Opinion ID: 216819
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Increased Costs to Finance Acquisition Due to Delay

Text: Ventas first argues that it is entitled to damages from the increased cost of financing the transaction. (Ventas Br. at 74.) Ventas explains as follows: HCP's deceptive press release forced Ventas to delay, from February 22[, 2007] to May 18, 2007, its planned sale of equity to finance the acquisition. As a result, Ventas incurred substantially higher financing costs as its stock value declined. ( Id. at 72.) The district court granted summary judgment for HCP on this claim. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Wuliger v. Mfrs. Life Ins. Co., 567 F.3d 787, 792 (6th Cir.2009). Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with any affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The district court acknowledged that HCP's topping bid delayed any plan Ventas may have had to issue shares in February [of 2007], but granted summary judgment because it found no evidence that establishes an actual date for issuing shares. The district court reasoned that the evidence does not suggest that HCP knew of any actual plan by Ventas' to issue equity in this transaction, [n]or does any evidence suggest that HCP would know the timing on that issuance. Therefore, the district court found, Ventas'[] issuance of shares was not clearly foreseeable. The district court also held that HCP's acts [were] not substantial factors in bringing about the harm for which Ventas seeks compensation, and that Ventas received full market value for the shares when issued. On appeal, Ventas argues that it presented ample evidence that it planned to raise equity in late February 2007 to finance the acquisition. Ventas cites, with little explanation, an affidavit from its CEO; a presentation to the Ventas Board; and correspondence about a planned $1 billion equity raise. (Ventas Br. at 73-74 (citing App. at 748-50, 844-46; R. 193, Ex. 65 ¶¶ 4-6, 9 & Ex. C).) Ventas also notes that it was hell bent on proceeding with an equity raise. ( Id. at 74 (citing record evidence).) Additionally, Ventas argues that the record contains ample evidence of foreseeability, and cites: 1) a January 17, 2008 analysis from HCP's investment bankers showing that Ventas would finance the acquisition through $1.059 billion of `New Common Equity Issued;' ( id. (citing App. 366, R. 193, Ex. 104)); and 2) the testimony of HCP's CEO, stating that he expected Ventas' stock price to decline after HCP's public offer. ( Id. (citing Tr.4B at 154).) Having reviewed the record, we find that the district court properly granted summary judgment for HCP on this claim for damages. Kentucky law does not tolerate uncertainty as to the fact of damage, Lanham, 2011 WL 918735, at  (emphasis omitted), and as such, Ventas must show, with a reasonable certainty, that it sustained damages in the first instance. See id. Based on our review of record, we conclude that no reasonable jury could find, with any reasonable certainty, that Ventas had decided to conduct an asset sale to take place at any particular time. Without the record supporting such a finding, Ventas' claim for damages arising out of the timing of its claimed asset sale fails as a matter of law. The evidence relied upon by Ventas in support of this claim for damages is wholly speculative and does not purport to identify a planned date for the equity offering. ( See, e.g., App. at 844 (considering asset sales); id. at 1387 (examining a number of different options).) In fact, Ventas' CEO acknowledged in an email that the planned equity raise could well occur after February 22, 2007: she stated on February 3, 2007 that Ventas seeks maximum flexibility to hit the market for debt and/or equity securities (which might even be prior to the closing), then scheduled for April 2, 2007. ( Id. at 750 (emphasis added).) Accordingly, we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment for HCP on Ventas' claim for damages due to a claimed delay in its equity raise.