1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANx)
James L. Sanders (SBN 126291) [email protected] David M. Halbreich (SBN 138926) [email protected] REED SMITH LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel: 213-457-8000 Fax: 213-457-8080 Amy J. Greer (pro hac vice) [email protected] Jennifer L. Achilles (pro hac vice) [email protected] REED SMITH LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Tel: 212-521-5400 Fax: 212-521-5450 Attorneys for Defendants Countrywide Financial Corporation; Countrywide Capital Markets LLC; Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; Countrywide Securities Corporation; CWABS, Inc.; CWALT, Inc.; CWHEQ, Inc.; and CWMBS, Inc.
Marc T.G. Dworsky (SBN 157413) [email protected] Stephen M. Kristovich (SBN 82164) [email protected] Richard C. St. John (SBN 202560) [email protected] MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel: 213-683-9100 Fax: 213-687-3702 David H. Fry (SBN 189276) [email protected] MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Tel: 415-512-4000 Fax: 415-644-6982 Attorneys for Defendants Bank of America Corporation; Banc of America Securities LLC; Bank of America, National Association; NB Holdings Corporation; Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.; and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN RE COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP. MORTGAGE- BACKED SECURITIES LITIGATION
Case No. 11-ML-02265-MRP (MANx)
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANx) REDACTED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER DATED MARCH 4, 2013 DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS ASSIGNED TO MAIDEN LANE II LLC
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:16086
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
-i-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY .............................................................................. 3
III. THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE EXECUTION OF THE APA AND THE PURPOSES OF THE PARTIES IN ENTERING INTO THE CONTRACT. ................................................................................. 4
A. AIG Was In Crisis—Its Survival Was At Stake. .................................... 4
B. Maiden Lane II Was Structured to “De-Risk” AIG While Still Protecting Taxpayers. .............................................................................. 7
1. The Structure of Maiden Lane II .................................................. 7
2. .......... 8
C. .......... 9
D. The Competing Understandings of the Term “All Right, Title and Interest in and to the Related Instruments.” ................................... 12
1. ........... 13
2. ................. 16
E. AIG Received Far More than It Could Have Obtained Selling the RMBS in the Market. ............................................................................ 17
IV. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 19
A. AIG Bears the Burden of Establishing Jurisdiction. ............................. 19
B. AIG Cannot Meet Its Burden of Showing that It Owns the Claims. .................................................................................................. 20
1. The Circumstances of the Execution of the APA and the Purposes of the Parties Support the FRBNY’s Reading of the Contract. ................................................................................ 20
2. The Language of the APA Cannot Be Reconciled With AIG’s Reading. ........................................................................... 22
3. AIG’s Reliance on the Draft Term Sheet Is Misplaced. ............. 25
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 2 of 31 Page ID #:16087
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
-ii-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 25
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 3 of 31 Page ID #:16088
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
-iii-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
FEDERAL CASES
Banque Arabe et Internationale D’Investissement v. Maryland Nat. Bank, 57 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 1995) ................................................................................. 24
Cobalt Multifamily Investors I, LLC v. Bridge Capital (USVI), LLC, 2007 WL 2584926 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2007) ..................................................... 24
Compania Embotelladora del Pacifico, S.A. v. Pepsi Cola Co., 607 F. Supp. 2d 600 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ................................................................ 24
Gruppo, Levey & Co. v. ICOM Info. & Commc’ns, 2003 WL 21511943 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2003)..................................................... 22
In re Delta Air Lines, Inc., 608 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2010) ............................................................................... 20
Kingman Reef Atoll Investments, L.L.C. v. United States, 541 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 19
Lowenson v. London Market Companies, 351 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2003) ................................................................................. 24
Pittsburgh Coke & Chem. Co. v. Bollo, 421 F. Supp. 908 (E.D.N.Y. 1976) ..................................................................... 20
Thornhill Pub. Co., Inc. v. General Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1979) .............................................................................. 19
White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 19
STATE CASES
Aron v. Gillman, 309 N.Y. 157 (1955) ....................................................................................... 3, 20
Citibank, N.A. v. 666 Fifth Avenue Ltd. Partnership, 2 A.D.3d 331 (2003) ........................................................................................... 20
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 4 of 31 Page ID #:16089
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
Page(s)
-iv-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
Cromwell Towers Redevelopment Co. v. City of Yonkers, 41 N.Y.2d 1 (1976) ............................................................................................. 20
Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection v. Bank Leumi Trust Co., 94 N.Y.2d 398 (2000) ......................................................................................... 23
Shadlich v. Rongrant Assocs., 66 A.D.3d 759 (2009) ......................................................................................... 20
Two Guys From Harrison-N.Y., Inc. v. S.F.R. Realty Assocs., 63 N.Y.2d 396 (1984) ......................................................................................... 22
FEDERAL RULES
Rule 12(b)(1) ............................................................................................................ 19
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 5 of 31 Page ID #:16090
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
I. INTRODUCTION
In its January 30, 2013 Order, the Court found that the Asset Purchase
Agreement (“APA”) between AIG and Maiden Lane II LLC was ambiguous with
respect to whether AIG’s tort claims were being sold to Maiden Lane II. The Court
also noted that “the evidence submitted by the parties does not include sufficient
factual material to determine the intent of the parties, since it does not ‘give due
consideration to the circumstances surrounding’ the execution of the Asset Purchase
Agreement, or ‘to the purpose of the parties in making the contract.’” Dkt. No. 208
at 2; see also Dkt. No. 222 at 1. At the Court’s direction, the parties have now taken
discovery concerning the formation of the APA and the resulting evidence strongly
supports the understanding of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s
(“FRBNY”)—reflected in the sworn declaration of James Mahoney—that AIG
transferred to Maiden Lane II all transferrable or assignable benefits, including
litigation claims, associated with the RMBS.
