Basis Yield Alpha Fund v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
115 A.D.3d 128, 980 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A general disclaimer of reliance in a contract does not preclude a claim for fraud where the disclaimer is not sufficiently specific to the matter misrepresented, and particularly where the defendant possessed peculiar knowledge of the facts underlying the alleged fraud that were not readily available to the plaintiff.
Facts:
- In late 2006, Goldman Sachs internally concluded that the value of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) would likely decline sharply in the near future.
- At the time, Goldman held a large portfolio of such securities and sought a way to offload this risk while also profiting from the expected market decline.
- In early 2007, Goldman created and marketed new Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs), including Point Pleasant 2007-1 and Timberwolf 2007-1, allegedly using securities it knew were of poor quality, many from its own inventory.
- On April 17 and June 13, 2007, Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Basis) purchased a security from the Point Pleasant CDO and entered into credit default swaps referencing the Timberwolf CDO from Goldman.
- Basis alleges that Goldman, while marketing these securities, was simultaneously taking significant 'short' positions, effectively betting against the very products it was selling to clients.
- Goldman allegedly did not disclose its negative internal valuations of the securities, its role in selecting the poor-quality underlying assets, or the full extent of its conflict of interest.
- Shortly after Basis entered into these transactions, Goldman made margin calls that quickly forced Basis into insolvency, resulting in a reported loss of $67 million.
Procedural Posture:
- Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Basis) initially sued Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Goldman) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for federal securities fraud and common-law fraud.
- The District Court dismissed the federal claims on jurisdictional grounds (finding the transactions were not domestic) and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
- Basis subsequently filed this action in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, a state trial court, asserting various common-law claims including fraud.
- Goldman moved to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211(a)(7).
- The Supreme Court denied Goldman's motion to compel arbitration and also denied the motion to dismiss the causes of action for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and rescission.
- Goldman, as appellant, appealed the Supreme Court's order to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department.
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 general, boilerplate disclaimer in an offering circular preclude a fraud claim as a matter of law when the plaintiff alleges the seller made specific misrepresentations and omissions about facts peculiarly within the seller's knowledge?
Opinions:
Majority - Renwick, J.
No, a general disclaimer does not preclude a fraud claim under these circumstances. The court reasoned that a disclaimer can only bar a fraud claim if it is specific to the particular misrepresentation alleged and if the facts were not peculiarly within the seller's knowledge. Here, Goldman's disclaimers were boilerplate warnings about general market risks and potential conflicts of interest, not specific disclosures about its alleged scheme to knowingly sell 'toxic' assets to offload its own risk while simultaneously betting against them. Furthermore, Basis sufficiently alleged that Goldman possessed 'peculiar knowledge'—derived from its nonpublic internal analyses and its role in structuring the CDOs—about the poor quality of the underlying assets. This information was not available to Basis through reasonable diligence, thus satisfying the exception to the rule that disclaimers bar reliance.
Concurring - DeGrasse, J.
No, the fraud claim should not be dismissed. The majority reaches the correct result but through an improper analysis. Goldman's motion to dismiss was brought under CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, which limits the court's review to the four corners of the complaint. The majority erred by considering Goldman's extrinsic documentary evidence, such as the offering circulars containing the disclaimers. The complaint, on its own, sufficiently pleads a cognizable cause of action for fraud, and the court should not have looked beyond it to decide the motion. Therefore, the fraud claim survives without any need to analyze the legal effect of the disclaimers at this stage.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for reaffirming the strength of the 'peculiar knowledge' exception in New York fraud law, especially within the context of sophisticated financial products. It establishes that financial institutions cannot use generalized, boilerplate risk disclaimers as an absolute shield against allegations of fraud when they possess and conceal material, non-public information about the products they are selling. The ruling makes it more difficult for defendants to dismiss such fraud cases at the pleading stage, allowing plaintiffs to proceed to discovery to uncover evidence of the defendant's internal knowledge and intent. This precedent impacts how contracts for complex financial instruments are drafted and litigated, emphasizing that specificity in disclaimers is crucial and that a seller's superior knowledge creates duties that cannot be easily disclaimed.
