On June 12, 2025, the First Department issued a decision in Ceratosaurus Invs., LLC v. B2C Alternative Equity, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op. 03630, holding that a trade confirmation was adequately alleged to be a binding agreement, explaining:
Supreme Court properly rejected defendants’ argument that the parties’ trade confirmation was not a binding agreement and that dismissal of the action was warranted on that basis. Notwithstanding defendants’ contention otherwise, the trade confirmation is not, on its face, merely an agreement to negotiate, as it contained all the material terms of the trade — for example, price, claim amount, identity of the asset, the buyers’ names, and the seller’s name. Thus, whether the trade confirmation is an enforceable agreement for the sale of B2C’s bankruptcy claim is properly determined on a motion for summary judgment rather than on a motion to dismiss.
(Internal citations omitted).