This case involved a contract dispute over the meaning of a “right of first refusal” (ROFR) held by the plaintiff to purchase an affordable housing property (property).

The parties are developing property pursuant to the Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) program, 26 U.S.C. §42. The defendants sought a summary judgment and a third-party defendant sought to move to dismiss. The court “limited all parties’ initial briefing to the issue of the meaning of the ROFR granted to plaintiff.” The court held that the “plaintiff’s ROFR operates by its definition under New York common law and is not an option to purchase the … property.”

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]