On July 7, 2022, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in 333 E. 91st St. Owners Corp. v 1765 First Ave. Assoc., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op. 32189(U), analyzing the application of the continuing wrong doctrine . . . Continue reading Court Analyzes Application of Continuing Wrong Doctrine
On July 8, 2022, Justice Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Apollo Global Mgt., Inc v. Cernich, 2022 NY Slip Op. 32187(U), applying a six-year statute of limitations to a claim for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty because the aiding and abetting involved fraud . . . Continue reading Court Applies Six Year Statute of Limitations to Claim for Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty
While we have written frequently on various LIBOR-related litigations, this post will focus on a yet-uncovered action—Sonterra Capital Master Fund, Ltd. V. Credit Suisse Group AG et al.—targeting the Swiss Franc LIBOR.
The 2015 class action complaint, brought by Sonterra Capital against Credit Suisse, JP Morgan, RBS, UBS, and a series of Doe defendants, alleged that Defendants had engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate Swiss Franc LIBOR and the prices of Swiss Franc LIBOR-based derivatives. As with the many other LIBOR actions, the heart of the allegations concerns misreporting: namely, that Defendants failed to accurately report their borrowing costs—the basis for the Swiss Franc LIBOR calculation—and instead altered their pricing submissions to manipulate the prices of financial instruments based on that metric, for their own financial benefit.
Continue reading Swiss Franc LIBOR Class Action: Credit Suisse Settlement
On July 8, 2022, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Principia Partners LLC v Swap Fin. Group, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op. 32220(U), holding that disclosing the results of counsel’s internal investigation waived privilege . . . Continue reading Disclosing Results of Counsel’s Internal Investigation Waived Privilege
On July 1, 2022, Justice Crane of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Worldview Entertainment Holdings Inc. v. Woodrow, 2022 NY Slip Op. 32080(U), dismissing third-party claims as time-barred because of the failure to file the third-party summons and complaint . . . Continue reading Third-Party Claims Time-Barred Because of Failure Timely to File the Third-Party Summons and Complaint
On July 4, 2022, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Rappoport v. Nye, 2022 NY Slip Op. 32091(U), holding that an estate beneficiary lacked standing to sue for conversion of property that took place before the testator died . . . Continue reading Beneficiary Lacks Standing to Sue for Conversion of Property That Took Place Before Testator Died
On July 4, 2022, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in PMC Fin. Servs. Group, LLC v. Nations Equip. Fin., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op. 32097(U), dismissing a fraudulent inducement claim for lack of due diligence . . . Continue reading Fraudulent Inducement Claim Dismissed Because of Plaintiff’s Lack of Due Diligence
On June 30, 2022, Justice Chan of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Cassaforte Ltd. v. Pourtavoosi, 2022 NY Slip Op. 32063(U), dismissing a cause of action for breach of the rules of professional conduct . . . Continue reading No Cause of Action for Breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct
On June 21, 2022, Justice Chan of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. EquiFirst Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op. 31953(U). In this decision, Justice Chan addresses a question left unanswered by the Court of Appeals in Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Barclays Bank PLC, in which it held that the statute of limitations for put-back claims brought by Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. was four years, because that was the statute of limitations for a breach of contract claim in California, where Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. is located. Continue reading Statute of Limitations for a Put-Back Action
On June 24, 2022, Justice Ostrager of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Hines v. Azoth Inv. SPC Ltd., 2022 NY Slip Op. 32025(U), holding that where an agreement to arbitrate is subject to the AAA rules, the question of arbitrability is for the arbitrators, not the court . . . Continue reading Where Agreement to Arbitrate is Made Subject to the AAA Rules, the Question of Arbitrability is for the Arbitrators, not the Court
