You are here: / Securities
, ,

Trustee’s Settlement of Claims Against Countrywide/Bank of America Stemming from Sale of Mortgage-Backed Securities Approved

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined the trustee properly exercised its discretion in settling the claims stemming from mortgage-backed securities sold by Countrywide Home Loans between 2004 and 2008. Countywide was subsequently purchased by Bank of America (BofA). The First Department explained the courts’ powers re: reviewing the settlement under CPLR Article 77:

The ultimate issue for determination here is whether the trustee’s discretionary power was exercised reasonably and in good faith … . It is not the task of the court to decide whether we agree with the Trustee’s judgment; rather, our task is limited to ensuring that the trustee has not acted in bad faith such that his conduct constituted an abuse of discretion … .

We agree with Supreme Court that the Trustee did not abuse its discretion or act unreasonably or in bad faith in embarking on the settlement here. The Trustee acted within its authority throughout the process, and there is no indication that it was acting in self-interest or in the interests of BofA rather than those of the certificateholders.

Importantly, “if a trustee has selected trust counsel prudently and in good faith, and has relied on plausible advice on a matter within counsel’s expertise, the trustee’s conduct is significantly probative of prudence” (Restatement [Third] of Trusts § 77, Comment b[2]). While reliance on the advice of counsel may not always be the end of the analysis regarding a claimed breach of trust — it is possible for a trustee to specifically seek out legal advice that would support the trustee’s desired course of conduct, or there may be other circumstances establishing that it was unreasonable to follow the legal advice (id.) — a party challenging the decisions of a trustee who followed the advice of a highly-regarded specialist in the relevant area of law can prevail only upon a showing that, based on the particular circumstances, the reliance on such counsel’s assessment was unreasonable and in bad faith. Court approval of the settlement does not require that the court agree with counsel’s judgment or assessment; all that is required is a determination that it was reasonable for the Trustee to rely on counsel’s expert judgment. Matter of Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 2015 NY Slip Op 01880, 1st Dept 3-5-15

 

,

“Findings” of Wrong-Doing in Bear Stearns’ Settlement Agreements with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Stock Exchange Did Not Constitute an “Adjudication” of Wrong-Doing Which Would Support the Insurer’s Affirmative Defense Based Upon the “Dishonest Acts Exclusion” in the Professional Liability Insurance Policy—However, the Insurer’s Affirmative Defense Based Upon the Public Policy Precluding Coverage for Intentional Harm to Others Should Not Have Been Dismissed

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, determined that the “dishonest acts exclusion” in the professional liability insurance policy issued by the defendant to the plaintiff (Bear Stearns) could not be used as an affirmative defense in Bear Stearns’ action seeking coverage for settlements paid by Bear Stearns.  Bear Stearns had entered settlement agreements with the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in which “findings” of misconduct were made.  The question before the First Department was whether those “findings” constituted an “adjudication” of wrong-doing such that the “dishonest acts exclusion” prohibited recovery from the insurer.  The First Department held that the “findings” did not constitute an adjudciation and the affirmative defense based on the “dishonest acts exclusion” was properly dismissed.  However, the First Department further found the affirmative defense based upon public policy (precluding coverage for monies paid by the insured as a result of intentional harm to others) should not have been dismissed:

Here, the issue is the applicability of the Dishonest Acts Exclusion, so defendants bear the specific burden of demonstrating that a settlement constitutes an “adjudication” for purposes of the exclusion.

In arguing that the term “adjudication” means any resolution of a dispute that has specific consequences for a party, defendants virtually ignore the part of the Dishonest Acts Exclusion that requires that any adjudication “establish that such Insured(s) were guilty of any deliberate, dishonest, fraudulent or criminal act or omission” (emphasis added). Defendants quote the dictionary definition of “adjudication,” but fail to note that “establish” is defined, in this context, as “to put beyond doubt” (Merriam—Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary [11th ed 2003]). It can hardly be said that the SEC Order and the NYSE Stipulation put Bear Stearns’s guilt “beyond doubt,” when those very same documents expressly provided that Bear Stearns did not admit guilt, and reserved the right to profess its innocence in unrelated proceedings. Again, in interpreting the policy we are guided by reason, and defendants’ position that the settlement documents “establish” guilt is not reasonable. * * *

Because the Dishonest Acts Exclusion does not apply, the motion court properly dismissed defendants’ affirmative defense based on that exclusion. However, the court should not have dismissed the affirmative defense invoking the public policy against permitting insurance coverage for disgorgement, to the extent it is based on the settlements with the SEC and the NYSE. Bear Stearns argues that the absence of an adjudication of wrongdoing within the meaning of the Dishonest Acts Exclusion bars defendants from relying on the “findings” in the settlement orders for purposes of the public policy doctrine. Again, however, as the Court of Appeals stated in the prior appeal, one of the two situations in which the contractual language of a policy may be overwritten is where an insured engages in conduct “with the intent to cause injury” … . JP Morgan Sec Inc v Vigilant Ins Co, 2015 NY Slip Op 00462, 1st Dept 1-15-15

 

, ,

“No Action” Clause In a Trust Indenture Interpreted Narrowly Under Established Principles of Contract Interpretation—The Clause Did Not Preclude Suit By Securityholders Based Upon Their Common Law and Statutory Rights In an Action Stemming from the “Credit Default Swap” Crisis

In an action arising out of the credit default swap crisis, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that a “no action” clause, which imposed restrictions on actions brought by securityholders, must be construed narrowly according to its terms.  The “no action” clause stated in pertinent part:  “Limitations on Suits by Securityholder. No holder of any Security shall have any right by virtue or by availing of any provision of this Indenture to institute any action or proceeding at law or in equity or in bankruptcy or otherwise upon or under or with respect to this Indenture… .”  The “Indentures” were agreements entered into with trustees who served as third party administrators of the issuance of securities.  The Court of Appeals held that the clause related solely to actions “with respect to this Indenture” and did not affect the common law and statutory actions brought by securityholders to enforce their rights:

A trust indenture is a contract, and under New York law “[i]nterpretation of indenture provisions is a matter of basic contract law” … .

In construing a contract we look to its language, for “a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” … . As the case law further establishes, we read a no-action clause to give effect to the precise words and language used, for the clause must be “strictly construed” … .

Applying these well established principles of contract interpretation, and with the understanding that no-action clauses are to be construed strictly and thus read narrowly, we turn to the language of the no-action clause presented by the certified question. The no-action clause here states that no securityholder “shall have any right by virtue or by availing of any provision of this Indenture to institute any action or proceeding at law or in equity or in bankruptcy or otherwise upon or under or with respect to this Indenture . . .”. The clear and unambiguous text of this no-action clause, with its specific reference to the indenture, on its face limits the clause to the contract rights recognized by the indenture agreement itself. Further supporting this construction of the clause is the sole textual reference to securities, which is contained in the clause's provision for a Trustee-initiated suit for a continuing “default in respect of the series of Securities.”[FN11] This part of the no-action clause permits the trustee to sue in its name, after notice by a securityholder of a continuing default and upon approval of the suit by a majority of securityholders. Thus, the clear import of the no-action clause is to leave a securityholder free to [*10]pursue independent claims involving rights not arising from the indenture agreement. Quadrant Structured Prods Co Ltd v Vertin, 2014 NY Slip Op 04114, CtApp 6-10-14

 

, , ,

Documentary Evidence Can Be Considered In CPLR 3211(a)(7) Motion to Dismiss/Disclaimer Not Specific Enough to Preclude Fraud Cause of Action

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, with a concurring opinion by Justice DeGrasse, the First Department determined that arbitration could not be compelled in the absence of a specific, written agreement and a fraud cause of action against Goldman Sachs based upon the sale of mortgage-backed securities to the plaintiff hedge fund could go forward. The court concluded that documentary evidence submitted by the defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) was properly considered by Supreme Court, and the disclaimer relied upon by the defendant was not specific enough to warrant dismissal of the fraud cause of action:

A CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion may be used by a defendant to test the facial sufficiency of a pleading in two different ways. On the one hand, the motion may be used to dispose of an action in which the plaintiff has not stated a claim cognizable at law. On the other hand, the motion may be used to dispose of an action in which the plaintiff identified a cognizable cause of action but failed to assert a material allegation necessary to support the cause of action. As to the latter, the Court of Appeals has made clear that a defendant can submit evidence in support of the motion attacking a well-pleaded cognizable claim … When documentary evidence is submitted by a defendant “the standard morphs from whether the plaintiff has stated a cause of action to whether it has one”… . * * *

The law is abundantly clear in this state that a buyer’s disclaimer of reliance cannot preclude a claim of justifiable reliance on the seller’s misrepresentations or omissions unless (1) the disclaimer is made sufficiently specific to the particular type of fact misrepresented or undisclosed; and (2) the alleged misrepresentations or omissions did not concern facts peculiarly within the seller’s knowledge … . Accordingly, only where a written contract contains a specific disclaimer of responsibility for extraneous representations, that is, a provision that the parties are not bound by or relying upon representations or omissions as to the specific matter, is a plaintiff precluded from later claiming fraud on the ground of a prior misrepresentation as to the specific matter… . Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master) v Goldman Sachs Group, Inc, 2014 NY Sliip Op 00587, 1st Dept 1-30-14

 

,

Causes of Action Based Upon Allegations of Violations of Martin Act Concerning Fraud in the Selling of Securities Allowed to Go Forward— Supreme Court Should Not Have Evaluated Merits on Motion to Dismiss

The First Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed certain Martin Act/Executive Law causes of action alleging fraud in the sale of securities brought by the Attorney General against Charles Schwab. The First Department explained that Supreme Court should not have evaluated the merits of the case in determining the motion to dismiss:

The Martin Act causes of action are based on General Business Law § 352-c(1)(a), which, where applicable, prohibits fraud, concealment, suppression or false pretense, and General Business Law § 352-c(1)(c), which prohibits false representations or statements to induce or promote the issuance, purchase or sale of securities within or from the State. It is alleged in the complaint that defendant, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (Schwab), a registered securities broker-dealer, engaged in fraudulent and deceptive conduct in the sale of auction rate securities (ARS) to the investing public. The Attorney General asserts that Schwab misrepresented ARS to its customers as safe, liquid investments while concealing the fact that they were complex financial instruments with significant, inherent and increasing liquidity risks. * * *

In dismissing the Martin Act causes of action, the court concluded that the “misrepresentations alleged were true when made and the complaint contains no allegations that ARS were liquid at a time when they were illiquid.” The court based this conclusion on its own finding that there had been no failures in the auctions in the 20 years preceding August 2007. In reaching this conclusion, the court erroneously engaged in an evaluation of the merits of the Martin Act causes of action. On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, it is not the function of the court to evaluate the merits of the case… . People v Charles Schwab & Co, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05722, 1st Dept 8-27-13

 

, ,

Lawsuit Alleging Lehman Brothers’ Substitution of Toxic Securities for High Value Securities Can Go Forward

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, the First Department determined plaintiff Aetna Life Insurance Company had sufficiently alleged causes of action stemming from Lehman Brothers’ alleged removal of high-grade securities from a trust account and replacement of those securities with toxic subprime-mortgage-backed securities. The First Department summarized the facts and its rulings as follows:

Aetna asserts that defendants [replaced the high value securities with toxic securities] as part of an effort to prop up Lehman Brothers’ financial position in the final days prior to its 2008 collapse. The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (Conn Gen Stat § 42-110b[a] et seq.); breach of fiduciary duty; negligence; and recklessness. We affirm the determination of the motion court holding that the allegations are sufficient to support each of the causes of action, and modify only to the extent of denying dismissal of the negligence claims against the individual defendants.  Aetna Life Ins Co v Appalachian Asset Mgt Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 05506, 1st Dept 7-30-13

 

, ,

Bear Stearns Complaint Stated a Cause of Action for Indemnification and Should Not Have Been Dismissed

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and allowed a suit by Bear Stearns against its insurers (which had denied coverage) to go forward.  In response to a Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into late trading and market timing activities, Bear Stearns agreed to pay a 160-million-dollar disgorgement fee.  Bear Stearns then sought indemnification from the defendant insurance companies.  The complaint, which had been dismissed, alleged that 140 of the 160 million constituted profits that flowed to Bear Stearns’ customers, not funds improperly acquired by Bear Stearns. The Court of Appeals determined that it could not be discerned from the SEC order alone whether or not the funds were deemed improperly acquired by Bear Stearns.  Therefore the complaint stated a cause of action:

In the context of these dismissal motions, we must assume Bear Stearns’ allegations to be true unless conclusively refuted by the relevant documentary evidence, in this case, the SEC order. Contrary to the Insurers’ position, the SEC order does not establish that the $160 million disgorgement payment was predicated on moneys that Bear Stearns itself improperly earned as a result of its securities violations. Rather, the SEC order recites that Bear Stearns’ misconduct enabled its “customers to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in profits.” Hence, at this CPLR 3211 stage, the documentary evidence does not decisively repudiate Bear Stearns’ allegation that the SEC disgorgement payment amount was calculated in large measure on the profits of others.  JP Morgan Securities, Inc v Vigilant Insurance Company, No 113, CtApp 6-11-13

 

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy