COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

SUFFOLK, ss.                                                                                             SUPERIOR COURT

                                                         CIVIL ACTION

1. 1684CV05562

A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANT, INC.

vs.

MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

RESERVIATION AND REPORT OF AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER TO THE APPEALS COURT

This action arises out of a contract between the plaintiff, A.L. Prime Energy Consultant, Inc. (Prime), and the defendant, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) for the supply of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel (ULSDF) (the Supply Contract), and the unilateral termination of the Supply Contract by the MBTA.  Prime asserts, among other claims, that the MBTA breached the Supply Contract by terminating it before its end date.

read more

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

SUFFOLK, ss.                                                                                             SUPERIOR COURT

                                                         CIVIL ACTION

1. 1684CV05562

A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANT, INC.

vs.

MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

RESERVIATION AND REPORT OF AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER TO THE APPEALS COURT

This action arises out of a contract between the plaintiff, A.L. Prime Energy Consultant, Inc. (Prime), and the defendant, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) for the supply of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel (ULSDF) (the Supply Contract), and the unilateral termination of the Supply Contract by the MBTA.  Prime asserts, among other claims, that the MBTA breached the Supply Contract by terminating it before its end date.

read more

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

SUFFOLK, ss.SUPERIOR COURT

CIVIL ACTION

1. 1677CV01366

A.L. PRIME ENERGY CONSULTANT, INC.

vs.

MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

In July 2016, defendant Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) terminated its two-year fuel supply agreement with plaintiff A.L. Prime Energy Consultant, Inc. (Prime). The MBTA explained that thetermination was made pursuant to its exercise of a contractual right that permitted termination for convenience.The MBTA terminated the contract in order to take advantage of cost savings it believed it could achieve by purchasing fuel through the Commonwealth’s existing statewide fuel contract.  Prime alleges that the MBTA abused its discretion when it invoked the termination for convenience provision and that therefore the MBTA is liable for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  The matter is now before the Court on the MBTA’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.

read more