the art of contracting - association of corporate counsel · reasonable bestefforts 345 0 ......
Post on 02-May-2018
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
The Art of ContractingTools and Tips for Identifying and Avoiding Common
Traps in Commercial Contracts
July 13, 2016
Crowell & Moring LLP590 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10022‐2544www.crowell.com
© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
How are various efforts standards interpreted?Efforts
What is material?Materiality
What claims are covered? Are there limitations?Indemnification and Limitation Liability
How to handle disputes under the contract?Dispute Resolution
What is the effect of force majeure provisions?Force Majeure or Impracticability
Overview of Today’s Workshop
2© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Phrase # of Contracts Using
# of Contracts Defining
best efforts 627 1
commercially reasonable efforts 425 1
reasonable best efforts 345 0
reasonable efforts 307 0
good‐faith efforts 58 0
commercially reasonable best efforts 46 0
diligent efforts 23 0
good‐faith best efforts 8 0
every effort 5 0
commercially reasonable and diligent efforts 3 1
What Standards of Effort Are Used
“Understanding ‘Best Efforts’ And Its Variants,” Kenneth A. Adams, The Practical Lawyer, 2004
4© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Opening Thoughts
Language may drive conduct even if its enforceability is questionable.
Negotiating history may matter.
Strive for consistency and clarity.
5© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Heavily negotiated– Contract lawyers often use more than one standard in any given contract.
– Avoids naked obligations and is especially useful when performance of the obligation is not entirely within the performing party’s control.
» Frequently litigated …
» … to unpredictable results.
Why the Focus on Efforts Clauses?
6© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Obligates performing party to use some levelof diligence to accomplish a contractually assigned duty.
Example: Contract obligates distributor to use best efforts to promote and sell manufacturer’s products.
What Does Best Efforts Mean?
7© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Delaware: Promisor must undertake its contractual obligations diligently and with reasonable effort.”
» California: Best efforts does not mean every conceivable effort. It does not require the promisor to ignore its own interests, spend itself into bankruptcy, or incur substantial losses to perform its contractual obligations.”
See Cal. Pines Prop. Owners Ass’n v. Pedotti, 206 Cal. App. 4th 384, 387 (2012); Crum & Crum Enters., Inc. v. NDC of Cal., L.P., 2010 WL 4668456, *5 (D. Del. Nov. 3, 2010)
Interpreting Best Efforts Clauses
8© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
“I can’t agree to use best
efforts! That would
require me to bankrupt
my company!”
Debunking the New York Myth
9© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Level of effort required is murky : » due diligence
– Van Valkenburgh, Nooger & Neville v. Hayden Publ. Co., 30 N.Y.2d 34, 45 (N.Y. 1972)
» all reasonable methods– Town of Roxbury v. Rodrigues, 716 N.Y.S.2d 814, 815 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
» reasonable efforts– Timberline Dev. LLC v. Kronman, 702 N.Y.S.2d 237, 239 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
» genuine effort– Foster Wheeler Broome Cnty., Inc. v. County of Broome, 713 N.Y.S.2d 92, 94 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
See also Ashokan Water Servs., Inc. v. New Start, LLC, 807 N.Y.S. 2d 550, 553 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2006) (summarizing prior interpretations of “best efforts” standards)
So, What Does NY Case Law Actually Say?
10© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» No case identified requiring a performing party to “spend itself into bankruptcy.”
» The Second Circuit has held that New York law does not require a party performing under a “best efforts” standard to “spend itself into bankruptcy.”
Bloor v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 601 F.2d 609, 614 (2nd Cir. 1979)
Bankrupting the Company
11© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» “Practitioners . . . tend to view all the other phrases, while perhaps not being too different from each other, as being definitely different from “best efforts.”
Lou R. Kling & Eileen T. Simon, Negotiated Acquisitions of Companies, Subsidiaries and Divisions,§13.06
n.3.2 (2003)
Best Efforts vs The Rest
12© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Because recent case law suggests that best efforts incorporates the concept of reasonableness,
unless a contract definition provides otherwise, “reasonable best efforts,” “reasonable efforts” and “commercially reasonable efforts” are likely to be interpreted to mean the same as “best efforts.”
Interpreting the Variants
13© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
“The standard imposed by a ‘reasonable efforts’ clause such as that contained in section 7.01 of the Agreement is indisputably less stringent
than that imposed by the ‘best efforts’ clauses contained elsewhere in the Agreement.”
In re Chateaugay Corp., 198 B.R. 848, 854 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), aff’d 108 F.3d 1369 (2d Cir. 1997)
Inconsistency
14© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Fact‐specific inquiry with unpredictable results – other than expensive litigation
» Courts will look to promises or projections made in negotiation, industry standards, prior conduct, etc.
The Aftermath – Litigating Disputes
See Samica Enters., LLC v. Mail Boxes Etc., 637 F. Supp. 2d 712, 717 (C.D. Cal. 2008): whether a defendant used best efforts under the circumstances is a
factual question usually reserved for the jury.
15© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
At least one NY court refused to enforce an undefined best effortsstandard.
See Timberline Dev. LLC v. Kronman, 702 N.Y.S. 2d 237, 239 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Consider your audience:– A former D.A., now judge, may have no idea what
commercially reasonable best efforts are. Describe the applicable standard of conduct:
– “level of effort customarily employed by a reasonable venture capitalist”– “level of effort used to sell your own products”– set minimum thresholds
Provide illustrative examples.
Drafting Considerations
16© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
“obtain all material
consents” “Assigned Assets include
all material assets used
in the business”
“terminated only in the
event of material
breach”
“Vendor may use
subcontractors only to
perform non-material
obligations.”
“in the event of a
material delay”
How is “material” really used?
18© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Is of such a nature that knowledge of the item would affect a person’s decision‐making process (Delaware; Blacks Law Dictionary)
Goes to the root of the agreement between the parties(New York)
Affects a party’s decision as to whether or not to enter into the contract (California)
Common Definitions
19© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Many jurisdictions use the deal‐breakerdefinition:
– Question: Would the innocent party have agreed to enter the contract without the inclusion of the disputed clause?
Most Common Definition
Material = so substantial as to defeat the purpose of the entire transaction.
20© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
– (a) the extent to which the injured party will be deprived of the benefit which he reasonably expected;
– (b) the extent to which the injured party can be adequately compensated for the part of that benefit of which he will be deprived;
– (c) the extent to which the party failing to perform or to offer to perform will suffer forfeiture;
– (d) the likelihood that the party failing to perform or to offer to perform will cure his failure, taking account of all the circumstances including any reasonable assurances;
– (e) the extent to which the behavior of the party failing to perform or to offer to perform comports with standards of good faith and fair dealing.
New York Courts – Restatement of Contracts § 241 Factors
21© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Use materiality consistently throughout the contract.
Evaluate the purpose of using materiality.
Use dollar thresholds instead of materiality.
Specifically identify which provisions or obligations are material.
Use terms other than materiality where other terms might provide a more clear meaning.
Practice Tips
22© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Reps / Warranties
Indemnity
Limitation of Liability
Stipulated Damages
Elements of Risk Allocation
24© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Limitation of liability provisions limit a party’s exposure in the event of a dispute.
» Parties may limit:
» Total amount of damages
» Types of damages (e.g., consequential or punitive damages)
» Nonmonetary relief
Preventing Excessive Exposure
26© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Limitation of Liability.
Each party’s liability, whether in contract, tort, otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement … shall not exceed the amount of the License Fee.
IN NO EVENT SHALL EITHER PARTY BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, CONSEQUENTIAL (INCLUDING LOST PROFITS) OR TORT DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT...
Example
27© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Courts generally enforce liability limitations in claims for breach of contract and negligence.– May not be enforced for intentional torts– Limitations for “gross negligence” subject to challenge
Compare City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal. 4th 747, 758 (2007) and ABRY Partners V, L.P. v. F&W Acquisition LLC, 891 A.2d 1032 (Del. Ch. 2006).
– NY courts define gross negligence more like intentional misconduct.
» The language of the limitation is “strictly construed.”
» Litigation often results over the language used.
Enforceability
28© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» There are essentially four types of damages:
–Direct
–Consequential / Special– Incidental
–Punitive
» All four types can be limited.
Primary Types of Damages
29© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Direct damages “follow from the type of wrong complained of.”
