Rolo v. City Investing Co. Liquidating Trust

Decision Date19 January 1994
Docket NumberCiv. No. 90-4420 (DRD).
Citation845 F. Supp. 182
PartiesJose and Rosa ROLO; and Dr. William and Roseanne Tenerelli, Plaintiffs, v. CITY INVESTING COMPANY LIQUIDATING TRUST, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Roy A. Heimlich, Herbert I. Deutsch, Vincent R. Coffey, Alfred N. Metz, Deutsch & Frey, New York City, and William O'Brien, Glenn P. Callahan, Callahan, Delany & O'Brien, Voorhees, NJ, for plaintiffs.

Paul M. Dodyk, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, and Bruce Rosen, Matthew P. Boylan, Lowenstein, Sandler, Kohl, Fisher & Boylan, Roseland, NJ, for defendants City Investing Co. Liquidating Trust, AmBase Corp., Carteret Bancorp. Inc., George T. Scharffenberger, Marshall Manley, Edwin I. Hatch and Eben W. Pyne.

Steven M. Edwards, Davis, Scott, Weber & Edwards, P.C., New York City, for defendant David F. Brown.

Joel Hirschhorn, Douglas Centre, Coral Gables, FL, for defendant Robert Ehrling.

Robert T. Wright, Elizabeth C. Barber, Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwody & Cole, Miami, FL, and Joseph L. Buckley and Mark E. Duckstein, Sills, Cummis, Zuckerman, Radin, Tischman, Epstein & Gross, Newark, NJ, for defendants Reubin O'D. Askew, Howard L. Clark Jr., Charles J. Simons and Peter R. Brinckerhoff.

Douglas S. Eakeley, Jeffrey J. Miller, Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti, Morristown, NJ, for defendants Cravath, Swaine & Moore and David G. Ormsby.

Alan J. Kluger, Terri E. Tuchman, Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, P.A., Miami, FL, and Marshall Stoddard, Kelley Drye & Warren, Los Angeles, CA, and Kelley Drye & Warren, New York City, for defendant Greyhound Financial Corp.

Jeffrey S. Cook, Marshall Stoddard and Joseph A. Boyle, Kelley Drye & Warren, Parsippany, NJ, for defendants Greyhound Financial Corp. and Nat. Bank of Canada.

Louis L. Mrachek, Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, for defendant Nat. Bank of Canada.

Robert Young, Carlton, Field, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Orlando, FL, for defendant Harbor Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n.

Faith R. Greenfield, Michael Araten, Blank, Rome, Comisky & McCauley, Cherry Hill, NJ, for defendants The Oxford Finance Companies, Oxford First Trust Corp. and Harbor Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n.

Marbury Rainer, Jay Basham, Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, Atlanta, GA, and James A. Scarpone, Stephen L. Dreyfuss, Hellring, Lindeman, Goldstein & Siegal, Newark, NJ, for defendant Stanchart Business Credit, Inc.

David T. Eames, G. Wade Leak, Bodian & Eames New York City, and Paul Brickfield, Hackensack, NJ, for defendant Lloyds Bank.

John W. Little, Steel, Hector & Davis, West Palm Beach, FL, and Joseph J. Schiavone, Budd Larner Gross Rosenbaum Greenberg & Sade, P.C., Short Hills, NJ, for defendant Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n.

George Kielman, Sr. Counsel, Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp., McLean, VA, and Gerald T. Ford, Siff, Rosen & Parker, Newark, NJ, for defendant Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp.

Laura Besvinick, Greer Homer & Bonner, Miami, FL, and Edward J. Boccher, Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander & Ferdon, Parsippany, NJ, for defendant Citizens and Southern Trust Co. (Florida), Nat. Ass'n (Nations Bank).

Vincent E. Reilly, McElroy, Deutsch & Mulvaney, Morristown, NJ, for defendant Secor Nat. Bank.

Herschel E. Sparks Jr., Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, Miami, FL, and Norman C. Kleinberg, Susan Epstein, Steven Hammond, Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, New York City, and Clyde A. Szuch, Pitney, Hardin Kipp & Szuch, Morristown, NJ, for defendant the Home Ins. Co.

Gerald J. Houlihan, Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, Miami, FL, and Harold I. Braff, Keith Harris, Braff, Harris & Sukoneck, Livingston, NJ, for defendant Chase Federal Bank.

Howard B. Levi, Kornstein Veisz & Wexler, New York City, and Robert Klivane, First Nat. Bank of Boston Law Office, Boston, MA, and Steven I. Adler, Cole, Schotz, Bernstein, Meisel & Forman, Hackensack, NJ, for defendant First Nat. Bank of Boston.

Paul G. Gizzi, Mary B. Corrarino, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, New York City, for defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.

Kevin M. Hart, Stark & Stark, P.C., Princeton, NJ, for F.D.I.C., as receiver for defendant Southeast Bank, N.A.

Louis W. Childress, Brown & Childress, East Orange, NJ, and Peter J. Pizzi, John H. Denton, Connell, Foley & Geiser, Roseland, NJ, for R.T.C., as receiver for defendant Carteret Sav. Bank, F.A.

George J. Wade, Thomas F. Swift, F. Russell DuPuy, Shearman & Sterling, New York City, and Steven M. Richman, Herrick, Feinstein, Princeton, NJ, for defendant Citicorp Real Estate, Inc.

Steven H. Reisberg, Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, New York City, and Robert E. Bartkus, Pinto, Rodgers & Kopf, Morristown, NJ, for defendant Prudential Ins. Co. of America.

James J. Hagan, Bruce D. Angiolillo, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, New York City, and James M. Altieri, Shanley & Fisher, P.C., Morristown, NJ, for defendant Paine-Webber Inc.

OPINION

DEBEVOISE, District Judge.

                                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                                              PAGE
                  I. INTRODUCTION                                                               193
                 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE                                                     194
                III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY                                                         194
                 IV. THE PARTIES                                                                195
                     A. THE PLAINTIFFS                                                          195
                     B. THE DEFENDANTS                                                          195
                  V. FACTUAL HISTORY                                                            196
                     A. THE GDC SCHEME                                                          196
                        1. Targeting Prospective Lot Purchasers                                 197
                        2. House Sales Schemes                                                  198
                        3. Purchaser Defaults and GDC Recycling of Lots                         199
                     B. THE ALLEGED PARTICIPANTS IN THE SCHEME                                  201
                        1. The City Defendants                                                  201
                        2. The Inside Director Defendants and Director Defendants               205
                        3. The Financing Defendants                                             206
                        4. The Mortgagee Defendants                                             208
                        5. The Lot Contract Defendants                                          211
                        6. Cravath and Ormsby                                                   211
                 VI. DISCUSSION                                                                 212
                     A. MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(b)(2)                                   213
                     B. MOTIONS TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(b)(6)                                  216
                        1. Standard of Review                                                   216
                        2. Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (Count III)                217
                           a. Aider and Abettor Liability under the Land Sales Act              217
                           b. Disposition of Motions to Dismiss                                 220
                           c. Statute of Limitations                                            223
                           d. Summary of Count III Rulings                                      224
                        3. Civil RICO (Count I)                                                 224
                           a. The Amended Complaint                                             225
                           b. The Revised RICO Allegations                                      226
                              i. Primary Liability under the Revised RICO Allegations           227
                             ii. Aider and Abettor Liability under the Revised RICO
                                 Allegations                                                    230
                           c. Statute of Limitations                                            234
                        4. Securities Laws (Count II)                                           235
                           a. The Instruments are Not Securities                                236
                           b. Statute of Limitations                                            243
                        5. Common Law Fraud (Count VII)                                         246
                 VII. CONCLUSION                                                                247
                
I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs in this action are Jose and Rosa Rolo and Dr. William and Roseanne Tenerelli. They seek money damages and equitable relief on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others who purchased lots and/or houses in Florida from General Development Corporation ("GDC") and GDV Financial Corporation ("GDV") and who are members of the North Port Out-of-State Lot Owner Association (the "Association").

In general terms, the First Amended Complaint charges that GDC and its related corporations engaged in a nationwide fraudulent marketing scheme to induce plaintiffs and other members of the Association to purchase lots and houses in Florida at inflated prices. The defendants in this case are various corporate entities and individuals who, plaintiffs allege, participated in the scheme.

There are presently pending a variety of defense motions addressed to jurisdiction and to the complaint. City Trust, AmBase, Scharffenberger, Manley, Hatch and Pyne also move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2). Similarly defendants Askew, Brinckerhoff, Clark and Simons, who were outside directors, moved for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2). There is also pending plaintiffs' motion for class certification. This opinion addresses the defense motions. The class certification motion is rendered moot by the disposition of the defense motions.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America Sales Prac.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • May 10, 1996
    ...the statute of limitations it sets forth is a substantive requirement rather than a procedural one. Rolo v. City Investing Co. Liquidating Trust, 845 F.Supp. 182, 243 n. 38 (D.N.J.1994); Kress v. Hall-Houston Oil Co., 1993 WL 166274, *2 (D.N.J.) (Wolin, J.).10 Prudential asserts, and this C......
  • In re Mobilemedia Securities Litigation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • October 21, 1998
    ...district have clearly adopted the inquiry notice standard." Prudential Sales, 975 F.Supp. at 599 (citing Rolo v. City Investing Co. Liquidating Trust, 845 F.Supp. 182, 243 (D.N.J.1993)). Accordingly, the one year period runs from the date plaintiffs were on inquiry notice of the claims agai......
  • McKowan Lowe & Co., Ltd. v. Jasmine Ltd., No. 94-CV-5522.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • June 30, 2000
    ...limitations period applies as with claims brought under § 11 of the 1933 Act" and citing for support Rolo v. City Investing Co. Liquidating Trust, 845 F.Supp. 182, 243-44 (D.N.J.1993)9 ("Accordingly, to have a timely securities fraud claim, plaintiffs here need to allege that (1) they did n......
  • Hayden v. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • February 20, 1997
    ...acts, may still be liable for a RICO violation. See id. at 1528 n. 17 (emphasis added); see also Rolo v. City Investing Co. Liquidating Trust, 845 F.Supp. 182, 230-32 (D.N.J.1994) (only inside directors and certain top officers who participated in the operation or management of the enterpri......
  • 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