Synergy4 Enters. v. Pinnacle Bank, 290 Neb. 241

Synergy4 (a Nebraska corporation) and its principals Quinn and Bauer alleged Pinnacle Bank, through loan officer Scott Bradley, orally promised a $1 million line of credit that induced them to form Synergy4, lease premises, and Quinn to buy about $1.6 million of inventory in China.
Pinnacle provided a written commitment for $400,000 but allegedly orally assured Quinn the $1 million line existed; later Pinnacle refused further advances beyond the $400,000 and a $50,000 personal loan.
Synergy4 sued Pinnacle (May 2013) asserting promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud based on the oral promises to extend credit.
Pinnacle moved for summary judgment, arguing Nebraska’s credit-agreement statute of frauds (§ 45-1,113) bars any action based on an unwritten promise to loan or extend credit.
The district court granted summary judgment for Pinnacle; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding § 45-1,113 precludes actions based on unwritten credit agreements, including promissory estoppel and negligent misrepresentation claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 45-1,113 bars claims based on oral promises to lend/extend credit	Promissory estoppel and other common-law exceptions to statute of frauds apply; statute should be coextensive with general statute of frauds	§ 45-1,113 requires written, signed credit agreements and thus bars actions based on unwritten credit promises	§ 45-1,113 bars actions based on oral credit agreements; summary judgment for defendant affirmed
Whether promissory estoppel can circumvent the credit-agreement statute	Reliance on oral assurances made enforcement necessary to avoid injustice	Statute’s plain language supersedes promissory estoppel for credit agreements	Promissory estoppel cannot be used to enforce unwritten credit agreements under § 45-1,113
Whether other tort labels (negligent misrepresentation, fraud) avoid the statute	Labeling claims as tort avoids statute-of-frauds barrier	Substance is an agreement to loan money; statute applies regardless of label	Claims framed as misrepresentation or fraud are barred when based on unwritten credit commitments
Whether legislative history supports allowing common-law exceptions	Legislative history shows intent not to bar common-law exceptions (argued)	Statute’s plain, unambiguous language controls; no construction needed	Court declines to consult legislative history and enforces plain statutory text

Fortress Systems, L.L.C. v. Bank of West, 559 F.3d 848 (8th Cir. 2009) (statute of frauds for credit agreements bars oral loan commitments)
Farmland Service Coop., Inc. v. Klein, 244 N.W.2d 86 (Neb. 1976) (promissory estoppel cannot circumvent statute of frauds)
Rosnick v. Dinsmore, 457 N.W.2d 793 (Neb. 1990) (promissory estoppel not available to avoid statute of frauds)