Fraud – Page 18 – New York Appellate Digest

INFORMATION ALLEGED BY THE DEFENDANTS TO HAVE REVEALED FRAUD IN THE SALE OF CREDIT DEFAULT OBLIGATIONS AT A TIME WHICH RENDERED THE CURRENT FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION ACTION TIME-BARRED WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A DISMISSAL AT THE PLEADING STAGE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, over a two-justice dissent, in a case involving the sale of credit default obligations (CDO’s), determined the motion to dismiss the fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action was properly denied. Defendants argued the plaintiffs had sufficient information to alert them to the fraud at a time which would render the current action time-barred. The First Department determined the information cited by the defendants was insufficient to support dismissal at the pleading stage. [The opinion is fact-specific and too detailed to fairly summarize here]:

Here, it is undisputed that, when plaintiffs commenced the action, six years had passed since plaintiffs made their investments in the Funds. The question, then, is whether plaintiffs discovered, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered, the fraud more than two years before commencement (CPLR 213[8]). * * *

… [W]e make no conclusive finding that plaintiffs were blind to the scheme they accuse defendants of perpetrating. We merely determine, at this early stage of the litigation, that the evidence presented by defendants can be interpreted in a myriad of ways and does not facially clash with plaintiffs’ position that, even having some knowledge that the Funds had an equity component to them, they could not have known before the SEC proceeding the extent to which defendants used plaintiffs’ investment to acquire and control the Portfolio Companies, or otherwise had an obligation, based on that evidence, to further investigate. Thus, Supreme Court properly declined to dismiss the fraudulent misrepresentation complaint on statute of limitations grounds, and the viability of the defense must await a fully developed factual record, at which point it can be either decided as a matter of law on a motion for summary judgment, or at a trial. Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Tilton, 2017 NY Slip Op 01482, 1st Dept 2-23-17

SECURITIES (INFORMATION ALLEGED BY THE DEFENDANTS TO HAVE REVEALED FRAUD IN THE SALE OF CREDIT DEFAULT OBLIGATIONS AT A TIME WHICH RENDERED THE CURRENT FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION ACTION TIME-BARRED WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A DISMISSAL AT THE PLEADING STAGE)/FRAUD (SECURITIES, INFORMATION ALLEGED BY THE DEFENDANTS TO HAVE REVEALED FRAUD IN THE SALE OF CREDIT DEFAULT OBLIGATIONS AT A TIME WHICH RENDERED THE CURRENT FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION ACTION TIME-BARRED WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A DISMISSAL AT THE PLEADING STAGE)/CREDIT DEFAULT OBLIGATIONS (INFORMATION ALLEGED BY THE DEFENDANTS TO HAVE REVEALED FRAUD IN THE SALE OF CREDIT DEFAULT OBLIGATIONS AT A TIME WHICH RENDERED THE CURRENT FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION ACTION TIME-BARRED WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A DISMISSAL AT THE PLEADING STAGE)

February 23, 2017

Fraud

FRAUD-BASED AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED.

The First Department determined plaintiffs’ fraud-based causes of action and the unjust enrichment cause of action were properly dismissed. Plaintiffs alleged defendant fraudulently induced them to sell their business (for $190 million) at a deflated price by concealing that the buyer was a competing business:

Damages for fraud are calculated according to the “out-of-pocket” rule and must reflect “the actual pecuniary loss sustained as the direct result of the wrong” … . Damages may only properly compensate plaintiffs for “what they lost because of the fraud, not . . . for what they might have gained,” and “there can be no recovery of profits which would have been realized in the absence of fraud” … . Here, plaintiffs seek to recover the profits they might have gained had the true identity of the buyer been revealed. But there is no way of knowing what purchase price would have been agreed upon had the buyer’s identity been known. Nor is there any suggestion that the agreed price was unfair … .

Plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims also fail because their reliance on the alleged misrepresentations was not reasonable. Plaintiffs did not press defendant for a contractual warranty regarding the purchaser’s identity, or even for direct answers to their questions on this subject, despite their awareness of defendant’s close relationship with their competitor and suspicions regarding its involvement. ” …

Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim was also properly dismissed. To successfully plead unjust enrichment, “[a] plaintiff must allege that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at that party’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought to be recovered'” … . Here, the second element is not satisfied. Plaintiffs claim that defendant was unjustly enriched by a $25 million fee received from the competitor for its assistance in facilitating the purchase. Although there is no black-and-white rule that the payment complained of must have been made by the plaintiff itself … , plaintiffs’ claimed entitlement to the fee is too speculative to support their allegation that defendant was enriched “at [their] expense” … . Norcast S.ar.l. v Castle Harlan, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01479, 1st Dept 2-23-17

