorganization Plans?

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/ :36 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 461 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/14/2015 EXHIBIT 2

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/ :36 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 461 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/14/2015 EXHIBIT 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/2015 11:36 PM INDEX NO. 652382/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 461 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/14/2015 EXHIBIT 2 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. IRAOAMMERIVIAN

More information

GUARANTY OF PERFORMANCE (TL)

GUARANTY OF PERFORMANCE (TL) EXHIBIT C-2 GUARANTY OF PERFORMANCE (TL) This Guaranty of Performance ( Guaranty ) is made as of April 28, 2005 by Transurban Limited, an Australian corporation (the Guarantor ), to the Virginia Department

More information

No. 1:13-ap Doc 308 Filed 09/12/16 Entered 09/12/16 14:53:27 Page 1 of 8

No. 1:13-ap Doc 308 Filed 09/12/16 Entered 09/12/16 14:53:27 Page 1 of 8 No. 1:13-ap-00024 Doc 308 Filed 09/12/16 Entered 09/12/16 14:53:27 Page 1 of 8 Dated: Monday, September 12, 2016 1:27:41 PM IN THE UNITED STATED BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

More information

Deed of Guarantee and Indemnity

Deed of Guarantee and Indemnity Deed of Guarantee and Indemnity To: Shenwan Hongyuan Securities (H.K. Limited Shenwan Hongyuan Futures (H.K. Limited 1. In consideration of your granting and/or continuing to make available advances, credit

More information

Case 2:08-cv MSD-FBS Document 11 Filed 02/10/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINL i.

Case 2:08-cv MSD-FBS Document 11 Filed 02/10/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINL i. Case 2:08-cv-00413-MSD-FBS Document 11 Filed 02/10/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINL i Norfolk Division FILED FEB 1 0 2003 SHARON F. MOORE, CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT

More information

SAMPLE CALIFORNIA THIRD-PARTY LEGAL OPINION FOR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS OPINIONS COMMITTEE THE BUSINESS LAW SECTION THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

SAMPLE CALIFORNIA THIRD-PARTY LEGAL OPINION FOR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS OPINIONS COMMITTEE THE BUSINESS LAW SECTION THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA SAMPLE CALIFORNIA THIRD-PARTY LEGAL OPINION FOR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS OPINIONS COMMITTEE OF THE BUSINESS LAW SECTION OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA REVISED AUGUST 2014 COPYRIGHT 2014 THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

More information

The Real Estate Finance Opinion Report of 2012

The Real Estate Finance Opinion Report of 2012 The Real Estate Finance Opinion Report of 2012 History and Summary By Edward J. Levin Edward J. Levin is a partner in the Baltimore, Maryland, office of Gordon Feinblatt LLC and the chair of the Real Property

More information

SAMPLE CALIFORNIA THIRD-PARTY LEGAL OPINION FOR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS OPINIONS COMMITTEE THE BUSINESS LAW SECTION THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

SAMPLE CALIFORNIA THIRD-PARTY LEGAL OPINION FOR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS OPINIONS COMMITTEE THE BUSINESS LAW SECTION THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA SAMPLE CALIFORNIA THIRD-PARTY LEGAL OPINION FOR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS OPINIONS COMMITTEE OF THE BUSINESS LAW SECTION OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA REVISED AUGUST 2014 COPYRIGHT 2014 THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

More information

Guarantee. THIS DEED is dated. 1. Definitions and Interpretation. 1.1 Definitions. In this Deed:

Guarantee. THIS DEED is dated. 1. Definitions and Interpretation. 1.1 Definitions. In this Deed: Guarantee THIS DEED is dated 1. Definitions and Interpretation 1.1 Definitions In this Deed: We / us / our / the Lender Bank of Cyprus UK Limited, trading as Bank of Cyprus UK, incorporated in England

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/23/ :12 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 57 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/23/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/23/ :12 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 57 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/23/2016 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/23/2016 10:12 PM INDEX NO. 653726/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 57 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/23/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK CAPITAL ONE EQUIPMENT FINANCE

More information

28. IT S A CONTACT SPORT: CORPORATE TRUST CONCERNS THAT BOND ATTORNEYS NEED TO ANTICIPATE. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. - Minneapolis, Minnesota

28. IT S A CONTACT SPORT: CORPORATE TRUST CONCERNS THAT BOND ATTORNEYS NEED TO ANTICIPATE. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. - Minneapolis, Minnesota 28. IT S A CONTACT SPORT: CORPORATE TRUST CONCERNS THAT BOND ATTORNEYS NEED TO ANTICIPATE Chair: Bryant D. Barber Lewis and Roca LLP - Phoenix, Arizona Panelists: Virginia A. Housum Patrick J. McLaughlin

More information

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas Opinion issued March 19, 2015 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-14-00813-CV STEVEN STEPTOE AND PATRICIA CARBALLO, Appellants V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Appellee On Appeal

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/ :39 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/ :39 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2016 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2016 01:39 PM INDEX NO. 155249/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2016 BAKER, LESHKO, SALINE & DRAPEAU, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs One North Lexington Avenue

More information

The Nuts and Bolts of Guaranties. Kevin M. Page (713) (office)

The Nuts and Bolts of Guaranties. Kevin M. Page (713) (office) The Nuts and Bolts of Guaranties Kevin M. Page kpage@jw.com (713) 752-4227 (office) Topics for Discussion Back to the Basics: First things first When are guaranties issued? Who provides guaranties? Pros

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national banking ) Association, as successor-in-interest to LaSalle ) Bank National Association,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Case 1:11-cv-00760-BMK Document 47 Filed 08/23/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 722 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII STEVEN D. WARD, vs. Plaintiff, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

More information

Provisions of Standard Commercial Guarantee Agreements

Provisions of Standard Commercial Guarantee Agreements Provisions of Standard Commercial Guarantee Agreements Technical Guide Sandra M. Rocks TM GRAMEEN FOUNDATION Empowering people. Changing lives. Innovating for the world s poor. 2010 Consultative Group

More information

DRAFT FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT DATED Surety Bond No. SURETY BOND

DRAFT FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT DATED Surety Bond No. SURETY BOND Surety Bond No. SURETY BOND KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that we, [Insert Name of Market Participant Here], a organized under the laws of the State of, as Principal (the Principal ), and [Insert

More information

Case 1:12-cv CM Document 50 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 12

Case 1:12-cv CM Document 50 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 12 Case 1:12-cv-04873-CM Document 50 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR TO WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., SUCCESSOR

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/ :00 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/ :00 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2016 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2016 0500 PM INDEX NO. 651304/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF 04/28/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------

More information

Platinum Equity Advisors, LLC v SDI, Inc NY Slip Op 33993(U) July 18, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Judge:

Platinum Equity Advisors, LLC v SDI, Inc NY Slip Op 33993(U) July 18, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Platinum Equity Advisors, LLC v SDI, Inc. 2014 NY Slip Op 33993(U) July 18, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 653709/2013 Judge: Eileen Bransten Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/17/ :58 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/17/ :58 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/17/2016 10:58 AM INDEX NO. 654332/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW COUNTY OF NEW YORK COBY EMPIRE, LLC x - Plaintiff/Petition

More information

Case 5:18-cv C Document 53 Filed 10/26/18 Page 1 of 79 PageID 669

Case 5:18-cv C Document 53 Filed 10/26/18 Page 1 of 79 PageID 669 Case 5:18-cv-00234-C Document 53 Filed 10/26/18 Page 1 of 79 PageID 669 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION FIRST BANK & TRUST, Plaintiff. v. Cause No. 5:18-cv-00234-C

More information

Responding to a Complaint: Maryland

Responding to a Complaint: Maryland Resource ID: w-011-5932 Responding to a Complaint: Maryland CHRISTOPHER C. JEFFRIES AND STEVEN A. BOOK, KRAMON & GRAHAM, WITH PRACTICAL LAW LITIGATION Search the Resource ID numbers in blue on Westlaw

More information

Paradigm Credit Corp. v Zimmerman 2013 NY Slip Op 31915(U) July 23, 2013 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /12 Judge: Joan A. Madden Republished

