Summary
The New York Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed claims arising from guarantees issued by Enel S.P.A. for construction obligations relating to solar facilities in Mexico. The court held that the guarantees were ambiguous and that the breach-of-guarantee claim should not have been dismissed at the pleading stage, while affirming dismissal of the implied-covenant claim. Appeals from related orders were dismissed as subsumed in the appeals from the judgment.
Holdings
- Dismissal of the claim for breach of the guarantees was improper because the guarantees were ambiguous and the court could not conclude at this stage that plaintiffs were required to demand payment while the arbitration was pending or that their claims were barred by expiration.
- Plaintiffs had standing to pursue the guarantee claims because they were identified as beneficiaries under the guarantees, the trusts granted them powers of attorney to pursue the claims, and their status as secondary beneficiaries also conferred standing.
- The implied-covenant claim was properly dismissed because allegations that Enel owned a majority of the contractor subsidiary's stock and that the subsidiary was thinly capitalized were insufficient, without allegations of disregard of corporate formalities, commingling, fraudulent transfers, or comparable veil-piercing facts.
Questions Presented
- Whether the amended complaint adequately pleaded a claim for breach of Enel's guarantees where the guarantees were ambiguous concerning the timing of a demand during arbitration and whether payment could be collected after expiration.
- Whether plaintiffs had standing to pursue claims under the guarantees despite assignments of certain rights and their status as beneficiaries or secondary beneficiaries of trusts.
- Whether plaintiffs adequately pleaded facts supporting their implied-covenant claim and corporate veil piercing based on Enel's majority ownership and the contractor subsidiary's alleged undercapitalization.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (4)
- Alden Global Value Recovery Master Fund, L.P. v. KeyBank N.A., 159 A.D.3d 618, 625 (1st Dep't 2018)(followed)
- Fitzpatrick Intl. Ltd. v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea, 2013 WL 5964560, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2013) (No. H-12-1300)(followed)
- Besser v. Miller, 12 A.D.3d 1118, 1119 (4th Dep't 2004)(followed)
- International Credit Brokerage Co. v. Agapov, 249 A.D.2d 77, 78 (1st Dep't 1998)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.