Securities Law - Does Rule 10(b)(5) Have An Extraterritorial Effect?

Respondent, National Australia Bank Ltd. (“National”), the largest bank in Australia, has its shares traded on the Australian Stock Exchange and on other foreign securities exchanges but not on any exchange in the United States. National bought the stock of HomeSide and operated it as a subsidiary. HomeSide’s business was to receipt fees for servicing mortgages. These services are a valuable asset and the more valuable it is, is a function of period in which the fees will be paid. HomeSide calculates the present value of the mortgage servicing rights by using a valuation model designed to take the likelihood of prepayment into account. In other words, if mortgages are prepaid, the service fees stop to the extent of such repayment.

From the allegations in the Complaint, it is alleged that National’s Managing Director and Chief Directing Officer plotted the benefits of National but it also alleged that they did not take into account the write-downs necessary because of prepayments.

In July 2001, National wrote down HomeSide’s assets by $450,000 million and then again on September 3, 2001 by another $1.75 billion. The shares dropped in value. These plaintiffs alleged that the executives manipulated HomeSide’s financial models to make the rates of early repayment unrealistically low in order to cause the mortgaging servicing rights to appear more valuable than they actually were. Two Australians purchased ordinary shares in 2000 and 2001 before the write-downs. They sued National and HomeSide in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for violations of §10(b) and §20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10(b)(5). They sought to represent a class of foreign purchasers of National’s ordinary shares up to the September write-downs.
Plaintiffs, the Australians, according to the Complaint, invested based on false information. The Second Circuit held that the specific language of §30(b) does not show Congressional intent to preclude application of the Exchange Act to transactions regarding stock traded in the United States which are affected outside the United States.

The Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice Scalia stated that there is no affirmative indication in the Exchange Act that §10(b) applies extra-territorially and that “we, therefore, conclude that it does not.”

The Court further stated that it is our view that only transactions of securities listed under domestic exchanges and domestic transactions and other securities to which §10(b) applies. Thus, §10(b) reaches the use of a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance only in connection with the purchase or sale of a security listed an American stock exchange and the purchase or sale of any such security in the United States.

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsberg joined, concurred in the judgment.

Justice Stevens stated that he took exception to the statements in the majority opinion that the decision rested on the construction of the statutory text. “I happen to agree with the result the court reaches in this case. But, ‘I respectfully dissent,’ once again from the Court’s continuing campaign to render the private cause of action under Section 10(b) toothless.

Edward X. Clinton, Sr.

Read More

Securities Law - Use of Insider Information

The SEC on October 30, 2010 filed a complaint against Dr. Yves M. Benhamou in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (10-CV-8266 (DAB)) alleging that Dr. Benhamou engaged in insider trading by providing confidential non-public information to several hedge funds.

According to the Complaint, six healthcare related hedge funds sold about 6,000,000 shares of Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (“HGSI”) and at the time the portfolio manager of the hedge funds possessed material negative non-public information concerning a clinical trial of the drug Albumin Interferon Alfa 2-a (“Albuferon”, a drug to treat ashtma). Benhamou was an advisor to the portfolio manager of the hedge funds. Benhamou, a citizen and resident of France, was one of five members of the Steering Committee overseeing the Albuferon clinical trial.

According to the Complaint, in January 2008, HGSI announced that all patients who had been administered a higher dosage level of Albuferon in its clinical trial would be moved to the lower dosage level because of safety issues with the most recent clinical trial. The Complaint alleges that Benhamou learned this negative material non-public information about the drug as a member of the Clinical Steering committee which had negative implications for commercial potential and that Benhamou passed the negative information to the portfolio manager of the hedge funds before the announcement was made public. When the information became public, the market price of HGSI’s common stock fell about 44%.

The hedge funds sold about 6,000,000 shares of HGSI representing all of its holdings before the announcement and avoided a $30 million loss. The market price of the drug went down 44% after the announcement.

It is alleged that Benhamou communicated this negative information in violation of his duty as a member of the Steering Committee and that the portfolio manager of the hedge funds knew or should have known that Benhamou served on the Drugs Trial’s Steering Committee and owed a duty of confidentiality.

The SEC charged that Benhamou violated § 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 by (a) employing a device scheme or artifice due to fraud; (b) obtaining money or property by means of untrue statements of a material fact or omitting a material fact in order to make the statements made in the light of the circumstances under which they were made not misleading, or (c) engaging in a practice or course of business that operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit.

The SEC seeks a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant from violating (a) § 20(e) and (b) § 21(d)(1) of the Exchange Act and (b) from violating § 17(a) of the Securities Act, and (c) § 10(b)(5) of the Exchange Act. The SEC seeks to have (a) Benhamou disgorge with prejudgment interest all illicit trading profits or losses avoided as a result of the conduct alleged in the Complaint, and (b) ordering the Defendant to pay civil penalties pursuant to Securities Act and the Exchange Act.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Defendant was also charged criminally and was arrested in New York

Read More

Evidence - The Admissibility of Hearsay Statements By A Party Opponent

HEARSAY: STATEMENTS BY THE AGENT OF A PARTY-OPPONENT

By
Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
The Law Offices of Edward X. Clinton, P.C.
30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3400
Chicago, IL 60602

Statements by an agent of a party-opponent are under certain circumstances hearsay admissions of the party-opponent.

This article will describe how to introduce or resist the introduction of statements by a party's agent under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and will discuss the debate concerning whether the declarant must have knowledge concerning the underlying facts and the exception for statements by government agents. These issues often arise in personal injury and employment litigation.

Some recent cases suggest that it is becoming more difficult to obtain admission of a statement by a party opponent.

To review: Hearsay is an out-of-court statement by the declarant admitted for the truth of the matter asserted. Rule 801(c). Under Rule 801, admissions of a party-opponent are not hearsay. One type of admission by a party opponent is a statement by an agent of the party-opponent. According to Rule 801(d)(2)(D), a statement is not hearsay if it is offered against a party and was made by "the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship." The rationale is that "an agent or servant who speaks on any matter within the scope of his agency or employment during the existence of that relationship, is unlikely to make statements damaging to his principal or employer unless those statements are true." Nekolny v. Painter, 653 F.2d 1164, 1172 (7th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1021 (1982).

I. A Three Part Showing Is Required

To prove that a statement is admissible a party must make a three-part showing. The offering party must demonstrate (1) the existence of an employment or agency relationship "independent of the declarant's statement offered as evidence;" (2) that the statement was "made during the existence of the declarant's `agency or employment" and (3) that the statement concerns a matter within the scope of declarant's employment or agency relationship. Boren v. Sable, 887 F.2d 1032, 1038 (10th Cir. 1989). I will now discuss each requirement in detail.

II. Is The Declarant The Agent or Servant of the Party Opponent?

Under the Rule the proponent must first establish that the declarant is the agent of the party opponent. Whether Rule 801(d)(2)(D) applies depends on the relationship between the declarant and the defendant. Zaken v. Boerer, 964 F.2d 1319 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 467 (1992). In employment litigation one employee may sue a colleague and attempt to introduce a hearsay declaration by another employee. It is not dispositive that both the declarant and the defendant work for the same employer. Id. at 1323. In Zaken, plaintiff alleged that she was fired by the defendant, the president of a corporation, on the basis of her pregnancy. She sought to introduce the hearsay statement of a company vice president that another employee was fired because she was pregnant. The declaration was admissible because the vice president was directly responsible to the defendant and was therefore the defendant's agent. Id. See also Boren v. Sable, 887 F.2d 1032, 1039 (10th Cir. 1989) (in a personal injury action against a co-employee the court excluded a statement by the shop foreman because he was not the agent of the co-employee). If the foundational requirements are met, it may not even be necessary to identify the declarant. Pappas v. Middle Earth Condominium Ass'n., 963 F.2d 534, 537-38 (2d Cir. 1992) (in slip and fall case the statement by an unidentified employee was admissible to show that the defendant was aware of an icy patch on a walkway).

