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

Several investment funds based in the British Virgin Islands invested heavily in Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities and were forced into liquidation after the Madoff Ponzi scheme was exposed in 2008. Liquidators were appointed in the BVI insolvency proceedings. Before the collapse, certain investors redeemed their shares in the funds for cash, receiving over $6 billion in payments. The liquidators, seeking to recover these redemption payments for equitable distribution among all investors, initiated approximately 300 actions in the United States, alleging that the payments were inflated due to fictitious Net Asset Value (NAV) calculations based on Madoff’s fraudulent statements.The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated the actions after recognizing the BVI proceedings under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court dismissed most claims, finding it lacked personal jurisdiction over some defendants, that the liquidators were bound by the NAV calculations, and that the safe harbor for securities transactions under § 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code barred the claims. However, it allowed constructive trust claims to proceed against certain defendants alleged to have known the NAVs were inflated. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the bankruptcy court’s judgment, leaving only the constructive trust claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that all of the liquidators’ claims, including the constructive trust claims, should have been dismissed under the safe harbor provision of § 546(e), which applies extraterritorially via § 561(d) in Chapter 15 cases. The court concluded that the safe harbor bars both statutory and common-law claims seeking to avoid covered securities transactions, regardless of the legal theory or proof required. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment allowing the constructive trust claims and otherwise affirmed the dismissal of the remaining claims. View "In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd." on Justia Law

Michael Hild, the Defendant-Appellant, was convicted by a jury in 2021 of securities fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy. Hild, as the CEO of Live Well Financial, Inc., engaged in a scheme to inflate the value of a bond portfolio used as collateral for loans. This scheme allowed Live Well to grow its bond portfolio significantly from 2014 to 2016. Hild appealed his conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and that a new trial was warranted due to a Supreme Court decision invalidating one of the fraud theories used in his jury instructions.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Hild's post-trial motions for acquittal and a new trial. Hild then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the jury instructions.The Second Circuit reviewed the case and found that sufficient evidence supported Hild's conviction. The court noted that Hild misrepresented the value of the bonds to secure loans and acted with fraudulent intent. The court also addressed Hild's argument regarding the jury instructions, acknowledging that the instructions included an invalid right-to-control theory of fraud as per the Supreme Court's decision in Ciminelli v. United States. However, the court concluded that this error did not affect Hild's substantial rights because the jury would have convicted him based on a valid theory of fraud.Ultimately, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, upholding Hild's conviction on all counts. View "United States v. Hild" on Justia Law