FRAUD (FRAUD-BASED AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED)/UNJUST ENRICHMENT (FRAUD-BASED AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, PLEADING REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED)/DAMAGES (FRAUD, DAMAGES ALLEGED CANNOT BE SPECULATIVE, FRAUD-BASED CAUSES OF ACTION DISMISSED)

February 23, 2017

Contract Law, Fraud

A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss the complaint alleging fraud should not have been granted, and the motion to amend the complaint to allege negligent misrepresentation should have been granted. Supreme Court ruled that plaintiff was a sophisticated lender and made the loan without performing due diligence (and therefore could not allege justifiable reliance on any misrepresentations). The First Department held that plaintiff’s request for and receipt of written assurances was sufficient due diligence:

A sophisticated party is generally required to exercise due diligence to verify the facts represented to it before entering into a business transaction … . The Court of Appeals has recognized, however, that, “where a plaintiff has gone to the trouble to insist on a written representation that certain facts are true, it will often be justified in accepting that representation rather than making its own inquiry” … . In this case, plaintiff alleges that it made the loan … in reliance on [defendant] Noto’s opinion letter, which was specifically addressed to plaintiff, in which Noto opined that the loan transaction would not put [any party] into breach of any preexisting contract or agreement … . Plaintiff alleges that this representation was false, inasmuch as the undisclosed 2005 letter agreement required [maintenance of] a $2 million cushion of “unencumbered equity” in the property in any refinancing, and — given that the true value of the property was only $1.9 million, based on the terms of the undisclosed 2005 transaction — plaintiff’s $6.6 million loan … wiped out any such equity in the property. Remediation Capital Funding LLC v Noto, 2017 NY Slip Op 01119, 1st Dept 2-10-17

CONTRACT LAW (A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED)/FRAUD (A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED)/MISREPRESENTATION (A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED).SOPHISTICATED PARTY (A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED)/DUE DILIGENCE (A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED)

February 10, 2017

Contract Law, Fraud

DISCLAIMER IN SUBCONTRACT IS AMBIGUOUS, MOTION TO DISMISS FRAUD COUNTERCLAIM BASED UPON THE DISCLAIMER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether a disclaimer in a subcontract precluded the fraud counterclaim. The court further determined the fraud counterclaim was not duplicative of the breach of contract counterclaim and the fraud counterclaim was pled with sufficient specificity. Plaintiff, Pike, did concrete and steel construction work. Defendant subcontractor, Jersen, was hired to do masonry work:

The fraud counterclaim is the sole focus of this appeal. In that counterclaim, Jersen alleged that, before it began work on the project, Pike was informed by at least one of its other subcontractors that its substrate work was not “accurate, flat or level,” i.e., was deficient. Nevertheless, Pike represented to Jersen that the substrate work “had been erected in accordance with the contract requirements and was plumb, level, and true and that [Pike] had performed a professional survey of the structural steel to confirm the same.” Jersen alleged that Pike’s representations to Jersen “were false,” and that Pike “concealed and recklessly withheld from Jersen knowledge that the substrate was not dimensionally accurate, flat or level.” Additionally, Jersen alleged that Pike made those false representations “in order to deceive Jersen and induce Jersen to commence installation upon the substrate.” Jersen further alleged that it relied on Pike’s representations and would not have commenced installation of the masonry work had Pike not misrepresented to Jersen that the substrate had been installed in accordance with the contract requirements. According to Jersen, it suffered damages as a result of its reliance on Pike’s false representations. * * *

We conclude that the subcontract is ambiguous whether the disclaimer clause in section 1.8 precludes Jersen from relying on any opinions or representations concerning work performed by others after Jersen executed the subcontract, and thus that section 1.8 does not “conclusively establish[ ] a defense” to the counterclaim for fraud … . Pike Co., Inc. v Jersen Constr. Group, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01116, 4th Dept 2-10-17

CONTRACT LAW (DISCLAIMER IN SUBCONTRACT IS AMBIGUOUS, MOTION TO DISMISS FRAUD COUNTERCLAIM BASED UPON THE DISCLAIMER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/FRAUD (DISCLAIMER IN SUBCONTRACT IS AMBIGUOUS, MOTION TO DISMISS FRAUD COUNTERCLAIM BASED UPON THE DISCLAIMER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/DISCLAIMER (CONTRACT LAW, FRAUD, DISCLAIMER IN SUBCONTRACT IS AMBIGUOUS, MOTION TO DISMISS FRAUD COUNTERCLAIM BASED UPON THE DISCLAIMER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

February 10, 2017

Accountant Malpractice, Civil Procedure, Fiduciary Duty, Fraud, Workers' Compensation

CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS, SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO INTENTIONAL (AS OPPOSED TO NEGLIGENT) CONDUCT.

