By Jeffrey M. Haber, a partner at Freiberger Haber LLP On May 31, 2016, the Appellate Division, First Department, issued MP Cool Investments Ltd. v. Forkosh, 2016 NY Slip Op. 05944, a case involving allegations of fraud in connection with the production and sale of a commercial heating and ventilation system by an Israeli-based company. In the decision, the First Department unanimously affirmed the motion court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s fraud claims because they were not pleaded with particularity, did not establish justifiable reliance on the defendants’ misrepresentations, and failed to demonstrate scienter or an intent to deceive. The Factual Background of MP Cool The plaintiff, a Manhattan-based private equity fund with $4.3 billion in assets under management, is an admitted sophisticated investor that specializes in capturing value in distressed companies in less efficient markets around the world. In December 2009, MatlinPatterson entered into an agreement with DuCool, Ltd., an Israeli company that claimed to have had breakthrough dehumidification technology, to obtain a majority interest in the company. Pursuant to the agreement, MatlinPatterson invested $30 million in DuCool, giving it an initial 49% interest in the company. By 2012, MatlinPatterson had invested $70 million in DuCool and acquired a 72% majority interest in the company. Subsequent investments brought MatlinPatterson’s equity interest in DuCool to 90%. As permitted under the purchase agreement, MatlinPatterson had a 90-day due diligence period during which it was given full access to DuCool’s business operations, properties, technology data and plans. MatlinPatterson was also given direct access to all of DuCool’s customers, though it only approached one customer. To conduct the agreed upon due diligence, MatlinPatterson, among other things, hired two consultants: QuinetiQ, to perform technical evaluations of DuCool’s technology, manufacturing facility, and installation sites; and McKinsey, to evaluate DuCool’s business model, financial information, and market potential. McKinsey drafted a proposed business plan for the company that was included in the parties’ initial purchase agreements. After the initial investment, but before the second investment, MatlinPatterson appointed three of the seven members of the board of directors and two of McKinsey’s representatives were installed as officers of DuCool. The Allegations and the Motion Court’s Ruling MatlinPatterson claimed that in the period before it purchased any interest in DuCool (pre-investment) and during the two-year period after its first investment (i.e., 2010 through 2012), when it acquired a majority interest in DuCool, the defendants made numerous false representations and provided inaccurate data about DuCool’s air conditioning technology, financial condition and overall successes in the United States and other markets. MatlinPatterson alleged that it relied on the representations and data, inducing it to repeatedly invest in DuCool, believing it was a better performing company than represented. MatlinPatterson also alleged that after it invested in DuCool, the defendants deceived it by intentionally concealing known problems with DuCool’s installations in at least three major sites in the United States and Costa Rica and made numerous false statements about energy cost savings in an April 2011 “study” that touted DuCool products’ performance and cutting edge technology. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The motion court granted the motion and the plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Ruling As an initial matter, the First Department noted that the plaintiff failed to allege fraud with particularity as to each individual defendant and the various time periods involved. The Court observed that the complaint simply “bundled, bare-boned and conclusory allegations” – the type of allegations that do not suffice to plead a fraud claim. Turning to the justifiable reliance element – one of the two elements highlighted by this post – the Court noted that MatlinPatterson is a sophisticated investor that conducted extensive due diligence both before and after its initial investments. Such sophistication and knowledge undermined any claim of justifiable reliance: Plaintiff is an experienced and sophisticated investor. It did not plead facts to support the justifiable reliance element of fraud. Plaintiff had total, unfettered access to every aspect of DuCool’s company information both before and after its initial investment, even before it held a controlling interest in DuCool. Although learning through the due diligence conducted by its own technology and business consultants that there were frequent technological problems with DuCool products, some of them “severe,” plaintiff proceeded to invest in the company. Thereafter, as the 49% shareholder, plaintiff had the largest percentage ownership of any individual shareholder and it had access to information concerning the operations of the business. There is no factual basis on which to conclude that the alleged fraud involved matters peculiarly within defendants’ knowledge, because plaintiff had the means to discover the truth behind any false claims about the condition of the company and whether this was a feasible investment. Slip op. at 3 (citations omitted). Regarding the scienter element – the second element highlighted by this post – the Court found that the due diligence conducted by the plaintiff negated any inference that the defendants knew DuCool would fall short of projections: With respect to the scienter element of its claim, although “most likely to be within the sole knowledge of the defendant and least amenable to direct proof,” plaintiff is still required to allege facts “from which it is possible to infer defendant knowledge of the falsity of statements” when they were made. It has not done so. Plaintiff, based upon its own due diligence, concluded that DuCool presented a profitable, albeit speculative, investment opportunity given its development of new technology and registered patents. Although the company may not have performed as plaintiff expected, this does not support a reasonable inference that defendants knew that DuCool would fall short of its business projections. The parties’ agreement not only contained plaintiff’s express acknowledgment that success was speculative, but also a further acknowledgment that “any business plans prepared by the Company, have been, and continue to be, subject to change and that any projections included in such business plans or otherwise are necessarily speculative in nature. . .” Slip op. at 3-4 (citations omitted). Takeaway Unfortunately, there are times when an acquired business or investment does not live up to expectations. When this happens, the acquiring or investing party sues. MP Cool stands as a reminder that in New York (and some other jurisdictions) an aggrieved party cannot come to court claiming fraud when it has conducted due diligence and obtained information that undermines the strength of its claim. Though sophisticated parties can be the victim of fraud, they cannot complain if they have knowledge of the very fraud of which they complain. MP Cool also reminds us that scienter is a very difficult element to plead. In fact, the scienter element is the hardest to plead because the evidence of intent most often rests solely with the defendant. Because of this difficulty, intent is often inferred from circumstantial evidence. Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc., 10 N.Y.3d 486, 488 (N.Y. 2008). Notwithstanding, as the First Department made clear, scienter must be plead with particularity. Slip op. at 3. Conclusory allegations, such as those in MP Cool, will not suffice. The plaintiff must allege facts from which there is some “rational basis for inferring that the alleged misrepresentations were knowingly made.” Houbigant, Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 303 A.D.2d 92, 93 (1st Dep’t 2003). As MatlinPatterson learned in MP Cool, the failure to meet this hurdle will result in dismissal. This article was written by Jeffrey M. Haber, a partner at Freiberger Haber LLP. This article is for informational purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Section 291 of New York’s Real Property Law , which governs the recording of conveyances in real property property is situated, and such county clerk shall, upon the request of any party, on tender of the lawful the rent to accrue therefrom as provided in section two hundred ninety-four-a of the real property law purchaser fails to use due diligence in examining the title, he or she is chargeable, as a matter of law to correct them with the County Clerk; as it would have been permitted to do under New York County Law