Paradigm Credit Corp. v Zimmerman 2013 NY Slip Op 31915(U) July 23, 2013 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /12 Judge: Joan A. Madden Republished Paradigm Credit Corp. v Zimmerman 2013 NY Slip Op 31915(U) July 23, 2013 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 653646/12 Judge: Joan A. Madden Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 VALLEY NATIONAL BANK, SUCCESSOR- IN-THE INTEREST TO THE PARK AVENUE BANK, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee H. JACK MILLER, ARI

More information

Roza 14W LLC v ATB Holding Co., LLC 2014 NY Slip Op 32162(U) August 6, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Ellen M.

Roza 14W LLC v ATB Holding Co., LLC 2014 NY Slip Op 32162(U) August 6, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Ellen M. Roza 14W LLC v ATB Holding Co., LLC 2014 NY Slip Op 32162(U) August 6, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 653232/2013 Judge: Ellen M. Coin Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON ELECTRONICALLY FILED FIFTH THIRD BANK 250 West Main Street Lexington, Kentucky 40507 Plaintiff, ZAYAT STABLES, LLC

More information

PLEDGE AGREEMENT. between. E. STANLEY KROENKE, as PLEDGOR. and. DEUTSCHE BANK AG NEW YORK BRANCH as PLEDGEE. Dated as of August 2, 2018

PLEDGE AGREEMENT. between. E. STANLEY KROENKE, as PLEDGOR. and. DEUTSCHE BANK AG NEW YORK BRANCH as PLEDGEE. Dated as of August 2, 2018 EXECUTION VERSION PLEDGE AGREEMENT between E. STANLEY KROENKE, as PLEDGOR and DEUTSCHE BANK AG NEW YORK BRANCH as PLEDGEE Dated as of August 2, 2018 AMERICAS 95101322 (2K) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. SECURITY

More information

Kosovo. Regulation No. 2001/5

Kosovo. Regulation No. 2001/5 Kosovo Regulation No. 2001/5 on Pledges (adopted on 7 February 2001) Important Disclaimer The text should be used for information purposes only and appropriate legal advice should be sought as and when

More information

Case 1:12-cv SLT-VVP Document 23 Filed 03/31/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 306. Plaintiffs, 12-CV-1428 (SLT)(VVP)

Case 1:12-cv SLT-VVP Document 23 Filed 03/31/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 306. Plaintiffs, 12-CV-1428 (SLT)(VVP) Case 1:12-cv-01428-SLT-VVP Document 23 Filed 03/31/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 306 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/29/2011 INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 89 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/29/2011

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/29/2011 INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 89 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/29/2011 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/29/2011 INDEX NO. 651786/2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 89 RECEIVED NYSCEF 07/29/2011 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------

More information

EQUIPMENT LEASE ORIGINATION AGREEMENT

EQUIPMENT LEASE ORIGINATION AGREEMENT EQUIPMENT LEASE ORIGINATION AGREEMENT THIS EQUIPMENT LEASE ORIGINATION AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made as of this [ ] day of [ ] by and between Ascentium Capital LLC, a Delaware limited liability

More information

Plaintiff, : : : : John Sgaliordich is an individual investor who alleges that various investment

Plaintiff, : : : : John Sgaliordich is an individual investor who alleges that various investment -VVP Sgaliordich v. Lloyd's Asset Management et al Doc. 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------ X JOHN ANTHONY SGALIORDICH,

More information

Jones v Credit Agricole Corp NY Slip Op 30779(U) April 26, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /14 Judge: Barbara Jaffe

Jones v Credit Agricole Corp NY Slip Op 30779(U) April 26, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /14 Judge: Barbara Jaffe Jones v Credit Agricole Corp. 2016 NY Slip Op 30779(U) April 26, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 162372/14 Judge: Barbara Jaffe Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY

More information

APPENDIX FOR MARGIN ACCOUNTS

APPENDIX FOR MARGIN ACCOUNTS APPENDIX FOR MARGIN ACCOUNTS This Appendix applies if the Client opens or maintains a Margin Account in respect of margin facilities for trading in Securities. Unless otherwise defined in this Appendix,

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST INC., Appellant, v. JACK SCIALABBA and SHARON SCIALABBA, Appellees. No. 4D17-401 [March 7, 2018] Appeal from

More information

NOTE- All drafts must be pre-approved by Vectren before final execution. Please contact Vectren Credit Risk for assignment of document number.

NOTE- All drafts must be pre-approved by Vectren before final execution. Please contact Vectren Credit Risk for assignment of document number. NOTE- All drafts must be pre-approved by Vectren before final execution. Please contact Vectren Credit Risk for assignment of document number. GUARANTY AGREEMENT GTYSCO##-### THIS GUARANTY AGREEMENT GTYSCO##-###

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/20/ :15 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/20/ :15 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2016 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/20/2016 0415 PM INDEX NO. 652739/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF 05/20/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More information

GENERAL APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT OF INDEMNITY CONTRACTORS FORM

GENERAL APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT OF INDEMNITY CONTRACTORS FORM MERCHANTS BONDING COMPANY (MUTUAL) MERCHANTS NATIONAL BONDING INC. P.O. Box 14498 Des Moines iowa 50306-3498 Phone (800) 678-8171 FAX (515) 243-3854 GENERAL APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT OF INDEMNITY CONTRACTORS

More information

[FORM OF] COLLATERAL AGREEMENT. made by AMBAC LSNI, LLC, in favor of THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON. as Note Collateral Agent and Trustee

[FORM OF] COLLATERAL AGREEMENT. made by AMBAC LSNI, LLC, in favor of THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON. as Note Collateral Agent and Trustee Draft January 10, 2018 [FORM OF] COLLATERAL AGREEMENT made by AMBAC LSNI, LLC, in favor of THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON as Note Collateral Agent and Trustee DATED AS OF [ ], 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

More information

Upon the motion, dated June 20, 2009 (the Motion ), as orally modified at the

Upon the motion, dated June 20, 2009 (the Motion ), as orally modified at the Hearing Date: July 13, 2009, at 9:45 a.m. (Eastern Time) Objection Deadline: July 8, 2009, at 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x

More information

APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT

APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT By signing this application and agreement (the Agreement ), you are giving Green Dot Bank, as well as its agents and affiliates, permission to review your business and personal

More information

In re AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, INC. 388 B.R. 69 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008) STATEMENT OF FACTS

In re AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, INC. 388 B.R. 69 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008) STATEMENT OF FACTS In re AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, INC. 388 B.R. 69 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008) CHRISTOPHER S. SONTCHI, Bankruptcy Judge. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts relevant to this dispute center on a structured finance

More information

GENERAL APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT OF INDEMNITY CONTRACTORS FORM

GENERAL APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT OF INDEMNITY CONTRACTORS FORM MERCHANTS BONDING COMPANY (MUTUAL) MERCHANTS NATIONAL BONDING, INC. P.O. Box 14498, Des Moines, iowa 50306-3498 Phone (800) 678-8171 FAX (515) 243-3854 GENERAL APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT OF INDEMNITY CONTRACTORS

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Appellant

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Appellant Reverse and Remand; Opinion Filed April 9, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-00653-CV BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Appellant V. TCI LUNA VENTURES, LLC AND

More information

[FORM OF] COLLATERAL AGREEMENT. made by AMBAC ASSURANCE CORPORATION. in favor of THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

[FORM OF] COLLATERAL AGREEMENT. made by AMBAC ASSURANCE CORPORATION. in favor of THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON Draft September 21, 2017 [FORM OF] COLLATERAL AGREEMENT made by AMBAC ASSURANCE CORPORATION in favor of THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON as Note Collateral Agent, Trustee and Paying Agent Dated as of [ ], 2017

More information

FIRST INDEMNITY OF AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY INDEMNITY AGREEMENT

FIRST INDEMNITY OF AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY INDEMNITY AGREEMENT FIRST INDEMNITY OF AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY Agreement Number: Execution Date: Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. INDEMNITY AGREEMENT DEFINITIONS: Surety: First Indemnity of America Insurance

More information

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/17/ :49 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/17/2016

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/17/ :49 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/17/2016 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/17/2016 02:49 PM INDEX NO. 512723/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/17/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS -------------------------------------------------------------------X

More information

Emigrant Bank v Greene 2015 NY Slip Op 31343(U) February 24, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Allan B.

Emigrant Bank v Greene 2015 NY Slip Op 31343(U) February 24, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Allan B. Emigrant Bank v Greene 2015 NY Slip Op 31343(U) February 24, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 703522/2014 Judge: Allan B. Weiss Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

More information

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/22/ :32 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 57 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/22/2018

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/22/ :32 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 57 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/22/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS --------------------------------------X â â â â â â â â â MELROSE CREDIT UNION, INDEX NO.: 505838/2017 Plaintiff, REPLY AFFIRMATION Hon. Loren Baily-

More information

SOURCE ONE SURETY, LLC.

SOURCE ONE SURETY, LLC. SOURCE ONE SURETY, LLC. 15233 VENTURA BOULEVARD, SUITE 500 SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91403 GENERAL INDEMNITY AGREEMENT THIS General Agreement of Indemnity (hereinafter called Agreement ), is made and entered into

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO NAVY PORTFOLIO ALPHA, LLC ) CASE NO. CV 14 825363 ) ) JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL Plaintiff, ) ) JOURNAL ENTRY DENYING ) THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR vs. )

More information

COOPERATION AGREEMENT

COOPERATION AGREEMENT COOPERATION AGREEMENT This Cooperation Agreement (as amended, supplemented, amended and restated or otherwise modified from time to time, this Agreement ), dated as of July 5, 2016, is entered into by

More information

Case 1:06-cv RAE Document 36 Filed 01/09/2007 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 1:06-cv RAE Document 36 Filed 01/09/2007 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Case 1:06-cv-00033-RAE Document 36 Filed 01/09/2007 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BRANDON MILLER and CHRISTINE MILLER, v. Plaintiffs, AMERICOR

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC96000 PROVIDENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. CITY OF TREASURE ISLAND, Respondent. PARIENTE, J. [May 24, 2001] REVISED OPINION We have for review a decision of

More information

Stein v Sapir Realty Management Corp NY Slip Op 31720(U) June 8, 2010 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 7699/2006 Judge: Orin R.

Stein v Sapir Realty Management Corp NY Slip Op 31720(U) June 8, 2010 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 7699/2006 Judge: Orin R. Stein v Sapir Realty Management Corp. 2010 NY Slip Op 31720(U) June 8, 2010 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 7699/2006 Judge: Orin R. Kitzes Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts

More information

Changes to the Russian Civil Code: What's new in the regulation of obligations

Changes to the Russian Civil Code: What's new in the regulation of obligations Changes to the Russian Civil Code: What's new in the regulation of obligations 1 Briefing note May 2015 Changes to the Russian Civil Code: What's new in the regulation of obligations As of 1 June 2015,

More information

Case 1:03-cv GWG Document 59 Filed 08/05/2005 Page 1 of 16. Plaintiff, : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Case 1:03-cv GWG Document 59 Filed 08/05/2005 Page 1 of 16. Plaintiff, : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Case 1:03-cv-01586-GWG Document 59 Filed 08/05/2005 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X CITICORP LEASING,

More information

Case 0:17-cv WPD Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/11/2017 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 0:17-cv WPD Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/11/2017 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 0:17-cv-61266-WPD Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/11/2017 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA SILVIA LEONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/06/ :10 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2017

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/06/ :10 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK RIMROCK HIGH INCOME PLUS (MASTER) FUND, LTD. AND RIMROCK LOW VOLATILITY (MASTER) FUND, LTD., Plaintiffs, against AVANTI COMMUNICATIONS GROUP PLC,

More information

Case CSS Doc 9 Filed 12/19/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE.

Case CSS Doc 9 Filed 12/19/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. Case 18-12839-CSS Doc 9 Filed 12/19/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In re Alcor Energy,

More information