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action against defendant accountants (Fuller) stemming from a workers’ compensation trust found to be more than $8 million in debt. The 2nd Department also found Supreme Court properly applied the six year statute of limitations to the allegedly intentional acts by the defendant accountants (designed to conceal the debt). The defendant accountants unsuccessfully argued the three-year (negligence/malpractice) statute of limitations should apply. Regarding the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action, the 2nd Department explained:

Although the duty owed by an accountant is generally not fiduciary in nature … , a fiduciary relationship exists where the accountant is “under a duty to act for or to give advice for the benefit of [the client] upon matters within the scope of the relation” … . This inquiry is “necessarily fact-specific” … , and the dispositive factor is whether there is “confidence on one side and resulting superiority and influence on the other” … . Plaintiff alleged that Fuller held itself out to have the requisite skill and expertise to maintain the trust’s financial records, provide auditing services and — importantly — provide advice to the trust regarding the trust’s financial status. According to plaintiff, Fuller breached its fiduciary duty by knowingly and consistently concealing the trust’s true financial condition and failing to properly advise the trust regarding its solvency, causing over $8 million in damages. Accepting these allegations as true and giving plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference … , we find that plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is sufficiently stated to survive Fuller’s motion to dismiss … . New York State Workers’ Compensation Bd. v Fuller & LaFiura, CPAs, P.C., 2017 NY Slip Op 00225, 3rd Dept 1-12-17

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)/FRAUD (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO INTENTIONAL ACTS BY ACCOUNTANTS, CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)/FIDUCIARY DUTY (BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)/ACCOUNTANTS (CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS, SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO INTENTIONAL ACTS BY ACCOUNTANTS)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ACCOUNTANTS STEMMING FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $8 MILLION IN DEBT SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS, SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO INTENTIONAL ACTS BY ACCOUNTANTS)

January 12, 2017

Civil Procedure, Fiduciary Duty, Fraud

PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR A LAUNDRY LIST OF FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION SUCCINCTLY ILLUSTRATED.

The Second Department, in the context of motions to dismiss, motions for injunctions, and motions for sanctions, described the pleading requirements for the following causes of action: preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, constructive trust, conspiracy to commit a tort, fraudulent conveyance, unjust enrichment and conversion. Swartz v Swartz, 2016 NY Slip Op 08390, 2nd Dept 12-14-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR A LAUNDRY LIST OF FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION SUCCINCTLY ILLUSTRATED)/FRAUD PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR A LAUNDRY LIST OF FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION SUCCINCTLY ILLUSTRATED)

December 14, 2016

Civil Procedure, Criminal Law, Fraud, Securities

SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined that fraud-related actions against defendant Credit Suisse (stemming from the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities [RMBS]) were governed by the six-year, not three-year statute of limitations. The actions were brought pursuant to the Martin Act and Executive Law 63(12). Those statutes were deemed to have codified common law causes of action. Therefore the six-year statute (CPLR 213), not the three-year statute (CPLR 214) applies:

Where claims are “to recover upon a liability . . . created or imposed by statute” (CPLR 214[2]), and the liability, although akin to common-law causes, “would not exist but for [the] statute” … , the three-year statute of limitations of CPLR 214(2) applies … . In contrast, where a statute “merely codifies and affords new remedies for what in essence is a common-law … claim[,]” CPLR 214(2) does not apply and “the Statute of Limitations for the statutory claim is that for the common-law cause of action which the statute codified or implemented”(id. at 208).

In the complaint, the Attorney General alleges, inter alia, that defendants’ fraud was their failure to abide by their representations that they had carefully evaluated and would continue to monitor the quality of the loans underlying their RMBS, and that they would encourage loan originators to implement sound origination practices. Instead, defendants routinely ignored defects discovered in their due diligence reviews and did not seek to influence originators to utilize appropriate origination practices, choosing instead to misuse their quality control process to obtain significant monetary settlements from originators, which defendants improperly kept for themselves. People v Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08339, 1st Dept 12-13-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/SECURITIES (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/FRAUD (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/CRIMINAL LAW (SECURITIES FRAUD, SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/EXECUTIVE LAW 63 (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/MARTIN ACT (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)/STATUTE OF LIMITATION (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63),RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO FRAUD ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK RELATING TO THE SALE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE MARTIN ACT AND EXECUTIVE LAW 63)

December 13, 2016

Civil Procedure, Fraud

SPECIFICITY REQUIRED FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION IS TEMPERED WHEN THE DETAILS ARE EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFENDANT.

The Second Department, in affirming the denial of a motion to dismiss a cause of action for fraud, noted that the specificity required for a fraud complaint is tempered when the details are exclusively within the knowledge of the defendant:

A plaintiff asserting a cause of action alleging fraud is required to plead with particularity (see CPLR 3016[b]…). When, however, the operative facts are “peculiarly within the knowledge of the party” alleged to have committed the fraud, it may be impossible at the early stages of the proceeding for the plaintiff to detail all the circumstances constituting the fraud … . Thus, as the Court of Appeals has held, the pleading requirement of CPLR 3016(b) “should not be so strictly interpreted as to prevent an otherwise valid cause of action in situations where it may be impossible to state in detail the circumstances constituting a fraud'” … . Instead, the pleading requirement will be deemed to have been met “when the facts are sufficient to permit a reasonable inference of the alleged conduct” … . Bibbo v Arvanitakis, 2016 NY Slip Op 08194, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

FRAUD (SPECIFICITY REQUIRED FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION IS TEMPERED WHEN THE DETAILS ARE EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFENDANT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS, FRAUD, SPECIFICITY REQUIRED FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION IS TEMPERED WHEN THE DETAILS ARE EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFENDANT).DISMISS, MOTION TO (CIVIL, FRAUD, SPECIFICITY REQUIRED FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION IS TEMPERED WHEN THE DETAILS ARE EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFENDANT)

December 7, 2016

Fraud, Insurance Law, Securities

MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BEAR STEARNS RE COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined (1) plaintiff’s misrepresentation cause of action was properly dismissed because of a lack of specificity in the allegations, (2) the cause of action should not have been dismissed with prejudice, (3) and the specificity provided in the appellate briefs may support an amended complaint. Plaintiff, a stock insurance company, alleged it was induced to insure collateralized debt obligations (CDO’s) by misrepresentations made by Bear Stearns:

[P]laintiff CIFG Assurance North America, Inc., a stock insurance company, alleges that Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., a predecessor of defendant J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, made material misrepresentations that induced CIFG to provide financial guaranty insurance in connection with two collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). According to CIFG, Bear Stearns had on its books a large number of high-risk residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBSs), and embarked on a scheme to rid itself of these toxic assets by offloading them into the two CDOs, and marketing the CDOs’ securities to investors. * * *

… [T]he claim should not have been dismissed with prejudice, but rather, CIFG should be given the opportunity to replead. A request for leave to amend a complaint should be “freely given, and denied only if there is prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay, or if the proposed amendment is palpably improper or insufficient as a matter of law” … . CIFG Assur. N. Am., Inc. v J.P. Morgan Sec. LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08029, 1st Dept 11-29-16

INSURANCE LAW (STOCK INSURANCE, MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BEAR STEARNS RE COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE)/SECURITIESMISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BEAR STEARNS RE COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE/FRAUD (MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BEAR STEARNS RE COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE)/COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS (MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BEAR STEARNS RE COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BEAR STEARNS RE COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE)

November 29, 2016

Arbitration, Contract Law, Fiduciary Duty, Fraud

ELEMENTS OF AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD EXPLAINED, WHEN FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAN INVALIDATE AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE EXPLAINED (NOT THE CASE HERE).

The Second Department, finding that a cause of action for aiding and abetting breach of contract does not exist, explained the elements of aiding and abetting fraud. The court further found that the arbitration clause was not invalidated by the allegations of fraud in the inducement:

There is no cause of action for aiding and abetting a breach of contract … . To recover for aiding and abetting fraud, the plaintiff must plead “the existence of an underlying fraud, knowledge of the fraud by the aider and abettor, and substantial assistance by the aider and abettor in the achievement of the fraud” … . “Substantial assistance” requires an affirmative act on the defendant’s part … . “[T]he mere inaction of an alleged aider or abettor constitutes substantial assistance only if the defendant owes a fiduciary duty directly to the plaintiff” … . * * *

The plaintiffs contend that the arbitration agreement is invalid because it was fraudulently induced. However, a broad arbitration provision is separable from the substantive provisions of a contract such that the agreement to arbitrate is valid even if the substantive provisions of the contract were induced by fraud … . “The issue of fraud in the inducement affects the validity of the arbitration clause only when the fraud relates to the arbitration provision itself, or was part of a grand scheme that permeated the entire contract'” … . “To demonstrate that fraud permeated the entire contract, it must be established that the agreement was not the result of an arm’s length negotiation, or the arbitration clause was inserted into the contract to accomplish a fraudulent scheme” … . Markowits v Friedman, 2016 NY Slip Op 07932, 2nd Dept 11-23-16

FRAUD (ELEMENTS OF AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD EXPLAINED, WHEN FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAN INVALIDATE AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE EXPLAINED)/CONTRACT LAW (ELEMENTS OF AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD EXPLAINED, WHEN FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAN INVALIDATE AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE EXPLAINED)/ARBITRATION (WHEN FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAN INVALIDATE AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE EXPLAINED)

November 23, 2016