Due to this ambiguity in the contract documents, the trial court was permitted to look at the evidence of the parties’ intent outside of the documents, and it found that the FDIC didn’t acquire an interest in the loan until June 2009, regardless of the stated effective date in the main agreement.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court and stated: The law does not support the blanket conclusion that a retroactive effective date in a contract is only enforceable when the evidence demonstrates that the parties had agreed to the material terms of their contract as of the retroactive date.
The company attempted to impede the unionization by hiring additional employees that were against the union.
However, to the company's disappointment, these employees were not hired until after the company's current employees filed their application to unionize, making the new employees unable to participate.
(Jason Mark Anderman illustrates the logistics problem well in this comment to a backdating post on Ken Adams’s blog.) There’s nothing inherently illegal or unethical about backdating contracts, although backdating can certainly be both unethical and illegal, depending on the situation.
For those with an hour to kill thinking about the issues, Jeffrey Kwall and Stuart Duhl wrote an excellent article on backdating that was published in Business Lawyer in 2008.
The trial court granted the defendants summary judgment, holding that FH Partners didn’t own the loan and so it couldn’t enforce it.
The appellate court determined two separate issues: (1) whether the FDIC’s June 10, 2009 transaction with Weatherford was effective to retroactively transfer the loan to the FDIC as between the FDIC and Weatherford and (2) whether a retroactive effect applied to the FDIC’s earlier transaction with FH Partners.The facts are a bit complicated, involving circumstances surrounding the failure of a bank and transactions in the bank’s loans preceding the failure as well as transactions of the FDIC as the bank’s receiver.