Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Chris Lazarini Examines Limits on the Scope of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in Breach of Contract Dispute


December 22, 2015

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini examined the case of Great Water Capital Partners, LLC vs. Down-lite Int'l, Inc. in which Great Water claimed Down-lite breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to close on a deal after retaining Great Water to locate potential buyers or investors. The Court rejected Great Water's claims because under the contract, Down-lite retained absolute authority to reject any proposed transaction. Chris provided the analysis for Securities Litigation Commentator (SLC). The full text of the analysis is below and used with permission from the publication. If you would like to receive additional content from the SLC, please visit the SLC website to sign up for the newsletter.

Great Water Capital Partners, LLC vs. Down-lite Int'l, Inc., Nos. C-160015 & C-150023, 2015 Ohio 4877 (Ohio App., 1Dist., 11/18/15) 

*The duty of good faith and fair dealing does not apply where a party to the contract has unconditional authority to make the decision at issue.
**A party to a contract may not prove fraud by claiming the inducement to enter into the contract was a promise within the scope of the agreement but which was ultimately not included in the agreement. 

Great Water is an investment bank that assists middle-market companies with mergers, acquisitions, and capital-raising. In 2008, Down-lite, a family-owned bedding material manufacturer, approached Great Water for assistance in finding a buyer or investor. The parties entered into a contract under which Great Water was to identify and analyze potential transactions for Down-lite. Great Water received a retainer fee and, under the contract, would receive additional fees if a transaction closed. Down-lite retained discretion to approve any proposed deal. After three prospective acquirers submitted letters of intent, Down-lite demanded that the company headquarters remain in Cincinnati, family members be given employment opportunities, and the business continue as a non-union business. No sale or investment transaction was consummated, and Down-lite terminated the agreement with Great Water. The trial court dismissed some of Great Water's claims for failure to state a claim, refused to allow certain proposed amended claims, and granted summary judgment for Down-lite on the claims that survived. 

On appeal, the Court affirms, agreeing with the trial court that Great Water's claims suffered from the same defect – Down-lite had sole discretion to approve any proposed transaction. Implicit in this notion, the Court concludes, is that there was no breach of contract, because Down-lite did not have to close a deal. Nor was there a breach of the duty of good faith. The Court rejects Great Water's claim that Down-lite had a duty to act reasonably, finding that the duty of good faith cannot supplant an express contract term. Here, the Court explains, the duty of good faith did not apply, because Down-lite retained the absolute and exclusive right to reject any proposed transaction and could impose whatever conditions on a potential deal it felt appropriate.

Applying the same rationale, the Court finds that the trial court correctly rejected Great Water's efforts to amend and add claims of unjust enrichment, excuse of condition and prevention of performance. It would have been futile to add those claims, the Court states, when the contract gave Down-lite unconditional decision-making authority.

The Court also agrees with the trial court's grant of summary judgment on Great Water's breach of warranty and fraudulent inducement claims. Those claims were grounded in the concept that Down-lite failed to disclose and/or misrepresented its transaction conditions when negotiating its contract with Great Water. Rejecting the theory, the Court finds that Great Water cannot show it was damaged and cannot complain that it was fraudulently induced to enter into a contract giving Down-light sole discretion when it could have placed limitations on transaction conditions or a requirement that consent to a sale not be unreasonably withheld in the Down-lite contract. 

The Court declines to address the trial court's finding that the contract was unenforceable because Great Water was acting in violation of the Ohio Securities Act by not registering as a dealer with the Ohio Securities Division.

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.