BT-I v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of US
75 Cal. App. 4th 1406, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 811 (1999)
Rule of Law:
A limited partnership agreement cannot contractually waive or abrogate a general partner's fundamental fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith when the general partner engages in self-dealing by purchasing and foreclosing on partnership debt to acquire the partnership's sole asset.
Facts:
- In 1985, BT-I and The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (Equitable) formed a general partnership, Brin-Mar I, to develop and operate a commercial office building and retail complex in Orange County, securing a $62.5 million loan from Banque Paribas.
- In 1991, BT-I and Equitable converted their general partnership into a limited partnership, Brin-Mar I, L.P., with Equitable as the general partner (70% interest) and BT-I as the limited partner (30% interest); Banque Paribas subsequently extended the maturity date of the loans to August 31, 1995.
- Paragraph 5.1(c) of the limited partnership agreement gave Equitable broad powers to refinance and restructure partnership debt but also stated Equitable was not required to contribute additional funds or prevent any lender from exercising remedies in connection with partnership loans.
- As the Paribas loans' due date approached, Equitable learned the bank was interested in selling the loans at a discount and, without BT-I's knowledge, had already agreed to purchase them if it matched the high bid, and the bank agreed not to deal directly with BT-I.
- Equitable bought the loans on August 21, 1995, for $38.5 million, and on September 1, 1995 (the day after the loans were due), demanded full payment of approximately $65 million within 10 days.
- Upon non-payment, Equitable recorded notices of default, and subsequently refused BT-I's requests to attempt refinancing, sell the building, or provide financial information needed for BT-I to find a new lender.
- Three days before the scheduled foreclosure sale in March 1996, BT-I made a $39 million cash offer for the project, which Equitable rejected both as the lender and on behalf of the partnership.
- Equitable then acquired the building at the foreclosure sale.
Procedural Posture:
- BT-I filed an action against Equitable in the trial court (court of first instance) alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
- The trial judge sustained Equitable’s demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend, effectively dismissing BT-I's claims.
- The trial judge entered judgment in favor of Equitable on the complaint.
- BT-I, the limited partner, appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a limited partnership agreement's broad grant of powers to a general partner permit the general partner to purchase the partnership's debt and then foreclose on the partnership's sole asset, thereby abrogating its fundamental fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith to the limited partner?
Opinions:
Majority - BEDSWORTH, J.
No, a limited partnership agreement's broad grant of powers does not permit a general partner to purchase partnership debt and foreclose on the partnership's sole asset, because such actions breach fundamental fiduciary duties which cannot be contracted away when the actions are fundamentally related to the partnership's business. The court emphasized that partnership is a fiduciary relationship, and partners, especially general partners of limited partnerships, are held to the highest standards of good faith, akin to trustees. Citing Corporations Code former § 15021 and out-of-state precedents, the court affirmed that a general partner who acquires a partnership obligation cannot then foreclose on partnership assets, as this constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty. The court rejected the argument that the partnership agreement's broad language, such as 'sole discretion' or the right to 'compete,' could waive these fundamental duties. It clarified that while partners can define many aspects of their relationship, this power does not extend to abrogating fiduciary duties in matters central to the partnership's existence and purpose, distinguishing from cases involving transactions 'fundamentally unrelated' to the partnership business. The court explicitly stated that Paragraph 5.1(c) of the agreement only absolved Equitable of an affirmative duty to bail out the partnership from a third-party lender's foreclosure, not to become the 'aggressive lender' itself to gain the partnership's asset. Equitable's reliance on the business opportunity doctrine or Corporations Code section 15617 was also dismissed, as these provisions do not sanction self-dealing that violates a general partner's core fiduciary obligations.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent that limits the enforceability of waiver clauses in partnership agreements, particularly for general partners' fiduciary duties. It reinforces the principle that duties of loyalty and good faith are inherent to the partnership relationship and cannot be extinguished by contract, especially when the actions directly impact the core business and involve self-dealing. This ruling provides crucial protection for limited partners by preventing general partners from leveraging their power and broad contractual authority to acquire partnership assets at the expense of their fiduciary obligations. Future partnership agreements will likely need to be more explicit and narrowly tailored if they intend to define circumstances where a general partner might engage in transactions that could be perceived as conflicts of interest, though outright waivers of core fiduciary duties in fundamental partnership matters remain invalid.
