UniCredito Italiano SPA v. JPMorgan Chase Bank
2003 WL 22881376, 288 F.Supp.2d 485, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20247 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In transactions between sophisticated financial institutions, specific contractual disclaimers of any duty to disclose information and any reliance on an agent bank for credit analysis will preclude claims for fraudulent concealment and negligent misrepresentation against that agent bank.
Facts:
- Defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank and Citibank participated in and helped structure off-balance-sheet partnerships (LJM partnerships) and 'prepay' transactions for Enron Corporation.
- These transactions were designed to disguise Enron's true debt level and fraudulently inflate its publicly reported financial health.
- Defendants knew that Enron's public financial disclosures, which were provided to potential lenders, were materially misleading and inaccurate as a result of these transactions.
- Plaintiffs UniCredito Italiano SpA and Bank Pekao SA, relying on Enron's public financial statements, agreed to participate as lenders in syndicated credit facilities for Enron.
- Defendants served as Co-Administrative Agents and/or Paying Agents for these syndicated facilities.
- The credit agreements governing the facilities contained explicit provisions stating that each participating bank made its own credit decision independently and without reliance upon the agent banks.
- The agreements also stated that the agent banks had no duty to provide any credit information about Enron to the participating banks and permitted the agents to engage in separate business with Enron without a duty to account for it.
- Shortly before its collapse, Enron drew down the full amount of the credit facilities, resulting in significant losses for the Plaintiffs when Enron declared bankruptcy.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff UniCredito Italiano SpA (UCI) commenced this action against the Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
- UCI filed an Amended Complaint, adding Bank Pekao as a co-plaintiff.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the action or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York.
- The Delaware court granted Defendants' motion to transfer the case.
- In the Southern District of New York, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint.
- Defendants then moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, which is the subject of this opinion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do explicit contractual disclaimers of reliance and waivers of any duty to disclose information, signed by sophisticated financial institutions participating in a syndicated credit facility, bar those institutions from bringing claims of fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation against the facility's agent banks who possessed negative information about the borrower?
Opinions:
Majority - Swain, District Judge
No. The fraud and misrepresentation claims must be dismissed because the express terms of the contracts preclude the Plaintiffs from establishing the essential elements of those claims. The agreements contained specific disclaimers stating that the Defendant banks had no duty to disclose information regarding Enron and that Plaintiffs agreed not to rely on them in making their credit decisions. Because reasonable reliance is a necessary element of fraud, and a duty to disclose is necessary for fraudulent concealment, these claims fail as a matter of law. The 'peculiar knowledge' exception does not apply here; it is meant for fraud between direct counterparties, not to impose a duty on third-party agents when sophisticated lenders have contractually disclaimed reliance and had the ability to conduct their own due diligence. However, the claim for aiding and abetting Enron's fraud survives because it is based on Defendants' alleged substantial assistance in Enron's underlying fraudulent scheme, a distinct legal theory not barred by the contractual disclaimers.
Analysis:
This decision strongly affirms the enforceability of contractual risk allocation among sophisticated commercial parties. By refusing to apply the 'peculiar knowledge' doctrine to a third-party agent in a syndicated loan, the court provides significant legal protection to banks acting as administrative agents, reinforcing that they are not guarantors of the borrower's integrity. The ruling underscores that participants in syndicated financings are expected to perform their own due diligence and will be held to their contractual disclaimers of reliance. It establishes that while an agent bank may be liable for actively aiding a borrower's fraud, it will not be held liable for failing to disclose information to other lenders when that duty has been explicitly disclaimed in the governing contract.