It is possible for an attorney to be the agent of a party. See United States v. Harris, 914 F.2d 927, 931 (7th Cir. 1990) (defendant's former attorney's statements were admissible but the court noted that "the unique nature of the attorney-client relationship, however, demands that a trial court exercise caution in admitting statements that are the product of this relationship."); United States v. Brandon, 50 F.3d 464, 468 (7th Cir. 1995) (important policies "concerning the effective assistance of the counsel of one's choosing" must also be preserved). In Harris, the court found that the conflict between the attorney-client relationship and the rule was not serious because the former attorney did not represent the defendant at trial.

III. Was the Statement Made During the Existence of The Agency?

Next, the proponent must demonstrate that the statement was made during the existence of the agency or employment relationship. This requirement is straightforward and prevents the admission of statements made after the agency relationship terminated. See Blanchard v. Peoples Bank, 844 F.2d 264, 267 n.7 (5th Cir. 1988) (statement by former employee inadmissible because the employee was not employed by defendant when the statement was made); Corley v. Burger King Corp., 56 F.3d 709, 709 (5th Cir. 1995) (statement by manager of Burger King admissible to show he was acting within scope of employment when he was driving a car involved in an auto accident).

IV. Does The Statement Concern A Matter Within The Scope of The Agency?

The proponent must also demonstrate that the statement concerns a matter within the scope of the agency or employment relationship. The Rule does not require that the declarant "have authority to bind its employer," because few employers will authorize employees to make binding admissions in litigation. Big Apple BMW Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc., 974 F.2d 1358, 1372 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1262 (1993); see also Advisory Committee Note to Rule 801(d)(2)(D); Woodman v. Haemonetics Corp., 51 F.3d 1087, 1094 (1st Cir. 1995) (same).

Courts analyzing this requirement apply a common sense approach to the scope of employment. In Nesbit v. Pepsico, Inc., 994 F.2d 703 (9th Cir. 1993), plaintiffs alleged that they had been terminated because of their age. At trial, plaintiffs introduced a statement by the defendant's senior vice president of personnel that: "We don't want unpromotable fifty-year olds around." Id. at 705. The district court held the statement inadmissible because plaintiffs failed to show that the vice president was acting within the scope of his employment. The Ninth Circuit conceded that the ruling was error, but found the error harmless because "the statement was very general and did not relate in any way, directly or indirectly, to the terminations of Nesbit or Selby." Id. It is readily apparent that a personnel manager's duties include hiring and firing. Thus, the manager's comments were within the scope of employment. See also Woodman v. Haemonetics Corp., 51 F.3d 1087 (1st Cir. 1995) (in ADEA claim, statements by a supervisor that new management wanted to bring in younger employees were admissible because the statements concerned matters within the scope of the supervisor's employment); EEOC v. Watergate At Landmark Condominium, 24 F.3d 635, 640 (4th Cir. 1994) (comments of members of condominium committees concerning age of employee were admissible in ADEA action because the members had input in the decisional process).

Where the declarant has nothing to do with employment decisions, the court will exclude the hearsay statement. In Staheli v. University of Mississippi, 854 F.2d 121 (5th Cir. 1988), the court excluded statements by a colleague of a professor who was denied tenure because the colleague was not involved in the tenure decision. At trial, the plaintiff sought to testify that an accounting professor told him that the university's chancellor was unhappy about an incident involving laboratory animals. The accounting professor's statements were excluded because he had nothing to do with the denial of tenure. The statement had no relationship to the scope of his duties for the school. Id. at 127.

What about the comments of an agent of a subsidiary? Can those statements be held to be admissions of the parent corporation? In Big Apple BMW, the court found that statements by an employee of BMW credit and leasing could be attributed to the parent corporation because the parent dominated the activities of the subsidiary. 974 F.2d at 1373.

V. Exception For Statements By Agents of the Government

The rule does not apply to government employees. United States v. Prevatte, 16 F.3d 767, 778 (7th Cir. 1994). According to the Seventh Circuit, the rationale for this exception is that "no individual can bind the sovereign." Id. at 779. In United States v. Kampiles, 609 F.2d 1233, 1246 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 954 (1980), the court explained that "because the agents of the Government are supposedly disinterested in the outcome of a trial and are traditionally unable to bind the sovereign, their statements seem less the product of the adversary process and hence less appropriately described as admissions of a party." In criminal cases, introducing statements of other Government agents (say FBI agents) could prejudice the Government and require the Government to call additional witnesses to rebut the alleged statement.

