Financing Finders Fee Agreement

After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favour of NTV, which awarded it damages for consulting costs, and to pay three times as much damages under G.L.c 93A. In response to the motions that followed the trial, the judge awarded the jury award and concluded that the Finder`s fee agreement was invalid and unenforceable because NTV was necessary but had not registered as a broker-dealer. In NTV Management, Inc., vs. Lightship Global Ventures, LLC, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck a first instance that found that a finder fee agreement was not applicable, since it was null and void under Massachusetts and Federal securities laws, since the finder was not registered as a broker. The Finder`s compensation agreement in question, like many of these agreements, held that The Finder (NTV Management, Inc.) had a commission on obtaining capital from investors and/or lenders that lightship Global Ventures, LLC needed to acquire The agreement also provided that, under certain conditions, if Lightship did not use NTV`s sources of capital to acquire, a $330,000 consulting fee would be paid instead of a commission. After terminating its contract with NTV, Lightship completed the acquisition of with a source of capital that was not associated with it by NTV. In the end, Lightship found that NTV was not owed to a commission or advisory fees related to the acquisition of, and NTV sued for the payment of the commission or, failing that, the payment of the advisory fees. 5. Miscellaneous.

This agreement binds all parties and their estates, heirs, successors and approved beneficiaries. This agreement can only be amended with the written agreement of all parties. This agreement cannot be ceded by either party without the written consent of the other party. This agreement is the whole agreement between us. There are no agreements, assurances or guarantees between us with respect to our agreement, except as stated in this Finder pricing agreement. In the event that legal proceedings are required to interpret or enforce the provisions of this agreement, the dominant party is entitled, in such an action, to recover all legal costs, legal fees and the costs of enforcement or forfeiture of a rendered judgment. A court`s ruling that a particular part of this agreement is unlawful does not affect the validity of the other provisions. We intend that the laws of the State of California govern the validity of this agreement.

Comments are closed.

SEO Powered By SEOPressor