Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Customers of a securities firm made claims against that firm based on real estate investments the firm’s broker-dealers recommended. An entity that had an interest in and operated each of the real estate investments filed for bankruptcy, and at least some of the real estate investments became debtors in that bankruptcy proceeding. The appointed examiner in the bankruptcy proceeding found that the entity was engaged in a fraudulent “Ponzi scheme.” When the securities firm applied for professional liability insurance, it disclosed one of the customer claims but not the facts that would support other potential customer claims arising out of investments through the same entity as that involved in the disclosed claim. The insurer refused to defend against undisclosed claims because the policy’s application included an exclusion for nondisclosure of facts that might lead to a claim. The court of appeal affirmed judgment in favor of the insurer: There was no insurance coverage because all of the undisclosed claims arose out of the same events as the disclosed claim. The securities firm was aware of facts and circumstances that might result in a claim or claims being made against it, which awareness it was required to disclose. View "Crown Capital Secs., L.P. v. Endurance Am. Specialty Ins. Co." on Justia Law

NASDAQ conducted the initial public offering (IPO) for Facebook in May 2012. UBS subsequently initiated an arbitration proceeding against NASDAQ seeking indemnification for injuries sustained in the Facebook IPO, as well as damages for breach of contract, breach of an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and gross negligence. NASDAQ initiated a declaratory judgment action to preclude UBS from pursuing arbitration. The district court granted a preliminary injunction and UBS appealed. The court concluded that federal jurisdiction is properly exercised in this case; the district court properly decided the question of arbitrability because the parties never clearly unmistakably expressed an intent to submit that question to arbitration, and such an intent cannot be inferred where, as here, a broad arbitration clause contains a carved-out provision that, at least arguably covers the instant dispute; UBS's claims against NASDAQ are not subject to arbitration because they fall within the preclusive language of NASDAQ Rule 4626(a), and the parties specifically agreed that their arbitration agreement was subject to limitations identified in, among other things, NASDAQ Rules; and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court's order preliminarily enjoining UBS from pursuing arbitration against NASDAQ. The court remanded for further proceedings.View "NASDAQ OMX Grp., Inc. v. UBS Sec., LLC" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether alleged misrepresentations made by Defendants were made “in connection with” a transaction in covered securities under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA). Plaintiffs, investors in a licensed non-diversified investment company, filed a putative class action in Puerto Rico court against the Fund and others alleging fraud or misrepresentation in violation of Puerto Rico law after the Fund invested the majority of its assets in notes sold by Lehman Brothers, resulting in the Fund adopting a plan of liquidation. Defendants removed the action to the federal district court, asserting that it fell within the ambit of the SLUSA. Plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought remand on jurisdictional grounds. Ultimately, the district court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss premised on SLUSA preclusion. The First Circuit vacated the judgment of dismissal and remitted with instructions to return the case to the Puerto Rico Court, holding that the link between the misrepresentations alleged and the covered securities in the Fund’s portfolio was too fragile to support a finding of SLUSA preclusion under Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice. View "Hidalgo-Velez v. San Juan Asset Mgmt., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued several defendants in the Delaware Court of Chancery for alleged wrongdoing related to notes purchased by Plaintiff and issued by one of the defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss, claiming that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by a no-action clause contained in the indenture agreement governing Plaintiff’s notes. The Delaware Supreme Court remanded the case for the Court of Chancery for consideration of the issues under New York law. On remand, the Court of Chancery concluded that the majority of Plaintiff’s claims were not barred under the no-action clause and that dismissal and partial dismissal were warranted with respect to the remaining claims because only those claims arose under the indenture. In response to certified questions from the Delaware Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals concluded (1) a trust indenture’s no-action clause that specifically precludes enforcement of contractual claims arising under the indenture, but omits reference to “the Securities,” does not bar a securityholder’s independent common law or statutory claims; and (2) the Court of Chancery correctly found that the no-action clause in this case, which referred only to “this Indenture,” precluded enforcement only of contractual claims arising under the Indenture. View "Quadrant Structured Prods. Co., Ltd. v. Vertin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff (the customer) filed suit against State Street (the custodian bank), alleging in essence that it had a duty to notify him that the securities in his account were worthless. The district court granted State Street's motion to dismiss the contract claims on the ground that State Street had a merely administrative role in managing plaintiff's accounts and thus owed him no duty to guard against his investment advisor's misconduct. The district court concluded that plaintiff's negligence claims were barred by Florida's economic loss rule and plaintiff had not sufficiently alleged knowledge on the part of State Street in regards to the aiding and abetting claims. The court affirmed, holding that, under these facts, the custodian bank breached no duty, contractual or otherwise, by accepting on behalf of its customer securities that later turn out to be fraudulent and listing those securities on monthly account statements issued to the customer. Plaintiff's allegations failed to state claims for breach of contract; plaintiff failed to establish that State Street owed him an independent duty to monitor the investments in his account, verify their market value, or ensure they were in valid form; therefore, he failed to state valid negligence claims; plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to state a claim for aiding and abetting; and plaintiff's claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation also failed. View "Lamm v. State Street Bank and Trust" on Justia Law