One commentator has criticized this exception. See Edward J. Imwinkelreid, "Of Evidence and Equal Protection: The Unconstitutionality of Excluding Government Agents' Statements Offered as Vicarious Admissions Against the Prosecution," 71 Minn. L. Rev. 269 (1986). However, there appears to be no effort in the courts or in Congress to abolish the exception.

VI. Recent Caselaw – Statements Are Often Excluded Based on Other Evidentiary Rules.

In Keri v. Board of Trustees of Purdue University, 458 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2006), the Seventh Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment to Purdue University on Plaintiff’s racial discrimination claims. Plaintiff sought to admit the statements of two professors who had previously complained that “most students were not taught by black faculty.” Neither witness provided testimony on why plaintiff was not retained by the employer. The witnesses simply gave their opinions concerning the racial climate on campus.

The District Court excluded the statements on the ground that neither professor had any decision-making authority in the employment area and that the statements were not within the scope of their agency. Moreover, the statements were improper under Rule 701 which bars a witness from expressing an opinion unless the opinion is based on first-hand knowledge.

Similarly, in Williams v. Pharmacia, 137 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 1998), the Seventh Circuit held that it was error (in a sex discrimination case) to admit statements of other employees who were also allegedly subjected to discrimination by a particular supervisor. As the court noted, the complaints made by the women did not fall within the scope of their employment. As the Court noted, “they were the subjects of the decisions; they did not make them.” There was no evidence that the declarants had any involvement in the decision to terminate the Plaintiff. See also Hill v. Spiegel, 708 F.2d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1983).

In Mister v. Northeast Illinois Commuter Rail Road, 571 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2009), the Seventh Circuit affirmed a decision excluding statements of a party opponent on Rule 403 grounds, even though it disagreed with the District Court’s analysis.
Mister was a railroad employee who was injured when he slipped and fell. The Defendant’s inspector prepared a report which included a statement that another employee had falled the previous week at the same spot. The District Court excluded the statement because the investigator had no personal knowledge of the events described.

The Seventh Circuit held that there was no requirement that the declarant (the author of the report) have personal knowledge of the events. As the Court noted, the Rule “’simply requires that the statement be made by an individual who is an agent, that the statement be made during the period of the agency, and that the matter be within the subject matter of the agency.’” quoting Young v. James Green Mgmt., Inc., 327 F.3d 616, 621 (7th Cir. 2003). However, the Seventh Circuit held that it “was not improper” to exclude the report because the report appeared to be unreliable and it lacked precise factual statements.

Statements may also be excluded when they would act as improper expert testimony. In Aliotta v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 315 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2003), the plaintiff was killed by a train. The District Court excluded the statements of a risk manager of the defendant, who stated that fast trains can cause vacuums that suck nearby people underneath their wheels. The testimony was excluded on the ground that it was scientific testimony that was unreliable under Daubert and Rule 702, which require the judge to determine if scientific testimony is relevant and reliable.

On appeal the Seventh Circuit agreed that the statements of the risk manager were classic statements by a party opponent within the scope of the agency. The Seventh Circuit held that the statements were properly excluded because they were improper expert or opinion testimony that was not based on the scientific method. As the court concluded, “we see no good reason why unqualified and unreliable scientific knowledge should be exempted from the expert evidence rules simply because the speaker is an employee of a party-opponent.” The holding of Aliotto that a statement that is an admission of a party opponent is not admissible because it is unfounded and unqualified expert testimony is highly significant. In my experience, lay witnesses often attempt to offer opinions that they are not qualified to offer.

VIII. Conclusion

In sum, Rule 801(d)(2)(d) is relatively straightforward and easy to apply to most factual situations. However, a party hoping to introduce a hearsay admission by an agent of a party-opponent should make sure that it can satisfy all three foundational requirements. As I have noted, Rule 801(d)(2)(D) can be of great significance in employment litigation, where employees may comment on a termination, and in personal injury suits arising out of injuries on the jobsite, where employees may witness the accident or corrective measures. Obviously, an employer desiring to protect itself from litigation should caution employees to refrain from commenting on terminations or other adverse employment actions.

