The Martin Act and Common-Law Claims

William Savitt is a partner in the Litigation Department of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton firm memorandum from Mr. Savitt, Herbert M. Wachtell, John F. Savarese, Jonathan M. Moses, David B. Anders, and Jasand Mock.

In a decision troublesome to the business community, the New York Court of Appeals has now determined that the New York Martin Act does not preempt private plaintiff lawsuits based solely upon traditional common-law causes of action such as negligence and breach of fiduciary duty — even where there may be overlap with statutory claims reserved to the New York Attorney General. From the fact that the Act itself had been held years ago not to give rise to a private cause of action, numerous rulings from both New York State and Federal courts held that the Act preempted non-fraud common-law tort claims. Deeming itself unable to find anything in either the text of the statute or its legislative history that would support such preemption, the Court affirmed a more recent ruling by the Appellate Division, First Department, and ruled the doctrine out. Assured Guarantee (UK) Ltd. v. J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc., No. 227 (N.Y. Dec. 20, 2011).

In doing so, the Court nevertheless reaffirmed its prior rulings that the Martin Act itself creates no private right of action and that preemption would continue to exist where the claim is entirely dependent upon a violation of the Martin Act or its implementing regulations, including certain specific real estate provisions that are part of the Act.

The holding does not mean that all such common-law claims may proceed unfettered. For example, third parties seeking to hold accounting firms liable in negligence for claimed erroneous certifications must still meet a rigorous test under New York law of establishing “actual privity of contract” or “a relationship so close as to approach that of privity” with the auditor. See, e.g., Parrott v. Coopers & Lybrand, L.L.P., 95 N.Y.2d 479 (N.Y. 2000). And albeit a class action claim may be predicated upon negligence, breach of fiduciary duty or contract, if the complaint nonetheless includes allegations of “misrepresentation or omission” in connection with the purchase or sale of an exchange-listed security, the action may be deemed precluded by the Federal SLUSA statute. See, e.g., Romano v. Kazacos, 609 F.3d 512 (2d Cir. 2010). Moreover, any common-law claim must satisfy the essential elements of the particular cause of action involved. Nevertheless, the decision manifestly opens a wide variety of claims under New York State law — invoking standards less rigorous than intentional fraud — that for some years previous had been deemed foreclosed.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

  • Subscribe

  • Cosponsored By:

  • Supported By:

  • Programs Faculty & Senior Fellows

    Lucian Bebchuk
    Alon Brav
    Robert Charles Clark
    John Coates
    Alma Cohen
    Stephen M. Davis
    Allen Ferrell
    Jesse Fried
    Oliver Hart
    Ben W. Heineman, Jr.
    Scott Hirst
    Howell Jackson
    Robert J. Jackson, Jr.
    Wei Jiang
    Reinier Kraakman
    Robert Pozen
    Mark Ramseyer
    Mark Roe
    Robert Sitkoff
    Holger Spamann
    Guhan Subramanian

  • Program on Corporate Governance Advisory Board

    William Ackman
    Peter Atkins
    Joseph Bachelder
    John Bader
    Allison Bennington
    Richard Breeden
    Daniel Burch
    Richard Climan
    Jesse Cohn
    Isaac Corré
    Scott Davis
    John Finley
    Daniel Fischel
    Stephen Fraidin
    Byron Georgiou
    Larry Hamdan
    Carl Icahn
    David Millstone
    Theodore Mirvis
    James Morphy
    Toby Myerson
    Barry Rosenstein
    Paul Rowe
    Rodman Ward