You are here: / / ASSIGNMENT TO PLAINTIFF OF ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST TO $626 MILLION...
,

ASSIGNMENT TO PLAINTIFF OF ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST TO $626 MILLION IN RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION FRAUD CLAIMS; THE RIGHT TO SUE MORGAN STANLEY FOR FRAUD, THEREFORE, WAS NOT ASSIGNED TO PLAINTIFF.

In 2006 and 2007 plaintiff FSAM bought $626 million in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) from defendant Morgan Stanley. “All right, title and interest” to those securities were then assigned to plaintiff Dexia, which paid FSAM the same amount FSAM paid Morgan Stanley. The plaintiffs, FSAM and Dexia, sued Morgan Stanley, alleging Morgan Stanley knew the RMBS were of poor quality but represented they were prudent AAA-rated securities. The First Department determined the fraud claims did not transfer to Dexia because no specific mention of them was made in the assignment. The court further determined FSAM did not have standing to assert the fraud claims because Dexia paid FSAM for them and FSAM, therefore, could not establish damages:

 

The Court of Appeals recently explained that “the right to assert a fraud claim related to a contract or note does not automatically transfer with the respective contract or note” … . “Thus, where an assignment of fraud or other tort claims is intended in conjunction with the conveyance of a contract or note, there must be some language — although no specific words are required — that evinces that intent and effectuates the transfer of such rights” … . “Without a valid assignment, only the . . . assignor may rescind or sue for damages for fraud and deceit’ because the representations were made to it and it alone had the right to rely on them” … .

We find that plaintiff FSAM’s agreement to deliver “all right, title and interest” in the RMBS to the Dexia plaintiffs did not include fraud claims, since FSAM only assigned rights in the subject securities without explicitly referencing any related tort claims or the overall transaction between FSAM and defendants … .

Because FSAM received from the Dexia plaintiffs the same amount it originally paid for the securities, FSAM cannot establish damages … . Dexia SA/NV v Stanley, 2016 NY Slip Op 00122, 1st Dept 1-12-16

 

CONTRACT LAW (FRAUD CLAIMS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN ASSIGNMENT ARE NOT ASSIGNED)/ASSIGNMENTS (FRAUD CLAIMS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN ASSIGNMENT ARE NOT ASSIGNED)/FRAUD (FRAUD CLAIMS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN ASSIGNMENT ARE NOT ASSIGNED)

You might also like
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S WORK ON A BOILER WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OR PART OF A LARGER COVERED ACTIVITY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTIONS (FIRST DEPT).
SENTENCING JUDGE’S MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE PRISON SENTENCE THE JUVENILE OFFENDER COULD RECEIVE IF SHE FAILED TO MEET THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY A PLEA AGREEMENT RENDERED THE PLEA INVOLUNTARY, THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE CASE INVOLVES A NEW JERSEY INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED TO A NEW JERSEY COMPANY WHICH WAS DOING SUBWAY WORK IN NEW YORK, PURSUANT TO A 2017 COURT OF APPEALS RULING, WHETHER NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER STATUTE APPLIES DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE INSURED HAS A SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS PRESENCE IN NEW YORK, MATTER REMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECORD ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT).
Exclusion of Defense Counsel’s Colleague from a Wade Hearing Deprived Defendant of His Right to a Public Trial
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS, THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT OBJECT TO THEM AND RELIED ON THEM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
Under the Criteria Recently Announced by the Court of Appeals, the Proof Was Not Sufficient to Justify Placing the Respondent Under Strict and Intensive Supervision in the Community
THE DEFENDANT ARGUED A 2022 US SUPREME COURT RULING FINDING NEW YORK’S FIREARM LICENSING REQUIREMENT UNCONSITUTIONAL RENDERED THE POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON STATUTE TO WHICH HE PLED GUILTY IN 2016 UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED IN THE TRIAL COURT IN 2016 (FIRST DEPT).
THE NYC HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION (HRA) WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY OF THE PROCEEDS OF PLAINTIFF’S CAR-ACCIDENT SETTLEMENT BECAUSE THE SETTLEMENT DID NOT INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES; PLAINTIFF WAS BARRED FROM RECOVERY OF MEDICAL COSTS BECAUSE HER BASIC ECONOMIC LOSS WAS LESS THAN $50,000 (INS LAW 5102) (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

STATUTORY DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE DEVIATION ALLOWED CHURCHES TO DEVIATE FROM THE... THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA), WHICH PROHIBITS CERTAIN SEX OFFENDERS...