District Court, S.D. New York — appointed by William Jefferson Clinton
In Re Merkin
District Court, S.D. New York · 2011-09-23 · cited 14×
This case arose from losses suffered by investors in three hedge funds (Ascot, Gabriel, and Ariel) after Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme was revealed; the funds had placed substantial assets with Madoff through their manager, J. Ezra Merkin, and his related entities. Plaintiffs, including NYLS and other investors, sued Merkin, Gabriel Capital Corporation, and the BDO auditor defendants, alleging violations of federal securities laws (Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act) as well as state common-law claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and related theories, based on failures to disclose the Madoff investments and to conduct adequate due diligence or audits under GAAS and GAAP. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints in full under Rules 9(b), 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). Dismissal rested primarily on insufficient allegations of scienter for the federal claims against the auditors, SLUSA preemption of certain state-law claims, and lack of personal jurisdiction or supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability
Helen-May Holdings, LLC v. Geltzer
District Court, S.D. New York · 2011-08-02 · cited 6×
This case involved an appeal by Helen-May Holdings from three orders of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the Chapter 7 case of Kollel Mateh Efraim. Helen-May had sought an administrative claim under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A) for daily occupancy penalties arising from a failed 2004 real estate contract and occupancy agreement for a resort property in New York, after the debtor failed to close and later entered bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court had set the claim at zero following an evidentiary hearing, finding Helen-May failed to prove the reasonable value of the debtor's post-petition use of the property. The district court affirmed the orders in full, holding that the bankruptcy court's factual findings were supported by the record and that Helen-May had not met its burden of proof.
business & regulatorypropertyprocedure
STRATTE-MCCLURE v. Stanley
District Court, S.D. New York · 2011-04-04 · cited 11×
This case is a putative securities fraud class action brought by institutional investors against Morgan Stanley and several of its current and former officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs alleged that starting in December 2006 the company took large, risky positions in subprime mortgage-related credit default swaps, then made material misstatements and omissions during the June-to-December 2007 class period to hide the exposure and resulting losses, thereby inflating the stock price. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) and the PSLRA, arguing insufficient allegations of falsity, scienter, and loss causation. The court granted the motion in full, holding that the complaint failed to plead the falsity of certain statements with the required specificity and failed to adequately allege loss causation for others.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Mental Hygiene Legal Service v. Cuomo
District Court, S.D. New York · 2011-03-29 · cited 13×
Mental Hygiene Legal Service brought a pre-enforcement facial challenge to seven provisions of New York's Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SOMTA), which authorizes civil management, including detention and commitment, for certain sex offenders after completing prison terms or other state custody. The suit targeted procedures for securing petitions, involuntary detention pending trial, treatment of defendants found incompetent to stand trial, retroactive findings of sexual motivation, and related record disclosures. Prior rulings dismissed one claim and enjoined two provisions allowing detention without an individualized dangerousness finding and civil commitment based on clear-and-convincing evidence of unadjudicated conduct; the current decision addresses the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment along with standing and abstention issues.
criminal lawcivil rights
Cariou v. Prince
District Court, S.D. New York · 2011-03-18 · cited 17×
In Cariou v. Prince, photographer Patrick Cariou sued artist Richard Prince, Gagosian Gallery, and Lawrence Gagosian for copyright infringement after Prince incorporated photographs from Cariou's book Yes, Rasta into his Canal Zone series of paintings without authorization. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with defendants asserting fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107 and that the conspiracy claim was legally barred, while plaintiff sought a liability determination. The court granted summary judgment to Cariou on the infringement claim, holding that the use was not fair use because the paintings were insufficiently transformative, used substantial portions of the original creative works, and did not serve a different purpose, while dismissing the conspiracy claim. It further ordered injunctive relief including destruction or delivery of infringing items and notification to purchasers.
property
MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT, INC. v. KellyToy (USA), Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York · 2011-02-18 · cited 25×
This case involved Marvel Entertainment and Marvel Characters suing Kellytoy for breach of contract, copyright infringement, and trademark infringement, alleging that Kellytoy exceeded the scope of their licensing agreements by selling unauthorized products such as pet toys and sports sets, shipping goods to countries outside the licensed territories, and miscalculating royalties; Kellytoy counterclaimed for return of funds paid by mistake. The court granted partial summary judgment to Marvel on claims involving unauthorized pet toy sales in 2005-2006, sales outside licensed territories, and royalty miscalculations, while granting partial summary judgment to Kellytoy on pet toy sales in 2004 and dismissing some of Marvel's claims related to website content and certain product categories. The reasoning centered on undisputed facts from an audit report showing specific unauthorized sales, interpretations of the license agreements and amendments regarding permitted products and territories, and the absence of evidence establishing liability for certain other allegations like international shipments by a non-party affiliate.
business & regulatoryprocedure