You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S PURCHASE OF NOTES WAS FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF BRINGING...

PLAINTIFF’S PURCHASE OF NOTES WAS FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN VIOLATION OF THE JUDICIARY LAW (CHAMPERTY STATUTE).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a two-judge dissent, determined plaintiff Jusitian Capital’s purchase of notes from DPAG was champertous (purchased for the primary purpose of bringing a lawsuit), and further determined Justinian was not entitled to the “safe harbor” provision of the champerty statute (which exempts securities purchased for “an aggregate purchase price of at least five hundred thousand dollars”):

… DPAG and Justinian entered into a sale and purchase agreement (the Agreement). Pursuant to the Agreement, DPAG would assign the Notes to Justinian and Justinian would agree to pay DPAG a base purchase price of $1,000,000 … . The Notes were assigned to Justinian shortly after execution of the Agreement. The assignment, however, was not contingent on Justinian’s payment of the $1,000,000. Nor did Justinian’s failure to pay the $1,000,000 constitute an Event of Default under section 9 of the Agreement. * * *

…[T]he impetus for the assignment of the Notes to Justinian was DPAG’s desire to sue [defendant] for causing the Notes’ decline in value and not be named as the plaintiff in the lawsuit. Justinian’s business plan, in turn, was acquiring investments that suffered major losses in order to sue on them, and it did so here within days after it was assigned the Notes. … [T]here was no evidence, even following completion of champerty-related discovery, that Justinian’s acquisition of the Notes was for any purpose other than the lawsuit it commenced almost immediately after acquiring the Notes … . * * *

The record establishes, and we conclude as a matter of law, that the $1,000,000 base purchase price listed in the Agreement was not a binding and bona fide obligation to pay the purchase price other than from the proceeds of the lawsuit. The Agreement was structured so that Justinian did not have to pay the purchase price unless the lawsuit was successful, in litigation or in settlement. Justinian Capital SPC v WestLB AG, 2016 NY Slip Op 07047, CtApp 10-27-16

 

DEBTOR-CREDITOR (PLAINTIFF’S PURCHASE OF NOTES WAS FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN VIOLATION OF THE JUDICIARY LAW (CHAMPERTY STATUTE))/CHAMPERTY (PLAINTIFF’S PURCHASE OF NOTES WAS FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN VIOLATION OF THE JUDICIARY LAW (CHAMPERTY STATUTE))

You might also like
THE TENANT (A NET LESSEE), WHICH WAS OBLIGATED BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES, CAN CHALLENGE A PROPERTY-TAX ASSESSMENT BY FILING A GRIEVANCE PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL) 524 (3); THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAD RULED ONLY THE PROPERTY OWNER COULD CHALLENGE THE ASSESSMENT (CT APP).
WHERE, AS HERE, THE SORA COURT EXPRESSLY FINDS THERE WAS NO SEXUAL CONDUCT OR MOTIVE UNDERLYING THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD, THE REQUIREMENT THAT DEFENDANT BE DESIGNATED A SEX OFFENDER VIOLATES DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS (CT APP).
WHERE THERE IS A FACTUAL DISPUTE ON A MATERIAL ISSUE WHICH MUST BE RESOLVED BEFORE THE COURT CAN DECIDE A LEGAL ISSUE, THE FACTUAL DISPUTE MUST BE RESOLVED IN A HEARING BEFORE THE COURT CAN DECIDE THE LEGAL ISSUE; WHETHER THE RECORD GIVES RISE TO A FACTUAL DISPUTE ON A MATERIAL ISSUE IS A QUESTION OF LAW (CT APP).
Robbery First and Second Degree Convictions (Forcible Stealing) Supported Where Defendant Was Not Found to Be In Possession of Stolen Property and Used Force Only When Confronted By Security Personnel After the Alleged Taking
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT COKE OVENS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF STEEL WERE NOT PRODUCTS TRIGGERING THE DUTY TO WARN OF THE HAZARDS OF BREATHING EMISSIONS FROM THE OVENS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).
Application of the Emergency Doctrine Presented a Mixed Question of Law and Fact which Could Not Be Reviewed by the Court of Appeals
HAVING DEFENDANT WAIT WITH TWO POLICE OFFICERS WHILE A THIRD TOOK HIS ID TO AN APARTMENT TO VERIFY DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WAS VISITING A FRIEND IN THE APARTMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER DE BOUR, CONVICTION REVERSED (CT APP).
BRUTAL, UNPROVOKED ATTACK ON CLAIMANT, AN INMATE, BY CORRECTION OFFICERS WAS DEEMED TO HAVE NO RELATION TO THE DUTIES OF A CORRECTION OFFICER; THEREFORE THE ATTACK WAS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE OFFICERS’ EMPLOYMENT AND THE STATE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, IS NOT LIABLE UNDER A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY (CT APP).

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

ADDING DEFENDANT’S NAME TO A “JOHN DOE DNA INDICTMENT” WITHOUT... SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT...