Eie Guam Corp. v. Long Term Credit Bank of Japan, Ltd.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER *
The underlying debt that gives rise to this litigation pertains to a hotel property in Guam. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, called the Maui Term Sheet, but failed to concur on how it was to be carried out. The district court entered several orders interpreting and, ultimately, specifically enforcing the agreement. These appeals arise from the last two orders, which were entered in May 2002.
We have held in a separate opinion filed today that the district court has jurisdiction over this action. EIE Guam Corp. v. Long Term Credit Bank of Japan, Ltd., 322 F.3d 635 (9th Cir.2003). We now turn to the merits of the parties’ claims.
Both parties breached the Maui Term Sheet.
EIEG breached by (1) tendering release forms that “carved out” claims intended to be preserved under the terms of the Maui Term Sheet; (2) tendering release forms requiring the Bank and the RCC’s counsel to sign a form stating that the Bank and *71 the RCC had authority to sign a release on behalf of the other lenders, a provision not required in the Maui Term Sheet; and (3) including “Roe” and “Doe” releases, contrary to the Maui Term Sheet.