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 6 of 31 Page ID #:16091
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
This is precisely the sort of contract interpretation that New York courts routinely
reject as “insupportable.”
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 7 of 31 Page ID #:16092
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
In short, the circumstances under which the contract was made, the purposes
of the parties in entering into the transaction, and the language the parties used all
point to the same conclusion: the APA gave Maiden Lane II all assignable rights
that AIG possessed relating to these securities, including its litigation claims.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 7, 2012, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint,
arguing that, as a matter of law, AIG had assigned the bulk of its claims to Maiden
Lane II. Dkt. No. 163 at 14-16. On November 27, 2012, AIG filed its opposition,
arguing that Defendants construction of the APA was incorrect as a matter of law,
but alternatively that an exchange of correspondence with the FRBNY undermined
Defendants’ reading of the contract. Dkt. No. 177 at 7-18. On December 21, 2012,
Defendants filed their reply, renewing their argument that the APA unambiguously
transferred the claims, but also submitting evidence refuting AIG’s contention that
the FRBNY shared its understanding of the contract. Dkt. Nos. 189, 191.
The Court heard argument on the motion to dismiss on January 29, 2013. On
January 30, 2013, the Court issued an order finding that it could not, as a matter of
law, state either that the APA did or did not transfer tort claims from AIG to Maiden
Lane II. Dkt. No. 208. The Court noted that New York law permits consideration
of extrinsic evidence to determine the meaning of an ambiguous contract and that
the parties had submitted some extrinsic evidence, but that the evidence submitted
did not “‘give due consideration to the circumstances surrounding’ the execution of
the Asset Purchase Agreement or ‘to the purpose of the parties in making the
contract.’” Id. at 2 (quoting Aron v. Gillman, 309 N.Y. 157, 163 (1955)).
Following the Court’s direction, the parties and the FRBNY engaged in a
limited period of discovery between February 4, 2013 and March 21, 2013. In
response to a subpoena from AIG, the FRBNY produced 17,498 pages of
documents. Two FRBNY witnesses, Steven Manzari and James Mahoney, were
deposed on March 15 and March 18, respectively. AIG produced 3,644 pages of
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 8 of 31 Page ID #:16093
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
documents in response to an informal document request by Defendants. AIG also
selected one of its in-house lawyers, Ronald Edward Holmes, and a former AIG
executive, Christopher Swift, as its witnesses in connection with this issue and they
were deposed on March 19 and March 21, respectively.
The Court has requested briefing on the “circumstances surrounding’ the
execution of the [APA]” and “the purpose of the parties in making the contract,” and
Defendants accordingly have directed this memorandum to those topics.
Notwithstanding the Court’s directives, AIG has pursued discovery far beyond the
circumstances surrounding formation of the APA and Defendants anticipate that
AIG’s brief will similarly exceed the issue identified in the Court’s January 30, 2013
Order. Defendants of course are prepared to address any issues concerning events
subsequent to the execution of the APA and request the opportunity to do so if the
Court determines any such events merit examination.
III. THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE EXECUTION OF THE APA AND THE PURPOSES OF THE PARTIES IN ENTERING INTO THE CONTRACT.
A. AIG Was In Crisis—Its Survival Was At Stake.
As AIG itself explained in its 2008 Annual Report, the company “faced an
acute liquidity crisis” in September 2008. Declaration of David H. Fry (“Fry
Decl.”) Ex. 5 at 1. The principal sources of this liquidity crisis were: (1) collateral
calls relating to AIG Financial Product’s (“AIGFP”) portfolio of multi-sector CDO
credit default swaps (“CDS”); and (2) AIG’s securities lending portfolio. Id. at 40.
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 9 of 31 Page ID #:16094
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
AIG’s liquidity issues came to a head on September 15, 2008, when the rating
agencies downgraded AIG’s debt. Fry Decl. Ex. 5 at 4 (of Form 10-K). These
downgrades “trigger[ed] additional collateral calls and cash requirements in excess
of $20 billion.” Id. at 1.
By late in the day on September 16,
2008, when “it was clear that AIG had no viable private sector solution to its
liquidity issues,” AIG’s Board of Directors approved borrowing from the FRBNY.
Fry Decl. Ex. 5 at 5 (of Form 10-K). AIG took out an $85 billion loan from the
FRBNY, which AIG later said “was essential to prevent an AIG bankruptcy, which
would have caused incalculable damage to AIG, our economy and the global
financial system.” Fry Decl. Ex. 6 at Ex. 99.2. That loan was for two years and had
an interest rate of LIBOR plus 850 basis points (8.5%). Fry Decl. Ex. 7.
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 10 of 31 Page ID #:16095
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
In fact, AIG’s third quarter loss ended up being even larger—more than $24
billion. Fry Decl. Ex. 6 at Ex. 99.1, p. 1.
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 11 of 31 Page ID #:16096
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve devised a four-part
program to address these challenges: (1) using funds from the Troubled Asset
Relief Program (“TARP”), the Treasury would purchase $40 billion in preferred
shares of AIG stock; (2) the $85 billion loan would be reduced to $60 billion, the
term would be extended from 2 years to 5 years, and the rate would be reduced from
LIBOR plus 850 basis points to LIBOR plus 300 basis points; (3) using funds
loaned by the FRBNY, a special purpose vehicle (which became Maiden Lane II
LLC) would purchase the RMBS held by AIG’s securities lending business,
allowing that business to be terminated; and (4) another special purpose vehicle
(Maiden Lane III LLC) would purchase the CDOs that AIGFP had insured under its
CDS program, allowing AIG to terminate the CDS contracts. Fry Decl. Ex. 11.
The restructuring plan was announced on November
10, 2008, at the same time AIG announced its third quarter earnings report. Fry
Decl. Exs. 6, 11.
B. Maiden Lane II Was Structured to “De-Risk” AIG While Still Protecting Taxpayers.
1. The Structure of Maiden Lane II
The Maiden Lane II transaction fundamentally did two things to address
AIG’s crisis—it provided AIG with cash to repay its securities lending
counterparties (including amounts owed to the FRBNY under its securities lending
facility) and it removed a large portfolio of RMBS from AIG’s balance sheet, so the
company was no longer subject to mark-to-market losses on those securities. The
basic structure of the transaction was as follows:
• Maiden Lane II LLC was created, with the FRBNY as its sole member; 2
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 12 of 31 Page ID #:16097
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
• The FRBNY loaned Maiden Lane II $19.8 billion, at an interest rate of one-month LIBOR plus 100 basis points (the “Senior Loan”).
• AIG transferred to Maiden Lane II a portfolio of RMBS (along with “all right, title and interest in and to all Related Instruments”);
• AIG received the right to be paid $1 billion plus interest at one-month LIBOR plus 300 basis points after the Senior Loan had been fully repaid (the “Fixed Deferred Purchase Price”);
• After the Senior Loan and Fixed Deferred Purchase Price (including interest) had been paid, AIG and the FRBNY would split any residual profits of Maiden Lane II, with AIG receiving 1/6th and FRBNY receiving 5/6th.
Fry Decl. Ex. 5 at 41-42, Ex. 12 at 29, 31.
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 13 of 31 Page ID #:16098
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
3
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 14 of 31 Page ID #:16099
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-10-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 15 of 31 Page ID #:16100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-11-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
4
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 16 of 31 Page ID #:16101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-12-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
D. The Competing Understandings of the Term “All Right, Title and Interest in and to the Related Instruments.”
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 17 of 31 Page ID #:16102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-13-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 18 of 31 Page ID #:16103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-14-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
5 AIG pointedly chose not to depose any lawyer who represented the FRBNY in connection with the APA, while at the same time it did choose an in-house AIG lawyer as one of its two AIG witnesses.
