Parque Solar Don Jose S.A. de C.V. v. Enel S.P.A.

2025 NY Slip Op 06819 · Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department · December 9, 2025 · No. Index No. 656415/23; Appeal Nos. 5329-5330-5331; Case Nos. 2024-07648, 2025-00525, 2025-02563

Summary

The New York Appellate Division, First Department, modified a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ amended complaint by reinstating their claim for breach of guarantees and otherwise affirmed. The court held that the guarantees were ambiguous regarding the timing of payment demands and whether claims could be collected after expiration, while affirming dismissal of the implied covenant claim for insufficient allegations supporting veil piercing.

Holdings

  1. The guarantee-breach cause of action should not have been dismissed because the guarantees were ambiguous, and the court could not conclude that plaintiffs were required to demand payment from Enel while the arbitration against the contractor subsidiary was pending.
  2. Assuming the demands were timely, plaintiffs' demands were sufficient under the guarantees, and plaintiffs had standing to pursue the claims based on their status as named beneficiaries, the powers of attorney granted by the trustees, and their status as secondary beneficiaries; in any event, the amended complaint was also brought by assignees and their trustees.
  3. The claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was properly dismissed with prejudice because plaintiffs alleged only that Enel owned a majority of the contractor subsidiary's stock and that the subsidiary was thinly capitalized, without alleging disregard of corporate formalities, commingling of funds, fraudulent transfers, or comparable veil-piercing facts.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the guarantee-breach claim was properly dismissed where the guarantees were ambiguous regarding when plaintiffs had to demand payment during the pending arbitration and whether payment could be collected after expiration of the guarantees.
  2. Whether plaintiffs' demands and assignments, together with powers of attorney and trust-beneficiary status, gave them standing to pursue claims under the guarantees.
  3. Whether plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or facts supporting piercing the corporate veil.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

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.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…