You are here: / / Fraud Cause of Action Against Merrill Lynch Re: Credit Default Obligations...
, ,

Fraud Cause of Action Against Merrill Lynch Re: Credit Default Obligations Sufficiently Pled/Disclaimers and Disclosures Did Not Preclude Claim of Fraud

The First Department determined a cause of action for fraud against Merrill Lynch had been sufficiently pled.  The underlying agreement related to credit default obligations (CDO’s).  The court noted that an unjust enrichment cause of action is not viable when the lawsuit is based on a written agreement:

…[The] factual allegations provide sufficient details to inform the …defendants … of the alleged fraudulent conduct, namely that the CDO was secretly designed by an undisclosed hedge fund, Magnetar, which was secretly placing massive short bets against the very same deals it was sponsoring. Defendants, however, argue that plaintiff cannot establish the element of reasonable reliance (an element of both affirmative misrepresentation and concealment) as a result of the disclosures and disclaimers for the Auriga CDO. We cannot agree.

The offering circular states, “All or most of the Collateral Debt Securities Acquired by the Issuer . . . will be Acquired from a portfolio of Collateral Debt Securities selected by the Collateral Manager . . . .” If Magnetar rather than 250 Capital was doing the selecting, the statement in the offering circular was misleading. The identity of the person selecting the collateral was material: The offering circular says, “The performance of the portfolio of Collateral Debt Securities depends heavily on the skills of the Collateral Manager in analyzing and selecting the Collateral Debt Securities.” * * *

Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the disclaimers and disclosures in the offering circulars preclude a claim of fraud on the ground of a prior misrepresentation as to the specific matter, namely that the CDO’s collateral had been carefully selected by an independent collateral manager, in the interests of the success of the deal and for the benefit of Auriga’s long investors. Loreley Fin (Jersey) No 38 Ltd v Merrill Lynch …, 2014 NY Slip Op 03326, 1st Dept 5-8-14

Similar issues and result re: Citigroup in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick.  Loreley Fin (Jersey) No 3 Ltd v Citigroup Global Mkts Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03358, 1st Dept 5-8-14

 

You might also like
THE DRIVER’S LICENSE SUSPENSION REFORM ACT (DLSRA), WHICH ELIMINATED LICENSE SUSPENSIONS FOR FAILURE TO PAY A FINE, DOES NOT VACATE UNLICENSED-OPERATION CONVICTIONS BASED UPON THE FAILURE TO PAY A FINE AND DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY; THE APPEAL WAIVER HERE WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT SUGGESTED DEFENDANT COULD NOT FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
GIVING A SECOND ALLEN CHARGE AND ALLOWING THE JURY TO CONTINUE DELIBERATING TO 5 OR 6 PM ON A FRIDAY, KNOWING THAT THREE JURORS HAD TRAVEL PLANS FOR MONDAY, DID NOT CONSTITUTE COERCING THE VERDICT, PROVIDING BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS WAS NOT IMPROPER (FIRST DEPT).
ONLY A DEFECT APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE NOTICE OF LIEN WARRANTS SUMMARY DISCHARGE OF A MECHANIC’S LIEN; ANY OTHER THEORY MUST AWAIT TRIAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
SHIELD LAW PROTECTS RESPONDENT FROM PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITIES OF THE SOURCES OF PUBLISHED INFORMATION, RESPONDENT PROVIDES INFORMATION ABOUT DEBT-DISTRESSED COMPANIES TO A SMALL GROUP OF SUBSCRIBERS WHO SIGN A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT 1ST DEPT. 
PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES, THE DEFENDANT CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE LOWER 5.76% INTEREST RATE ON THE MULTIMILLION DOLLAR JUDGMENT; THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY IMPOSED THE 9% INTEREST RATE PURSUANT TO CPLR 5004 (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED BOTH DEFENDANT AND A WITNESS AGAINST DEFENDANT, CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, EVIDENCE ELICITED CAN NOT BE USED AT SECOND TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO TIE OFF LANYARD WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALL, ABSENCE OF A GUARDRAIL ON THE SCAFFOLD REQUIRED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS IN THE ELEVATOR SHAFT WHEN THE ELEVATOR, OPERATING NORMALLY, DESCENDED AND CRUSHED HIM; THE ELEVATOR WAS NOT A “FALLING OBJECT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1); COMPLAINT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Cell Phone In Possession of Inmate Met the Definition of “Dangerous Contraband”... Tenant’s Common Law Duty to Keep Sidewalk on the Premises Safe Applies...