Read More

Contract Law - An Oral Buy Sell Agreement Is Upheld

The case captioned, Prignano v. Prignano, 2-09-0439, (Illinois Appellate Court, Second District) is significant in that it recognizes a vague oral buy-sell agreement between two brothers, one of whom had passed away.

George and Louis Prignano owned several businesses together. At some point they appear to have agreed the upon the death of either of them, the survivor would buy out the other's share of the business from his heirs, using the proceeds from three life insurance policies purchased for that purpose.

The brothers discussed the arrangement, purchased the insurance, but never formalized it with a written contract signed by both of them. The case is significant because George's widow, Nancy Prignano, met the burden of proving the existence of the agreement with testimony of third parties, the insurance policies and the draft buy-sell agreement. The Appellate Court affirmed a verdict in Ms. Prignano's favor, which essentially enforced the oral agreement. Louis obtained the entire business and George's widow, Nancy, obtained the insurance proceeds.

Comment: this case again shows the importance of documenting business relationships. All too often the undersigned learns of an "agreement" between two partners that was never documented. The agreement is often very difficult to prove up at a later date. Usually unsigned documents are not worth the paper they were printed on. The buy-sell area of the law is one in which timely legal advice is invaluable. Those who try to do it themselves inevitably suffer.

Read More

Securities Law - Recent Developments Concerning SEC v. Howey, 328 U.S. 293 (1946)

SEC v. Howey, 328 U.S. 293 (1946) is one of the most important cases interpreting the securities laws.

The Defendants offered "units of a citrus grove development coupled with a contract for cultivating, marketing and remitting the net proceeds to the investor."

The SEC sued and alleged that the Defendants had failed to register the unit offering. The Defendants responded that they were not offering securities - rather they were offering the right to engage in citrus farming.

The Supreme Court held that the units were "investment contracts" under the Securities Law. 15 U.S.C. Section 77b(a)(1). The Court defined the investment contract as "a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or third party, it being immaterial whether the shares in the enterprise are evidenced by formal certificates or by nominal interests in the physical assets employed in the enterprise." Id at 299.

The Supreme Court held that the interests in the citrus farm were investment contracts because the contracts were "an opportunity to contribute money and to share in the profits of a large citrus fruit enterprise managed and partly owned by respondents." Moreover, the purchasers were not seeking to own land. They hoped to obtain a return on their investment. As the Court noted, "all the elements of a profit-seeking business venture are present here. The investors provide capital and share in the earnings and profits; the promoters manager, control and operate the enterprise."

The holding of Howey is crucial to the operation of the Securities Laws. Without this holding, promoters could design investment contracts that would be exempted from regulation under the Act.

Recent Developments:

Two recent decisions have reaffirmed the long-standing principles set forth in Howey.

In Warfield v. Alaniz, 569 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2009), the Ninth Circuit held that certain charitable gift annuities were investment contracts under the federal securities laws.

The promoter, Robert Dillie, sold charitable annuities that promised an investment return to investors during their lifetimes and gifts to charities when the passed away. The Foundation raised $55 million from investors. Unfortunately it was a Ponzi scheme and had no investments. Ultimately, the Foundation collapsed. A receiver was appointed to recover assets for the victims. The receiver filed a lawsuit seeking the return of commissions paid to agents who sold the charitable annuities. After a trial the District Court entered judgment in favor of the receiver and against the agents.

The agents appealed on the ground that the charitable annuities were not investment contract and, thus, not securities.

The Ninth Circuit rejected their arguments and affirmed the judgment. The Court held that the annuities were investment contracts because there was "(1) an investment of money (2) in a common enterprise (3) with an expectation of profits produced by the efforts of others."

The annuities were investments because the promoter promised a substantial return on the investment to the participants.

The second decision we will review is Liberty Property Trust v. Republic Properties Corporation, 577 F.3d 335 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

The Plaintiffs brought claims under the securities laws against the Defendant Republic that marketed certain limited partnership units.

The two main defendants controlled the defendant and, in exchange for limited partnership units, transferred a valuable contract to the limited partnership. Later, as a result of a scandal, that contract was terminated by city of West Palm beach. The limited partnership interests became worthless.

The Defendants argued that the limited partnership interests were not investment contracts because they were on both sides of the transaction (they owned the Defendant and some of the limited partnership interests.) The court held that the limited partnership interests were securities because two of the defendants "expected to profit from the efforts of [others]." The two defendants lacked sufficient control over the limited partnership, so they were clearly trying to profit from the work of other people.

In sum, the Howey decision remains good law and is as relevant today as it was in 1946.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

Read More

Does Illinois Permit Lawsuits By Those Who Merely "Hold" Securities?

The United States Supreme Court in Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drugstores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975) held that investors injured by fraud may recover under the Federal Securities Law only if the deceit caused them to purchase or sell securities. In the Blue Chips case, the Supreme Court stated that states may supply the remedy when Federal Law does not. California has done so. It authorizes “holder actions” which are suits by investors who contend that the fraud caused them to hold their shares when they would have sold them had they known the truth. See, Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 30 Cal. 4th 167 (2003).

Plaintiff, Anderson, the holder of about 95,000 shares of Aon Corporation claimed in a U.S. District Court case that he would have sold his stock in Aon if he known earlier of fraud by the Company. When the financial information was discovered the stock dropped from about $69.00 a share to about $14 a share. Anderson’s claim was under the Illinois Securities Law and the District Judge held that the Illinois law supplies the rule of decision. Securities law in Illinois tracks federal law when the statutes use the same language, see Tirapelli v. Advanced Equities, Inc., 351 Ill.App. 3d 450, 455, 813 N.E. 2d 1138, 1142 (2004), which means that Illinois may follow the purchaser-seller rule of Blue Chip Stamps. The District Court concluded that the Plaintiff does not have a claim under Illinois law.

The Seventh Circuit in Anderson v. Aon Corporation, No. 09-1144 decided July 26, 2010, after sorting out various procedural maneuvers by plaintiff, in effect held that it was not clear if Illinois will permit holder actions, but it reversed the District Court that had dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint and remanded so that Plaintiff could pursue his claim.

Does Plaintiff have a holder claim under Illinois law? The final determination of this issue will await a trial.

Read More

Contract Law - Illinois Court Rejects Impossibility of Performance Defense

The case captioned, YPI 180 N. LaSalle Owner, LLC, v. 180 N. LaSalle II, LLC, 1-09-1797, provides an interesting discussion of the impossibility of performance doctrine.

The Plaintiff was an assignee of a contract to purchase real estate. It argued that the 2008 financial crisis following the failure of Lehman Brothers made it impossible to obtain financing and therefore it was excused from performance.

The Court, like the trial court, rejected the rescission claim. The court noted that "Rescission is an equitable remedy that seeks to restore the contracting parties to their precontract positions." Opinion at 5.

The Court noted that "impossibility of performance as a ground for rescission of a contract refers to those factual situations where the purposes for which the contract was made have, on the one side, become impossible to perform." See 30 R. Lord, Williston on Contracts, Section 77:95 (2004). The court noted that the impossibility defense is limited "to the destruction of the means of performance by an Act of God, vis major, or by law" and that performance should only be excused in extreme circumstances. Seaboard Lumber Co. v. United States, 308 F.3d 1283, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Kel Kim Corp. v. Central Markets, Inc., 70 N.Y.2d 900, 902, 519 N.E. 2d 295, 296 (1987). More importantly, "where a contingency that causes the impossibility might have been anticipated or guarded against in the contract, it must be provided for by the terms of the contract or else impossibility does not excuse performance.

Here, Plaintiff's claim was rejected because it was foreseeable that a commercial lender might not provide the required financing to complete the real estate purchase.

Comment: this is a novel and creative attempt by the plaintiff's lawyer to rescind a real estate contract, but it did not convince the trial court or the Illinois Appellate Court. As the court noted, if the inability to obtain commercial financing, standing alone, were sufficient to excuse performance...., then the law binding contractual parties to their agreements would be of no consequence." The Court is correct, the Plaintiff could have negotiated for a financing contingency in the contract, but apparently failed to do so. Opinion at 10.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

Read More