ARTICLE
1 August 2014

Court Grants In Part And Denies In Part Nomura’s Motion To Dismiss Trustee Repurchase Action

O
Orrick

Contributor

Orrick logo
Orrick is a global law firm focused on serving the technology & innovation, energy & infrastructure and finance sectors. Founded over 150 years ago, Orrick has offices in 25+ markets worldwide. Financial Times selected Orrick as the Most Innovative Law Firm in North America for three years in a row.
Justice Marcy Friedman granted in part and denied in part Nomura’s motion to dismiss claims brought by HSBC, as Trustee for the NAAC 2006-AF2 RMBS Trust.
United States Corporate/Commercial Law

On July 18, Justice Marcy Friedman of the New York County Supreme Court, Commercial Division, granted in part and denied in part Nomura Credit & Capital Inc.’s motion to dismiss claims brought by HSBC, as Trustee for the NAAC 2006-AF2 RMBS Trust, seeking damages, specific performance and indemnification for alleged breach of contract. Relying on her order from a prior case involving Nomura, Justice Friedman held that the causes of action for damages and specific performance were adequately pled to the extent they were based on Nomura’s alleged breaches of representations and warranties regarding mortgage loans. Justice Friedman held that the relief available to the plaintiff was limited, by operation of the sole remedy provision of the parties’ contract, to specific performance of the repurchase protocol or damages consistent with the protocol’s terms. She thus dismissed plaintiff’s cause of action seeking rescissory damages. Justice Friedman also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that alleged willful misconduct rendered the sole remedy provision unenforceable, holding both that plaintiff failed to adequately allege intentional wrongdoing by Nomura and that the sole remedy provision was not the type of exculpatory clause that could be rendered unenforceable by willful misconduct. Finally, Justice Friedman rejected plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees, holding that the indemnification provision in the parties’ contract did not clearly provide for fee shifting in lawsuits between the parties. Order.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More