Opinion ID: 685627
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Breach of Interim Escrow Duties by Merrill Lynch

Text: 82 The Becherer plaintiffs argue that Merrill Lynch breached its duties as interim escrow agent by allowing that escrow to close without disclosing the following information to investors: 83 1) the minimum subscription level was not met at the time of the interim escrow closing; 84 2) SSG intended to lease FF & E; 85 3) the financial projections provided to investors did not factor in the cost of leasing the FF & E; and 86 4) TMC never provided notice of financing approval to investors. 87 All four allegations can be disposed of easily. First, the District Court found that investors became bound to complete their purchases on February 15, 1985. This finding contains an implicit conclusion that the minimum subscription level was met at the time of the interim escrow closing. The Becherer plaintiffs point to no information that would allow us to find that this conclusion was clearly erroneous. Thus, we will not overturn it on appeal. 88 Second, we have reviewed the District Court's opinions in this case and find no discussion of when Merrill Lynch learned of SSG's intention to lease the disputed FF & E and whether Merrill Lynch thought that intention contravened the contract. Nor have the Becherer plaintiffs pointed to any part of the record to show they raised this argument below. We will not address it for the first time on appeal. Merrill Lynch points to evidence that it reduced its commission so that the project could be completed as promised and that it believed that, with these concessions, SSG could fulfill its end of the contract. 89 We earlier addressed the Becherer plaintiffs' allegations regarding Merrill Lynch's projections and SSG's decision to lease FF & E. We will not repeat that discussion here, except to say the claim has no merit. 90 Finally, the District Court specifically found that plaintiffs waived their right to be notified of financing approval by not objecting to the lack of notice of such approval within a reasonable time period after they received notice of the escrow closing. Becherer, 799 F.Supp. at 789. The Becherer plaintiffs have provided no reasons why this conclusion was in error, and we will thus not overturn it on appeal.