top of page
Search
  • Writer's picturePhil Griffis

Federal Court Dismisses Leki Aviation's Suit Against Airbus, B/E Aerospace and Satair

Last October I reported on Leki Aviation’s $250 million breach of contract and tortuous interference suit. The suit, filed in state court in Manhattan, claimed that defendants Airbus, B/E Aerospace and Satair committed various torts and contractual breaches in connection with a product distribution agreement between B/E and Leki.  The suit alleged that B/E fraudulently induced Leki to enter into the contract, and that Airbus and Satair tortuously interfered with the $250 million dollar agreement.


The defendants immediately filed motions to dismiss the case, which the federal judge has now granted, thus ending the case with a thud.  In dismissing the case,  the judge found that the allegations made by Leki in its complaint, even if true, failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.  The dismissal order dismissed the claims on the following basis:


  1. The court found Leki’s fraud in the inducement claim must be dismissed because Leki’s complaint did not allege an intentional misrepresentation of fact that existed at the time the parties entered into their distribution agreement.  It noted that “general allegations that defendants entered into the contract while lacking an intention to perform it are insufficient to support a fraud claim”.

  2. It dismissed the breach of contract claim because Leki could not recover damages for anticipatory breach, and the complaint failed to claim compensatory damages.

  3. It dismissed claims based on alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because the damages Leki claimed for the alleged breach were duplicative of its breach of contract damages.

  4. It dismissed Leki’s claims of tortuous interference with contract, finding that since the alleged contract was only prospective, it could not support a claim for tortious interference with it.   Additionally, it found that since the alleged contract was terminable at will, there could be no tortuous interference with it.


Not the most interesting topic in the world, but the defendants have to be elated at the result.


WRITTEN BY



Phil Griffis obtained his first jury verdict in 1990, when he convinced a jury that a customer’s fall at his client’s store did not cause the customer’s aspiration pneumonia and stroke. In the years since he has continued to win in courtrooms across the State of Texas.

46 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Next Up For Fox News - The Smartmatic Lawsuit

Fox News will have little “breathing room” following its enormous three-quarters of a billion dollars defamation settlement payout to Dominion Voting Systems. Waiting in the wings of the courthouse is

Shareholders Sue Southwest For Mass Flight Cancellations

A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Airlines in response to the operational disaster that resulted in nearly 17,000 canceled flights over the recent holiday travel seas

Buying Time for Your Business with Standstill Agreements

Standstill Agreements are a little known legal tool that could literally save your business, or someone else’s, during the current crisis. At its most basic, a Standstill Agreement puts a temporary "f

Comments


Commenting has been turned off.
bottom of page