Dkt. No. 54 at 14 (citing PDV Sweeny, Inc. v. Conocophillips Co., 670 Fed.Appx. 23, 24 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order)).
Dkt. No. 54 at 14 (citing PDV Sweeny, Inc. v. Conocophillips Co., 670 Fed.Appx. 23, 24 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order)).
While there is a well-established policy of refusing to enforce penalty provisions in contracts in New York, courts have found that policy to be insufficient to sustain vacatur. See PDV Sweeny, Inc. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 670 Fed.Appx 23, 24 (2d Cir. 2016). Even if New York's penalty provision policy were sufficient grounds for vacatur, in the words of the Tribunal, "the reduction of the Purchase Price [by 20%] ... is a fair approximation of the anticipated impairment of the value of the ITS business when its purchaser Superior Colombia does not receive the value of the asset paid for."