
Robert E. Levy
Partner
201-896-7163 rlevy@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Robert E. Levy
Date: September 8, 2017
Partner
201-896-7163 rlevy@sh-law.comIn the age of smart phones, business deals are frequently negotiated via email rather than traditional letter correspondence. While the use of technology certainly streamlines the process, it can also result in unintended liability.
Under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act of 1999, which is now in force in all 50 states, a contract “may not be denied legal effect solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.” The statute also encourages courts to take a “liberal” approach when determining whether a series of emails should be considered a binding legal agreement.
In Stonehill Capital Management v. Bank of the West , 28 NY3d 439 (2016), the New York Court of Appeals ruled that an agreement to sell a distressed loan via the auction loan trading market was enforceable, even in the absence of a formally executed written contract. According to the court, the terms had been established and agreed upon through the documents and emails exchanged by the parties.
As detailed in the court’s opinion, Bank of the West (BOTW) solicited bids on a loan portfolio. The Offering Memorandum stated that the bids were non-contingent final offers that, if accepted by the seller, required execution by the bidder of a pre-negotiated asset sale agreement and an accompanying ten percent deposit. The Memorandum also stated that the loans sold at auction were “subject only to those representations and warranties explicitly stated in the asset sale agreement,” which was included in the Memorandum. Thus, the terms of the sale were pre-set.
In response, Stonehill Capital Management, LLC (Stonehill) submitted a bid. When BOTW accepted Stonehill’s offer, it confirmed the bid in a correspondence setting forth the sale price, the specific loan to be sold, the timing of the closing, and the manner of payment and wire transfer instructions. In subsequent correspondence, neither BOTW nor its counsel indicated that the “Loan Sale Agreement” (LSA) form or any modifications were unacceptable.
In future correspondence, counsel for BOTW did not mention any problems with the LSTA form that Stonehill had sent, but instead requested documentation from Stonehill to move the transaction along towards a mid-May closing date. Specifically, in one email thread, BOTW’s counsel said he was working on getting the documents to Stonehill the following Monday and requested a term sheet from a previous trade to further the process. After Stonehill responded that it could not return the term sheet requested because of confidentiality provisions, offering instead to send an LSTA form, BOTW’s counsel informed Stonehill that it could proceed as described.
BOTW ultimately decided not to go through will the sale, prompting Stonehill to file a breach of contract action. BOTW conceded that it accepted Stonehill’s bid and then refused to transfer the loan, but maintained it had no legal obligation to do so because the parties never executed a written sales agreement and Stonehill failed to submit a timely cash deposit.
The New York Court of Appeals disagreed. It held that the “totality of the parties’ conduct, and the objective manifestations of the parties’ intent as evidenced by their expressed words and deeds, establishes as a matter of law the existence of the agreement.” As further explained by the court, “BOTW reconsidered the sale — not because of the failure to execute a written agreement or because Stonehill had not tendered the 10% deposit, but because BOTW concluded it would make more money by reneging on the sale. That choice was a breach of its agreement with Stonehill.”
Our attorneys have seen an increase in New Jersey and New York business litigation involving “high-tech” negotiations involving emails and text messages. To avoid a costly breach of contract lawsuit, below are five tips for negotiating a contract via email:
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Robert Levy, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Since his inauguration two months ago, Donald Trump’s administration and the Congress it controls have indicated important upcoming policy changes. These changes will impact financial services policies and priorities. The changes will particularly affect cryptocurrency, as well as banking rules and regulations. Key Regulatory Changes in Cryptocurrency For example, in the burgeoning cryptocurrency business environment, […]
Author: Dan Brecher
The retail sector has experienced a wave of bankruptcy filings over the last year. Brick-and-mortar businesses in financial distress include big-name brands like Big Lots, Party City, The Container Store, and Vitamin Shoppe. When large retailers seek bankruptcy protection, they are not the only businesses impacted. Landlords can be particularly hard hit. While commercial landlords […]
Author: Brian D. Spector
The bankruptcy legal landscape presents both challenges and opportunities for businesses navigating financial distress. Understanding current bankruptcy trends can help businesses make more informed and strategic decisions. Corporate Bankruptcy Filings Trending Upwards Bankruptcy filings continued to trend upwards in 2024. According to statistics released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, personal and business […]
Author: Brian D. Spector
In December, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced charges against two privately held companies for failing to file a Form D notice, which is generally utilized for exempt securities offerings. Here, the SEC’s enforcement sends a strong message: compliance with regulatory requirements is not optional and failure to comply can have significant consequences. […]
Author: Kenneth C. Oh
On February 14, 2025, the Office of General Counsel (OGC) of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen issued Memorandum 25-05, “New Process for More Efficient, Effective, Accessible and Transparent Case handling.” The Memorandum rescinds nearly all of the Memoranda issued by his direct predecessor, Jennifer Abruzzo, setting the […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
If you purchase real property from a foreign person or entity, you may be required to withhold taxes from your payment to the seller under the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act (FIRPTA). The federal tax law is designed to ensure that foreign sellers pay any applicable capital gains tax on profits realized from […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!