Force Majeure Fast Facts under New York Law: Excerpts from the Force Majeure Global Guide
For an in-depth conversation around this topic, please register for our Sept. 30 webinar "Does COVID-19 trigger force majeure? Navigating the legal and business issues" with international lawyer Lisa Richman for a discussion about the practical implications of force majeure in making business decisions state-by-state and across the globe.
September 08, 2020 at 03:55 PM
8 minute read
The following excerpts are from the New York Chapter of the Force Majeure Global Guide Prepared by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Published by ALM. For an in-depth conversation around this topic, please register for our Sept. 30 webinar "Does COVID-19 trigger force majeure? Navigating the legal and business issues" with international lawyer Lisa Richman for a discussion about the practical implications of force majeure in making business decisions state-by-state and across the globe.
|- How does COVID-19 affect contractual obligations?
In the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak, many businesses may find themselves unable to perform their contractual obligations, whether due to resulting economic uncertainty or actual impossibility. Businesses facing these issues should review their contracts to determine whether the circumstances resulting from COVID-19 provide any relief from their (or their counterparty's) performance obligations, for example, under a contractual force majeure provision. These provisions sometimes excuse performance for fires, floods, hurricanes, and other "Acts of God." Whether parties that have contracted under New York law can rely on force majeure to excuse performance depends on the terms of the contracts themselves as well as applicable law and facts.
|- How are force majeure provisions interpreted in New York? Is there a key case that should be considered?
In New York, a force majeure provision will excuse a party's performance only if the contract specifically lists the event that the party claims prevents performance or, in the case of a "catch-all provision," if the alleged force majeure event is of "the same kind or nature" of the specifically listed events. In addition, the claimed force majeure event must be unforeseen or due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllImmigration Under the Trump Administration: Five Things to Expect in the First 90 Days
8 minute readSteward Health CEO Saga Signals Escalation of Coercive Congressional Oversight Against Private Parties
6 minute readTen Best Practices to Protect Your Organization Against Cyber Threats
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'The Show Must Go On': Solo-GC-of-Year Kevin Colby Pulls Off Perpetual Juggling Act
- 2Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Match Group's Katie Dugan & Herrick's Carol Goodman
- 3Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Eric Wall, Executive VP, Syllo
- 4Battle for Top Talent Accelerates Amid Profit and Demand Surge
- 5Friday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250