Steven Sinatra is quoted in a New York Law Journal article titled “Billionaires’ Row Foreclosure Case Could Be a Game-Changer for Deal-Making, Greenberg Traurig Shareholder Says.”
Sinatra, who argued the case for Greenberg Traurig’s client Spruce Capital, discussed the New York Court of Appeals’ decision rejecting tortious interference claims tied to the financing, foreclosure, and recapitalization of 111 West 57th Street in Manhattan.
Sinatra told Law.com that the ruling could have broad implications for how law firms structure transactions, particularly in New York and potentially Delaware: The decision will mean that “practitioners are going to certainly have to be more cautious when structuring a transaction, or in this case, engaging in a transaction where you’re buying interest in a defaulted loan,” he said.
Sinatra also addressed the challenge of seeking dismissal of tortious interference claims at the pleadings stage, noting: “(T)he plaintiff is attempting to tell a compelling story.”
Discussing the court’s analysis of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Sinatra explained: “Here, it seems that the court was expanding its inquiry and retaining for itself the province under the theory of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing — whether or not the actions taken would somehow frustrate the other party to the contracts, the fruits of its agreement, the benefits of its agreement.”
He added: “Insofar as it’s a bit amorphous, it doesn’t lend itself to the same predictability that a lot of practitioners approach these situations, prior to this decision.”
LINKS
Read “‘Billionaires’ Row’ Foreclosure Case Could Be a Game-Changer for Deal-Making, Greenberg Traurig Shareholder Says.” (subscription)