Securities – Page 5 – New York Appellate Digest

CRITERIA FOR REFORMATION, DOCTRINES OF MUTUAL MISTAKE AND NOVATION, AND THE RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEES EXPLAINED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS TO PURCHASE SHARES IN DEFENDANT GEOSOURCE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in this breach of contract action concerning the issuance of warrants to purchase shares in defendant GeoResources. The facts of the dispute are too complex to summarize here. The First Department explained the requirements for reformation of a contract, the doctrines of mutual mistake and novation, and the liabilities of assignees:

A claim for reformation of a written agreement must be grounded upon either mutual mistake or fraudulently induced unilateral mistake,'” and to succeed, the party seeking relief “must establish by clear, positive and convincing evidence’ that the agreement does not accurately express the parties’ intentions” … . “Reformation based upon a scrivener’s error requires proof of a prior agreement between [the] parties, which when subsequently reduced to writing fails to accurately reflect the prior agreement”… . The parties’ course of performance under the contract, or their practical interpretation of a contract for any considerable period of time, is the most persuasive evidence of the agreed intention of the parties … .

Given the need for “clear, positive and convincing evidence” of mutual mistake … , we find that issues of fact are present that should have prevented summary judgment … . …

Based on the plain language of the purchase agreements … , any reformation claim that the original purchasers held was assigned … since it qualifies as one of the “rights and benefits incident to the ownership” of the warrants. …

The elements of a novation are a previously valid obligation, agreement of the parties to the new obligation, extinguishment of the old contract, and a valid new contract … . “A novation will not discharge obligations created under a prior agreement unless it was so intended, and this question may be determined from the writings and conduct of the parties or, in certain cases, from the documents exclusively” … . The party claiming a novation has the burden of proof of establishing that it was the intent of the parties to effect a novation … .

We find that defendant presented no evidence that it and its counterparties intended to effectuate a novation before issuing [the] warrants … .Warberg Opportunistic Trading Fund L.P. v GeoResources, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 04537, 1st Dept 6-8-17

CONTRACT LAW (CRITERIA FOR REFORMATION, DOCTRINES OF MUTUAL MISTAKE AND NOVATION, AND THE RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEES EXPLAINED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS TO PURCHASE SHARES IN DEFENDANT GEOSOURCE)/REFORMATION (CONTRACT LAW, CRITERIA FOR REFORMATION, DOCTRINES OF MUTUAL MISTAKE AND NOVATION, AND THE RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEES EXPLAINED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS TO PURCHASE SHARES IN DEFENDANT GEOSOURCE)/MUTUAL MISTAKE (CONTRACT LAW, CRITERIA FOR REFORMATION, DOCTRINES OF MUTUAL MISTAKE AND NOVATION, AND THE RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEES EXPLAINED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS TO PURCHASE SHARES IN DEFENDANT GEOSOURCE)/NOVATION (CONTRACT LAW, CRITERIA FOR REFORMATION, DOCTRINES OF MUTUAL MISTAKE AND NOVATION, AND THE RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEES EXPLAINED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS TO PURCHASE SHARES IN DEFENDANT GEOSOURCE)/ASSIGNEES (CONTRACT LAW, CRITERIA FOR REFORMATION, DOCTRINES OF MUTUAL MISTAKE AND NOVATION, AND THE RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEES EXPLAINED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS TO PURCHASE SHARES IN DEFENDANT GEOSOURCE)/SECURITES (CONTRACT LAW, CRITERIA FOR REFORMATION, DOCTRINES OF MUTUAL MISTAKE AND NOVATION, AND THE RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEES EXPLAINED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS TO PURCHASE SHARES IN DEFENDANT GEOSOURCE)/WARRANTS (SECURITIES, CONTRACT LAW, CRITERIA FOR REFORMATION, DOCTRINES OF MUTUAL MISTAKE AND NOVATION, AND THE RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEES EXPLAINED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS TO PURCHASE SHARES IN DEFENDANT GEOSOURCE)

June 8, 2017

Fraud, Insurance Law, Securities

INSURANCE LAW 3105 DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH THE COMMON-LAW PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THIS ACTION BY AN INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined that plaintiff Ambac, which insured residential mortgage-backed securities issued by defendant Countrywide, was required to prove all the elements of common-law fraudulent inducement and Insurance Law 3105 did not dispense with those proof requirements:

We agree with Countrywide that Ambac is required to prove all of the elements of its fraudulent inducement claim, including justifiable reliance and loss causation. The elements of a fraud cause of action are long-settled. To establish fraud, a plaintiff must show “a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by [the] defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission, and injury” … . * * *

There is no merit to Ambac’s contention that Insurance Law § 3105 dispenses with the common-law requirement of proving justifiable reliance and loss causation. Nor can that statute be used affirmatively as a basis to recover monetary damages. Insurance Law § 3105 provides that a material misrepresentation “shall avoid [a] contract of insurance” and “defeat recovery thereunder” (Insurance Law § 3105[b][1]).* * *

Cases applying Insurance Law § 3105 arise in the context of either a declaratory judgment action by an insurer seeking rescission of an insurance policy or an insurer asserting a defense to an insured’s claim for payment under the policy … . Here, Ambac seeks neither to rescind the policies, which are unconditional and irrevocable, nor to defeat a claim by an insured for payment. Instead, Ambac seeks to assert Insurance Law § 3105 as an affirmative claim seeking monetary damages. Under these circumstances, Insurance Law § 3105 is not applicable. Ambac Assur. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03919, 1st Dept 5-16-17

FRAUD (INSURANCE LAW 3105 DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH THE COMMON-LAW PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THIS ACTION BY AN INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES)/INSURANCE LAW (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, INSURANCE LAW 3105 DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH THE COMMON-LAW PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THIS ACTION BY AN INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES)/SECURITIES (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, INSURANCE LAW 3105 DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH THE COMMON-LAW PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THIS ACTION BY AN INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (INSURANCE LAW 3105 DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH THE COMMON-LAW PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THIS ACTION BY AN INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES)

May 16, 2017

Corporation Law, Insurance Law, Securities

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BANK OF AMERICA’S PURCHASE OF THE ASSETS OF COUNTRYWIDE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER ALLOWING THE INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY COUNTRYWIDE TO SUE BANK OF AMERICA.

The First Department determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in this action by Ambac, an insurer of residential mortgage-backed securities issued by defendant Countrywide, against defendants Countrywide and Bank of America (BAC). BAC purchased the assets of Countrywide. Ambac argued there was a de facto merger of Countrywide and Bank of America such that Countrywide shareholders became shareholders of BAC, allowing Ambac to sue BAC:

“[C]ontinuity of ownership is the touchstone of the [de facto merger] concept and thus a necessary predicate to a finding of a de facto merger” … . Continuity of ownership “exists where the shareholders of the predecessor corporation become direct or indirect shareholders of the successor corporation as the result of the successor’s purchase of the predecessor’s assets, as occurs in a stock-for-assets transaction” … . “Stated otherwise, continuity of ownership describes a situation where the parties to the transaction become owners together of what formerly belonged to each” … . * * *

We agree with BAC that there can be no continuity of ownership where the asset seller receives fair value consideration for its assets… . Although BAC maintains that it paid fair value for Countrywide’s assets, Ambac points to evidence showing that large amounts of money Countrywide received in the asset sale were then cycled back to BAC and its subsidiaries. Thus, issues of fact exist as to whether the transactions were coordinated with the goal of combining BAC’s and Countrywide’s mortgage businesses while avoiding Countrywide’s liabilities so as to benefit Countrywide’s former shareholders at the expense of its creditors. Ambac Assur. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03886, 1st Dept 5-16-17

CORPORATION LAW (DE FACTO MERGER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BANK OF AMERICA’S PURCHASE OF THE ASSETS OF COUNTRYWIDE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER ALLOWING THE INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY COUNTRYWIDE TO SUE BANK OF AMERICA)/SECURITIES (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BANK OF AMERICA’S PURCHASE OF THE ASSETS OF COUNTRYWIDE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER ALLOWING THE INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY COUNTRYWIDE TO SUE BANK OF AMERICA)/INSURANCE LAW (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BANK OF AMERICA’S PURCHASE OF THE ASSETS OF COUNTRYWIDE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER ALLOWING THE INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY COUNTRYWIDE TO SUE BANK OF AMERICA)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (DE FACTO MERGER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BANK OF AMERICA’S PURCHASE OF THE ASSETS OF COUNTRYWIDE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER ALLOWING THE INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY COUNTRYWIDE TO SUE BANK OF AMERICA)/DE FACTO MERGER (CORPORATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BANK OF AMERICA’S PURCHASE OF THE ASSETS OF COUNTRYWIDE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER ALLOWING THE INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY COUNTRYWIDE TO SUE BANK OF AMERICA)/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (DE FACTO MERGER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BANK OF AMERICA’S PURCHASE OF THE ASSETS OF COUNTRYWIDE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER ALLOWING THE INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY COUNTRYWIDE TO SUE BANK OF AMERICA)

May 16, 2017

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Securities

ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WERE TIME-BARRED, A LIMITED BACKSTOP GUARANTY CAUSE OF ACTION AND A FAILURE TO NOTIFY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE REINSTATED.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moskowitz, reinstated a couple of causes of action in a lawsuit stemming from the purchase of residential mortgage-backed securities, the bulk of which was deemed time-barred. A limited backstop guaranty cause of action and a cause of action stemming from the failure to notify of a material breach were reinstated. The intertwined contracts and guarantees and the legal reasoning stemming from recent similar cases are too detailed to fairly summarize here. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v WMC Mtge., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 03881, 1st Dept 5-11-17

SECURITIES (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WERE TIME-BARRED, A LIMITED BACKSTOP GUARANTY CAUSE OF ACTION AND A FAILURE TO NOTIFY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE REINSTATED)/CONTRACT LAW (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WERE TIME-BARRED, A LIMITED BACKSTOP GUARANTY CAUSE OF ACTION AND A FAILURE TO NOTIFY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE REINSTATED)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WERE TIME-BARRED, A LIMITED BACKSTOP GUARANTY CAUSE OF ACTION AND A FAILURE TO NOTIFY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE REINSTATED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WERE TIME-BARRED, A LIMITED BACKSTOP GUARANTY CAUSE OF ACTION AND A FAILURE TO NOTIFY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE REINSTATED)

May 11, 2017

Contract Law, Securities

PUTBACK ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the action alleging breach of warranties and representations in connection with the purchase of residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) properly survived motions to dismiss. The opinion is fact-specific and turns on the terms of the contracts. The issues, all of which survived the dismissal motions, were summarized by the court as follows:

This appeal stems from a transaction involving residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS). Plaintiff, the administrator of the securitized trust, seeks to enforce the loan repurchase rights, more commonly referred to as putback rights, against defendant sponsor of the securitized transaction for breach of the representations and warranties defendant made regarding the quality of the mortgage loans. This action raises a number of issues that regularly recur in putback actions, including whether the action was timely commenced, whether or not the action is unripe for failing to comply with a condition precedent to commencement of the action, and whether plaintiff adequately pleaded a cause of action for breach of the representations and warranties. This action also raises an issue of first impression of whether enforcement of putback rights is within the exclusive domain of a RMBS’s trustee so as to deny plaintiff Securities Administrator standing to commence this action. Natixis Real Estate Capital Trust 2007-HE2 v Natixis Real Estate Holdings, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01796, 1st Dept 3-9-17

SECURITIES (PUTBACK ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)/CONTACT LAW (PUTBACK ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES (PUTBACK ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)/PUTBACK ACTIONS (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, PUTBACK ACTION STEMMING FROM THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS)

March 9, 2017

Fraud, Securities

PLAINTIFF’S LOSS WAS DUE TO THE MARKET COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, LOSS CAUSATION ELEMENT OF FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION THEREFORE NOT DEMONSTRATED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined defendant TCW’s motion for summary judgment in this residential-backed mortgage securities (RBMS) fraud action should have been granted. TCW represented it could select less risky RBMS’s and plaintiff invested $27,000,000 . The market subsequently collapsed. The First Department found the proof of “loss causation” lacking:

” Loss causation is the causal link between the alleged misconduct and the economic harm ultimately suffered by the plaintiff'” … . To establish loss causation a plaintiff must prove that the ” subject of the fraudulent statement or omission was the cause of the actual loss suffered'” … . Moreover, ” when the plaintiff’s loss coincides with a marketwide phenomenon causing comparable losses to other investors, the prospect that the plaintiff’s loss was caused by the fraud decreases’, and a plaintiff’s claim fails when it has not . . . proven . . . that its loss was caused by the alleged misstatements as opposed to intervening events'” … . Indeed, when an investor suffers an investment loss due to a “market crash [] of such dramatic proportions that [the] losses would have occurred at the same time and to the same extent regardless of the alleged fraud,” loss causation is lacking … . Basis PAC-Rim Opportunity Fund (Master) v TCW Asset Mgt. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 01644, 1st Dept 3-2-17

SECURITIES (PLAINTIFF’S LOSS WAS DUE TO THE MARKET COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, LOSS CAUSATION ELEMENT OF FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION THEREFORE NOT DEMONSTRATED)/RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES (PLAINTIFF’S LOSS WAS DUE TO THE MARKET COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, LOSS CAUSATION ELEMENT OF FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION THEREFORE NOT DEMONSTRATED)/FRAUD (RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, PLAINTIFF’S LOSS WAS DUE TO THE MARKET COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, LOSS CAUSATION ELEMENT OF FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION THEREFORE NOT DEMONSTRATED)/LOSS CAUSATION (FRAUD, RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, PLAINTIFF’S LOSS WAS DUE TO THE MARKET COLLAPSE OF RESIDENTIAL-BACKED MORTGAGE SECURITIES, LOSS CAUSATION ELEMENT OF FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION THEREFORE NOT DEMONSTRATED)

March 2, 2017

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.

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

Contract Law, Evidence, Securities

DEUTSCHE BANK BREACHED CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP AGREEMENTS.

The First Department, in a decision too detailed to fairly summarize here, determined the defendant Deutsche Bank breached credit default swap agreements with plaintiff Good Hill Master Fund. Good Hill was found to have acted in good faith and in a commercially reasonable manner in negotiating the price of the notes at issue. In addition Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting expert testimony offered by Deutsche Bank because interpretation of the contracts was within the ken of the trial judge:

We find no basis to disturb the court’s determination that Deutsche Bank breached the credit default swap agreements at issue here … . As the trial court found in awarding judgment in Good Hill’s favor, Good Hill negotiated at arm’s length with Bank of America to sell six tranches of notes the Bank had previously sold Good Hill at $.29 on the dollar, so that the Bank of America could unwind and terminate a securitization in the then-declining mortgage market. Bank of America’s resulting writedown of the B6 notes would trigger a negative credit event under the swap agreements. As a result, Good Hill negotiated with Bank of America to forgive only 17% of the principal amount, resulting in a smaller payout to Deutsche Bank under the swap agreements, as opposed to forgiving principal of 71% across the board on all the tranches of notes based on the $.29 purchase price. Bank of America was free to accept or reject that 83% allocation and had rejected several prior proposals from Good Hill that would have resulted in no payment or an even smaller payment to Deutsche Bank. Good Hill Master Fund L.P. v Deutsche Bank AG, 2017 NY Slip Op 00428, 1st Dept 1-24-17

SECURITIES (DEUTSCHE BANK BREACHED CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP AGREEMENTS)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES (CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP AGREEMENT, DEUTSCHE BANK BREACHED CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP AGREEMENTS)/CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP AGREEMENTS (DEUTXCHE BANK BREACHED CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP AGREEMENTS)/CONTRACT LAW (CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP AGREEMENT, DEUTSCHE BANK BREACHED CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP AGREEMENTS)/EVIDENCE (CONTRACT LAW, EXPERT TESTIMONY NOT NECESSARY TO INTERPRET CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP AGREEMENT)/EXPERT OPINION (CONTRACT LAW, EXPERT TESTIMONY NOT NECESSARY TO INTERPRET CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP AGREEMENT)

January 25, 2017

Contract Law, Securities

RE TIMELINESS OF CLAIMS ALLEGING DEFECTIVE MORTGAGES UNDERLYING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, WHERE THE CONTRACT CALLS FOR TIMELY NOTICES OF BREACH, NO NOTICE OF BREACH REQUIRED WHERE DEFENDANT ITSELF DISCOVERS THE DEFECTIVE MORTGAGE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, over a dissent, ruled on the timeliness of claims that defendant, GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, had breached representations and warranties regarding the quality of mortgages underlying residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS). The court determined the claims were timely with regard to defective mortgages discovered by the defendant itself, despite the absence of notices of breach. But the claims were not timely with respect to the defective mortgages discovered by the plaintiff but for which no timely notices of breach were provided:

The issues before us are related to the contractual requirement and sufficiency of notices of breach (breach notice). We consider whether a breach notice is required when the underlying contract claim is based upon a defendant’s independent discovery or knowledge of the nonconforming mortgages. We also consider whether an otherwise late breach notice can relate back in time to the commencement of the underlying action in order to avoid dismissal. … [W]e hold that the breach of contract claims based upon defendant’s alleged independent discovery or likely knowledge of nonconforming mortgage loans do not require breach notices to be sent before an action may be brought. We further hold that the doctrine of relation back does not save claims that do require that a breach notice be sent as a precondition to bringing an action. U.S. Bank N.A. v GreenPoint Mtge. Funding, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 08968, 1st Dept 12-29-16

SECURITIES (RE TIMELINESS OF CLAIMS ALLEGING DEFECTIVE MORTGAGES UNDERLYING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, WHERE THE CONTRACT CALLS FOR TIMELY NOTICES OF BREACH, NO NOTICE OF BREACH REQUIRED WHERE DEFENDANT ITSELF DISCOVERS THE DEFECTIVE MORTGAGE)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES (RE TIMELINESS OF CLAIMS ALLEGING DEFECTIVE MORTGAGES UNDERLYING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, WHERE THE CONTRACT CALLS FOR TIMELY NOTICES OF BREACH, NO NOTICE OF BREACH REQUIRED WHERE DEFENDANT ITSELF DISCOVERS THE DEFECTIVE MORTGAGE)/CONTRACT LAW (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, RE TIMELINESS OF CLAIMS ALLEGING DEFECTIVE MORTGAGES UNDERLYING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, WHERE THE CONTRACT CALLS FOR TIMELY NOTICES OF BREACH, NO NOTICE OF BREACH REQUIRED WHERE DEFENDANT ITSELF DISCOVERS THE DEFECTIVE MORTGAGE)

December 29, 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