Abstract
This article discusses lost premium provisions, often referred to as Con
Ed provisions. The article examines the main variants of these
provisions and considers how they may conflict with established
doctrines in contract and corporate law, potentially rendering them
unenforceable. In response, the article evaluates a range of proposed
solutions, including incorporating lost premiums into contractual
damages, designing reverse termination fees, appointing the company or
stockholders as agents to recover lost premiums, and pursuing
legislative reform. The article argues that although courts’ reluctance
to enforce lost premium provisions has surprised transactional lawyers
and scholars, this hesitation is principled, grounded in both doctrinal
and normative concerns. To help courts navigate the challenges
surrounding lost premium recovery more coherently, the article proposes a
two-stage framework for evaluating these provisions. Finally, the
article contends that the difficulties arise not only from the
provisions themselves but also from the remedies pursued. Each proposed
solution addresses specific challenges, yet each also encounters
limitations or introduces new complications.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 917-942 |
| Number of pages | 26 |
| Journal | Alberta Law Review |
| Volume | 62 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jun 23 2025 |