William Blair & Co. v. Fi Liquidation Corp.
294 Ill. Dec. 348, 830 N.E.2d 760, 358 Ill.App.3d 324 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a contract term is ambiguous and its interpretation relies on extrinsic evidence where material facts or the inferences drawn therefrom are disputed, summary judgment is inappropriate.
Facts:
- In spring 1995, Spectra co-founder Laurence Weiss contacted William Blair & Company (Blair), an investment banking firm, to facilitate Spectra's sale or merger.
- Spectra and Blair negotiated an engagement letter that included a "tail provision," entitling Blair to a fee if Spectra completed a transaction within 12 months of termination with any party with whom "substantive discussions" had been held; Spectra insisted on adding "substantive" to modify "discussions."
- After an initial engagement letter was signed in August 1995 and activity was deferred, an identical letter, acknowledging the prior payment of a $25,000 retainer, was signed on January 30, 1998.
- Blair subsequently contacted G.T.C. Transcontinental Group, Ltd. (Transcontinental), and after several calls with Transcontinental's assistant, Transcontinental signed a confidentiality agreement, whereupon Blair sent Transcontinental a confidential descriptive memorandum (CDM).
- Blair made five follow-up calls to Transcontinental, leaving messages for its CEO but never speaking with him or anyone else with authority about the CDM's contents.
- On January 20, 1999, Spectra terminated Blair's engagement, and in October 1999, Transcontinental acquired Spectra through another investment banking firm.
- On June 21, 2001, Blair demanded a fee from Spectra, asserting that it had "substantive discussions" with Transcontinental within the tail provision's 12-month period.
- Spectra refused payment, arguing Blair's contacts with Transcontinental did not constitute "substantive discussions."
Procedural Posture:
- William Blair & Company (Blair) filed suit against FI Liquidation Corporation (Spectra) in the circuit court of Cook County for breach of contract.
- Spectra filed a response denying liability and raising three affirmative defenses.
- The circuit court heard cross-motions for summary judgment from both parties.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Spectra, finding that no "substantive discussions" had taken place that would entitle Blair to a fee.
- Blair appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court, First District.
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 the term "substantive discussions" in an investment banking engagement letter's tail provision, when undefined in the contract and subject to conflicting interpretations based on extrinsic evidence, create a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Gordon
Yes, the term "substantive discussions" in the engagement letter's tail provision is ambiguous, and the conflicting inferences drawn from the extrinsic evidence create a genuine issue of material fact, thus precluding summary judgment. The court found that "substantive discussions" is an ambiguous term because its dictionary definitions are imprecise, and the contract itself does not define it or clarify what actions would qualify. While contract interpretation is generally a question of law suitable for summary judgment, when contract language is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence must be considered. Summary judgment becomes inappropriate if factual questions regarding a material issue remain disputed after considering this evidence. The court noted that the parties presented conflicting interpretations of "substantive discussions" (Blair asserting that preparing and submitting a CDM and negotiating a confidentiality agreement constitute such discussions, and Spectra arguing these are merely preliminary steps, and actual discussions never occurred), demonstrating a genuine dispute. Expert testimony, while not directly interpretative in unambiguous contracts, can be admitted provisionally to test for ambiguity or assist in contract construction at trial. However, here, even with extrinsic evidence like parol evidence from negotiations and expert opinions, the inferences drawn by each party were reasonable yet conflicting. The court rejected Spectra's reliance on general contextual uses of the phrase in other cases or its co-founder Weiss's subjective understanding, emphasizing objective contract interpretation. Additionally, the court addressed Spectra's affirmative defenses: first, the tail provision's reference to "the last sentence of Section 2" for fee calculation, despite the actual fee being in an earlier sentence, did not render it unenforceable, as the last sentence (defining "Total Consideration") implicitly "contemplates" the fee calculation set forth previously, making the parties' intent clear. Second, Spectra's defense that Blair lacked express authorization to contact Transcontinental presented a factual question, and determining whether such a breach was material (justifying non-performance) also required factual inquiry, making summary judgment inappropriate on this ground as well.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the principle that summary judgment is inappropriate when a contract contains ambiguous terms whose meaning depends on disputed extrinsic evidence or conflicting inferences. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to objective contract interpretation, prioritizing the language mutually agreed upon over subjective, retrospective explanations. Furthermore, the decision provides critical guidance on the admissibility and limitations of expert testimony in contract disputes and clarifies that not every breach of contract is material enough to excuse counter-party performance, necessitating a thorough factual inquiry into the breach's impact on the overall contract objectives.
