Uncertainty About Merits Is Sufficient To Affirm Preliminary Injunction
HOOSIER ENERGY RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (September 17, 2009)
.jpg)
Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative and John Hancock Life Insurance Company entered into a lease-leaseback of a Power Plant in order to take advantage of excess depreciation deductions held by Hoosier. Because the transaction exposed John Hancock to substantial financial risks, Hoosier arranged with Ambac Assurance Corporation to pay to Hancock $120 million upon the occurrence of certain events. One of those events was a reduction in Ambac’s credit rating. If that occurred, Hoosier had 60 days to replace the surety. It did occur. Even with an extension, Hoosier did not replace the surety. John Hancock demanded performance. Ambac was ready and able to perform but Hoosier filed suit and obtained a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Ambac’s performance would require Hoosier to cover the payment, which would drive Hoosier into bankruptcy. John Hancock appeals.
In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Kanne and Wood affirmed. The Court began with the requirements for equitable relief: irreparable injury, a plausible claim on the merits and the balance of equities. The Court accepted the district court’s finding of irreparable injury and proceeded to address the merits. The district court had found merit in two Hoosier arguments: that the transaction was illegal and must be unwound and that Hoosier is at least temporarily excused under the doctrine of "temporary commercial impracticability." The Court disagreed with respect to the first prong. Whether or not the IRS allows the parties to take advantage of the intended tax consequences, the Court believed that the parties were still bound by their contractual obligations. With respect to the second prong, the Court noted that New York courts do not recognize "temporary commercial impracticability." Although they do recognize the defense of impossibility, they take a dim view of it and do not excuse performance when the "impossibility" is the result of financial hardship. If, as Hancock claims, Hoosier had the option to replace the surety, the Court did not believe that an impossibility defense would stand. If, however, as Hoosier claims, it had a duty to replace the surety, an impossibility defense might prevail. The Court found enough uncertainty in the contract and the facts surrounding Hoosier's ability or inability to replace the surety that it concluded that the district court was correct with respect to Hoosier's prospect of prevailing. Finally, the Court required the district court to re-examine the amount of the injunction bonds to protect John Hancock and urged the district court to allow Hancock to realize its surety if Hoosier is not able to replace the surety within a few months.
