We Represent the Citco Defendants in the Action Referenced Above
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al Doc. 1348 PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP MATTHEW W. ABBOTT MEREDITH J. KANE ALLAN J. ARFFA ROBERTA A. KAPLAN ROBERT A. ATKINS BRADS. KARP DAVID J. BALL PATRICK N. KARSNITZ 1285 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS UNIT 3601, OFFICE TOWER A, BEIJING FORTUNE PLAZA JOHN F. BAUGHMAN JOHN C. KENNEDY LYNN B. BAYARD ALAN W. KORNBERG NEW YORK, NEW YORK 1001 9-6064 NO. 7 DONGSANHUAN ZHONGLU DANIEL J BELLER DANIEL J. KRAMER CHAOYANG DISTRICT CRAIG A. BENSON DAVID K LAKHDHIR TELEPHONE (212) 373-3000 MITCHELL L. BERG STEPHEN P LAMB• BEIJING I 00020 MARK S. BERGMAN JOHN E. LANGE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA BRUCE BIRENBOIM DANIEL J. LEFFELL LLOYD K. GARRISON ( 1946-1991) H. CHRISTOPHER BOEHNING XIAOYU GREG LIU TELEPHONE (86-10) 5828-6300 ANGELO BONVINO JEFFREY D. MARELL RANDOLPH E. PAUL ( 1946-1956) JAMES L BROCHIN MARCO V. MASOTTI RICHARD J. BRONSTEIN EDWIN S. MAYNARD SIMON H. RIFKINO ( 1950-1995) DAVID W. BROWN DAVID W. MAYO LOUIS S. WEISS ( 1927-1950) I 2TH FLOOR, HONG KONG CLUB BUILDING SUSANNA M. BUERGEL ELIZABETH R. MCCOLM 3A CHATER ROAD, CENTRAL PATRICK 5. CAMPBELL* MARK F. MENDELSOHN JOHN F. WHARTON (1927-1977) JESSICA$. CAREY WILLIAM B MICHAEL HONG KONG JEANETTE K. CHAN TOBY S. MYERSON YVONNE Y. F. CHAN TELEPHONE (852} 2846-0300 CATHERINE NYARAOY LEWIS R. CLAYTON JANE B O'BRIEN JAY COHEN ALEX YOUNG K OH KELLEY A. CORNISH BRAD R. OKUN ALDER CASTLE CHRISTOPHER J. CUMMINGS KELLEY D PARKER CHARLES E DAVIDOW MARC E PERLMUTTER I 0 NOBLE STREET DOUGLAS R. DAVIS VALERIE E RADWANER WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER LONDON EC2V 7JU, U.K. THOMAS V DE LA BASTIDE 111 CARLL. REISNER ARIEL J. DECKELaAUM WALTER G. RICCIARDI TELEPHONE f 44 20) 7367 t 600 ALICE BELISLE EATON WALTER RIEMAN ANDREW J. EHRLICH RICHARD A. ROSEN 212-373-3260 GREGORY A. EZRI NG ANDREW N. ROSENBERG LESLIE GORDON FAGEN JACQUELINE P. RUBIN FUKOKU SEIMEI BUILDING MARC FALCONE RAPHAEL M. RUSSO WRITER'S DIRECT FACSIMILE 2-2 UCHISAJWAICHO 2-CHOME ROSS A FIELDSTON JEFFREY D SAFERSTEIN ANDREW C. FINCH JEFFREY B. SAMUELS CHJYODA-KU, TOKYO 100-0011, JAPAN BRAD J. FINKELSTEIN DALE M. SARRO BRIAN P. FINNEGAN TERRYE. SCHIMEK 212-492-0260 TELEPHONE (81-3) 3597-8101 ROBERTO FINZI KENNETH M. SCHNEIDER PETER E. FISCH ROBERT B. SCHUMER ROBERT C FLEDER JAMES H. SCHWAB WRITER'S DIRECT E-MAIL ADDRESS TORONTO-DOMINION CENTRE MARTIN FLUMENBAUM JOHN M. SCOTT ANDREW J. FOLEY STEPHEN J. SHIMSHAK 77 KING STREET WEST, SUITE 31 00 HARRIS B. FREIDUS DAVID R SICULAR MANUEL S. FREY MOSES S:LVERMAN [email protected] PO BOX 226 ANDREW L. GAINES STEVEN SIMKIN TORONTO, ONTARIO MSK tJ3 KENNETH A. GALLO JOSEPH J. SIMONS MICHAELE. GERTZMAN MARILYN SOBEL TELEPHONE (416) 504-0520 ADAM M GIVERTZ AUDRA J. SOLOWAY SALVATORE GOGLIORMELLA SCOTT M. SONTAG ROBERT D. GOLDBAUM TARUN M. STEWART NEIL GOLDMAN ERIC ALAN STONE 2001 K STREET, NW ERIC S. GOLDSTEIN AIDAN SYNNOTT WASHINGTON, DC 20006-1047 ERIC GOODISON ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY CHARLES H. GOOGE, JR. MONICA K. THURMOND TELEPHONE (202) 223-7300 ANDREW G. GORDON DANIEL J. TOAL UDIGROFMAN LIZA M VELAZQUEZ NICHOLAS GROOMBRIDGE MARIA T. VULLO December 24, 2014 BRUCE A. GUTENPLAN 500 DELAWARE AVENUE, SUITE 200 ALEXANDRA M. WALSH* GAINES GWATHMEY, 111 LAWRENCE G WEE POST OFFICE BOX 32 ALAN S. HALPERIN THEODORE V. WELLS, JR. JUSTING. HAMILL BETH A. WILKINSON WILMINGTON, DE 19899-0032 CLAUDIA HAMMERMAN STEVEN J WILLIAMS TELEPHONE (302J 655-4410 GERARD E. HARPER LAWRENCE I. WITOORCHIC BRIANS. HERMANN MARK 8. WLAZLO The Honorable Victor Marrero ROBERT M. HIRSH JULIA MASON WOOD MICHELE HIRSHMAN JORDAN E. YARETT MICHAELS. HONG KAYE N. YOSHINO United States District Judge DAVIDS. HUNTINGTON TONG YU LORETTA A. IPPOLITO TRACEY A. ZACCONE Daniel Patrick Moynihan JAREN JANGHORBANI T. ROBERT ZOCHOWSKI, JR. United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street, Room 1040 New York, New York 10007-1312 ZA[QQHGセ@ |セセ@ セ|ᄋZ@ '! Anwar, et al. v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited,' セGエセjNセcN@ l ャセ@ ( )\. :c. \ [ _L'i' 1·! iNエセd@ . ' I lU(' tt· No. 09-cv-118 (S.D.N.Y.) (VM) (FM)i I - r · ----------f_r; [LセセMᄋM ;セAセセᄋセtャ@ -! A⦅⦅i⦅セ@ iセ^@ __L!_Jf.-'J ___ _ MMMMセMMᄋᄋ@ Dear Judge Marrero: L:::------· .. -- H We represent the Citco Defendants in the action referenced above. A recent summary order of the Second Circuit, Elendow Fund, LLC v. Rye Investment Management, No. 13-3642-cv, 2014 WL 7090618 (2d. Cir. Dec. 16, 2014) (copy enclosed as Exhibit A), aff'g No. 10 Civ. 9061, 2013 WL 5179064 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2013) (copy enclosed as Exhibit B), further demonstrates that plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification should be denied. In particular, Elendow further supports the Citco Defendants' argument that plaintiffs' common-law holder claims do not satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s superiority requirement because those claims are derivative, not direct, in nature. (See the Citco Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification ("Citco Opp. Br."), filed under seal on Sept. 15, 2014, at 18-22, ECF No. 1323.). In Elendow, the plaintiff investor (Elendow) invested money in the Rye Select Broad Market XL Fund (the "XL Fund"), a Madofffeeder fund. Like Anwar, Elendow involved, among other claims, a claim for breach of fiduciary duty based on the allegation that a plaintiff investor "purchased and/or held interests" in an investment fund as a result of the fund's failure to provide complete and accurate disclosures. (Elendow Compl. irir 156-58, No. 10 Civ. 9061 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 21.) The fund, in turn, Dockets.Justia.com PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP The Honorable Victor Marrero 2 United States District Judge had exposure to assets managed by Bernard Madoff and collapsed when his frauds were revealed. 1 In dismissing the claim for breach of fiduciary duty, the district court held that the "holder" claim for breach of fiduciary duty was derivative in nature. Elendow, 2013 WL 5179064, at *9. Significantly, the district court rejected Elendow's argument "that its injury was separate from its pro rata share of the injury to the XL Fund because defendants breached their fiduciary duties to it while inducing it to invest." Id. The district court reasoned that any fiduciary duty arose only after Elendow had invested in the XL Fund and that Elendow therefore could not predicate this claim on alleged breaches "when it was still merely a prospective investor." Id. The district court further reasoned that Elendow had no standing to assert the holder claim "[t]o the extent the complaint claims that defendants breached their fiduciary duties ... in their management of the XL Fund after Elendow ... joined as a limited partner" because such a claim could be brought only derivatively under Delaware law.2 Id. In affirming the district court's ruling that the "holder" claim for breach of fiduciary duty was derivative under Delaware law, the Second Circuit explained: El endow' s damages would be measured by the difference between the values of its investments before and after the XL Fund suffered losses in its Madoff investments. As Elendow's injury is intertwined with the XL Fund's injury, Elendow's action may be brought only as a derivative action. See Feldman v. Cutaia, 951 A.2d 727, 733 (Del. 2008). Elendow, 2014 WL 7090618, at *2. Like the Elendow plaintiff, the Anwar plaintiffs seek damages based on alleged mismanagement that purportedly caused the dissipation of fund assets. (Citco Opp. Br. 20-21.) Accordingly, as in Elendow, the Anwar plaintiffs' alleged injury is Although the Elendow plaintiff asserted other common-law claims, including fraud and negligent- misrepresentation claims, those claims were purchase-based inducement claims, not holder claims, and were dismissed on other grounds. See Elendow, 2014 WL 7090618, at *1-2; Elendow, 2013 WL 5179064, at *7-9; Elendow Compl. セセ@ 134, 136-38, 143. In contrast, here, all of the Anwar plaintiffs' common-law claims are holder claims based on allegations of fund mismanagement while plaintiffs were fund investors. (See Citco Opp. Br. 20-21.) 2 The Elendow parties did not dispute that the breach of fiduciary duty claim was governed by Delaware law because, under New York Partnership Law§ 121-901, "the laws of the jurisdiction under which a foreign limited partnership is organized govern its organization and internal affairs." (See Citco Opp. Br. 19.) Although this Court previously concluded that New York law applied to plaintiffs' holder claims, it did not consider New York Partnership Law§ 121-901. Under applicable choice-of-law rules, Delaware and British Virgin Islands law govern whether plaintiffs' common-law holder claims for the funds at issue are direct or derivative in nature. (Citco Opp. Br. 18-20.) In all events, plaintiffs' holder claims are derivative under New York law. (Id. at 20 n.29.) PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP The Honorable Victor Marrero 3 United States District Judge intertwined with the funds' alleged injuries, and the holder claims should be dismissed for the same reason-namely, because they are derivative. We also note that in both the district court and the Second Circuit, the Elendow plaintiff relied on this Court's prior ruling on the motions to dismiss to argue that its claim for breach of fiduciary duty in Elendow was direct in nature. (See Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the XL Fund's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint at 2, No. 10 Civ. 09061 (S.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 70 (citing Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 728 F. Supp. 2d 372, 402 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)); Reply Br.