Scott Mollen

Contracts—Right of First Refusal Distinguished from Option To Purchase—Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits Program—Court Rejected Plaintiff's Assertion That the ROFR Was Really an Option To Purchase

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."

Defendant "A" is a limited partner in the subject partnership. Defendant "B" is a "special limited partner" in the partnership. Third-party defendant "C," a wholly owned subsidiary of the plaintiff, is the general partner. The plaintiff, a non-profit entity, is "not part of the Partnership, but the agreement governing the partnership grants (plaintiff) the ROFR central to this dispute."