Ahw Inv. P'ship, MFS, Inc. v. Citigroup Inc.

Decision Date30 October 2013
Docket NumberNos. 09 MD 2070(SHS), 10 Civ. 9646(SHS).,s. 09 MD 2070(SHS), 10 Civ. 9646(SHS).
Citation980 F.Supp.2d 510
PartiesAHW INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP, MFS, Inc., and Angela H. Williams as Trustee of the Angela H. Williams Grantor Retained Annuity Trust UAD March 24, 2006, the Angela Williams Grantor Retained Annuity Trust UAD April 17, 2006, the Angela Williams Grantor Retained Annuity Trust UAD May 9, 2006, the Angela Williams Grantor Retained Annuity Trust UAD November 1, 2007, the Angela Williams Grantor Retained Annuity Trust UAD May 1, 2008, the Angela Williams Grantor Retained Annuity Trust UAD July 1, 2008, and the Angela Williams Grantor Retained Annuity Trust UAD November 21, 2008, Plaintiffs, v. CITIGROUP INC., Charles Prince, Vikram Pandit, Robert Rubin, Robert Druskin, Thomas G. Maheras, Michael Stuart Klein, David C. Bushnell and Gary Crittenden, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

980 F.Supp.2d 510

AHW INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP, MFS, Inc., and Angela H. Williams as Trustee of the Angela H. Williams Grantor Retained Annuity Trust UAD March 24, 2006, the Angela Williams Grantor Retained Annuity Trust UAD April 17, 2006, the Angela Williams Grantor Retained Annuity Trust UAD May 9, 2006, the Angela Williams Grantor Retained Annuity Trust UAD November 1, 2007, the Angela Williams Grantor Retained Annuity Trust UAD May 1, 2008, the Angela Williams Grantor Retained Annuity Trust UAD July 1, 2008, and the Angela Williams Grantor Retained Annuity Trust UAD November 21, 2008, Plaintiffs,
v.
CITIGROUP INC., Charles Prince, Vikram Pandit, Robert Rubin, Robert Druskin, Thomas G. Maheras, Michael Stuart Klein, David C. Bushnell and Gary Crittenden, Defendants.

Nos. 09 MD 2070(SHS), 10 Civ. 9646(SHS).

United States District Court,
S.D. New York.

Oct. 30, 2013.


[980 F.Supp.2d 513]


Kevin Dugald Galbraith, Daniel Fried, Edward H. Glenn, Jr., Jacob H. Zamansky, Kevin D. Galbraith, Zamansky & Associates LLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

[980 F.Supp.2d 514]

Brad Scott Karp, Susanna Michele Buergel, Walter Rieman, Jane Baek O'Brien, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.


OPINION & ORDER
Table of Contents
I.

BACKGROUND

515


II.

DISCUSSION

516
A.

The Claims are Direct, not Derivative.

516
B.

New York Substantive Law Governs the Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation Claims.

518
1.

New York and Florida Law Conflict

519
a.

Negligent Misrepresentation

519
b.

Common Law Fraud

519
2.

New York has a Greater Interest in the Litigation than Florida.

522
C.

New York Law Requires Dismissal of the Action.

524
1.

Plaintiffs' Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Fails Because they have Not Alleged a “Special Relationship.”

524
2.

Plaintiffs' Common Law Fraud Claim Fails Because they have Not Alleged Cognizable Damages Proximately Caused by the Fraud.

525


III.

CONCLUSION

527

SIDNEY H. STEIN, District Judge.

Plaintiffs raise common law claims of negligent misrepresentation and fraud that take the form of what are referred to as “holder” claims: i.e., they allege that they would have sold their Citigroup stock but instead held it to their detriment in reliance on defendants' misleading statements. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that they planned to sell 16.6 million shares of Citigroup stock in May 2007. However, believing defendants' misrepresentations that minimized Citigroup's exposure to its risk from holding residential mortgage-backed securities, they instead held the stock until March 2009 as its price fell by 95%. Defendants have moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1

Defendants principally assert that plaintiffs cannot state a valid claim based on an injury that derives from a contemplated sale in hypothetical market conditions. The motion presents a choice between New York law—which largely prohibits fraud claims by holders of publicly traded securities alleging such an injury—and Florida law—which likely permits those claims. Defendants contend, first, that New York law applies to plaintiffs' claims and, second, that New York law bars recovery here because the alleged damages are speculative and not proximately caused by the misrepresentations. See Starr Found. v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., 76 A.D.3d 25, 901 N.Y.S.2d 246 (1st Dep't 2010). Plaintiffs respond that Florida law applies and permits their claims, and, alternatively, that their claims are actionable pursuant to New York law because they have

[980 F.Supp.2d 515]

pled the contemplated sale with sufficient specificity.

Because New York state has the greater interest in applying its law to govern suits regarding misrepresentations made in New York about stock in a New York-based corporation that is traded on a New York exchange, New York law applies to these claims. Applying New York law, the Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to allege cognizable damages proximately caused by the alleged misrepresentations, and thus dismisses the action.

I. Background

According to the Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”),2 the Citigroup shares at issue trace to non-party Arthur Williams and the 1998 merger between Citicorp and Travelers Group that formed Citigroup. (Compl. ¶¶ 1–3.) Williams “acquired 17.6 million shares of Citigroup common stock valued at approximately $35 per share” as a result of that merger. ( Id. ¶ 3.) By 2007, Williams and his wife Angela had transferred these shares to the plaintiff entities—a partnership, a corporation and a series of trusts ( id.)—all of which the couple controlled ( id. ¶¶ 1, 14–16, 169).

In May 2007, Williams developed a plan “to sell out his entire Citigroup position.” ( Id. ¶ 5.) In forming this plan, Williams and his financial advisors thoroughly “combed through Citigroup's filings and statements” ( id. ¶ 170), examining information that included “conference calls, investor slideshows, earnings releases, public filings and statements from senior officers” ( id. ¶ 169). Williams investigated “whether [Citigroup] had meaningful exposure to the subprime mortgage assets that were beginning to drag down other major players in the financial services sector.” ( Id. ¶ 170.) Although Citigroup had substantial exposure to risky subprime assets throughout 2007, it failed to disclose that exposure until November 2007. ( See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 64–74, 103–09.) Although Williams thus believed that Citigroup's balance sheet was healthy, he nonetheless sold 1 million shares on May 17, 2007 at $55 per share. ( Id. ¶ 170.) However, “[t]rusting that [Citigroup]'s public pronouncements were forthright and that it had no exposure to those ‘toxic’ assets, Williams reversed course [on his plan to fully liquidate] and decided to hold the remainder of his shares.” ( Id. ¶ 170.)

Williams “continually” reconsidered selling the remaining 16.6 million shares “[o]ver the next seventeen months,” only to be deceived into holding them each time. ( Id. ¶ 177.) He reconsidered the sale in July 2007, for example, but decided against it after listening to an earnings call and reviewing “earnings releases and materials downloaded from [Citigroup]'s website.” ( Id. ¶ 209.) Similarly, in January 2008, Williams decided not to sell in reliance on an earnings call in which executives explained further write-downs, but assured investors that “they had a complete understanding of their exposure, and that it was contained and under control.” ( Id. ¶ 223.) The price of Citigroup stock steadily fell as market conditions worsened and news of its exposure to toxic assets, with associated accounting and liquidity issues, trickled out. ( See, e.g., id. ¶ 235 (discussing the effect of “enormous turmoil and uncertainty in the markets”.) “It was not until the end of 2008 that Citigroup's full exposure during the subprime crisis, and the consequences [of] its exposure,

[980 F.Supp.2d 516]

were revealed.” ( Id. ¶ 115.) Williams finally sold the 16.6 million shares at issue for $3.09 per share on March 18, 2009. ( Id. ¶ 250.)

Although plaintiffs cite multiple instances of detrimental reliance on defendants' misstatements after May 2007, they allege that their losses stem in full from their having not sold 16.6 million shares at some time after the executed sale of 1 million shares on May 17, 2007. But plaintiffs claim as damages the price they would have received for all 16.6 million shares on May 17, 2007—the estimated “fraud-free price” of $51.59—less the $3.09 per share they actually received in 2009. ( Id. ¶ 171–72.) Alternatively, they claim out-of-pocket damages based on the $35 value of Citigroup shares at the time of the Travelers merger, not on the estimated May 2007 price. ( Id. ¶ 173.)

II. Discussion

The Court first analyzes whether plaintiffs' claims are actually shareholder derivative claims that they lack shareholder standing to assert on behalf of the corporation. The Court finds the claims are direct and determines that New York law applies to both claims. Finally, the Court finds that New York law requires dismissal of the claims as a matter of law.

A. The Claims are Direct, not Derivative.

The Court rejects defendants' contention that these claims are in reality derivative claims brought on behalf of Citigroup. 3 The parties agree that Delaware law determines whether claims against Citigroup are direct or derivative because Citigroup is incorporated in Delaware. See Seidl v. Am. Century Cos., 713 F.Supp.2d 249, 255 (S.D.N.Y.2010), aff'd,427 Fed.Appx. 35 (2d Cir.2011). Two questions comprise the applicable test in Delaware courts: “(1) who suffered the alleged harm (the corporation or the suing stockholders, individually); and (2) who would receive the benefit of any recovery or other remedy (the corporation or the stockholders, individually)?” Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc., 845 A.2d 1031, 1033 (Del.2004).

Conveniently ignoring the second question entirely, defendants contend that because all shareholders suffered when the price of Citigroup stock fell subsequent to the contemplated May 2007 sale, any claim seeking redress for that loss in value is necessarily derivative. This reasoning invokes the bright-line test that Tooley “expressly disapprove[d],” id. at 1039: that “a suit must be maintained derivatively if the injury falls equally upon all stockholders,” id. at 1037 (abrogating Bokat v. Getty Oil Co., 262 A.2d 246 (Del.1970)). That bright line and defendants' argument mistake a necessary condition for a sufficient one. “[A] direct, individual claim of stockholders that does not depend on harm to the corporation can also fall on all stockholders

[980 F.Supp.2d 517]

equally, without the claim thereby becoming a derivative claim.” Id. These are two such direct claims.

Defendants' contentions to the contrary ignore Tooley 's instruction that “a court should look to the nature of the wrong and to whom the relief should go.” Id. at 1039. In sum, the relevant considerations for the Tooley test are the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • In re AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 31 Marzo 2022
    ... ... Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d ... Cf. MFS/Sun Life Tr.-High Yield Series v. Van Dusen ... See, e.g. , AHW Inv. P'ship v. Citigroup Inc. , 980 F. Supp. 2d 510, ... ...
  • Alley Sports Bar, LLC v. SimplexGrinnell, LP
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • 7 Noviembre 2014
    ... ... Time Warner, Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 773 (2d Cir.1991) ). A court ... See AHW Inv. Partnership v. Citigroup, Inc., 980 F.Supp.2d ... ...
  • Hesse v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 29 Mayo 2020
    ... ... Stewart v. Jackson & Nash , 976 F.2d 86, 90 (2d Cir. 1992) ; AHW Inv. P'ship v. Citigroup, Inc. , 980 F. Supp. 2d 510, 524 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ... ...
  • In re Allianz Global Inv'rs U.S. LLC Alpha Series Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 30 Septiembre 2021
    ... ... v. Daystrom, ... Inc. , 24 N.Y.2d 372, 382 (1969)) ... The LLC ... See AHW ... Inv. P'ship v. Citigroup Inc. , 980 F.Supp.2d 510, ... 524 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), ff'd sub nom. AHW Inv ... P'ship, MFS, Inc. v. Citigroup Inc. , 661 Fed.Appx. 2 ... (2d ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT