District Court rules email can be a signed, written instrument for purposes of amending a partnership agreement

Courts E-SIGN Act E-Signature

On August 15, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ruling in part that an email could constitute a “written instrument” for purposes of amending a partnership agreement. The plaintiff is one of 33 limited partners in a funding entity formed to pool investments into a fund for litigation-related financing ventures. The plaintiff sued the defendants (the partnership’s general partner and asset manager) asserting four causes of action tied to their alleged failure to dissolve the partnership by a deadline established in the partnership agreement. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed by the parties, in which the court reviewed plaintiff’s claims as to whether there was a valid amendment extending the term of the partnership, whether the limited partners received notice of this proposed amendment, and whether the limited partners approved the amendment or failed to raise objections within 25 days.

While the defendants argued that an August 2019 email constitutes a valid amendment of the partnership term, the plaintiff countered that the email “is not a written instrument, is not signed, and does not specify the duration of the extension.” The court first reviewed the text of the partnership agreement, which stated that it “may be amended ‘only by a written instrument signed by the General Partner.’” While the agreement does not define what constitutes a “written instrument,” the court wrote, it “provides that ‘[a]ll notices, requests and other communications to any party hereunder shall be in writing (including electronic means or similar writing).’” As such, the court concluded that an email could constitute a “written instrument” for the purposes of amending the agreement.

With respect to whether the email was “signed,” the court discussed the federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN Act), which provides that “a signature . . . may not be denied legal effect . . . solely because it is in electronic form,” and pointed to several court decisions that similarly determined that the “law demands only demonstration of a person’s intent to authenticate a document as her own in order for the document to be signed [and that] [m]any symbols may demonstrate this intent.” In the present action, the court determined that “the e-mail speaks in the plural using ‘we’ and refers to the senders in third person as ‘your General Partners.’” Moreover, the court held that the plaintiff’s “unsubstantiated assertion” that the email is unsigned “is insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact with respect to [managing members’] intent to sign the e-mail.” The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that that the email is not a valid amendment because it did not specify the duration of the extension, pointing to language in the email stating that the fund will be extended until 2021. The court further disagreed with the plaintiff’s assertion that the amendment was not approved, noting that unrebutted statements provided by one of the managing members demonstrated that none of the limited partners aside from the plaintiff objected to the proposed extension.