For example, employers cannot discharge an employee in violation of any law that prohibits discrimination : in violation of the company’s employee handbook; in retaliation for whistleblowing a violation of law to a supervisor or to a public agency; for participation, on his/her own time, in lawful political or The Court held that, “as a matter of law,” Holahan’s breach of contract claim was properly dismissed The Court also held, “as a matter of law,” that since Holahan had been an at-will employee following

background, and as set forth in one of our prior Blogs, Rule 3215(c) of the New York Civil Practice Law to implead it in a separate action by the homeowners association for the premises to foreclose on a lien

intention of the parties as manifested thereby.” 8 Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law to secure additional funds to pay unpaid contractors and material suppliers, many of whom had filed liens As a result, Greco claimed he was required to post mechanics liens bonds of about $1.1 million and secure

plaintiffs sold the Property to defendant for an additional $25,000.00 subject to the mortgage and all liens

Melville, NY ( Law Firm Newswire ) October 15, 2021 -  Freiberger Haber LLP is pleased to announce that Haber, have been named by Super Lawyers magazine to be among the top lawyers in the New York metropolitan Super Lawyers Magazine® is an affiliate of Thomson Reuters. Each year no more than 5 percent of lawyers are recognized as Super Lawyers by the magazine. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Freiberger Haber LLP, 425 Broadhollow Road, Suite

whistleblowers that voluntarily provide the SEC with information about violations of the securities laws impede an individual from communicating directly with the Commission staff about a possible securities law may impede an employee or former employee from providing information to the SEC about a securities law to harass and intimidate employees and former employees from reporting a violation of the securities laws confidentiality statement by adding language making it clear that employees could report securities law

Haber One element of a fraud claim under New York law is justifiable reliance. fundamental precept,[1] holding that fraud and civil conspiracy claims could not be maintained against a law They further alleged that the defendant law firm, which represented the corporation in connection with The law firm moved to dismiss the fraud-based claims under CPLR 3211(a). The law firm moved to dismiss the fraud-based claims under CPLR 3211(a).

initiate enforcement proceedings against employers that retaliate against whistleblowers who engage in lawful fraudulent conduct on Wall Street and promote compliance with the federal securities and commodities laws information about securities and commodities fraud and other violations of the securities and commodities laws voluntarily provides “original information” to the Commission about a violation of the commodities laws promote its whistleblower program and actively protect whistleblowers against activity that chills lawful

An arbitration award may also be vacated under federal law pursuant to the “severely limited doctrine ” of manifest disregard, meaning that the award “exhibits a manifest disregard of law.” To vacate an award on the grounds of manifest disregard of the law, “a court must find both (1) that Under that doctrine, even errors or misinterpretations of law are insufficient grounds for vacatur. E.g. , Manifest Disregard of The Law and Class Arbitrations , Manifest Disregard of the Law and the Arbitrability

Haber The internal affairs doctrine is a “conflict of laws principle which recognizes that only one State relationship between the corporation, its directors, and a shareholder are governed by the substantive law potent, has very specific applications.”[3] In particular, the doctrine only “governs the choice of law Defendants also submitted an affirmation from an expert on English law, who opined on the requirements of English law governing shareholder derivative actions under both the Companies Act and common law.