CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE v. BDC FIN., LLC, 135 A.D.3d 561 (2016)
Court: Supreme Court of New York
Number: innyco20160119283
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jan. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 19, 2016
Summary: In this intercreditor dispute, the motion court correctly found that plaintiffs' causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are not duplicative. Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to share collateral ratably, in breach of the express agreements at issue. They also allege that, even if none of the provisions of the agreements were violated, defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by deliberately m
Summary: In this intercreditor dispute, the motion court correctly found that plaintiffs' causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are not duplicative. Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to share collateral ratably, in breach of the express agreements at issue. They also allege that, even if none of the provisions of the agreements were violated, defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by deliberately ma..
More
In this intercreditor dispute, the motion court correctly found that plaintiffs' causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are not duplicative. Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to share collateral ratably, in breach of the express agreements at issue. They also allege that, even if none of the provisions of the agreements were violated, defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by deliberately manipulating and depressing the bids of other bidders during the auction of the debtor's assets, thereby acquiring all of the debtor's assets and depriving plaintiffs of the benefit of their bargain (see Dalton v Educational Testing Serv., 87 N.Y.2d 384, 389 [1995]). These claims are sufficiently distinct.
Plaintiffs' implied covenant claim against defendant agent is not barred by, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the agreements (see e.g. SNS Bank v Citibank, 7 A.D.3d 352, 354-355 [1st Dept 2004]).
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Source: Leagle