Mike Richey sold his interest in Richey Oilfield Construction, Inc. to Nighthawk Oilfield Services, Ltd. Richey remained employed as president of Richey Oil and became a limited partner in Nighthawk. The primary agreements regarding the transaction were a stock purchase agreement, an agreement for the purchase of Richey Oil’s goodwill, and a promissory note. Each of the acquisition agreements contained a forum selection clause naming Tarrant County as the venue for state court actions. When the business did not go as well as the parties had hoped, Richey filed suit in Wise County, where Richey resided, against two Nighthawk executives (together, Relators) for, among other claims, breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, statutory fraud, and violations of the Texas Securities Act. Relators responded by unsuccessfully moving the trial court to transfer venue to Tarrant County or dismiss the suit pursuant to the mandatory venue selection clauses in the acquisition agreements. Relators subsequently sought mandamus relief. The Supreme Court conditionally granted relief, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to enforce the forum selection clauses in the acquisition agreements. View "In re Fisher" on Justia Law

Legacy Resources, Inc. brought several claims against Liberty Pioneer Energy Source, Inc. The district court dismissed Legacy's breach of contract and trade secret claims on summary judgment, determining (1) Legacy violated the securities laws by acting as an unlicensed broker in recruiting investors on behalf of Liberty; and (2) Legacy's securities violations rendered its contract unenforceable under Utah Code 61-1-22(8). The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the undisputed facts sustained the conclusion that Legacy acted as an unlicensed broker, which violation foreclosed the enforcement of one of its contracts; but (2) another of Legacy's contracts was not implicated by the securities violation, and thus the district court erred by granting summary judgment on Legacy's claim under that contract, along with its trade secret claim. View "Legacy Res., Inc. v. Liberty Pioneer Energy Source, Inc." on Justia Law

To shield himself from the adverse effects of losses while speculating in high-risk securities, Joseph Caramdare exploited a perceived loophole in certain annuities issued by Appellant. Charles Buckman accepted a cash payment to identify himself as the annuitant on an application for one of these annuities, and Appellee, a Caramadre nominee and a stranger to Buckman, was designated as the prospective owner and beneficiary of the annuity. Appellant approved the application and issued an annuity (the Policy). Appellant later learned of Caramdre's scheme and sued Appellee in federal court, asserting certain tort claims and seeking rescission of the Policy and a declaration that the Policy was either void ab initio or had been properly rescinded. The court dismissed the claims. On appeal, the First Circuit Court certified to the Rhode Island Supreme Court the following questions of state law: (1) whether an annuity with a death benefit is infirm for want of an insurable interest if the owner and beneficiary of the annuity is a stranger to the annuitant; and (2) whether a clause in an annuity that purports to make the annuity incontestable from the date of its issuance precludes the maintenance of an action based on the lack of an insurable interest. View "W. Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio v. ADM Assocs., LLC" on Justia Law

After Petitioner sold certain properties, he used the proceeds to purchase fractional interests in commercial office buildings. The fractional interests were called Tenants in Common Interests (TICs), and each of the TICs was promoted by a company called DBSI, Inc. DBSI later filed a petition for bankruptcy, and the properties underlying Petitioner's TICs became the subject of foreclosure proceedings. The bankruptcy court determined that many of DBSI's transactions were fraudulent. Petitioner filed a complaint against Cassidy Turley Maryland (Defendant), under whose advice Petitioner acted in purchasing the TICs, alleging that Defendant failed to disclose material facts regarding the investment. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Petitioner's investment in this case was a "security" for purposes of the Maryland Securities Act; (2) the circuit court erred in determining that Petitioner's claims under the Act relating to fraud and misrepresentation by Defendant were barred by limitations; (3) the court erred in concluding that Petitioner's common law tort claims were time-barred as a matter of law; and (4) the court did not err in deciding to reserve judgment on the admissibility of a bankruptcy examiner's report until it had further information. View "Mathews v. Cassidy Turley Md., Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner and Ajmal Khan, principal of Verus Investment Holdings, purchased securities in a company to arbitrage a merger between that company and another company (the trade). Petitioner and Khal used Verus' account at Jefferies & Co. and Winton Capital Holding to complete the purchase. After the merger, Jefferies wired to Verus the original investment and profits attributable to the Winton funds. Verus wired the investment money to Winton and the profits to Doris Lindbergh, a friend of Petitioner. Tax authorities later informed Jefferies it owed withholding tax on the trade. Pursuant to an arbitration clause in an agreement between Jefferies and Verus, Jefferies commenced an arbitration against Verus for the unpaid taxes. Verus, in turn, asserted thirty-party arbitration claims against Petitioner, Lindbergh, and others for their share of the taxes. After a hearing, Supreme Court determined that nonsignatories Petitioner and Lindbergh could not be compelled to arbitrate. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that Petitioner should be estopped from avoiding arbitration because he knowingly exploited and received direct benefits from the agreement between Jefferies and Verus. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Petitioner did not receive a direct benefit from the arbitration agreement and could not be compelled to arbitrate. View "Belzberg v. Verus Invs. Holdings Inc." on Justia Law