When limitations provided by conversion caps are discovered to be illusory or a sham, can they be disregarded and analyzed as if no such limitations existed?
The following excerpt is from Levy v. Southbrook Int'l Investments, 263 F.3d 10 (2nd Cir. 2000):
4. "When the limitations provided by conversion caps are discovered to be illusory or a sham, they should be disregarded and the courts should analyze the case as though no such limitations existed." Amicus at 25-26; see also Bershad v. McDonough, 428 F.2d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 1970) ("[t]he commercial substance of the transaction rather than its form must be considered, and courts should guard against sham transactions....").
4. "When the limitations provided by conversion caps are discovered to be illusory or a sham, they should be disregarded and the courts should analyze the case as though no such limitations existed." Amicus at 25-26; see also Bershad v. McDonough, 428 F.2d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 1970) ("[t]he commercial substance of the transaction rather than its form must be considered, and courts should guard against sham transactions....").
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
