Hemlock Semiconductor Corp, v. Kyocera Corp.

747 Fed.Appx. 285 (6th Cir. 2018)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Kyocera (D) entered into four contracts with Hemlock (P), in which D promised to purchase specified amounts of polysilicon from P at specified prices over the course of the next ten years or so. The contracts contain 'take-or-pay' provisions. D was required to 'take' a specified quantity of polysilicon from D each year. It did not matter whether D took the product or not. It still had to pay. If D defaulted under the contracts, these provisions accelerate the amount D owes P, such that P can demand all remaining sums owed. For these acceleration provisions to take effect, D must default, P must serve notice of default, and P must give D 180 days to cure its default. If D does not cure, P can elect to terminate, at which point D becomes liable for all remaining payments due, the sum of the take-or-pay provisions. For these acceleration provisions to take effect, D must default, P must serve notice of default, and P must give D 180 days to cure its default. If D does not cure, P can elect to terminate, at which point D becomes liable for all remaining payments due, the sum of the take-or-pay provisions. The Chinese Communist government disrupted the solar-panel market by subsidizing Chinese solar-panel companies. This reduced the market price of polysilicon. The price D agreed to pay P was far greater than the going rate. D sought to renegotiate. A compromise, temporarily lowering the price was reached but P reneged that it would begin insisting that Kyocera take or pay for polysilicon at the original (and now inflated) price. P sought a declaratory judgment that D repudiated the parties' contracts by indicating that it would not take or pay at the original price. D counterclaimed that the 'pay' portion of the take-or-pay provisions is an unlawful penalty, and thus that the acceleration provisions are too. P moved to dismiss D's counterclaims, and the district court agreed. D appealed.