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 19 of 31 Page ID #:16104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-15-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 20 of 31 Page ID #:16105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-16-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
6
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 21 of 31 Page ID #:16106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-17-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
E. AIG Received Far More than It Could Have Obtained Selling the RMBS in the Market.
AIG has repeatedly asserted that it could not have been transferring its
litigation claims because it received no consideration for them—only the “market”
price of the RMBS. That assertion is wrong on every level.
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 22 of 31 Page ID #:16107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-18-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
The Maiden Lane II transaction
would have made no sense if AIG could have sold the portfolio in the market at the
same price. If AIG could have done that, it would have gotten just as much cash to
pay out to its securities lending counterparties, would still have removed the
securities’ mark-to-market volatility from its balance sheet, and would have done so
without any risk to the taxpayers.
7 Importantly, it was a portfolio (in fact, a very large portfolio) that AIG was selling, not individual securities. The “market” price at which any one of those securities might have traded is simply irrelevant because that is not what AIG was selling.
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 23 of 31 Page ID #:16108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-19-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
IV. ARGUMENT
A. AIG Bears the Burden of Establishing Jurisdiction.
“Unless the jurisdictional issue is inextricable from the merits of a case, the
court may determine jurisdiction on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
under Rule 12(b)(1).” Kingman Reef Atoll Investments, L.L.C. v. United States, 541
F.3d 1189, 1195 (9th Cir. 2008). Where, as here, the jurisdictional question is
distinct from the merits, the Court may hear evidence and resolve factual disputes as
necessary. Id.; Thornhill Pub. Co., Inc. v. General Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d
730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that
jurisdiction exists and no presumption of truthfulness applies to plaintiff’s
allegations.8 Thornhill Pub., 594 F.2d at 733; see also Kingman Reef, 541 F.3d at
1195. In short, the Court is the finder of fact on this motion and AIG bears the
burden of proof. AIG cannot meet that burden.
8 The standard and procedure here are different than if this were a “facial” challenge to jurisdiction, where no evidence is presented and the Court must assume the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations. White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000).
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 24 of 31 Page ID #:16109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-20-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
B. AIG Cannot Meet Its Burden of Showing that It Owns the Claims.
1. The Circumstances of the Execution of the APA and the Purposes of the Parties Support the FRBNY’s Reading of the Contract.
When construing ambiguous contract terms, New York courts “give due
consideration to the circumstances surrounding its execution, to the purpose of the
parties in making the contract, and, if possible, . . . give to the agreement a fair and
reasonable interpretation.” Aron v. Gillman, 309 N.Y. 157, 163 (1955). Where the
parties to a contract dispute what certain language was intended to do, the court may
look to the context in which the contract was formed to determine which party’s
view is more reasonable.9 Id.; see also In re Delta Air Lines, Inc., 608 F.3d 139,
146-49 (2d Cir. 2010); Pittsburgh Coke & Chem. Co. v. Bollo, 421 F. Supp. 908,
928-29 (E.D.N.Y. 1976); Cromwell Towers Redevelopment Co. v. City of Yonkers,
41 N.Y.2d 1, 6 (1976). Here, the circumstances strongly favor reading the APA as
transferring from AIG to Maiden Lane II any rights and benefits AIG could
transfer—including litigation claims.
By late 2008, AIG was in critical condition. As its CEO said, government
intervention was “essential to prevent an AIG bankruptcy, which would have caused
incalculable damage to AIG, our economy and the global financial system.” Fry
Decl. Ex. 6 at Ex. 99.2, p. 1. By October, discussions with the rating agencies had
made clear that AIG faced a potentially devastating downgrade when it announced
its monumental third quarter losses. AIG needed more government help
immediately. One of the principal sources of AIG’s difficulties was the securities
lending business—which required huge amounts of cash to repay securities lending
counterparties, but could not raise enough money itself because the bulk of its 9 Ambiguities in the APA should not be construed against either party as the drafter, as both parties were commercially sophisticated, represented by counsel, and cannot show that they “had no voice in” the terms of the agreement. Citibank, N.A. v. 666 Fifth Avenue Ltd. Partnership, 2 A.D.3d 331, 331 (2003); see also Shadlich v. Rongrant Assocs., 66 A.D.3d 759, 760 (2009).
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 25 of 31 Page ID #:16110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-21-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
remaining assets were illiquid RMBS. Manifestly, one purpose of the APA was to
alleviate AIG’s liquidity crisis.
