Beach v. Touradji Capital Mgmt., LP

• Decision Date: 11 August 2016
• Parties: Gentry T. BEACH, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants–Respondents, v. TOURADJI CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP, et al., Defendants–Respondents–Appellants. Touradji Capital Management, LP, et al., Counterclaim Plaintiffs–Respondents–Appellants, v. Gentry T. Beach, et al., Counterclaim Defendants–Appellants–Respondents. Touradji Capital Management, LP, et al., Counterclaim Plaintiffs–Respondents–Appellants, v. Vollero Beach Capital Partners LLC, et al., Counterclaim Defendants–Appellants–Respondents, Gary Beach, Counterclaim Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

142 A.D.3d 442
36 N.Y.S.3d 637
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05777

Gentry T. BEACH, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants–Respondents,
v.
TOURADJI CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP, et al., Defendants–Respondents–Appellants.

Touradji Capital Management, LP, et al., Counterclaim Plaintiffs–Respondents–Appellants,
v.
Gentry T. Beach, et al., Counterclaim Defendants–Appellants–Respondents.

Touradji Capital Management, LP, et al., Counterclaim Plaintiffs–Respondents–Appellants,
v.
Vollero Beach Capital Partners LLC, et al., Counterclaim Defendants–Appellants–Respondents,

Gary Beach, Counterclaim Defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Aug. 11, 2016.

36 N.Y.S.3d 639

Liddle & Robinson, LLP, New York (Matthew J. McDonald of counsel), for appellants-respondents.

O'Brien LLP, New York (Sean R. O'Brien of counsel), for respondents-appellants.

TOM, J.P., RICHTER, GISCHE, WEBBER, JJ.

142 A.D.3d 443

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered April 18, 2014, which granted in part and denied in part counterclaim plaintiffs' motion to amend their counterclaims, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to deny so much of the motion that sought to add (1) an allegation to the breach of fiduciary duty counterclaim (Count One) about plaintiff/counterclaim defendant Robert Vollero's conversation with plaintiff/counterclaim defendant Gentry Beach's lawyer, (2) an allegation to the breach of fiduciary duty counterclaim (Count One) about Vollero's destruction of documents, as against Beach, and (3) a counterclaim for tortious interference with contract (Count Ten), as against Vollero, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The new counterclaim for tortious interference with defendant/counterclaim plaintiff Touradji Capital Management's contract with nonparty Benjamin Bram relates back to the original counterclaims (see CPLR 203[f] ; Jennings–Purnell v. Jennings, 107 A.D.3d 513, 968 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept.2013] ; Giambrone v. Kings Harbor Multicare Ctr., 104 A.D.3d 546, 548, 961 N.Y.S.2d 157 [1st Dept.2013] ). The original counterclaims gave plaintiffs ample notice that counterclaim plaintiffs were complaining about plaintiffs' allegedly false statements regarding Touradji Capital's dealings with Amaranth. Plaintiffs' alleged inducement of Bram to make false statements to an investigator about Touradji Capital's dealings with Amaranth, i.e., the new tortious interference counterclaim, is part and parcel of the Amaranth transaction or occurrence mentioned in the original counterclaims. However, the amended counterclaims lack factual allegations that Vollero induced Bram to breach his contract with Touradji Capital or that Vollero conspired with Beach with respect to this deed. Hence, Touradji Capital should not be allowed to assert this counterclaim against Vollero.

142 A.D.3d 444

So much of the breach of fiduciary duty counterclaim as is based on plaintiffs' violation of Rule 105 of Regulation M of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is subject to a three-year rather than a six-year statute of limitations (see IDT Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 N.Y.3d 132, 139, 879 N.Y.S.2d 355, 907 N.E.2d 268 [2009] ). Counterclaim plaintiffs'...