Brace Yourself for Breach-of-Contract Lawsuits Due to Coronavirus, Attorneys Say
Disputes are surfacing as U.S. companies get notices that their China-based vendors can't honor contracts, because of business disruptions from coronavirus and quarantines.
March 11, 2020 at 01:10 PM
3 minute read
As the coronavirus continues disrupting global supply chains, hitting businesses' bottom lines hard enough to hurt, attorneys on the front line expect litigation to follow.
Lawyers expect to see breach-of-contract lawsuits between companies facing major supply-chain disruptions. Disputes are already surfacing as U.S. companies get notices that their China-based vendors of parts or materials can't honor contracts because of the "force majeure" event—meaning unforeseen, uncontrollable circumstances—brought about by coronavirus and mass quarantines.
The potential scope of future litigation is enormous.
"As of March 3, China issued 4,811 force majeure certificates," said Joshua Sandler, partner at Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst in Dallas, who added that the total value is $53.79 billion. "The impact, then, on nearly every U.S. supply chain is going to be severe. It could mean every U.S. supply chain could come to a halt, if these Chinese partners or companies stop, or try to excuse their nonperformance of a contract."
|Force majeure
When companies enter contracts with each other, it's very common to include a force majeure clause, explained said Nicholas J. Ellis, senior counsel in Foley & Lardner in Detroit. If one of those companies sues the other, then the defendant can invoke the force majeure clause to avoid liability for breach of contract. Some of these provisions are pretty loosely worded, and may encompass coronavirus disruptions, but others are narrowly written and coronavirus won't apply.
"We do a lot of supply-chain work, and we are seeing a lot of concern over this issue, and we are seeing a lot of force-majeure events come up," Ellis said.
But just because one company declares a force majeure event, lawyers say that doesn't mean litigation is imminent.
Ellis said that at this point, most parties just want to manage the problem and get their operations back on line. However, at some point, companies will begin asking who is responsible for the costs. If they can't agree on a resolution, that's when they file lawsuits.
Even if two companies are regular partners and highly motivated to work out disputes, such cooperation could break down if the business disruptions are too great for one of the companies to handle.
Neel Lane, partner at Norton Rose Fulbright in San Antonio, said that if a company files for bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court appoints a trustee or debtor-in-possession to manage the company's assets. That person will not care about the bankrupt company's relationship with its vendor. The trustee, whose main job is recovering as many assets as possible in the bankruptcy, will not hesitate to sue the vendor, said Neel.
Sandler, the Dallas commercial litigator, added that when a company gets sued for breaching a contract, it may have to defend itself by bringing its suppliers into the suit.
For example, imagine a U.S. smartphone company that has contracted with a Chinese plant to assemble its devices. If coronavirus has shut down the Chinese facility, so that it's not making any smartphones, that may be a valid defense to breaching its contract. The smartphone company may want to keep its business relationship with the Chinese facility. However, the U.S. smartphone company probably has other contracts to provide devices to retail stores. What happens if one retail store sues the smartphone company for failing to live up to its contract?
Sandler noted, "It has repercussions, like the ripples of a pond."
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 AllLennox Hires 12-Year Company Veteran as CLO, Bucking Hire-From-Outside Trend
3 minute read'Strong' Legal Theory or 'Oxymoron'? Experts Eye FTC Antitrust Suit Against Mattress Merger
5 minute readThis Judge Hoped to Be Reversed: Good News for Plaintiffs in Asbestos MDL
4 minute readSenior American Airlines Attorney Lands Back at Kimberly-Clark, This Time as GC
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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