From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Structured Credit v. Painewebber Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 17, 2003
306 A.D.2d 132 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Summary

affirming dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211 and where parties' agreement provided that certain profit calculations "shall be binding and final absent manifest error"

Summary of this case from Curacao Oil N.V. v. Trafigura Pte. Ltd.

Opinion

1418

June 17, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered July 2, 2002, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Marc A. Susswein, for plaintiff-appellant.

David W. Haller, for defendant-respondent.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner, Gonzalez, JJ.


Plaintiff's breach of contract claim alleging defendant's unjustified reduction of the arbitrage vehicle's profitability, and resulting elimination of a large part of plaintiff's expected profit from the transaction, was properly dismissed in view of the provisions in the parties' agreements that defendant's arbitrage profit calculations "shall be binding and final absent manifest error" (see Matter of Hermance v. Board of Supervisors, 71 N.Y. 481, 486) and that defendant would not be liable to plaintiff absent willful misconduct, bad faith or gross negligence. The motion court also properly dismissed plaintiff's causes of action alleging loss of profitability caused by defendant's hedging the collateral with treasury securities instead of interest-rate swaps, on the ground that the parties' fully integrated agreements did not impose any duty on defendant to hedge the collateral with interest-rate swaps. Moreover, even if plaintiff could establish a tort claim independent of defendant's alleged contractual hedging obligations, based upon accepted banking industry hedging practices, plaintiff's allegations fail to show the necessary reckless disregard of its rights (see Hartford Ins. Co. v. Holmes Protection Group, 250 A.D.2d 526, 527). The motion court correctly found that disclosure would not avail plaintiff.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Structured Credit v. Painewebber Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 17, 2003
306 A.D.2d 132 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

affirming dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211 and where parties' agreement provided that certain profit calculations "shall be binding and final absent manifest error"

Summary of this case from Curacao Oil N.V. v. Trafigura Pte. Ltd.
Case details for

Structured Credit v. Painewebber Inc.

Case Details

Full title:STRUCTURED CREDIT PARTNERS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAINEWEBBER INC.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 17, 2003

Citations

306 A.D.2d 132 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
760 N.Y.S.2d 316

Citing Cases

Tennenbaum Living Tr. v. GCDI S.A.

Neither the Court nor the parties have identified any recent New York Court of Appeals decision interpreting…

Sempra Energy Trading Corp. v. BP Products North America, Inc.

The complaint was properly dismissed, where plaintiff's breach of contract claim was refuted by the…