You are here: / Securities
,

ONLY THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF CPLR 205 (A) WHICH ALLOWS RE-COMMENCEMENT OF A LAWSUIT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF A DISMISSAL WHICH WAS NOT ON THE MERITS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a dissenting opinion, determined the plaintiff, HSBC, could not take advantage of the six-month extension for commencing an action after a dismissal which was not on the merits (CPLR 205(a)) because HSBC was not the original plaintiff:

When a timely-commenced action has been dismissed on certain non-merits grounds, CPLR 205 (a) allows “the plaintiff” in that action “or, if the plaintiff dies,” the “executor or administrator” of the plaintiff’s estate, six months to commence a new action based on the same transaction or occurrence. The new action will be deemed timely based on the commencement of the prior action. Here, after the dismissal of a prior action brought by two certificateholders … —and after the statute of limitations expired—plaintiff HSBC Bank USA, National Association, in its capacity as trustee of a residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trust, commenced this action against the sponsor, invoking CPLR 205 (a). Because HSBC was not “the original plaintiff” in the prior dismissed action … , we agree with the courts below that HSBC could not invoke CPLR 205 (a) to avoid dismissal of this time-barred claim … .* * *

HSBC is not “the plaintiff” in the prior action and the benefit of CPLR 205 (a) is unavailable to save its untimely complaint. … [T]his conclusion is consistent with the public policy underpinning the savings statute. CPLR 205 (a) is a remedial statute that … is “‘designed to insure to the diligent suitor'” an opportunity to have a claim heard on the merits … when the suitor has “initiated a suit in time” … but the claim was dismissed on some technical, non-merits-based ground. While the savings statute undoubtedly has a “broad and liberal purpose” … to “ameliorate the potentially harsh effect of the [s]tatute of [l]imitations” … , “[t]he important consideration is that, by invoking judicial aid [in the first action], a litigant gives timely notice to [the] adversary of a present purpose to maintain [its] rights before the courts” … . Where, as here, the litigant commencing the second action is not the original plaintiff, application of CPLR 205 (a) would protect the rights of a dilatory—not a diligent—suitor. By failing to bring the action within the statute of limitations, HSBC signaled that it had no intention to pursue its claims in court. CPLR 205 (a) does not apply and HSBC’s failure to commence an action within the statute of limitations is fatal. ACE Sec. Corp. v DB Structured Prods., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03927, CtApp 6-16-22

Practice Point: Only the original plaintiff can take advantage of CPLR 205 (a) which allows re-commencement of a lawsuit within six months of a dismissal which was not on the merits.

 

/0 Comments/by
,

PLAINTIFFS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SECURITIES ACT BASED UPON ALLEGEDLY MISLEADING INFORMATION IN THE SECONDARY PUBLIC OFFERING (SPO) (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined plaintiffs, who purchased securities based upon allegedly inaccurate information in defendants’ secondary public offering (SPO), stated causes of action for violations of the Securities Act. The court noted that the heightened pleading requirements of CPLR 3015(b) do not apply to the Securities Act violations alleged in the complaint:

… [C]laims for violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 USC §§ 77k, 77l[a][2], and 77o) are not subject to the heightened pleading requirements of CPLR 3016(b) … .

… [T]he alleged misstatements in the SPO cannot be deemed forward-looking or mere puffery as a matter of law because the complaint alleges that defendants knew at the time of the SPO that present facts rendered statements in the SPO misleading or false. The generic, boilerplate risk warnings in the offering documents do not shield defendants from liability … .

… [P]laintiff adequately]alleges that, once [defendant] spoke about its “significant exposure to emerging markets in Asia,” it was obligated to disclose the “whole truth,” namely that its mobile solutions business in China was actually experiencing a sharp decline at the time of the SPO … . Erie County Empls.’ Retirement Sys. v NN, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03473, First Dept 5-31-22

Practice Point: The heightened pleading requirements for fraud (CPLR 3016) do not apply to the causes of action here alleging violations of the Securities Act—allegedly misleading information in a secondary public offering (SPO).

 

/0 Comments/by
,

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

 

/by
,

THE “SOLE REMEDY REPURCHASE PROTOCOL” IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES CASE REQUIRES NOTICE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL DEFECTIVE LOAN BEFORE THE DEFENDANT IS REQUIRED TO REPURCHASE IT; OF THE 783 NONCONFORMING LOANS, 480 WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED; THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO REPURCHASE THE UNIDENTIFIED LOANS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, reversing the Appellate Division, over an extensive partial dissent, determined that the “sole remedy repurchase protocol” contract provision of the residential-mortgage-backed-securities agreements requires notice of each defective loan before the obligation to repurchase is triggered:

