You are here: / / IN THIS “RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES” AND “COLLATERALIZED...
,

IN THIS “RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES” AND “COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATION” ACTION, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS’ FRAUD, AS OPPOSED TO THE 2008-2009 FINANCIAL CRISIS, CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S LOSS, AND WHETHER AN OMISSION ON DEFENDANTS’ PART WAS AN ACTIONABLE MISREPRESENTATION; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this “residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS)” and “collateralized debt obligation (CDO)” fraud action should not have been granted. The plaintiff raised questions of fact whether defendants’ fraud, as opposed to the 2008-2009 financial crisis, caused plaintiff’s loss, and whether an omission on defendants’ part constituted an actionable misrepresentation:

“The empirical evidence shows that Magnetar deals in general, and Auriga in particular, performed worse than other mezzanine CDOs issued during the same period.” For example, the [plaintiff’s] expert noted, “Magnetar deals experienced events of default [‘EODs’] on average approximately four months faster than other mezzanine CDO bonds issued in 2006 and 2007” and Auriga “failed 175 days earlier than the average mezzanine non-Magnetar deal.” The expert further explained, “[a]ll 26 mezzanine Constellation deals experienced an [EOD.] This 100 percent EOD rate contrasts with an EOD rate of 82 percent . . . among non-Magnetar subprime CDOs issued in 2006 and 2007. The difference between these two EOD rates . . . is statistically significant.” * * *

With regard to lack of justifiable reliance on misrepresentations, the other ground on which the motion court granted summary judgment, plaintiff’s fraud claim depends both on an affirmative representation (that Auriga’s collateral manager would independently select the collateral) and an omission or concealment (that defendants structured Auriga to facilitate Magnetar’s net-short strategy). * * *

… [T]o the extent plaintiff relies on an omission, its claim is not barred. … [T]he omission in the instant action came from defendants … . Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 28, Ltd. v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 04413, First Dept 7-15-21

 

You might also like
“In Transit” Means Between Destinations, Even If “At Rest”
INSURER’S ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT IS PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE (FIRST DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF MOTHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS AND HER FAILURE TO PROPERLY TREAT IT WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF NEGLECT, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF OF A SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF CHILD NEGLECT (SECOND DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED DECEDENT, WHO WAS SUFFERING SHORTNESS OF BREATH, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AN ADVANCE LIFE SUPPORT AMBULANCE; THE COMPLAINT SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ‘DENIAL OF A FAIR TRIAL’ ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S CASE WAS CLOSED; THE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT WAS PREMATURE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF’S ULTIMATE SUCCESS WAS UNLIKELY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
Failure of Freezer to Properly Cool Baked Goods Was an “Occurrence” (I.e., “Accident”) within the Meaning of the Commercial General Liability Policy
IN THE CONTEXT OF A CONTRACT IMPOSING CAPS FOR “NONWILLFUL” AND “WILLFUL” BREACHES, THE FACT THAT THE BREACH MAY HAVE BEEN DELIBERATE DID NOT RENDER THE BREACH “WILLFUL,” WHICH SHOULD BE INTERPRETED TO REFER TO “TRULY HARMFUL, CULPABLE CONDUCT;” SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
Confusing Jury Instruction Re: the Justification Defense Required Reversal of Murder Conviction in the Interest of Justice/Defendant’s Attorney Should Have Been Allowed to Testify at the Suppression Hearing—There Was a Question of Fact Whether the Attorney Called and Told the Police He Represented the Defendant and Defendant Should Not Be Questioned

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

DEFENDANT OWNS A VINEYARD IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN AN ALL-TERRAIN-VEHICLE... IN THE CONTEXT OF A CONTRACT IMPOSING CAPS FOR “NONWILLFUL” AND...