D`Amico Dry D.A.C. v. McInnis Cement Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03731-VEC (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (the shipping company asserts the breach of the contract against cement suppliers and seeks the holding of assets until arbitration on the basis that the supplier was in default prior to COVID-19 and then invoked a force majeure clause as a pretext for termination; Tribunal ordered ex parte the seizure order and rejected the cement supplier`s request to expel; The parties have entered into a confidential transaction agreement.) (14.05.2020 Appeal; 25.05.2020 Request for expulsion from the maritime annex trial by the defendant; 06/03/2020 Applicant`s Objection to defendant`s request to evacuate Maritime Annex trial; 09/02/2020 Applicant`s Letter of Approval; 09/03/2020 Memo Endorsement of Plaintiff es Consent Letter; 09/04/2020 Order of Dismissal with Prejudice) Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Edison Ballroom LLC, No. 156789/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2020) (the plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement for an event known as “Barrister`s Ball” which was scheduled to take place on March 28, 2020.
The contract included a force majeure clause which stipulated that neither party would be responsible for non-performance, and each party may due to “force majeure or acts of God, including, but not only by force majeure, circumstances that are not their proper control, strike, governmental power, terrorism, war… In the event of a force majeure event, the defendant is required to “immediately repay 100% of all payments made to [defendant], including the otherwise non-refundable surety.” Defendant refused to return the applicant`s bail, although the applicant was forced to cancel the event due to COVID-19 and administrative restrictions (26.08.2020 Complaint) (28.09.2020 Response with counter-claims) (14.10.2020 Response to Claims) Valentino U.S.A., Inc. v. 693 Fifth Owner LLC, No. 652605/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2020) (plaintiff/tenant to explain that the rental of its commercial property was thwarted by the COVID-19 pandemic and associated executive orders, and seeks, alternatively, to explain that their performance was made impossible under the lease; The defendant/landlord seeks the dismissal of the claim on the grounds that the tenancy agreement contains a clause that assigns the plaintiff/tenant the risk of closure in the event of “inevitable delays” defined to include “restrictive state laws or regulations” … Acts of God … or for other similar or different reasons. (21.06.2020 Convocation and Complaint; 27.07.2020 The defendant`s Memorandum of Law in support of the application for release) (14.09.2020 Opposition of the applicant to the application for dismissal) (28.09.2020 In support of the defendant`s application for release) When deciding whether to terminate a contract, the courts will take into account the specific terms of the contract; The real context The knowledge of the parties and the ability of the parties to execute the contract taking into account the limitations of Covid-19. So far, there has been no English trial of a frustration-related pandemic.
D2 Mark LLC v. OREI VI Investments LLC, No. 652259/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2020) (hotel group tried, among other things, to impose an interim obligation on junior creditors to forcibly close after the hotel group failed to undertake a COVID-19 payment obligation, on the grounds that the loan agreement explicitly excused defaults “in connection with” a case of force majeure; The court requested a late sale by July 23 and ordered the junior creditor to issue a new economically appropriate sales announcement.) (06/06/2020 Appeals; 23.06.2020 Decision and decision on the applicant`s order to indicate the cause; 08/03/2020 So-Ordered Stipulation Discontinuing the Action with Prejudice) DHG Mgmt. Co.
v. French Partners LLC, et al., No.