A second manifest purpose of the APA was to provide the FRBNY with
collateral to ensure its nearly $20 billion loan to Maiden Lane II would be repaid.
10
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 26 of 31 Page ID #:16111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-22-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
Due to its concern about the risk of loss, the FRBNY wanted the most
complete transfer of rights relating to the securities that AIG could provide
To the extent there is any ambiguity in the APA concerning whether it
transferred AIG’s litigation claims to Maiden Lane II, therefore, the agreement
should be construed to do so. The parties intended to give the FRBNY as much
protection as they could consistent with de-risking AIG and that would be
accomplished by giving Maiden Lane II all transferable and assignable benefits that
AIG possessed relating to the securities, including its litigation claims.
2. The Language of the APA Cannot Be Reconciled With AIG’s Reading.
The alternative reading of the APA offered by AIG violates fundamental
principles of contract interpretation and, in any event, makes no sense.
“Every clause in a contract is important and a court must be certain to refrain
from interpreting a contract so as to render a clause in the contract meaningless.”
Gruppo, Levey & Co. v. ICOM Info. & Commc’ns, 2003 WL 21511943, at *6
(S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2003); see also Two Guys From Harrison-N.Y., Inc. v. S.F.R.
11
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 27 of 31 Page ID #:16112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-23-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
Realty Assocs., 63 N.Y.2d 396, 403 (1984).
This is
insupportable. Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection v. Bank Leumi Trust Co., 94
N.Y.2d 398, 404 (2000) (“Bank Leumi’s interpretation would render the second
paragraph superfluous, a view unsupportable under standard principles of contract
interpretation.”).
12
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 28 of 31 Page ID #:16113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-24-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
But, “New York law does not require specific boilerplate language to accomplish
the transfer of causes of action sounding in tort.” Banque Arabe et Internationale
D’Investissement v. Maryland Nat. Bank, 57 F.3d 146, 151 (2d Cir. 1995). As the
Court noted in its January 30, 2013 Order, New York law provides that a transfer of
tort claims must be explicit, but also that a contract which transfers “something
more” than the asset itself constitutes such an explicit transfer. Dkt. No. 208 at 1-2.
AIG cannot, however, escape the consequences of the language actually used
in the APA on the basis of an erroneous understanding of its legal effect. Compania
Embotelladora del Pacifico, S.A. v. Pepsi Cola Co., 607 F. Supp. 2d 600, 603
(S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“CESPA”); Cobalt Multifamily Investors I, LLC v. Bridge Capital
(USVI), LLC, 2007 WL 2584926, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2007); see also Lowenson
v. London Market Companies, 351 F.3d 58, 62 (2d Cir. 2003) (party cannot avoid
consequences of methodology set forth in contract by arguing that methodology was
analytically unsound). In the CESPA case, for instance, the plaintiff contended that
the parties to a distributorship contract that contained no provision addressing its
duration intended it to be perpetual and terminable only for cause. Id. at 602. The
defendant did not agree that the contract was perpetual, but instead contended that it
was at will because it contained no fixed term. Id. The court rejected plaintiff’s
claim on the ground that, in essence, plaintiff “claim[ed] that i[t] misunderstood the
legal effect of the [contract’s] language. In such circumstances, reformation is not
available.” Id. at 604.
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 29 of 31 Page ID #:16114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-25-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
Aside from being legally untenable, AIG’s reading of the APA makes no
sense.
3. AIG’s Reliance on the Draft Term Sheet Is Misplaced.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, AIG’s claims regarding securities it sold to Maiden
Lane II LLC should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 30 of 31 Page ID #:16115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-26-DEFTS. SUPP. MEM. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS; CASE NO. 11-CV-10549-MRP (MANX)
DATED: March 28, 2013 REED SMITH LLP JAMES L. SANDERS
DAVID M. HALBREICH AMY J. GREER JENNIFER L. ACHILLES
By: /s/ Amy J. Greer Attorneys for Defendants
Countrywide Financial Corporation; Countrywide Capital Markets LLC; Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; Countrywide Securities Corporation; CWABS, Inc.; CWALT, Inc.; CWHEQ, Inc.; and CWMBS, Inc.
DATED: March 28, 2013 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP MARC T.G. DWORSKY
STEPHEN M. KRISTOVICH DAVID H. FRY RICHARD C. ST. JOHN
By: /s/ David H. Fry Attorneys for Defendants
Bank of America Corporation; Banc of America Securities LLC; Bank of America, National Association; NB Holdings Corporation; Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.; and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 251 Filed 03/28/13 Page 31 of 31 Page ID #:16116