Cantor Fitzgerald & Co v Yes Bank Limited

Cantor Fitzgerald & Co v Yes Bank Limited

The definition of 'Financing' in the Engagement Letter, as interpreted in its ordinary meaning, contractual context, and relevant factual matrix, was limited to private forms of equity financing. The use of 'private' qualified all forms of financing listed, and the structure and provisions of the contract supported this interpretation. Therefore, the FPO did not fall within the definition, and Cantor Fitzgerald was not entitled to a fee for funds raised in the FPO.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Cantor Fitzgerald & Co; Respondent/defendant: YES Bank Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Engagement Letters, Construction of Commercial Contracts, Entitlement to Fees, Equity Financing Arrangements
Contract Law Banking and Finance Interpretation of Engagement Letters Construction of Commercial Contracts Entitlement to Fees Equity Financing Arrangements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cantor Fitzgerald & Co

Appellant/claimant

YES Bank Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the definition of 'Financing' in the Engagement Letter included public offers such as the FPO or was limited to private forms of equity financing
  2. 2 Whether Cantor Fitzgerald was entitled to a fee for funds raised in the FPO from listed investors

Ratio Decidendi

The definition of 'Financing' in the Engagement Letter, as interpreted in its ordinary meaning, contractual context, and relevant factual matrix, was limited to private forms of equity financing. The use of 'private' qualified all forms of financing listed, and the structure and provisions of the contract supported this interpretation. Therefore, the FPO did not fall within the definition, and Cantor Fitzgerald was not entitled to a fee for funds raised in the FPO.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.