Opinion ID: 2559058
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Crown's Consent Required

Text: Wireless argues that, pursuant to the Tower Cash Flow formula described in the Agreement, the Loan Commitment would, without any act by Crown, adjust based on changes in revenue or expenses on existing licenses. The Superior Court rejected that argument, holding that [t]he agreement with respect to further borrowing seems to be clear that increasing the loan commitment was left to the sole discretion of Crown regardless of Wireless' being able to demonstrate that it met the terms of the formula contained in the loan agreement. Wireless now argues, for the first time on appeal, that because Section 2.1 refers to adjustment mechanisms and because Section 2.2 is captioned Discretionary Adjustments to Loan Commitment the parties must have also agreed to some additional automatic or non-discretionary mechanisms to adjust the Loan Commitment. There is no provision in the Agreement, however, that sets forth an automatic or non-discretionary mechanism. The only provisions of the Agreement that address increases in the Loan Commitment above the original disbursed amount of $5,499,854.00 are Sections 2.2(a) and (b). Neither Section 2.2(a) nor 2.2(b) supports Wireless' argument because they expressly provide: Anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement notwithstanding, any increase in the Loan Commitment shall be subject to the consent of Crown, which consent Crown may grant or withhold in its sole discretion, and such consent must be in writing. [1] The Agreement defines the Loan Commitment as [C]rown's agreed-upon obligation to fund the Loan to Wireless in an amount up to the [Tower Cash Flow formula]. If the parties intended the Loan Commitment to equal the amount derived from the formula, it could have been written that way. Instead, the Agreement provides that Crown must first consent to (or agree to) the ceiling derived under the formula. Crown asserts that the Tower Cash Flow formula serves a purpose: it caps the maximum Loan Commitment amount that Crown could permit in its discretion, and it also limits the maximum decrease in the Loan Commitment that Crown could unilaterally impose. Crown submits it does not, however, as Wireless maintains, automatically obligate Crown to fund additional monies to Wireless. The Superior Court agreed. The Loan Agreement unambiguously limits Crown's obligation to advance funds to an initial Loan Commitment amount of $5,499,854.00 and provides that any increase in that amount requires Crown's written consent which may be granted or denied in Crown's sole discretion. The Amended Complaint admits that the original Loan Commitment amount was disbursed in full to Wireless. Accordingly, the Superior Court properly held that any alleged failure by Crown to advance fund in amounts above $5,599,854.00, is not actionable, because Crown had the right to withhold its consent.