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

This appeal concerns the proper application of Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code in the Lehman bankruptcies. LBI, the debtor, was lead underwriter of unsecured notes issued by Lehman Holdings, its affiliates. After the bankruptcy of both the Lehman entity that issued the notes, Lehman Holdings, and the Lehman entity that was lead underwriter on the issuances, LBI, the Junior Underwriters were held to account for the noteholders' losses, and incurred loss for defense and settlements. The Junior Underwriters filed suit asserting claims for contribution or reimbursement against the liquidation estate of Debtor LBI. The bankruptcy court construed the statute to require subordination of the Junior Underwriters’ contribution claims. The court, however, adopted the district court's construction of section 510(b), holding that in the affiliate securities context, “the claim or interest represented by such security” means a claim or interest of the same type as the affiliate security. Claims arising from securities of a debtor’s affiliate should be subordinated in the debtor’s bankruptcy proceeding to all claims or interests senior or equal to claims in the bankruptcy proceeding that are of the same type as the underlying securities. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "ANZ Securities v. Giddens" on Justia Law

The FHFA filed a summons with notice in state court asserting breach of contractual obligations to repurchase mortgage loans that violated representations and warranties and then Quicken removed the action to federal court. Plaintiff, as trustee of the subject residential mortgage‐backed securities trust, took control of the litigation and filed the complaint. Quicken moved to dismiss the suit. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that (1) the statute of limitations ran from the date the representations and warranties were made; (2) the extender provision of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act,12 U.S.C. 4617(b)(12), did not apply to the Trustee’s claim; and (3) the Trustee’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was duplicative. View "Deutsche Bank Nat'l v. Quicken Loans" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's summary judgment dismissal of his suit against defendants. At issue is the whistleblower protection provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, Title IX, 922(a), 124 Stat. 1376, 1841, which added section 21F to the Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78u-6. The SEC issued a regulation to clarify that, for the purposes of the employment retaliation protections provided by Section 21F, an individuals's status as a whistleblower does not depend on adherence to the reporting procedures specified in Exchange Act Rule 21F-9(a). The court concluded that, under SEC Rule 21F-2(b)(1), plaintiff is entitled to pursue Dodd-Frank remedies for alleged retaliation after his report of wrongdoing to his employer, despite not having reported to the Commission before his termination. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court will have an opportunity to consider the R&R’s recommendation to dismiss, without prejudice to amendment, for lack of a sufficient allegation of a termination entitled to Dodd-Frank protection, and any other arguments made by defendants in support of their motion to dismiss. View "Berman v. Neo@Ogilvy LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, purchasers of Green Mountain common stock, filed a putative securities class action, alleging that Green Mountain and some of its executives made fraudulent misrepresentations about Green Mountainʹs inventory, business performance, and growth prospects in a manner designed to mislead investors about the strength of Green Mountainʹs business, in violation of federal securities law. The court held that the complaint alleges misleading statements of material fact and a compelling inference of scienter. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss and remanded for further proceedings. View "Employees' Retirement System v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, purchasers of Green Mountain common stock, filed a putative securities class action, alleging that Green Mountain and some of its executives made fraudulent misrepresentations about Green Mountainʹs inventory, business performance, and growth prospects in a manner designed to mislead investors about the strength of Green Mountainʹs business, in violation of federal securities law. The court held that the complaint alleges misleading statements of material fact and a compelling inference of scienter. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss and remanded for further proceedings. View "Employees' Retirement System v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, special-purpose investment entities, filed suit in New York state court against defendants, several parties responsible for structuring, offering, and managing collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Plaintiffs allege, among other things, fraud in connection with disclosures about the construction of three CDOs. After removal to federal court, the district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)96) and denied plaintiffs' request to replead. The court concluded that the district court erred in aspects of its dismissal of plaintiffs’ fraud claim and also exceeded the bounds of its discretion in denying plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint as to the remaining claims. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Loreley Financing (Jersey) No. 3 v. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC" on Justia Law

After Lehman entered into a Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA), 15 U.S.C. 78lll(2)(A), liquidation, Doral submitted timely claims asserting that it was entitled to recover the profit from a repurchased agreement. The SIPA Trustee denied these claims, concluding that Doral was not a “customer” of Lehman, and therefore was not protected by SIPA. Doral promptly objected to the Trustee’s denial, but shortly thereafter transferred its claims to CarVal. The bankruptcy court affirmed the Trustee's determination that the repos did not make Doral or CarVal a customer under SIPA. The court concluded that an investor who delivers securities to a broker‐dealer as part of a repurchase agreement is not protected by SIPA because the investor did not entrust assets to the broker‐dealer. Accordingly, the court affirmed the lower courts' determination that CarVal is not a customer for purposes of SIPA. View "CarVal v. Giddens" on Justia Law

This derivative action arose out of the London Whale trading debacle. Plaintiff, a JPMorgan shareholder, filed suit seeking to compel JPMorgan to take action, up to and including suing the alleged wrongdoers. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that plaintiff had not pleaded facts showing that the JPMorgan Board of Directors had wrongfully refused the demand for action. The court noted that the abuse‐of‐discretion standard of review for the dismissal of derivative action cases should be retired, and that dismissals of derivative actions should be reviewed under the same de novo standard that the court followed in all other similarly situated cases. However, because the court is bound by the rule of the Circuit, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing this derivative action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. Finally, the district court did not err by denying plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint. View "Espinoza v. Dimon" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are individuals and entities that purchased shares in the Kingate funds and continued to hold their shares until the 2008 exposure of the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme, resulting in loss most of the funds’ assets. A purported class action was filed against persons and entities affiliated with the funds. The district court dismissed, citing the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), 112 Stat. 3227, which bars certain state‐law‐based class actions alleging falsity in connection with transactions in six categories of “covered securities.” The Second Circuit vacated, noting the Supreme Court’s intervening ruling in Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, (2014). The alleged fraud in this case is “in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security” and brings the case within SLUSA’s prohibition (assuming SLUSA’s 12 other elements are met). The state law claims that do not depend on false conduct are not within the scope of SLUSA, even if the complaint includes peripheral, inessential mentions of false conduct. Claims accusing the defendant of complicity in the false conduct that gives rise to liability are subject to SLUSA’s prohibition, while claims of false conduct in which the defendant is not alleged to have had any complicity are not. View "In re: Kingate Mgmt. Ltd. Litig." on Justia Law

Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (FGIC) sued Putnam Advisory for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence, claiming that Putnam misrepresented its management of a collateralized debt obligation called Pyxis to induce FGIC to provide financial guaranty insurance for Pyxis. According to FGIC’s complaint, Putnam stated that it would select the collateral for Pyxis independently and in the interests of long investors (i.e., investors who profit when the investment succeeds), but in fact permitted the collateral selection and acquisition process to be controlled by a hedge fund that maintained significant short positions in Pyxis (i.e., investments that would pay off if Pyxis defaulted). Essentially, FGIC alleged that Putnam misrepresented the independence of its management of a structured finance product, which, upon default, caused FGIC millions of dollars in losses. The district court dismissed FGIC’s fraud claim on the ground that the complaint did not adequately plead loss causation and dismissed FGIC’s negligence claims on the ground that the complaint failed to allege a special or privity‐like relationship between FGIC and Putnam. The Second Circuit vacated, holding that FGIC sufficiently alleged both its fraud and negligence‐based claims. View "Fin. Guar. Ins. Co. v. Putnam Advisory Co., LLC" on Justia Law