United States: Conditions And Covenants In Debt Documents: Strict vs. Substantial Performance

In the recently decided case of The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc. (2d Cir. April 27, 2016), a divided panel of the Second Circuit addressed the question of whether a trustee had timely exercised its right to require the seller of a mortgage loan deposited to a securitization vehicle to cure the breach of an underwriting representation. Along the way the panel had occasion to explore differences between a condition precedent and an obligation to perform, the concept of substantial performance of a performance obligation, and "awareness" of an organization where action must be approved through a chain of command.  What is perhaps remarkable about the opinion is the level of granularity at which the court, both majority and dissent, parsed the relevant contractual provisions, which validates the close attention that parties to complex debt arrangements should apply to their documentation. 

The Facts

In May 2007, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. sold an $81 million mortgage loan for the purchase of a retail center in Garfield Heights, Ohio, which was then placed into Morgan Stanley Capital One Trust 2007-IQ14, a nearly $5 billion mortgage securitization trust. The sale was pursuant to a mortgage loan purchase agreement ("MLPA") and a pooling and servicing agreement ("PSA"). Bank of New York Mellon ("BNY") was designated as trustee of the trust and as the entity entitled to enforce various related agreements, including the MLPA. The PSA also designated a master servicer and a special servicer with responsibility for servicing defaulted loans. BNY granted the master servicer and special servicer authority to act on its behalf when servicing and administering the loans.

Things did not go well for the retail center. The property was apparently constructed on a landfill and as a result suffered from gas intrusions into its facilities. The Ohio Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry determined that the conditions at the property amounted to "an urgent public hazard." After sending numerous notices of lease default, Walmart, which was the anchor tenant, closed its store and canceled its lease in September 2008. Other tenants exercised co-tenancy clauses which allowed them to terminate their leases, reduce rents or discontinue rent payments. Not surprisingly, this resulted in a discontinuation in loan payments to the trust and the burgeoning of the trust's expenses as it sought to enforce its rights under the loan documentation.

The chain of events giving rise to the dispute in the case was as follows: 

September 9, 2008

The master servicer informed the special servicer that the loan would likely go into default within 60 days.

November 8, 2008

The borrower defaulted on a mortgage loan payment, and the loan was transferred for special servicing.

February 16, 2009

The director of special servicing wrote to internal counsel that Morgan Stanley breached the representation that it had "no knowledge of any material and adverse environmental condition or circumstance" affecting the property.

February 19, 2009

Internal counsel, after a review of the materials, confirmed that there was evidence of a breach.

March 3, 2009

The director of special servicing drafted and sent to counsel for review a notice of breach and request for cure.

March 14, 2009

A revised draft notice was sent to the director of special servicing's superior, who approved it on March 16, 2009.

March 18, 2009

A formal notice of breach and request for cure was sent to Morgan Stanley.

Additional correspondence followed in which Morgan Stanley defended its underwriting and refused to replace the loan.

The dispute centered on a provision of the MLPA governing mechanics of notice and cure, which read in relevant part as follows:

"[I]f there is a breach of any of the representations and warranties required to be made by the Seller regarding the characteristics of the Mortgage Loans and/or the related Mortgaged Properties ... [1] the party discovering such Material Breach shall promptly notify, in writing, the other party ... [2] Promptly (but in any event within three Business Days) upon becoming aware of any such ... Material Breach, the Master Servicer shall, and the Special Servicer may, request that the Seller, not later than 90 days from the Seller's receipt of the notice of such ... Material Breach, cure such ... Material Breach ..."

The District Court concluded based on this language that, as a condition to Morgan Stanley's obligation to repurchase or replace the loan, the servicer was required to provide a request for cure within three business days of becoming aware of the breach, which, based on the chronology above, it did not do. There were two critical issues on appeal: first, whether the contract language created such a condition precedent; and second, at what point the servicer became aware of the breach. The four federal judges who addressed this issue, one at the district level and three on the Court of Appeals, were evenly split. Unfortunately for Morgan Stanley, a majority of the Court of Appeals found against it on these issues.

The Court's Analysis

The majority opinion of the appeals court drew a distinction between a condition precedent and an obligation of performance. Quoting the New York Court of Appeals in Oppenheimer & Co. v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dickson & Co., 86 N.Y. 2d 685 (1995), the court observed that "while specific, talismanic words are not required, the law nevertheless demands that conditions precedent be 'expressed in unmistakable language.'" The court reviewed numerous other provisions of the MLPA in which the drafters had employed language implying a condition precedent. Here, the majority said, there was no such unmistakable language, so that delivery of a request for cure within three days was a performance obligation of the servicer, not a condition precedent to the obligation of Morgan Stanley to cure or replace the defaulted loan.

This in turn led to two inquiries, both of which the majority held were matters for a trier of fact. First, at what point could the servicer be said to have become "aware" of the breach? And second, even if there were a delay of more than three days between the servicer's awareness and its notice, did the servicer "substantially perform," so as not to excuse Morgan Stanley's obligation to cure or replace? As regards the second issue, the court observed, "New York common law will not require strict compliance with a contractual notice and cure provision if providing an opportunity to cure would be useless." Giuffre Hyundai Ltd. v. Hyundai Motor Am., 756 F. 3rd 204, 209 (Second Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). This was obviously a nod in the direction of BNY, since cure of the environmental condition clearly would have been impossible in this case.

The minority opinion addressed an interesting question not expounded upon by the majority of the panel. Where there exists a chain of command in a corporate entity, so that approval to take action ultimately requires the assent of the person at the top of the chain, when is the entity deemed to have "awareness" of the circumstances triggering its obligation to act? Citing Krischner v. KPMG LLP (15 N.Y. 3d 446, 465 2010), the dissenting judge held that a presumption of corporate knowledge exists when lower-level responsible employees acquire the knowledge, even if that knowledge is never communicated to their superiors. The majority, apparently, disagreed.


This case provides some important lessons for performance of contractual obligations and enforcement of remedies, generally. Courts will draw a distinction between provisions constituting conditions precedent to another party's obligation of performance, which are applied strictly, and other obligations where the standard is substantial performance and where there is leeway to require a counterparty's performance even when the first party has not fully performed. The takeaway is that where conditions are intended, they should be formulated as such explicitly.

In agreements where performance obligations or other contractual provisions are keyed off of awareness of a hierarchical entity, it is often unclear when that awareness comes into existence as additional parties in the chain of command enter the picture. To avoid the uncertain determination of a trier of fact, terms such as "awareness" or "knowledge" should be precisely defined. While these issues are of general application, they take on special significance for financing documents where the papers are often complex, interrelated and laden with boilerplates from prior transactions shrouded in historical mist. The lesson is for parties on both sides of the table to pay particular attention to remedial provisions and to roll the tape into the future and ask how these provisions can be expected to work at the time they are called into play. Failure to do so may add considerably to the time and expense of enforcement or defense and aggravate the uncertainty of the outcome.

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.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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.


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.


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