You are here: / / DEFENDANT COMMODITY FUTURES BROKER IS ENTITLED TO COVERAGE UNDER FIDELITY...
,

DEFENDANT COMMODITY FUTURES BROKER IS ENTITLED TO COVERAGE UNDER FIDELITY BONDS FOR LOSSES INCURRED BY THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF A BROKER AMOUNTING TO $141 MILLION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined defendant MF Global was entitled to coverage under fidelity bonds for losses incurred by the criminal actions of a broker, Dooley, for which Dooley was ordered to pay restitution to MF Global in the amount of $141 million:

This 2009 declaratory judgment action involves a $141 million insurance coverage dispute between plaintiffs New Hampshire Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Axis Reinsurance Company (Insurers) and defendant, commodity futures broker MF Global Finance USA, Inc. (MF Global). New Hampshire issued the primary bond insurance policy to MF Global’s predecessor and Liberty Mutual and Axis Reinsurance each issued excess financial institution bonds, covering the same policy period and incorporating the provisions and terms of the primary bond. Defendant MF Global seeks coverage under those bonds for a trading loss incurred in February 2008 by Evan Brent Dooley, a broker for MF Global, who in 2012 pleaded guilty to exceeding speculative position limits in violation of 7 USC §§ 6a and 13(a)(5). Dooley was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release and was ordered to pay restitution of over $141 million to MF Global upon release from prison.

… [W]e hold that defendant is covered under the fidelity bonds for its loss and is entitled to summary judgment in its favor…. . New Hampshire Ins. Co. v MF Global Fin. USA Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 01880, First Dept 3-17-22

 

You might also like
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD BUT THE HEIGHTENED PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR ACTUAL FRAUD WERE NOT MET (FIRST DEPT).
English Judgment Enforceable by New York Courts Without Demonstration of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or Ownership of Property in New York
THE PROHIBITION OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY DID NOT PRECLUDE THE PROSECUTION BASED UPON THE THEFT OF GOLDMAN SACHS SOURCE CODE UNDER A STATE STATUTE AFTER DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION UNDER A FEDERAL STATUTE WAS REVERSED; THE STATE STATUTE INCLUDED AN ELEMENT NOT INCLUDED IN THE FEDERAL STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A PERMANENTLY AFFIXED LADDER VIBRATED CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL; PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE; NO SHOWING PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE HE SHOULD WEAR A HARNESS AND FAILURE TO DO SO WOULD CONSTITUTE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS NOT A BAR TO RECOVERY (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF TAX RETURNS AFTER THE PARTIES’ FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THE DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; THE FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A PALPABLY IMPROPER DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION, I.E. A DEMAND FOR TAX RETURNS, DOES NOT WAIVE THE ABILITY TO OBJECT TO THE DEMAND ON APPEAL; DEFENDANT MAY RENEW THE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE TAX RETURNS IF THE REQUIRED SHOWINGS ARE MADE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN OPENING COVERED BY A PIECE OF PARTICLE BOARD (FIRST DEPT).
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF THE AREA WERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
BY JOINING IN A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT EXTENDED ITS TIME TO ANSWER UNTIL TEN DAYS AFTER NOTICE OF ENTRY OF THE ORDER DECIDING THE MOTION TO DISMISS, SINCE DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN DEFAULT, IT COULD APPEAL THE ORDER FINDING IT IN DEFAULT (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THE PERSON WHO ALLEGEDLY ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF AT JFK AIRPORT WAS AN... THE JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING SANCTIONS, I.E., PLAINTIFF’S...