– Black’s Law Dictionary 446 (9th ed. 2009).
» Courts generally uphold caps on direct damages to the amount paid under the contract.
– Markborough v. Superior Court, 227 Cal. App. 3d 705 (1991) (limiting recovery to the amount of the consulting fee paid to the defendant).
» Caps of less than the amount paid under the contract may also be upheld.
– See, e.g., Sch. Dist. of the City of Niagara Falls v. CrossPointe, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143739 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) (limitation on damages to annual service fee presumed valid); Rob‐Win, Inc. v. Lydia Sec. Monitoring, Inc., 2007 Del. Super. LEXIS 421, *20‐21 (Del. Super. Ct. 2007) (upholding cap of $250 for security alarm monitoring).
Limiting Direct Damages
30© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Limitation on direct damages upheld for intentional breach of contract.– Example: in a services agreement, the limitation of liability is $100,000. The
cost to perform increases by more than $100,000. The vendor stops performing.
– Result: Customer’s direct damages limited to $100,000.
– Caution: The contract may also include a specific performance clause, which could also be invoked.
Intentional Breach
An “economically motivated decision cannot, as a matter of law, rise to the level of malice or intentional wrongdoing necessary to invalidate” a limitation of liability provision. See Net2Globe Int’l, Inc. v. Time Warner Telecom, 273 F. Supp. 2d 436, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
31© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Consequential damages are “[l]osses that do not flow directly and immediately from an injurious act but that result indirectly from the act.”
– Black’s Law Dictionary 446 (9th ed. 2009).
» Courts generally uphold limitations on consequential damages.
» Consider whether to define direct or consequential damages.
Consequential Damages
32© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» The line between what is a direct damage and what is a consequential damage is blurry, at best.
» One way to avoid ambiguity is to clearly define direct damages:
– For the avoidance of doubt, the following shall be considered direct damages and Vendor shall not assert that they are indirect, incidental, consequential or special damages to the extent they result from Vendor’s failure to perform in accordance with this Agreement: (a) commercially reasonable costs and expenses of restoring or reloading any Client Data that is lost, stolen or damaged due to Vendor’s failure to safeguard the Client Data and (b) reasonable expenses incurred by Client, including overhead allocations for employees, wages and salaries of employees, travel expenses, overtime expenses and similar charges, due to a failure of Vendor to provide all or a portion of the Services.
Avoiding Ambiguity
33© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Are “lost profits” consequential or direct damages?
Are “lost profits” consequential or direct damages?
Key Question
34© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Lost profits may be categorized as either consequential damages or direct damages, or both.
» A contract that does not cap direct damages but excludes consequential damages invites litigation over the availability of lost profit damages.
– See Coremetrics, Inc. v. AtomicPark.com, LLC, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40484, *8 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (lost profits recoverable despite exclusion of consequential damages).
Lost Profits
35© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Limitation of Liability.
Vendor’s liability for all damages, whether in contract, tort or otherwise arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including from any and all claims related to the breach of this Agreement or nonperformance by Vendor. . . shall not exceed the amount of the License Fee.
Without limiting the foregoing, in no event will Vendor be liable for any lost or prospective profits, indirect, incidental, consequential, special, exemplary or punitive damages, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement . . .
Revised Contract Language
36© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Consider whether to include a direct damage cap. Choose a reasonable amount for the cap. Define lost profits as either direct or consequential damages.
Ensure that the limitation of liability covers all available forms of potential liability.
Consider whether there are any claims (such as indemnifiable third party claims or breaches of confidentiality) that should be outside the limitation of liability.
Drafting Considerations
37© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
A promise by the indemnitor to safeguard or hold the indemnitee harmless against existing or
future loss or liability, or both.
Definition
39© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Is one party likely to create risk or liability for the other party?
What would be the result in the absence of an indemnity?
If not, the risk should be shifted to the liability‐creating party.
Is that the “fair” result?
Decision Path
40© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Third party claims only or all losses?» What losses are covered?» Indemnify v. defend» Indemnification procedures» Effect of indemnification on other provisions» Is indemnity an exclusive remedy?
» Liability caps and other limitations
Common Negotiation Points
41© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Indemnify –– to reimburse someone for a loss suffered and paid by that person – after‐the‐fact
» Defend –– to take actions to protect someone against a loss– ongoing obligation
» Hold Harmless –– A court may construe a “hold harmless” obligation to be more
broadly defined than intended.
Indemnify v. Defend
42© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Notice and remedies for untimely notice» Conflicts of interest» Cooperation and assistance
– Internal costs / out‐of‐pocket costs» Reporting to (and participation of) the other party
– Approval rights or notice only?» Approval of settlements
– Indemnified Party should have right to approve any settlement that involves anything other than a payment of money by the Indemnifying Party.
Indemnification Procedures
43© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» First party claims v. third party claims only– Does the indemnity cover losses incurred by the counterparty?
– Consider limiting indemnification obligations to third party claims only.
– Counterparty may still be able to sue for breach of contract –if there is a representation or covenant breached.» Practice Tip: Include both a representation AND an indemnity obligation.
» Caution: Breach of representation may not be available if it is qualified by knowledge or if indemnity is the exclusive remedy.
What is a Claim?
45© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» What losses are covered?– Costs of internal investigations?– Taxes or similar charges, interest or penalties? – Costs of attorneys’ fees and expert witnesses?– Losses incurred by customers or end users?– Arbitration fees? Court costs?
» Practice Tip: Indemnifying Party may want to try to limit losses to finally adjudicated or settled amounts payable to third parties only:
– indemnify the Indemnified Party against any Losses finally awarded against such party to a third party making such Claim, by a court of competent jurisdiction or agreed to in settlement and actually paid to such third party.
Scope of Losses
46© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Time Limitations– Consider including time limitations for the indemnitee to bring a claim.
» Cap– Consider including an overall limit of liability.– Consider excluding certain types of damages.
» Consider making indemnity the sole and exclusive remedy.
Limitations
47© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Time limitations (e.g., duration of rep and warranty survival)
Dollar limitations (caps, baskets and offsets) Effects on other remedies
Should the liability cap cover indemnifiable claims?
How long should the indemnity claims survive? Control and ability of indemnifying party to participate in defense of claims
Choice of law / forum
Drafting Considerations
48© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Escalation/Mediation
» Arbitration
For Discussion Another Day
50
» Choice of forum/Choice of law» Jury Waivers
» Attorneys’ fees provisions
Provisions We’ll Discuss
© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Executive‐to‐Executive meetings
– Can be very effective tool– Cooler heads; greater perspective on relationship
» Mediation
– As a mandatory step, not always effectiveSophisticated parties know how to settleCan devolve into litigation strategy discovery
– Choose mediator qualifications wisely
(Don’t forget the statute of limitations)
Escalation and Mediation Steps
51© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Court Arbitration
Judge is generally assigned, not chosen Can choose arbitrator qualifications and number; can include non‐lawyers with special expertise
Jury is available No juryForum may be unattractive Can specify situsTime to result may be unpredictable or uncontrollable
Can dictate time to result
Full discovery is available Can limit discoveryRight to appeal from errors Very limited ability to appealPresumptively public; precedential Can be private
Should We Agree to Arbitrate?
52© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Some … or all … disputes?– Interpretation and performance of the contract?– Arising out of or related to the contract?– Arising between the parties?– Teensy ones? Huge ones?
» Shall … or may?
Choice #1: Scope
54© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Presumption in favor of arbitrationmeans that courts interpret clauses broadly.
» The magic words “arising out of or relating to the agreement” constitute “the broad clause”– Often interpreted to include tort and other noncontractual claims.
Some law on scope
55© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to thiscontract, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitrationadministered by the American Arbitration Associationin accordance with its Commercial [or other] ArbitrationRules [including the Optional Rules for Emergency
Measures of Protection], and judgment on the awardrendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any courthaving jurisdiction thereof.
Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to thiscontract, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitrationadministered by the American Arbitration Associationin accordance with its Commercial [or other] ArbitrationRules [including the Optional Rules for Emergency
Measures of Protection], and judgment on the awardrendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any courthaving jurisdiction thereof.
AAA Model Clause
56© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Can be industry or dispute‐type specific» Can include special rules for:
Complex disputesExpedited proceduresEmergency measures
Appeal
» Be familiar with AAA, JAMS Rules
» Can also decline to specify applicable rules
Choice #3: The Rules
58© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Yes or No?
» How much?
» What type?
» Time frame?
Choice #5: Discovery
60© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Be realistic, in light of your process» Consider expedited procedures for certain types of claims
Choice #6: Speed
61© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Not a foregone conclusion» Sample language:
Except as may be required by law, neither a party nor an arbitrator may disclose the existence, content, or results of any arbitration hereunder without the prior written consent of both parties.
» May elect to restrict only certain types of information (e.g., trade secrets)
American Arbitration Association, Drafting Dispute Resolution Clauses: A Practical Guide (2007).
Choice #7: Confidentiality
62© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Ordinarily not a reasoned award unless all parties request it
» Sample language: “The award of the arbitrators shall be accompanied by a reasoned award”
» May undermine the finality of the decision
Choice # 8: Reasoned Award
63© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
1. I DON’T WANT TO ARBITRATE AFTER ALL.
2. We can’t agree on an arbitrator.
3. The arbitration is slow and costing me a
fortune.
4. The award takes forever.
5. I hate the award.
6. I AM GOING TO IGNORE THE AWARD.
What Can Go Wrong
64© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
» Waive it» Find a different contract» File a pre‐emptive lawsuit
– Maybe seek just interim relief» Craft your claim around the scope» Allege fraud» Allege unconscionability (if you are a consumer)
» Refuse to respond to demand
End‐Runs Around Arbitration
65© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
“Force Majeure”
“Act of God” or “Vis Major”
“An event or effect that can be neither anticipated nor controlled.” – Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed.)
67© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Common Litigation IssuesIs event expressly listed in the contract?Unforeseeable?
Beyond party’s reasonable control?Causation: did the event really prevent or delay performance?
Which party bears the risk of the event at issue?
…Let’s explore through Kel Kim Corp. v. Central Markets, Inc., 519 N.E.2d 295 (N.Y. 1987).
68© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Is claimed force majeure event listed?“If either party to this Lease shall be delayed or
prevented from the performance of any obligation through no fault of their own
by reason of labor disputes, inability to procure materials, failure of utility service, restrictive
governmental laws or regulations, riots, insurrection, war, adverse weather, Acts of God, or other similar
causes beyond the control of such party,
the performance of such obligation shall be excused for the period of the delay.”
69© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Did event prevent or delay performance?
“If either party to this Lease shall be delayed or prevented from the performance of any obligation through no fault of their own by reason of labor disputes, inability to procure materials, failure of utility service, restrictive governmental laws or regulations, riots, insurrection, war, adverse weather, Acts of God, or other similar causes
beyond the control of such party, the performance of such obligation shall be excused for the period of
the delay.” © 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP 70
What Happens Next?
Effect of the force majeure
– Excuse for failure to performAllow a party to delay payment or performance
Allow a reduction or extinguishment of particular obligations
– Frustration of the whole contractAllow a party to exercise its termination rightExtend the term of the agreement based upon the duration of the force majeure
71© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Practice Tips If you want only protection against truly unforeseeable
and uncontrollable events, consider whether default defenses are sufficient.
If using a force majeure clause, expressly state whether only unforeseeable events are covered to avoid later conflict.
If you have something in mind, be specific, and expressly state force majeure conditions need not be unforeseeable.
If you want protection against changes in economic conditions, be explicit.
Do you want force majeure events to excuse both parties? 72
© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Representations, warranties and covenantsConsents and discretionRecitals
Agreements to agreeTerm v. Termination
Waiver/Estoppel
Choice of forum and law provisions; jury waivers; attorneys fees
Topics for Future Presentations
73© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
Ed BaumPartner‐Litigation
Crowell & Moring LLP
Paul Pollock
Partner‐Corporate
Crowell & Moring LLP
Alan Howard
Partner‐Litigation
Crowell & Moring LLP
Ilana Lubin
Counsel‐Corporate
Crowell & Moring LLP
Robert Smits
Executive Vice
President, General Counsel
GBG USA Inc.
74© 2016 Crowell & Moring LLP
ebaum@crowell.com ppollock@crowell.com ahoward@crowell.com ilubin@crowell.com
top related