United States: Enforceability Of Oral Contracts For Loan And Claim Trades

The Loan Syndications and Trading Association (the "LSTA") scored a major victory in 2002 when New York adopted LSTA-sponsored legislation designed to make oral agreements to trade bank loans and claims arising from business debts legally binding. Since then, participants in both the syndicated loan market and the claims trading market have come to rely upon the idea that trades entered over the phone are binding, so long as the parties agreed to the material terms of the trade.

A 2014 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision calls this assumption into question for loan trading, and a case that is currently pending in New York state court could extend the uncertainty to business debt claim trades as well.

Background: The Statute of Frauds and Loan Trading

One basic tenet of U.S. contract law holds that a party should not be bound to certain types of agreements (such as real estate contracts or contracts that cannot be performed within one year) unless the material terms are put into writing and signed by the party against whom relief is sought. This concept, based on a 17th century English law, is known as the "Statute of Frauds." Since 1994, New York's statutory version of the Statute of Frauds has included an exemption that allows financial institutions to enter into binding oral agreements with respect to certain types of financial contracts, such as currency swaps and futures contracts. At the urging of the LSTA, New York expanded this exemption in 2002 to include contracts for the purchase and sale of bank loans and claims arising from business debts.1 Shortly thereafter, the LSTA's general counsel commented that the updated exemption brought New York commercial law "into conformity with market practice" and that, as a result of the new legislation, "when agreement is reached on the phone, the law provides clear support for enforcement of the trade, so long as all material terms have been established."2

The LSTA Standard Terms

As a result of the New York amendment to its Statute of Frauds in 2002, the LSTA made corresponding amendments to its standard documents. One amendment, which is still in effect today, requires any two parties who execute an LSTA trade confirmation with one another to use LSTA documents in future trades and to agree to be bound upon reaching agreement to the terms thereof, "whether by telephone, exchange of electronic messages or otherwise, directly or through their respective agents, and whether the subject of a confirmation." This provision also contains a waiver of defenses based upon the Statute of Frauds.3The LSTA explained at the time that as a result of these changes, "a party who fails to sign a trade confirm cannot use that failure to claim that the trade is unenforceable."4

The LSTA standard terms5 anticipate that trade parties will enter into binding oral agreements first and then negotiate transfer documentation based on the appropriate LSTA standard documents.6 In many cases, this process is a simple matter of filling in trade and administrative details and checking boxes. However, in some cases, negotiating transfer documentation requires a significant amount of negotiation back and forth. The LSTA standard terms contemplate that even parties who fail to agree on transfer documentation are nevertheless bound to settle the underlying trade so long as they agreed to all of the material terms at trade time.

Highland Capital Cases: The 2012 Highland Fifth Circuit Case

According to the record, during a telephone call on December 3, 2009, Highland Capital Management, L.P. ("Highland") agreed to purchase $15.5 million of Regency Hospital, LLC bank loans at a purchase rate of 93.5% of par value from Bank of America, N.A. ("BofA"). During the call, BofA did not notify Highland that trade documentation would require non-LSTA or other non-industry standard terms or conditions.7 That same day, Highland sent BofA an e-mail confirming that the trade was complete. BofA responded in agreement, but added that the trade was subject to appropriate consents and documentation as well as certain non-standard provisions. Highland had previously traded Regency Loans with BofA using unmodified LSTA standard documents; however, this trade was done with a different group at BofA that required the incorporation of a number of additional confidentiality and indemnity provisions into the trade documentation.

Highland rejected these additional terms and insisted that BofA settle the trade on unmodified LSTA standard documents. Negotiations broke down, the trade never settled, and the Regency Loans were later paid off at par value. Highland sued BofA on the grounds that the parties' telephone discussion created a binding oral agreement subject to the LSTA standard terms, which BofA breached by refusing to settle the trade.

BofA filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. Under this procedure, the court would decide on the pleadings, without a need for trial, only if there were no material facts in dispute that could affect the ultimate decision. BofA argued that no contract existed because BofAexpressed an intent to be bound to the trade only if the required consents were obtained and documentation acceptable to BofA was signed by the parties. Because these conditions were never satisfied, BofA was never bound to the trade.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed with BofA's reasoning and granted its motion to dismiss. The court concluded , Highland appealed, and, on October 2, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of Highland's breach of contract claim. Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Bank of Am., 698 F.3d 202 (5th Cir. 2012)("Highland I"). The Highland I court applied a four-factor test used by the Second Circuit8 to determine whether parties intended to be bound to an oral agreement. The test considers: "(1) whether there has been an express reservation of the right not to be bound in the absence of a writing; (2) whether there has been partial performance of the contract; (3) whether all of the terms of the alleged contract have been agreed upon; and (4) whether the agreement at issue is the type of contract that is usually committed to writing." Highland I at 209, citing Powell v. Omnicom, 497 F.3d 124, 129 (2d Cir. 2007).

The Highland I court held that, when viewed in a light most favorable to the Highland9, there was no indication that BofA expressly reserved the right not to be bound without a writing. Highland alleged that the parties entered into a binding agreement during the December 3, 2009 phone call, and that BofA only attempted to reserve its right to a writing in subsequent e-mails. While there was no partial performance, Highland did allege that the parties had agreed to all material terms of the trade. Finally, the LSTA standard terms indicated that debt trades can be conducted orally, and only later committed to a written confirmation. Highland I at 209.

The court concluded that upon application of this test to the facts, it could not find that the parties did not intend to be bound. The court also noted that the district court's decision to grant BofA's motion to dismisswas premature because a review of extrinsic evidence, which typically involves questions of fact, was needed to determine if the parties intended to be bound.

Highland Capital Cases: The 2014 Highland Fifth Circuit Case

After the Highland I court reversed the district court's order to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the case returned to the district court. The parties conducted discovery, and BofA moved for summary judgment. Relying again on BofA's statements that the trade was subject to appropriate consents and documentation, in August of 2013, the district court granted BofA's motion and found that, as a matter of law, there was no contract to enforce. Highland appealed, and on July 3, 2014, the Fifth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished opinion. Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Bank of Am., 574 F. App'x. 486 (5th Cir. 2014)("Highland II").

In Highland II, the Fifth Circuit pointed out several facts that were not recounted in Highland I. First, the Highland II court noted that the BofA desk involved did not ordinarily trade bank loans. Second, the court observed that BofA stated the trade was "subject to appropriate consents and documentation" during the December 3, 2009 phone call. In Highland I, the court only discussed the "subject to" language in the context of e-mails BofA sent to Highland after that phone call.

The Highland II court applied the same four-factor test that the Highland I court used at the motion to dismiss stage, and concluded that there was no genuine dispute as to whether BofA intended to be bound by an oral agreement— to the contrary, BofA clearly expressed an intention not to be bound. The court concluded that: (1) BofA expressly reserved its right to be bound in writing by stating several times during and after the December 3, 2009 phone call that the trade was subject to appropriate documentation; (2) no partial performance occurred, (3) the parties had not agreed to all material terms as Highland had not accepted BofA's additional terms of trade, and (4) regardless of whether this type of agreement was typically committed to writing, BofA expressed a clear intent that this agreement would be put in writing before it became binding.

The court rejected Highland's arguments that the LSTA standard tand the parties' previous dealings would indicate the parties automatically intended to form a binding contract upon oral agreement of the loan, trade amount, and price. The court stated "[t]he LSTA standard terms are not binding law, and so long as [BofA] expressed an intent not to be governed by the LSTA, anything that the LSTA has to say about contract formation is of no import." Highland II at 488.

Solus v. Perry Case: Summary of Facts

A case pending before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, revisits the issues discussed in the Highland cases. The transaction in dispute is a complicated one, involving four parties, two different litigations, and an asset in one of the most notorious Ponzi scheme cases—the bankruptcy case of Bernard Madoff Investment Securities ("Madoff").

Kingate Global Fund Ltd. and Kingate Euro Fund Ltd. (collectively, "Kingate") invested billions of dollars with Madoff. In August 2011, Kingate agreed to sell $1.624 billion of Madoff bankruptcy claims (the "Kingate Claim") to Deutsche Bank ("DB"). DB simultaneously agreed to sell off pieces of the Kingate Claim as participations to various entities. Two entities, Perry Corp. d/b/a Perry Capital ("Perry") and Solus Alternative Asset Management LP ("Solus"), signed trade confirmations with DB agreeing to purchase participations in the Kingate Claim once DB purchased the Kingate Claim. Kingate and DB did not settle their trade and on December 21, 2011; Kingate sued DB for failing to settle the trade (the "Kingate/DB Litigation").

In order to avoid the uncertainty and potential expense of the Kingate/DB Litigation, Perry decided to terminate its obligation to purchase a participation in the Kingate Claim. Because DB was unwilling to allow Perry to terminate the trade, traders from Solus and Perry discussed a trade in which Solus would buy Perry's participation. On April 10, 2012, the parties agreed on price and other material terms. While Perry's trader noted during the call that the trade was "subject to documentation," he sent an email to other employees at Perry after the call stating "we're all out." The parties did not sign a trade confirmation but did negotiate transfer documentation between themselves and with DB. On June 5, 2012, Perry indicated it no longer wanted to sell its participation. On July 3, 2012, Solus sued Perry for specific performance claiming there was a binding oral contract between the parties for the sale of the participation from Perry to Solus, and that Perry had breached the contract by failing to settle. Perry moved for summary judgment, arguing that no binding agreement existed. Solus cross-claimed for summary judgment. Oral arguments on these motions were heard on September 23, 2014. To date, there has been no formal decision by the court, but the hearing transcript indicates the court believes summary judgment would not be appropriate as there are significant issues of fact that need to be resolved.

Based on the hearing transcript, the issues a decider of fact would need to consider are: (i) whether there is an industry custom regarding the binding nature of oral contracts for unsecured claim trades (See, Sept. 23, 2014 Hearing Tr. at 11.24.14, Solus Alternative Asset Mgmt. LP v. Perry Corp., Index No. 652341/12 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); (ii) whether an agreement that a trade is subject to documentation means there is no binding contract (See id. at 11:17:54-11:18:29); and (iii) whether the need for consent of a third party means there is no binding contract if such consent is not obtained (See id. at 11:45:29-11:35:57).

Because Highland I was decided in the Fifth Circuit and Highland II is an unpublished decision, the Solus v. Perry court is not bound by their rulings; however, we expect they will consider each court's analysis when deciding this case. The four-factor test used in Highland can be applied to the facts presented in this case, and will likely result in different factors favoring each litigant. First, while Perry, like BofA, expressly reserved its right not to be bound, there is an e-mail from Perry indicating they believed they had definitively agreed to sell the claim to Solus and were thus "all out." Second, there was no partial performance here. In fact, the claim was never owned by Perry and was "mired in litigation." Third, Perry is asserting material terms remained open such as the need for DB to consent to the transfer; however, as stated above, e-mails indicate Perry viewed the agreement to sell Solus as complete even going so far as to remove the asset from Perry's books and records. Fourth, as discussed above, it is customary for parties in the claims trading market to bind themselves orally. Because the traders in Solus v. Perry were sophisticated and experienced in the claims trading market, arguments based on industry custom may be more persuasive than in Highland II, where one party did not trade ordinarily trade loans.

Conclusion

Although New York law includes an exemption to the Statute of Frauds for financial contracts like loan and claim trades, courts do not apply it automatically. Rather, courts consider all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction when determining whether the parties intended to enter into a binding oral agreement. Courts will consider the sophistication of the parties involved rather than the sophistication of the organization as a whole. Courts will also examine phone calls, e-mails, and other contemporaneous communications to determine whether a binding agreement materialized.

The cases discussed above also show courts being critical of parties who they view as being too reliant upon industry practice and standard documentation when it comes to contract formation. Courts may also disregard the standard terms of the LSTA confirmation which, as discussed above, provide that parties should be able to rely on prior dealings when determining whether there is a binding trade. Moreover, in spite of the fact that the LSTA standard terms contemplate that the parties will negotiate and sign transfer documentation only after they first enter into a binding oral agreement, some courts will interpret one party's statement that a trade is "subject to documentation" to mean that a binding agreement does not yet exist. .

While parties may argue over many aspects of a trade, whether there was a trade in the first place should never be one of them. It is best practice to execute a trade confirmation as soon as possible after a trade is entered, but this is not always practicable. Accordingly, if an executed trade confirmation is not forthcoming, parties should: (i) confirm that the parties with whom they are dealing are familiar with the LSTA standard terms or other relevant industry customs and intend to work within those guidelines; (ii) be proactive any time a counterparty delivers a communication during or after trade time that could be interpreted as evidence that a binding agreement does not already exist; and (iii) exercise special care when dealing with counterparties and people with whom they do not typically trade. The key to avoiding litigation is to make your intent—and your counterparty's assent—clear and unequivocal.

Footnotes

1 N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law §5-701(b) (McKinney 2014).

2 Jane Summers, LSTA, Loan Trades Eligible for Exemption from New York Statute of Frauds (2003).

3 See Section 22 of the LSTA Standard Terms and Conditions for Par/Near Par Trade Confirmations and Section 26 of the LSTA Standard Terms and Conditions for Distressed Trade Confirmations.

4 Jane Summers, LSTA, Loan Trades Eligible for Exemption from New York Statute of Frauds (2003).

5 While the LSTA has not published standard documentation for the purchase and sale of claims arising from business debts, many participants in the market use the LSTA standard terms as a starting point for negotiation.

6 See Section 10 of the LSTA Standard Terms and Conditions for Par/Near Par Trade Confirmations and Section 10 of the LSTA Standard Terms and Conditions for Distressed Trade Confirmations.

7 It is important to note that this fact was changed in Highland II and most likely had an impact on the Court's decision.

8 See Winston v. Mediafare Entm't Corp., 777 F.2d 78, 80 (2d Cir. 1985).

9 When reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a court must accept "all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff" (Highland I at 205).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
21 Nov 2018, Seminar, New York, United States

“Big data” is changing our economy. It has allowed Amazon, Google, Facebook and many others to redesign traditional business models and to create new or improved products and services with greater utility for consumers and often at very little cost.

24 Nov 2018, Speaking Engagement, New York, United States

Each year, the New York Region of IFA hosts a panel and reception at the NYU Law School. This year’s panel will include a discussion of the TCJA international provisions.

27 Nov 2018, Speaking Engagement, New York, United States

Employment Managing Associates, Alexandra Stathpoulos and Alexandra Heifetz are presenting at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law’s FORM+FUND Series.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions