You are here: / 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)

, ,

SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, recalling and vacating a prior decision and order dated May 31, 2016, determined plaintiff did not state a cause of action for fraud. Plaintiff, a sophisticated investor, procured a majority interest in DuCool, a manufacturer of heating and cooling equipment. The plaintiff, in a share purchase agreement, acknowledged the speculative nature of the investment. And plaintiff was given full access to DuCool’s records prior to the purchase:

Where a cause of action is based in fraud, “the complaint must allege misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact, falsity, scienter on the part of the wrongdoer, justifiable reliance and resulting injury” … . Furthermore, where the plaintiff is a sophisticated party, “if the facts represented are not matters peculiarly within the [defendant’s] knowledge, and the [plaintiff] has the means available to [it] of knowing, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth or the real quality of the subject of the representation, [the plaintiff] must make use of those means, or [it] will not be heard to complain that [it] was induced to enter into the transaction by misrepresentations” … . Circumstances constituting fraud must be set forth in a complaint in detail (CPLR 3016[b]). MP Cool Invs. Ltd. v Forkosh, 2016 NY Slip Op 05944, 1st Dept 9-1-16

FRAUD (SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD)/SECURITIES (SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD)/CORPORATION LAW (SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD)

,

FRAUD ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO SALE OF DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SUFFICIENT TO WITHSTAND MOTION TO DISMISS.

The First Department determined plaintiff had sufficiently alleged fraud and aiding and abetting fraud in connection with defendants’ sale of defective residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS):

Defendants argue that in order to establish justifiable reliance, plaintiffs were required to allege that they sought additional information from defendants about the truthfulness of the representations made in the offering documents or that they requested the loan files for the loans underlying the RMBS. The level of due diligence advocated by defendants requires a prospective purchaser to assume that the credit ratings assigned to the securities were fraudulent and to verify them through a detailed retracing of the steps undertaken by the underwriter and credit rating agency. We do not require this heightened due diligence standard to support justifiable reliance in a pleading concerning such sales of securities by prospectus … .

… The element of scienter, that is, the requirement that the defendant knew of the falsity of the representation being made to the plaintiff, is, of course, the element most likely to be within the sole knowledge of the defendant and least amenable to direct proof” … . All that is required to defeat a motion to dismiss a fraud claim for lack of scienter is “a rational inference of actual knowledge” … . The allegations that defendants were informed about defects in the loans they were securitizing because they obtained this information through their own due diligence are sufficient to plead scienter … .  IKB Intl. S.A. v Morgan Stanley, 2016 NY Slip Op 05779, 1st Dept 8-11-16

FRAUD (FRAUD ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO SALE OF DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SUFFICIENT TO WITHSTAND MOTION TO DISMISS)/SECURITIES (FRAUD ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO SALE OF DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SUFFICIENT TO WITHSTAND MOTION TO DISMISS)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES (FRAUD ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO SALE OF DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SUFFICIENT TO WITHSTAND MOTION TO DISMISS)

, ,

IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, MORGAN STANLEY’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF DEFECTIVE SECURITIES IS AN INDEPENDENT BREACH OF CONTRACT; GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DESPITE SOLE REMEDY CONTRACTUAL PROVISION.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, in an action stemming from the sale of defective residential mortgage backed securities, determined defendant’s (Morgan Stanley’s) alleged failure to notify plaintiff of the discovery of defective securities constituted an independent breach of contract claim. The First Department further determined, despite the purported “sole remedy” contractual provision, the cause of action for gross negligence was adequately pled and should not have been dismissed:

… [U]nder similar RMBS agreements, a seller’s failure to provide the trustee with notice of material breaches it discovers in the underlying loans states an independently breached contractual obligation, allowing a plaintiff to pursue separate damages … .

… Where parties contractually agree to a limitation on liability, that provision is enforceable, even against claims of a party’s own ordinary negligence … . The purpose of provisions that limit liability or remedies available in the event of breach is to “allocat[e] the risk of economic loss in the event that the contemplated transaction is not fully executed” … . Courts will generally honor the remedies that the parties have contractually agreed to … . There are exceptions to this rule of law, however, and as a matter of long standing public policy, a party may not insulate itself from damages caused by its “grossly negligent conduct” … . Used in this context, “gross negligence” differs in kind, and not only degree, from claims of ordinary negligence. “It is conduct that evinces a reckless disregard for the rights of others or smacks’ of intentional wrongdoing” … . Morgan Stanley Mtge. Loan Trust 2006-13ARX v Morgan Stanley Mtge. Capital Holdings LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05781, 1st Dept 8-11-16

CONTRACT LAW (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, MORGAN STANLEY’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF DEFECTIVE SECURITIES IS AN INDEPENDENT BREACH OF CONTRACT; GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DESPITE SOLE REMEDY CONTRACTUAL PROVISION)/SECURITIES (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, MORGAN STANLEY’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF DEFECTIVE SECURITIES IS AN INDEPENDENT BREACH OF CONTRACT; GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DESPITE SOLE REMEDY CONTRACTUAL PROVISION)/NEGLIGENCE  (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, MORGAN STANLEY’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF DEFECTIVE SECURITIES IS AN INDEPENDENT BREACH OF CONTRACT; GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DESPITE SOLE REMEDY CONTRACTUAL PROVISION)/GROSS NEGLIGENCE (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, MORGAN STANLEY’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF DEFECTIVE SECURITIES IS AN INDEPENDENT BREACH OF CONTRACT; GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DESPITE SOLE REMEDY CONTRACTUAL PROVISION)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, MORGAN STANLEY’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE DISCOVERY OF DEFECTIVE SECURITIES IS AN INDEPENDENT BREACH OF CONTRACT; GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED DESPITE SOLE REMEDY CONTRACTUAL PROVISION

,

LIFETIME BAN ON PARTICIPATION IN THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND DISGORGEMENT OF WRONGFULLY OBTAINED PROFITS ARE AVAILABLE REMEDIES UNDER ANTI-FRAUD STATUTES.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, determined the Martin Act (General Business Law article 23-A) allowed a permanent injunction imposing a lifetime ban on defendants' participation in the securities industry and service as an officer or director of a public company. The court further found that both the Martin Act and the Executive Law allowed the remedy of disgorgement of wrongfully obtained profits. [This is the second time this securities-fraud case reached the Court of Appeals. The underlying facts were laid out in the prior decision (21 NY3d 439).]:

… [T]he Attorney General may obtain permanent injunctive relief under the Martin Act and Executive Law § 63 (12) upon a showing of a reasonable likelihood of a continuing violation based upon the totality of the circumstances … . “This is not a 'run of the mill' action for an injunction, but rather one authorized by remedial legislation, brought by the Attorney General on behalf of the People of the State and for the purposes of preventing fraud and defeating exploitation” … . “'[T]he standards of the public interest not the requirements of private litigation measure the propriety and need for injunctive relief'”. Therefore, we reject defendants' argument that the Attorney General must show irreparable harm in order to obtain a permanent injunction. * * *

We further conclude that disgorgement is an available remedy under the Martin Act and the Executive Law. The Martin Act contains a broad, residual relief clause, providing courts with the authority, in any action brought under the Act, to “grant such other and further relief as may be proper” (General Business Law § 353-a). Indeed, this Court has previously recognized that the courts are not limited to the remedies specified under either of these statutes … . In our view, disgorgement “merely requires the return of wrongfully obtained profits [and] does not result in any actual economic penalty” … . As we have previously stated, in an appropriate case, disgorgement may be an available “equitable remedy distinct from restitution” under this State's anti-fraud legislation … . People v Greenberg, 2016 NY Slip Op 04253, CtApp 6-2-16

SECURITIES (LIFETIME BAN ON PARTICIPATION IN THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND DISGORGEMENT OF WRONGFULLY OBTAINED PROFITS ARE AVAILABLE REMEDIES UNDER ANTI-FRAUD STATUTES)/MARTIN ACT (LIFETIME BAN ON PARTICIPATION IN THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND DISGORGEMENT OF WRONGFULLY OBTAINED PROFITS ARE AVAILABLE REMEDIES UNDER ANTI-FRAUD STATUTES)/EXECUTIVE LAW (SECURITIES, LIFETIME BAN ON PARTICIPATION IN THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND DISGORGEMENT OF WRONGFULLY OBTAINED PROFITS ARE AVAILABLE REMEDIES UNDER ANTI-FRAUD STATUTES)/FRAUD (SECURITIES, LIFETIME BAN ON PARTICIPATION IN THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND DISGORGEMENT OF WRONGFULLY OBTAINED PROFITS ARE AVAILABLE REMEDIES UNDER ANTI-FRAUD STATUTES)

, ,

MOTION TO DISMISS BREACH OF WARRANTY ACTION PROPERLY DENIED; THE WARRANTY CONCERNED THE QUALITY OF MORTGAGES POOLED INTO RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moskowitz, determined the motion to dismiss the breach of warranty action against JP Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corporation (JPMMAC) was properly denied. The warranty required JPMMAC to buy back any defective mortgages which were pooled into residential mortgage-backed securities. The lawsuit was commenced because JPMMAC refused to do so when notified of the problem mortgages. JPMMAC argued that the language of the warranty narrowly restricted the time to which it applied (constituting a so-called “gap” or “bring-down” warranty). Under standard principles of contract interpretation, however, the First Department held that the warranty applied no matter when the material misstatements occurred during the warranty period:

A contractual provision that is clear on its face “must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” … . This rule applies “with even greater force in commercial contracts negotiated at arm’s length by sophisticated, counseled businesspeople” … . In addition, “courts may not by construction add or excise terms, nor distort the meaning of those used and thereby make a new contract for the parties under the guise of interpreting the writing” … .

Plaintiff’s claim … states that “[w]ith respect to the period from [the] Whole Loan Sale Date to and including the Closing Date,” JPMMAC warrants that the representations in the Mortgage Loan Schedule and loan tape are correct. There is simply no language in this warranty addressing when the defects in the loans must arise for JPMMAC to be held liable for a misrepresentation on the Mortgage Loan Schedule or loan tape. Rather, the language … is straightforward: if false information — for example, information about a borrower’s income or the loan-to-value ratio of a mortgage — was on the Mortgage Loan Schedule and loan tape before October 30, 2006, it constitutes a breach of JPMMAC’s warranties as long as it remained on the Mortgage Loan Schedule or loan tape during the warranty period (that is, October 30, 2006 to December 20, 2006). Stated another way, JPMMAC warranted against the existence of any material misstatement during the warranty period, no matter when the misstatements first appeared on the Mortgage Loan Schedule or loan tape. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v WMC Mtge., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 08794, 1st Dept 12-1-15

CONTRACT LAW (BREACH OF WARRANTY, RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES)/WARRANTY, BREACH OF (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (BREACH OF WARRANTY)

,

Securities Did Not Pass Outside the Estate, Requirements of Transfer on Death Security Registration Act (TODSRA) Not Me

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, over a concurring opinion arguing the matter had already been determined by Surrogate’s Court, determined a letter sent by decedent to Merrill Lynch did not meet the requirements of the Transfer on Death Security Registration Act (TODSRA) such that the securities account passed to the beneficiary outside the estate:

In order to take advantage of New York’s [TODSRA] law, certain categories of owners may request that a security be registered in beneficiary form (EPTL 13-4.2). The institution holding the securities account, however, is not required to either offer or accept a request to register a security in beneficiary form (EPTL 13-4.8). It is only if the owner requests that a security be held in beneficiary form and the entity holding the security accepts the designation, that an enforceable contractual relationship is created between the owner and that registering entity, requiring the registering entity to act in accordance with the designation (EPTL 13-4.9). Under TODSRA, the registering entity has the sole right to establish the terms and conditions under which it will receive and implement requests to register securities in beneficiary form (EPTL 13-4.10), and TODSRA statutorily mandates that the registering entity have certain protections in the process (EPTL 13-4.8).

A registering entity is not the owner of the security, but rather the person or entity that originates or transfers title to a security by registration, which includes a broker such as defendant (EPTL 13-4.1[i]). Thus, under the statute, it is perfectly clear that a unilateral action by an owner of a securities account to designate a beneficiary in the event of death is not by itself sufficient. Arroyo-Graulau v Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07774, 1st Dept 10-22-15

 

,

Where Equitable Relief Described in “Sole Remedy Clause” is Impossible, Monetary Damages Are Available

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeney, in a case addressing many specific-contract-provision issues not summarized here, determined that where the sole remedy clause of a contract allows only equitable relief, and that equitable relief is impossible, monetary damages may be available. The action stems from the collapse of the residential mortgage -backed securities (RSMB) market. The complaints alleged the breach of several representations and warranties (concerning the underlying mortgages) in the mortgage loan purchase agreement (MLPA). The “sole remedy clause” in the agreement purported to limit relief to the defendant’s repurchase of defective mortgages. However repurchase of foreclosed or liquidated mortgages was impossible. In that situation, the First Department held, equity allows the imposition of monetary damages:

Under defendant’s interpretation of the “sole remedy” clause, loans that have been foreclosed upon or liquidated cannot be repurchased and, by agreeing to those provisions, plaintiff accepted the risk of loss such an event would entail. However, such an interpretation would leave plaintiffs without a remedy with respect to those loans, as their only recourse would be to commence an action for specific performance, which would be impossible to fulfill. The present state of the law does not support defendant’s contention.

New York law has long held that contracting parties are generally free to limit their remedies. “A limitation on liability provision in a contract represents the parties’ agreement on the allocation of the risk of economic loss in the event that the contemplated transaction is not fully executed, which the courts should honor” … . Therefore, by the terms of the “sole remedy” clause, the agreements limit plaintiffs to seeking an order of specific performance requiring defendant to repurchase the defective loans at the purchase price defined in those agreements, or to cure the defects in those loans.

However, specific performance is an equitable remedy. In the RMBS context, most courts have repeatedly held that “while a provision providing for equitable relief as the sole remedy’ will generally foreclose alternative relief, where the granting of equitable relief appears to be impossible or impracticable, equity may award damages in lieu of the desired equitable remedy'” … . Such a rule makes sense, for to hold otherwise would create a “perverse[]” incentive for a sponsor “to fill the trust with junk mortgages that would expeditiously default so that they could be released, charged off, or liquidated before a repurchase claim is made” … . Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Series 2006-FM2 v Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07458, 1st Dept 10-13-15

 

, ,

Fraud Cause of Action Against Merrill Lynch Re: Credit Default Obligations Sufficiently Pled/Disclaimers and Disclosures Did Not Preclude Claim of Fraud

The First Department determined a cause of action for fraud against Merrill Lynch had been sufficiently pled.  The underlying agreement related to credit default obligations (CDO’s).  The court noted that an unjust enrichment cause of action is not viable when the lawsuit is based on a written agreement:

…[The] factual allegations provide sufficient details to inform the …defendants … of the alleged fraudulent conduct, namely that the CDO was secretly designed by an undisclosed hedge fund, Magnetar, which was secretly placing massive short bets against the very same deals it was sponsoring. Defendants, however, argue that plaintiff cannot establish the element of reasonable reliance (an element of both affirmative misrepresentation and concealment) as a result of the disclosures and disclaimers for the Auriga CDO. We cannot agree.

The offering circular states, “All or most of the Collateral Debt Securities Acquired by the Issuer . . . will be Acquired from a portfolio of Collateral Debt Securities selected by the Collateral Manager . . . .” If Magnetar rather than 250 Capital was doing the selecting, the statement in the offering circular was misleading. The identity of the person selecting the collateral was material: The offering circular says, “The performance of the portfolio of Collateral Debt Securities depends heavily on the skills of the Collateral Manager in analyzing and selecting the Collateral Debt Securities.” * * *

Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the disclaimers and disclosures in the offering circulars preclude a claim of fraud on the ground of a prior misrepresentation as to the specific matter, namely that the CDO’s collateral had been carefully selected by an independent collateral manager, in the interests of the success of the deal and for the benefit of Auriga’s long investors. Loreley Fin (Jersey) No 38 Ltd v Merrill Lynch …, 2014 NY Slip Op 03326, 1st Dept 5-8-14

Similar issues and result re: Citigroup in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick.  Loreley Fin (Jersey) No 3 Ltd v Citigroup Global Mkts Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03358, 1st Dept 5-8-14

 

, ,

Fraud Action Based Upon Statements of Opinion Properly Pled/Negligent Misrepresentation Not Properly Pled–No Allegation of Privity or Privity-Like Relationship

In an action stemming from defendant-investment-ratings-agency’s high rating of worthless residential-mortgage-backed securities, the Fourth Department determined the complaint properly pled a fraud cause of action, even though based upon statements of opinion. The court further determined the negligent misrepresentation cause of action was deficient in that privity or a privity-like relationship was not alleged:

Although statements of opinion generally are not actionable in a fraud cause of action …, defendant correctly recognizes that statements of opinion may nevertheless be actionable as fraud if the plaintiff can plead and prove that the holder of the opinion did not subjectively believe the opinion at the time it was made and made the statement with the intent to deceive … . As one court has explained, a fraud claim based on an expression of opinion “is actionable in an appropriate case not because the opinion is objectively’ wrong. Rather, in an appropriate case it is actionable because the speaker either did not in fact hold the opinion stated or because the speaker subjectively was aware that there was no reasonable basis for it . . . In the first instance, the speaker will have lied as to his or her subjective mental state. In the second, he or she implicitly would have represented that there was a reasonable basis for the statement of opinion, knowing that the implicit representation was false” … . Here, we agree with defendant that its credit ratings were statements of opinion, not fact … , but we conclude that plaintiff adequately pleaded that defendant did not believe its opinions when it issued the ratings. Plaintiff set forth in detail the reasons why defendant was aware that the ratings were inflated, including its allegation that defendant failed to follow its own policies and procedures in determining the ratings. * * *

To establish a claim for negligent misrepresentation based on the allegedly inaccurate credit ratings, plaintiff must allege that “(1) the [defendant] must have been aware that the [ratings] were to be used for a particular purpose or purposes; (2) in the furtherance of which a known party . . . was intended to rely; and (3) there must have been some conduct on the part of the [defendant] linking [it] to that party . . . , which evinces the [defendant’s] understanding of that party[‘s] . . . reliance” … . “The indicia, while distinct, are interrelated and collectively require a third party claiming harm to demonstrate a relationship or bond with the once-removed [defendant] sufficiently approaching privity’ based on some conduct on the part of the [defendant]’ ” … .

The complaints here failed to plead that a special or privity-like relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant … . M&T Bank Corp. v McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02372, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy