Minneapolis Business Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Gavin P. Craig Law Firm : St. Paul, Twin Cities, Minnesota MN

To recap this fascinating case, Citigroup offered to purchase a substantial portion of Wachovia Corp. for the equivalent of $1 per share. The Board of Director of Wachovia approved the sale and a letter agreement was signed.

Wells Fargo arrives on the scene and offers the equivalent of about $7 per share. Wachovia wants to accept the new deal, except that the agreement with Citigroup clearly states that they can't. Wachovia has an exclusive deal with Citigroup. Citigroup sues to enforce the agreement, Wachovia sues to have the restriction voided. Citigroup withdraws and instead sues Wachovia for damages estimated by Citigroup at $60 Billion. A tidy sum to say the least.

Meanwhile the Federal Government enacts the bailout plan and it is signed into law on October 3rd. Part of the new law has a provision that seems to interfere with Citigroup's rights under the contract.

Section §126(c) of the Congressional bailout package, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA), basically voids or renders unenforceable any agreement that purports to restrict the sale of a lending institution where the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has stepped in to confront "systematic risk" in the mortgage market. Citigroup contends that the provision doesn't apply - Wachovia takes the position that it does. The New York Law Journal has an interesting write up on this case.

This case is a law professor's dream case. (Many of us still remember the Pennzoil-Texaco case involving similar contractual dealings without the overlay of the Federal interference with contracts.) The Contracts Prof Blog has some additional details and thoughts. 

Can the Federal Government Interfere with Lawful Contracts Between Private Parties?

Under what constitutional authority? And if so, under what circumstances?

If Wells Fargo's offer does not include any requirement for government support, does the provision in the law even apply?

Did the FDCI step in to confront "systematic risk" as it applies to Wachovia? It isn't clear to me that they did, but we will get an answer to this question in time.

Wachovia's is also taking the odd position that if they are forced to comply with the Citigroup contract - and apparently no one is arguing that it was not a contract - the Wachovia Board of Directors would be prevented from fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders.

How persuasive is this argument considering that the Board already approved the agreement with Citigroup in the first instance? Not very! Did anything prevent them from fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities before they approved the Citigroup offer?

This case will not go away soon unless someone gets a summary judgment ruling that the EESA effectively voided any rights that Citigroup had to enforce the agreement.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

TheWSJ and the WSJ Law Blog report that Citigroup picked up it's toys and decided to leave the game. According to the report there is an obscure provision in the bailout package, section 126(c), that says, in essence, that there shall be no liability against a third party for having acquired a target that otherwise was in an exclusivity agreement with someone else.  Would this provision protect Board Members from shareholder suits? 

In other words, there can be no liability for interfering with another's contract. Now I can understand a provision like that if it interfered with the Governments attempts to buy equity in a financial institution. But between private parties?

What a way to run the railroad: Contracts don't matter! This is a very odd public policy decision. I sure we will hear more about this matter at a later time. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

"Why?" is the question? I have been guilty of the same kind of drafting in a former life, but then it is unusual for the parties to fight over the court - the courts usually can sort this out. But not all is well when the parties have choices. When the parties have choices and they are in a dispute they will usually agree on nothing.

In the current dispute between Citigroup and Wells Fargo about who gets the spoils of Wachovia, the parties are fighting over which court should oversee the case. Meanwhile two courts are involved. Max Kennerly has an interesting post about this unusual situation. 

Contracts give some certainty to a deal, but they also restrict the parties ability to make other decision when they deem some change to be in their best interest. Wachovia had a deal with Citigroup. Part of the contract said that Wachovia could not consider offers from other buyers. Well, Wachovia now wants to consider a better offer from Wells Fargo. Citigroup sues in NY state court to ask the judge to order Wachovia to perform the contract (Specific Performance.) Meanwhile Wachovia asks the Federal court to release it from the contract provision preventing it from considering other offers.

Now the parties have slightly different but completely related matters going in both state and Federal court. Since the contract is governed by New York law and the primary question involves interpretation of the contract, it seems logical that the state courts would have the primary jurisdiction to apply New York law and rule on the contract.

Why Does Wachovia Want to be in the Federal Court?

I don't know the answer to this one. Clearly they think there is some advantage to the Federal Court system. However, the Federal Courts are going to apply New York law just like the New York state courts. Clearly the lawyers will do well in this dispute.

Meanwhile the Board of Directors of Wachovia must figure out how to avoid the inevitable lawsuits that will be filed against them if the shareholders see the company forced to continue with a less favorable deal. You can see the arguments now. "Why didn't you wait?" and, "What did you do to try to find other buyers?" Whatever the answers the shareholder will not be satisfied.

For another interesting take on this see Pennsylvania Fiduciary Blog.

If the court allows Wachovia to ignore part of the contract - what does that say about the enforceability of contracts in the state of New York?
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks