Amaranth LLC v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
71 A.D.3d 40, 888 N.Y.S.2d 489 (2009)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A claim for tortious interference based on defamatory statements is governed by the longer statute of limitations for economic torts, not defamation, when the primary alleged injury is specific economic harm to a business relationship rather than general reputational damage. Additionally, a clearing broker does not breach its client agreement by refusing to execute a transaction that creates immediate risk or violates exchange margin rules, even if the transaction might ultimately reduce long-term exposure.

Facts:

Amaranth LLC (the Fund), a hedge fund, used J.P. Morgan Futures, Inc. (JPMFI) as its clearing broker under a Client Agreement.
In September 2006, after suffering massive losses in natural gas trading, the Fund was at risk of defaulting on its obligations.
To mitigate its risk, the Fund negotiated a deal with Goldman Sachs to take over its risky positions, which required the Fund to pay Goldman Sachs $1.85 billion.
To make this payment, the Fund needed JPMFI to release $1.85 billion from its margin account, which held funds to guarantee the Fund's trades.
On September 18, 2006, JPMFI refused to release the margin funds, citing the immediate risk it would create, which caused the Goldman Sachs deal to collapse.
The Fund then negotiated a similar deal with Citadel Investment Group.
On September 19, 2006, executives from JPMC, JPMFI's parent company, allegedly called Citadel and falsely stated that "Amaranth is not as solvent as they are telling you they are."
Following this call, Citadel terminated its deal with the Fund, leading the Fund to accept a less favorable deal with JPMC itself and incur over $1 billion in additional losses.

Procedural Posture:

Amaranth LLC and Amaranth Advisors sued JPMC and its subsidiaries in the Supreme Court of New York County, a state trial court.
The complaint included claims for breach of contract against JPMFI and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage against JPMC.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim but granted the motion to dismiss the tortious interference claims, finding them time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations for defamation.
Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, an intermediate appellate court. Amaranth (appellant) appealed the dismissal of its tortious interference claims, and J.P. Morgan (appellant) appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a claim for tortious interference with a prospective business relationship, where the interference consists of allegedly defamatory statements, fall under the three-year statute of limitations for economic torts when the complaint alleges specific economic harm from a failed deal, rather than the one-year statute for defamation? And, did the clearing broker breach its client agreement by refusing to release margin funds for a transaction that, while potentially reducing long-term exposure, would create an immediate, short-term risk and violate exchange rules requiring minimum margin to be maintained at all times?

Opinions:

Majority - Catterson, J.

Regarding the tortious interference claim, Yes. A claim for tortious interference with a prospective business relationship is governed by the three-year statute of limitations for economic torts when the complaint alleges specific economic harm. The court must look to the 'reality, and the essence of the action,' not just its name. Here, the gravamen of the complaint was the specific economic injury resulting from the collapse of the Citadel deal, not generalized reputational harm. Because the complaint alleged a specific business relationship that was harmed by the defendants' actions, it sounds in tortious interference, and the three-year statute of limitations applies, making the claim timely. Regarding the breach of contract claim, No. The clearing broker did not breach its client agreement by refusing to release the margin funds. The plain language of the Client Agreement explicitly granted JPMFI the right to refuse to execute transactions that posed any risk to it. The plaintiffs' own complaint admitted that releasing the $1.85 billion would expose JPMFI to an 'overnight settlement risk.' Furthermore, releasing the funds would have caused the Fund's account to drop below the minimum margin required by NYMEX exchange rules, which were incorporated into the contract. Therefore, JPMFI was under no contractual obligation to proceed with a transaction that created immediate risk and violated exchange rules.

Analysis:

This decision provides important clarification on the statute of limitations for torts involving false statements that cause economic harm, distinguishing between defamation and tortious interference based on the nature of the injury. It establishes that when a false statement targets a specific business deal causing direct financial loss, the claim is treated as an economic tort with a longer limitations period, preventing defendants from using the short defamation statute as a shield. The ruling also strongly reinforces the contractual discretion of financial clearing brokers to reject transactions they deem to pose any immediate risk, prioritizing the broker's self-protection over a client's potential long-term benefit. This strengthens the position of financial intermediaries in managing their own exposure, even at the expense of their clients' transactional goals.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Amaranth LLC v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (2009)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"