Opinion ID: 771086
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plaintiffs' Interpretation

Text: 25 Plaintiffs argue that the parties intended for the agreement regarding Calex's Merrill Lynch account to terminate only upon full payment of the loan's outstanding principal and interest. 2 In support of their interpretation, plaintiffs point to the similar use of the concept of full payment in the termination provisions of both the Guarantee and the Weinstock Instruction Letter as evidence of the coterminous nature of those agreements. The termination provision of the Guarantee provides that [t]his Guarantee shall continue in full force and effect until all amounts due in principal, interest and any obligations payable as aforesaid of or in respect of the Loan Agreement shall be paid in full. (emphasis added) Likewise, the termination provision of the Weinstock Instruction Letter provides that it will terminate following payment in full by Prodipe of its obligations under the Loan Agreement. (emphasis added) Plaintiffs argue that because the release did not terminate the guarantors' obligations under the Guarantee, see Compagnie Financiere, 188 F.3d at 37, then the release cannot terminate the guarantors' obligations under the agreement entered for purposes of securing the Guarantee because the parties intended those two agreements to be coterminous. 26 Plaintiffs also point to extrinsic evidence regarding the purpose of the arrangement with Merrill Lynch in support of their interpretation of the phrase payment in full. Plaintiffs contend that the undisputed purpose of the arrangement was to provide assurances to CFC that in the event it would have to seek enforcement of the Guarantee against Weinstock, he would have sufficient assets against which CFC could proceed. As proof of this intent, plaintiffs point to the June 29, 1990 letter from Merrill Lynch to CFC, which assured the bank of Weinstock's financial reliability as a guarantor by stating that it was holding $20 million in readily marketable securities on behalf of Calex Ltd. As additional evidence of the purpose of the arrangement, plaintiffs draw attention to Weinstock's July 2, 1990 letter to CFC, stating that the June 29, 1990 Merrill Lynch Letter is provided to you in connection with that Guarantee of Patrick Mery-Sanson, Mr. Alfredo Balli and me, which Guarantee is given to you in connection with your credit of US$2,500,000 to Prodipe, Inc. Plaintiffs also note that CFC's outside counsel stated at his deposition that the Merrill Lynch agreement was . . . there to make sure that Mr. Weinstock at least had the minimum amount necessary to satisfy the guarantee. Finally, Weinstock testified at his deposition that the purpose of the Letter Agreement was [t]o prove that Calex is in good financial position and that he understood that CFC was requiring the arrangement as a condition to extending the loan to Prodipe. Weinstock further stated that if no payment was made by Prodipe of its obligations under the loan, the letter of instruction would remain in full effect. Plaintiffs argue that Calex's interpretation of the ambiguous language is inconsistent with this purpose, and thus cannot be indicative of the parties' intent. 27 Given all of the extrinsic evidence supporting plaintiffs' interpretation, we disagree with the district court's conclusion that [p]laintiffs have pointed to no evidence upon which a rational factfinder might find in their favor. The district court erred in granting summary judgment in Calex's favor.