Pursuant to the pooling and service agreement (PSA) establishing the trust, [defendant] DLJ made certain representations and warranties, including that each loan was underwritten in accordance with the originators’ underwriting standards and applicable law, that certain provided documentation was true and accurate, and that none of the loans were “high cost” or “predatory.” … [T]he PSA contains a “sole remedy” provision granting U.S. Bank, as trustee, the limited authority to seek a remedy for any breach by DLJ of these representations and warranties through a contractually established “repurchase protocol” requiring DLJ to cure, repurchase, or substitute a nonconforming mortgage loan within 90 days of notice or independent discovery of such breaching loan. * * *

… [T]he trustee’s expert reviewed 1,059 of the loans in the trust—including both previously noticed and unnoticed loans—and identified 783 allegedly nonconforming loans. Only 303 of these loans had been specifically identified by the trustee in its pre-suit letters; the remaining 480 loans were not listed in the schedules of breaching loans provided to DLJ prior to commencement of the action. * * *

A simple reading of the [agreement] demonstrates that the trustee’s assertion that loan-specific notice is not required is inconsistent with the contractual language of the repurchase protocol. The parties structured the repurchase protocol entirely through the lens of individual “mortgage loans”—clearly contemplating a loan-by-loan approach to the agreed-upon sole remedy for breach. U.S. Bank N.A. v DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 01866, Ct App 3-17-22

Practice Point: The plain language of a contract will be enforced. Here in this residential mortgage-backed securities case, under the terms of the contract, the defendant was not required to repurchase nonconforming loans about which it was not specifically notified. Of the 783 allegedly nonconforming loans, defendant was specifically notified of only 303.

 

/by
, ,

THE $140 MILLION PAID BY BEAR STEARNS TO THE SEC TO SETTLE AN ACTION ALLEGING THE FACILITATION OF LATE TRADING WAS NOT A “PENALTY IMPOSED BY LAW” AND THEREFORE WAS A COVERED LOSS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE INSURANCE POLICIES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over an extensive dissent, determined the funds paid to the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) to settle an action alleging Bear Stearns “facilitated late trading” and “deceptive market timing activity” did not constitute a “penalty imposed by law” and therefore was a covered loss under the insurance policies:

… [U]nder relevant New York law, penalties have consistently been distinguished from compensatory remedies, damages, and payments otherwise measured through the harm caused by wrongdoing. Thus, at the time the parties contracted, a reasonable insured would likewise have understood the term “penalty” to refer to non-compensatory, purely punitive monetary sanctions. In this case, the question therefore distills to whether the disputed $140 million settlement payment meets that standard. …

… Bear Stearns demonstrated that the $140 million disgorgement payment was calculated based on wrongfully obtained profits as a measure of the harm or damages caused by the alleged wrongdoing that Bear Stearns was accused of facilitating. This can be contrasted with the $90 million payment denominated a “penalty,” which was not derived from any estimate of harm or gain flowing from the improper trading practices. J.P. Morgan Sec. Inc. v Vigilant Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 06528, CtApp 11-23-21

 

/by
, , ,

A LOAN AGREEMENT WHICH ALLOWS THE LENDER TO CONVERT THE BALANCE TO SHARES OF STOCK AT A FIXED DISCOUNT CAN VIOLATE THE USURY STATUTE, WHICH WOULD THEREBY RENDER THE AGREEMENT VOID AB INITIO (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a partial dissent. answered two questions posed by the Second Circuit in the affirmative. “1. Whether a stock conversion option that permits a lender, in its sole discretion, to convert any outstanding balance to shares of stock at a fixed discount should be treated as interest for the purpose of determining whether the transaction violates N.Y. Penal Law § 190.40, the criminal usury law. 2. If the interest charged on a loan is determined to be criminally usurious under N.Y. Penal Law § 190.40, whether the contract is void ab initio pursuant to N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-511:”

GeneSYS ID, Inc. (“GeneSYS”) is a publicly held corporation that produces various types of medical supplies. Adar Bays, LLC is a limited liability company based in Florida. On May 24, 2016, Adar Bays loaned GeneSYS $35,000. In exchange, GeneSYS gave Adar Bays a note with eight percent interest that would mature in one year. The note included an option for Adar Bays to convert some or all of the debt into shares of GeneSYS stock at a discount of 35% from the lowest trading price for GeneSYS stock over the 20 days prior to the date on which Adar Bays requested a conversion. Adar Bays could exercise its option starting 180 days after the note was issued and could do so all at once or in separate partial conversions. …

Six months and four days after the note was issued … Adar Bays requested conversion of $5,000 of debt into 439,560 shares of stock. GeneSYS refused … seeking to renegotiate the loan. … GeneSYS was trading for $0.024 per share, the conversion price was $0.011. Adar Bays … sued GeneSYS in the … Southern District of New York for breach of contract. GeneSYS filed a motion to dismiss arguing the contract was void because the loan’s rate of interest, including both the stated interest and conversion option, exceeded the criminal usury rate of 25%. Adar Bays, LLC v GeneSYS ID, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 05616 CtApp 10-14-21

 

