Prairie Street Capital v. Afek - Right of First Refusal ROFR Claim Dismissed

JD Supra Finance & Banking

Filed April 1st, 2026

Detected April 2nd, 2026

Summary

The SDNY dismissed Prairie Street Capital's breach of contract claim in Prairie Street Capital, Inc. v. Afek et al., No. 20-cv-02834, finding that a Right of First Refusal option was not triggered when Webster sold only Richardson's interest in RFI (not 100% of the Collateral) under a UCC sale. The court applied New York's narrow construction doctrine for rights of first refusal, holding that the ROFR Option required sale of all Collateral to constitute a Qualified Loan Sale.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

Prairie Street Capital sued Webster Business Credit and others alleging breach of a Right of First Refusal Option contained in a 2019 loan amendment related to a $5 million loan to Richardson Foods. The SDNY dismissed the complaint, holding that the ROFR Option was triggered only upon Webster's sale of 100% of the Collateral, which included interests in both RBC and RFI. Here, Webster sold only Richardson's interest in RFI's assets under the UCC Sale Option, not the full Collateral package. The court reaffirmed that rights of first refusal are construed narrowly under New York law per Lewis v. Rahman.

The practical implication is that parties with ROFR provisions in commercial loan agreements should ensure their contract language clearly specifies what constitutes a triggering sale, including whether partial asset sales or UCC sales trigger the right. While this decision is binding precedent in the SDNY, it may influence how other courts interpret similar ROFR provisions. Compliance teams reviewing loan documents should assess whether their ROFR clauses adequately address UCC sales and partial asset dispositions.

Source document (simplified)

April 1, 2026

Money Talks, March 2026 - Right of First Refusal Narrowly Construed

Christina Bai, Steven Herman Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP + Follow Contact LinkedIn Facebook X Send Embed

In Prairie Street Capital, Inc. v. Afek et al., Prairie Street Capital, Inc. (“ Plaintiff ”) alleged that defendants breached Plaintiff’s contractual rights to exercise a right of first refusal option (the “ ROFR Option ”) upon the occurrence of a trigger event. The United States District Court of the Southern District of New York (the “ Court ”) held that Plaintiff’s broad interpretation of the ROFR Option triggers did not provide a sufficient factual basis to establish a breach of contract, upholding that rights of first refusal are to be narrowly construed under New York law.

Plaintiff filed suit against several defendants and each defendant moved separately to dismiss the relevant claims for failure to state a claim.

The dispute arose from two agreements related to a $5 million loan that Webster Business Credit Corporation (“ Webster ”) issued to Richardson Foods, Inc. (“ RFI ”), a corporation founded to acquire Richardson Brands Company (“ RBC ”, with RFI, collectively, “ Richardson ”), in December 2014. The loan agreement between Richardson and Webster (the “ Loan Agreement ”) granted Webster a continuing security interest in and to all of Richardson’s assets (the “ Collateral ”) and to certain rights and remedies under the New York Uniform Commercial Code (“ UCC ”), including the right to foreclose on and sell any or all of the Collateral with or without judicial process (“ UCC Sale Option ”).

Richardson defaulted under the Loan Agreement. Richardson then requested a $280,000 cash deposit from Plaintiff to serve as additional collateral for the loan, which Plaintiff provided. In August 2019, the Loan Agreement was amended (the “ Amendment ”), granting Plaintiff the ROFR Option to purchase 100% of the Collateral if Webster sold 100% of the Collateral to a third-party (a “ Qualified Loan Sale ”).

On or about February 25, 2020, a potential purchaser sent Webster a letter of intent to purchase substantially all of RFI’s assets from Webster and Richardson through a UCC sale under Section 9-611 of the UCC. Plaintiff believed this offer qualified as a Qualified Loan Sale. On March 4, 2020, Plaintiff notified Webster of its intent to purchase the Collateral. Days later, Richardson executed a surrender agreement acknowledging default and consenting to Webster’s sale of Richardson’s interest in RFI to Roses under the UCC Sale Option (the “ Sale ”). After the Sale, Plaintiff alleged that Webster breached the Amendment by disregarding Plaintiff’s acceptance of the ROFR Option.

The Court found that Plaintiff did not plausibly allege a breach of the Amendment’s ROFR Option. The Court explained that the ROFR Option is triggered only if Webster offers to sell 100% of the Collateral, which includes Richardson’s interests in both RBC and RFI. Here, Webster sold only Richardson’s interest in RFI’s assets under the UCC Sale Option. The Court reaffirmed that “[r]ights of first refusal are construed narrowly” [1] under New York law. Roses’ offer and the resulting transaction did not constitute a Qualified Loan Sale. Therefore, while Plaintiff could prevent Webster from selling all of the Collateral to Roses, it could not prevent Webster from selling only a portion under the UCC Sale Option.

Accordingly, the Court granted Webster’s motion and dismissed the complaint.

[1] Lewis v. Rahman, 147 F. Supp. 2d 225, 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

Send Print Report

Latest Posts

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
Attorney Advertising.

Written by:

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP Contact + Follow Christina Bai + Follow Steven Herman + Follow more less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA

✔ Increased readership
✔ Actionable analytics
✔ Ongoing writing guidance Join more than 70,000 authors publishing their insights on JD Supra

Start Publishing »

Published In:

Breach of Contract + Follow Contract Disputes + Follow Contract Interpretation + Follow Lenders + Follow Loan Agreements + Follow Loans + Follow Motion to Dismiss + Follow New York + Follow Right of First Refusal + Follow Triggering Event + Follow Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) + Follow Civil Procedure + Follow General Business + Follow Finance & Banking + Follow more less

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP on:

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra: Sign Up Log in ** By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.* - hide - hide