The case involves plaintiffs-appellees, trustees of the Peter and Elizabeth C. Tower Foundation, who brought claims against UBS Financial Services, Inc. and Jay S. Blair (collectively, the "UBS Defendants") under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and New York state law. The plaintiffs allege that the UBS Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in managing the Foundation's investment advisory accounts. Specifically, they claim that John N. Blair, the father of Jay Blair, improperly used his position to place the Foundation’s assets with his son's investment firm, which later became affiliated with UBS.The United States District Court for the Western District of New York denied the UBS Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The court found that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to question the validity of the arbitration agreement, warranting a trial on that issue. The UBS Defendants had previously moved to stay or dismiss the action under the Colorado River abstention doctrine, which was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., which held that courts may not impose a prejudice requirement when evaluating whether a party has waived enforcement of an arbitration agreement. The Second Circuit concluded that the UBS Defendants waived their right to compel arbitration by seeking a resolution of their dispute in the District Court first, thus acting inconsistently with the right to arbitrate. Consequently, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of the UBS Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration on the alternative ground of waiver. View "Doyle v. UBS Financial Services, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2021, Xeriant, Inc., an aerospace company, sought financing for a joint venture and connected with Auctus Fund LLC, a hedge fund. Auctus agreed to lend approximately $5 million through a convertible promissory note, allowing Auctus to convert the debt into shares of Xeriant's common stock if the loan was not repaid in cash. When Xeriant failed to repay the loan, Auctus attempted to convert the debt into stock, but Xeriant rejected the request and filed a lawsuit seeking to void the contract under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, claiming Auctus was not a registered securities dealer.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Xeriant's complaint, holding that the contract did not obligate Auctus to act as a dealer, and thus, the agreement was not void under Section 29(b) of the Exchange Act. The court found that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), not private parties, enforces the registration requirement under Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Xeriant failed to allege a sufficient claim for rescission under Section 29(b) because the contract did not require Auctus to engage in unlawful dealer activity. The court concluded that the contract could be performed lawfully and was not inherently illegal. Therefore, the contract could not be rescinded under Section 29(b) of the Exchange Act. The court also held that Xeriant's claim was timely filed, as the facts underlying Auctus's alleged status as an unregistered dealer were not appreciable until the SEC filed its complaint in June 2023. View "Xeriant, Inc. v. Auctus Fund LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Andrew Roth, a shareholder of Estée Lauder Companies Inc. and Altice USA, Inc., filed suits alleging that controlling shareholders of these companies engaged in transactions that violated Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act. Roth claimed that the controlling shareholders sold shares of the companies while the companies repurchased their own shares, and sought to pair these transactions to impose liability for short-swing profits.In the Southern District of New York, Roth's complaint against LAL Family Corporation and LAL Family Partners L.P. was dismissed. The court held that issuer repurchases cannot be paired with insiders' sales of outstanding shares to create Section 16(b) liability. Similarly, in the Eastern District of New York, Roth's complaint against Patrick Drahi and other defendants was dismissed. The court relied in part on the analysis from the Southern District of New York, concluding that Roth's legal theory was invalid.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the cases and affirmed the judgments of dismissal. The court held that Section 16(b) does not impose liability for pairing sales by controlling shareholders with share repurchases by corporations they control. The court reasoned that under applicable state law, repurchased shares are transformed into treasury shares, which are different in kind from outstanding shares and cannot be paired. Therefore, Roth's theory of liability was rejected, and the judgments dismissing his complaints were affirmed. View "Roth v. LAL Family Corp." on Justia Law

Shanda Games Limited, a video game company registered in the Cayman Islands, issued proxy materials as part of a freeze-out merger. The lead plaintiff, David Monk, alleged that these materials were materially misleading, causing him to accept the merger price instead of exercising his appraisal rights. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Monk’s claims, stating he failed to properly allege loss causation.The district court found that Monk had adequately pleaded that Shanda made two material misstatements but ruled that Monk had failed to plead reliance because the market in ADS was not efficient after the merger announcement. The court also held that the statements about the merger's fairness were inactionable opinions. Monk's motion for reconsideration was denied in part and granted in part, and his motion to add another lead plaintiff was denied. Monk filed a second amended complaint, which was again dismissed for failure to state a claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court erred in dismissing Monk’s claims. The appellate court concluded that Monk adequately alleged material misstatements, including the preparation of financial projections, the projections themselves, and the fairness of the merger. The court also found that Monk adequately pleaded scienter, reliance, and loss causation. The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In re Shanda Games Ltd. Securities Litigation" on Justia Law

The case involves Plaintiff-Appellant Joel J. Malek, who filed a complaint alleging that Defendants-Appellees, including Leonard Feigenbaum and AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co., engaged in a deceptive marketing scheme to trick him and others into replacing their existing life insurance policies with more expensive and less valuable ones. Malek claimed violations of New York law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Malek’s complaint and denied him leave to amend. The court found that Malek’s New York claims were time-barred and that he failed to plead the existence of a RICO enterprise. Malek served a motion for reconsideration on the Defendants but did not file it with the court until after the deadline. The district court subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The Defendants moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Malek’s notice of appeal was untimely because he did not file his motion for reconsideration within the required timeframe, thus failing to toll the deadline for filing a notice of appeal. The Second Circuit reiterated its holding in Weitzner v. Cynosure, Inc. that Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) requires timely filing, not just service, of a post-judgment motion to toll the appeal deadline. The court also concluded that under Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, Appellate Rule 4(a)(4)(A) is a mandatory claim-processing rule not subject to equitable tolling.The Second Circuit found that Malek’s notice of appeal was untimely and dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The court also determined that Malek’s notice of appeal could not be construed to include the order denying reconsideration. View "Malek v. Feigenbaum" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Brad Packer, a shareholder of 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. (FLWS), who alleged that Raging Capital Management, LLC, Raging Capital Master Fund, Ltd., and William C. Martin (collectively, the Appellees) violated Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This section requires owners of more than 10% of a company's stock to disgorge profits made from buying and selling the company's stock within a six-month window. Packer claimed that the Appellees, as 10% beneficial owners of FLWS, engaged in such "short-swing" trading and failed to disgorge their profits. After FLWS declined to sue the Appellees, Packer filed a shareholder derivative suit on behalf of FLWS.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Packer's suit, reasoning that he lacked constitutional standing because he did not allege a concrete injury. The District Court concluded that the Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, which elaborated on the "concrete injury" requirement of constitutional standing, abrogated the Second Circuit's previous decision in Donoghue v. Bulldog Investors General Partnership. In Donoghue, the Second Circuit held that a violation of Section 16(b) inflicts an injury that confers constitutional standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disagreed with the District Court's interpretation. The Appeals Court held that TransUnion did not abrogate Donoghue, and the District Court erred in holding that it did. The Appeals Court emphasized that a District Court must follow controlling precedent, even if it believes that the precedent may eventually be overturned. The Appeals Court found that nothing in TransUnion undermines Donoghue, and thus, the District Court erred in dismissing Packer's Section 16(b) suit. The Appeals Court reversed the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Packer v. Raging Capital Management, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves Nano Dimension Ltd., an Israeli 3D printing and manufacturing company, and several defendants including Murchinson Ltd. and Anson Advisors Inc. Nano alleged that the defendants violated Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose that they acted as a group when acquiring more than five percent of Nano’s American Depository Shares (ADSs). As a remedy, Nano sought an order directing the defendants to disclose their alleged group status on amended Schedule 13Ds and an injunction prohibiting them from acquiring additional ADSs or voting their existing ADSs pending completion of the amended filings.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Nano's claims as moot. The court found that the defendants had cured the alleged Section 13(d) violations by amending their Schedule 13D filings to disclose Nano’s allegations and their position that the allegations were without merit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the defendants' amended filings satisfied Section 13(d)’s disclosure requirements. The court also rejected Nano's argument that it was entitled to retroactive injunctive relief, noting that such relief is not available under Section 13(d) when corrective disclosures have been made and the vote in question did not effect a change in control over the issuer. View "Nano Dimension Ltd. v. Murchinson Ltd." on Justia Law

This case involves Commerzbank AG, a German bank, and U.S. Bank, N.A., an American bank. Commerzbank sued U.S. Bank, alleging that it had failed to fulfill its duties as a trustee for residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) that Commerzbank had purchased. The case revolved around three main issues: whether Commerzbank could bring claims related to trusts with "No Action Clauses"; whether Commerzbank's claims related to certificates held through German entities were timely; and whether Commerzbank could bring claims related to certificates it had sold to third parties.The district court had previously dismissed Commerzbank's claims related to trusts with No Action Clauses, granted judgment in favor of U.S. Bank on the timeliness of Commerzbank's claims related to the German certificates, and denied Commerzbank's claims related to the sold certificates. Commerzbank appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions on the timeliness of the German certificate claims and the denial of the sold certificate claims. However, it vacated the district court's dismissal of Commerzbank's claims related to trusts with No Action Clauses and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that Commerzbank's failure to make pre-suit demands on parties other than trustees could be excused in certain circumstances where these parties are sufficiently conflicted. View "Commerzbank AG v. U.S. Bank, N.A." on Justia Law