/by
, , ,

SUPREME COURT, PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 77, PROPERLY RESOLVED THE DISTRIBUTION OF A $4.5 BILLION GLOBAL SETTLEMENT PAYMENT BY JP MORGAN CHASE IN THIS RESIDENTIAL-MORTGAGE-BACKED-SECURITIES-RELATED ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined Supreme Court properly resolved the distribution pursuant to CPLR article 77 of a $4.5 billion global settlement payment by JPMorgan Chase to investors to be made by residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trusts. The opinion is detailed, fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here.  The rulings are specific to provisions included in or absent from the relevant pooling and servicing agreements (PSA’s). Matter of Wells Fargo Bank v Aegon USA Inv. Mgt., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04740, First Dept 8-19-21

 

/by
,

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

 

/by
, ,

THE CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE APPLIES TO THIS COMPLEX BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SUCH THAT EACH BREACH WAS AN ACTIONABLE EVENT; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START RUNNING FOR ALL SUBSEQUENT BREACHES WHEN THE FIRST BREACH OCCURRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, over a two-justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined the continuing wrong doctrine applied to this breach of contract action such that each breach was actionable and, therefore, the statute of limitations for all subsequent breaches was not triggered by the first breach. The subjects of the contracts were commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS). The complaint alleged defendant CWCI breached a collateral management agreement (CMA):

Generally speaking, a claim accrues for statute of limitations purposes when “all of the factual circumstances necessary to establish a right of action have occurred, so that the plaintiff would be entitled to relief” … . However, the mere fact that a claim has accrued and the time to bring an action on it has commenced to run does not mean that a new claim, with a new limitations period, may not arise out of a new set of facts that forms part of a series with the original wrong. [Plaintiff] maintains that the allegations against CWCI comprise such a series of individual wrongs. Thus, it relies on cases such as Bulova Watch Co. v Celotex Corp. (46 NY2d 606 [1979]). There, a new claim, with a new limitations period, was held to have accrued each time the plaintiff, the obligee under a bond that guaranteed that the defendant roofer would make repairs necessary to ensure the watertightness of the plaintiff’s roof over the 20-year life of the bond, asked the defendant, to no avail, to repair a leak. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s failure to commence suit within the limitations period based on the initial leak did not bar the action. * * *

We find that the continuing wrong doctrine does apply to this case. CWCapital Cobalt VR Ltd. v CWCapital Invs. LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02487, First Dept 4-27-21

 

/by
, , , , ,

IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE CONTRACT WHETHER DEFENDANT TRUSTEE WAS TO PERFORM A MERELY MINISTERIAL FUNCTION OR A GATEWAY FUNCTION IN ACCEPTING ASSETS FOR THE TRUST FROM A NONPARTY WHICH WAS ACTING FRAUDULENTLY; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DAMAGES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCEPTING NON-NEGOTIABLE ASSETS WERE DIRECT OR INDIRECT AND WHETHER A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS BREACHED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, reversing Supreme Court, determined the breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty action against defendant trustee, Wilmington, should not have been dismissed. Wilmington acted as a trustee for assets transferred to the trust by a nonparty. The contract stated Wilmington would be responsible only for its own negligence but also stated no non-negotiable assets were to be placed into the trust. The nonparty which transferred assets to the trust acted fraudulently and made risky investments rendering the trust assets out-of-compliance with state law. Plaintiff sued Wilmington for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Wilmington argued that any damages suffered by plaintiff from the assets transferred by the nonparty were indirect, not direct, and therefore barred by the trust agreements:

… [I]t can be argued that, in light of Wilmington’s promise not to accept nonnegotiable assets into the trusts, and to be responsible for its own negligence, maintaining the value of the assets in the trusts was inherent in the service Wilmington agreed to provide. Thus, there is merit to plaintiffs’ argument that when the assets proved not to be negotiable, they lost the benefit of their bargain and were entitled to recover as direct damages the diminution in value, and the concomitant costs of restoring the assets to negotiable status, such as professional fees. * * *

… [A]t this stage of the litigation, it is difficult to discern whether the parties contemplated that Wilmington would have to pay the damages sought by plaintiffs if it failed to perform under the trust agreements. Again, the agreements provided that Wilmington would be liable for “its own negligence,” which a reasonable factfinder could consider as recognition that Wilmington, if it did not perform its duties in accordance with a minimum level of care, would need to pay more than the nominal damages represented by its fee. * * *

Even though the breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims involved the same conduct, the fiduciary duty claim alleges a breach of a noncontractual duty relating to the trustee’s independent duty to perform nondiscretionary ministerial duties with respect to the negotiability of assets. Thus, the fact that Wilmington’s failure to prevent nonnegotiable assets from entering the trusts breached both fiduciary and contractual duties does not bar plaintiffs from seeking damages related to the former … . Bankers Conseco Life Ins. Co. v Wilmington Trust, N.A., 2021 NY Slip Op 02355, First Dept 4-20-21

 

/by

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy