Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This insurance coverage dispute raised issues arising out of financial regulators' investigations in alleged accounting misstatements by MBIA, Inc. (MBIA) and related litigation. Based on these events, MBIA made claims under two $15 million director and officer (D&O) insurance policies it had purchased from Federal Insurance Co. (Federal) and ACE American Insurance Co. (ACE), seeking coverage for costs associated with these claims as losses under the policies. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of MBIA on two of its three coverage claims but granted summary judgment in favor of Federal and ACE on one of MBIA's coverage claims. The parties subsequently appealed the district court's judgments. The court affirmed the district court with respect to coverage for all costs except those related to the independent consultant where the independent consultant's investigation was a covered cost under the policies. Therefore, the judgment of the district court was affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court remanded the case to the district court for entry of judgment in favor of MBIA on its claim for coverage of the independent consultant's costs.

Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. (Enron) sought to avoid and recover payments it made to redeem its commercial paper prior to maturity from appellees, whose notes were redeemed by Enron. On appeal, Enron challenged the district court's conclusion that 11 U.S.C. 546(e)'s safe harbor, which shielded "settlement payments" from avoidance actions in bankruptcy, protected Enron's redemption payments whether or not they were made to retire debt or were unusual. The court affirmed the district court's decision and order, holding that Enron's proposed exclusions from the reach of section 546(e) have no basis in the Bankruptcy Code where the payments at issue were made to redeem commercial paper, which the Bankruptcy Code defined as security. Therefore, the payments at issue constituted the "transfer of cash ... made to complete [a] securities transaction" and were settlement payments within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 741(8). The court declined to address Enron's arguments regarding legislative history because the court reached its conclusion based on the statute's plain language.

Plaintiff sued defendants under RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968, principally alleging injury to plaintiff's business by reason of defendants' establishment of a competing commercial enterprise through the investment of income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity. At issue was whether the district court properly granted defendants' motions for summary judgment on the pleadings and, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff's complaint and the record were insufficient to show that any injury to plaintiff's business was proximately caused by defendants' alleged violation of section 1962(a). The court held that to the extent that plaintiff claimed injury from defendants' continuation in its Bronx store of the cash-no-tax scheme conducted in the Queens store, that claim appeared to be conceptually indistinguishable from the section 1962(c) claim previously rejected by the Supreme Court. The court held that to the extent, however, that plaintiff claimed that it lost sales to defendants because defendants invested the proceeds of their pattern of racketeering activity to establish and operate defendants' new store in the Bronx, the court rejected defendants' contentions and concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the pleadings on the basis of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and erred in granting summary judgment.

Plaintiff sued defendant asserting claims of breach of contract and various business torts in connection with defendant's alleged wrongful termination of plaintiff's employment affiliation with defendant. Plaintiff appealed from summary judgment in favor of defendant on one of its counterclaims against plaintiff for nonrepayment of the outstanding balance of a loan for which he had given a promissory note. The court held that the district court's order of summary judgment was inappropriate and dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction where the determination that the promissory note was independent of the promises made by defendant in the Affiliation Agreements would involve consideration of defendant's promises underlying plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and wrongful termination and of the relationships among those promises. Therefore, the court would be required to consider many of the same issues that would need to be considered in any appeal from a final judgment adjudicating plaintiff's claims.

Plaintiff filed a suit against defendant alleging claims of wrongful termination ("Count I"), trade disparagement ("Count II"), breach of contract for failure to negotiate in good faith ("Count III"), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing ("Count IV"), and fraud ("Count V") arising out of a Creative Services Agreement ("Agreement") entered into between the parties. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed the five counts asserted by plaintiff's complaint with prejudice and granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Count III against defendant for failure to negotiate in good faith an alleged agreement to develop and launch a Todd Oldham branded line of merchandise to be sold exclusively at defendant's stores where plaintiff alleged three plausible bases for the claim. The court also held that the district court erred in dismissing Count I for declaratory judgment that defendant wrongfully terminated the parties' Agreement, by failing to give notice of plaintiff's alleged breaches and 30 days' opportunity to cure, under which plaintiff's principal, Todd Oldham, was to provide design services to defendant. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the trade disparagement, common law fraud, and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs appealed from judgments dismissing their class-action complaints seeking to hold defendants (collectively, "Rating Agencies") liable as underwriters or control persons for misstatements or omissions in securities offering documents in violation of sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act"), 15 U.S.C. 77k(a)(5), 77o(a). At issue was whether the Rating Agencies were "underwriters" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(11) because they helped structure securities transactions to achieve desired ratings. Also at issue was whether the Rating Agencies were "control persons" because of their alleged provision of advice and direction to primary violators regarding transaction structures under section 77o(a) of the 1933 Act. The court held that plaintiffs' section 11 claims that the Rating Agencies were "underwriters" was properly dismissed because the Rating Agencies' alleged structuring or creation of securities was insufficient to demonstrate their involvement in the requisite distributional activities. The court also held that plaintiffs' "control person" claims under section 77o(a) were properly dismissed because the Rating Agencies' provision of advice and guidance regarding transaction structures was insufficient to permit an inference that they had the power to direct the management or policies of alleged primary violators of section 11. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying implicitly plaintiffs' cursory requests for leave to amend.

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment dismissing a three-count complaint arising from the renegotiation of certain investment-advisory agreements. The court certified a question to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts as to the circumstances under which that state's business judgment rule could be asserted in response to a shareholder derivative suit under the Massachusetts Business Corporations Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156D, 5.44. Upon the receipt of the answer, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of two of plaintiff's claims brought pursuant to various provisions of the Investment Company Act, 15, U.S.C. 80a-15(a), and Massachusetts state law. Regarding the third claim, a derivative state law claim for breach of fiduciary duty to which the certified question related and as to which the district court granted a motion to dismiss, the court vacated the judgement and remanded with instructions to convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment, and to rule on that motion, after further discovery if further discovery was warranted.

Appellant, Retail Holdings, N.V. (together with its predecessors, "New Singer"), appealed from a judgment in favor of appellee, Lockheed Martin Corporation (together with its predecessors, "Old Singer"), regarding a dispute revolving around the interpretation of a 1986 Reorganization and Distribution Agreement ("Spin-off Agreement") between appellee's predecessor, The Singer Company, and appellant's predecessor, SSMC, Inc. At issue was whether the Spin-off Agreement transferred a particular pension plan, the Executive Office Foreign Service Retirement Plan ("Plan"), from Old Singer to New Singer. The court reversed the judgment and held that the district court erred in considering extrinsic evidence of the parties' post-contract conduct where the contract admitted only one reasonable interpretation when the Plan was transferred to New Singer by clear and unambiguous terms.