Edge Group WAICCS LLC v. The Sapir Group LLC
705 F. Supp. 2d 304 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contractual provision for liquidated damages, such as the forfeiture of a deposit, does not preclude the remedy of specific performance unless the contract contains explicit language stating that the liquidated damages are to be the sole and exclusive remedy for the breach.
Facts:
- Edge Group WAICCS, LLC ('Edge Group') owned a 50% interest in WAICCS 2, a limited liability company whose sole asset was another LLC, which in turn held a 20.4% interest in undeveloped real estate in Las Vegas.
- On November 5, 2007, Edge Group granted Credit Suisse an option to purchase its interest for $20 million. The agreement included a clause stating that all remedies under the agreement were cumulative and not exclusive.
- On February 15, 2008, Credit Suisse assigned the option to Sapir Group LLC ('Sapir').
- As part of the assignment, the agreement was amended to extend the option period and require Sapir to deposit $1 million into an escrow account. The amendment incorporated the original cumulative remedies clause.
- The amendment stipulated that if Sapir exercised the option but then failed to consummate the closing, the $1 million escrow fund would be released to Edge Group.
- On May 1, 2008, the final day of the option period, Sapir delivered a Call Exercise Notice, creating a binding contract to purchase Edge Group's interest, and scheduled a closing for May 30, 2008.
- On May 29, 2008, one day before the scheduled closing, Sapir informed Edge Group that it would not complete the purchase, stating it had decided there were 'better uses for [its] funds.'
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Edge Group WAICCS, LLC sued Defendant Sapir Group LLC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking specific performance of a contract.
- Sapir filed an answer asserting that Edge Group's only remedy for the breach was the payment of $1 million held in escrow.
- Following the conclusion of discovery, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Plaintiff Edge Group moved for summary judgment seeking an order of specific performance.
- Defendant Sapir moved for summary judgment seeking a ruling that Plaintiff's relief was limited to the $1 million in the escrow account.
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 contract provision requiring the forfeiture of a $1 million deposit upon a buyer's failure to close preclude the seller from seeking the equitable remedy of specific performance, where the contract also contains a cumulative remedies clause and does not explicitly state the deposit is the sole remedy?
Opinions:
Majority - Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger
No. The contract's escrow provision does not preclude the remedy of specific performance because it does not explicitly state that forfeiture of the deposit is the sole remedy for a breach. Specific performance is an appropriate remedy where the legal remedy of damages is inadequate. Here, damages are inadequate because the subject of the contract—an interest in a multi-layered, closely-held LLC with restricted transferability, tied to undeveloped real estate in a collapsed market—is exceptionally difficult to value with any certainty. Furthermore, under New York law, a liquidated damages clause only bars specific performance if there is clear and explicit language in the contract to that effect. This contract contains no such language; to the contrary, it expressly incorporates a cumulative remedies clause stating that all available remedies are preserved. To interpret the deposit as the sole remedy would render the act of exercising the option meaningless, as there would be no additional consequence for breaching the resulting purchase contract versus simply letting the option expire.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the principle under New York law that equitable remedies like specific performance are not easily waived. The decision establishes a high bar for limiting remedies, requiring explicit and unambiguous contractual language to make a liquidated damages provision exclusive. It also provides a modern application of the 'uniqueness' doctrine for specific performance, extending it from real property to complex, illiquid ownership interests in privately held companies, whose value is highly speculative and uncertain. This precedent strengthens the position of sellers of unique or hard-to-value business interests, ensuring that they can seek to enforce a sale rather than being forced to accept a potentially inadequate monetary sum after a buyer's breach.
Unlock the full brief for Edge Group WAICCS LLC v. The Sapir Group LLC