| Bullmore v Ernst & Young Cayman Is. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09320 [45 AD3d 461] |
| November 27, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Theo Bullmore et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Ernst &Young Cayman Islands, Respondent-Appellant, and Ernst & Young LLP et al., Respondents, etal., Defendant. |
—[*1] Heller Ehrman LLP, New York City (Richard A. Martin of counsel), forrespondent-appellant. Ernst & Young, New York City (J. Andrew Heaton of counsel), for Ernst & Young LLP,respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Edward Ramos, J.), entered April 19,2006, which, to the extent appealed and cross-appealed from, denied the motion to dismiss thefirst cause of action as against defendant Ernst & Young Cayman Islands (E & YCI), but granteddismissal of the second, third, seventh, eighth and ninth causes of action against defendants Ernst& Young LLP (E & Y LLP) and E & YCI, as well as the fifth cause of action against Beacon HillAsset Management and individual defendants Barry, Daniels, Irwin and Miszkiewicz,unanimously modified, on the law, the fifth cause of action reinstated as against the individualdefendants, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
This matter arises out of the collapse of certain hedge funds as the result of a fraudulentvaluation scheme. Specifically, defendant Beacon Hill was formed in January 1997 by the fourindividual defendants as a manager of hedge funds investing in mortgage-backed and relatedsecurities. In that connection, Beacon Hill was the manager of a so-called Master Fund, whichheld the investment assets of, and conducted trading for, three feeder hedge funds. Pursuant to aninvestment management agreement, Beacon Hill was to manage and value securities in theMaster Fund's portfolio according to certain valuation procedures. It was, moreover, given nearlycomplete discretion in effecting transactions on the Master Fund's behalf, and its owncompensation was derived, in part, from a pro rata share of the combined assets and performanceof the Master Fund's portfolio, plus an incentive fee based on a percentage of the appreciation ofthe net asset value (NAV) of the Master Fund's securities.[*2]
Plaintiffs, who were appointed as joint liquidators ofBeacon Hill, which is now winding up its business pursuant to the Companies Law of theCayman Islands, have accused the individual defendants of concealing the extent of the MasterFund's losses until October 2002 by supposedly misrepresenting in offering memoranda andelsewhere that the NAVs would be calculated in good faith using independent prices. Indeed,during October and November 2002, the Master Fund's managers made a series of disclosuresdivulging that its NAVs had dropped from the values reported as of August 31, 2002, with eachsubsequent revelation imparting the information that the decline was greater than previouslyreported, until the final disclosure revealed that the NAVs had declined by more than 61%. Theresult was that Bear Stearns & Co., the Master Fund's prime broker and custodian, refused toprovide any additional financing, and the Securities and Exchange Commission undertook aninvestigation of Beacon Hill's practices.
In November 2002, the Commission instituted suit against Beacon Hill and its four principalsin federal court in the Southern District of New York, where several other actions had also beencommenced by investors and other parties due to the collapse of these funds. The instant action,which was brought in March 2005, asserts professional malpractice/negligence, and aiding andabetting the breach of fiduciary duty, against E & YCI and E & Y LLP; and breach of contract,breach of fiduciary duty/duty of care, negligence, and breach of duty/self-dealing against BeaconHill (including its four principals). A series of motions resulted in dismissal of all but the claimsfor professional malpractice against E & YCI, breach of contract against Beacon Hill, and breachof duty/self-dealing against the Beacon Hill defendants other than Miszkiewicz. Plaintiffs and E& YCI appeal.
Plaintiffs allege in the fifth cause of action, for breach of fiduciary duty/duty of care, that theBeacon Hill defendants owed a fiduciary duty to the Master Fund that they breached by engagingin certain improper conduct. The motion court dismissed this claim as duplicative of the fourthcause of action for breach of contract against Beacon Hill. Plaintiffs contend that notwithstandingthe similarity with conduct constituting breach of contract, a separate breach of a duty may alsoarise out of that contractual relationship. The investment managers, they argue, had anindependent fiduciary obligation to exercise due care and diligence in their administration of thefund, and to ensure that they did not engage in any fraudulent or unsound investment practices.
Indeed, while causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty that merely restate contract claimsmust be dismissed (see LaSalle HotelLessee, Inc. v Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 29 AD3d 464 [2006]), conduct amounting tobreach of a contractual obligation may also constitute the breach of a duty arising out of therelationship created by contract which is nonetheless independent of such contract (see SallyLou Fashions Corp. v Camhe-Marcille, 300 AD2d 224, 225 [2002]). Professionals such asinvestment advisors, who owe fiduciary duties to their clients, "may be subject to tort liability forfailure to exercise reasonable care, irrespective of their contractual duties," since in "theseinstances, it is policy, not the parties' contract, that gives rise to a duty of due care" (Sommerv Federal Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 551-552 [1992]; see also Bullmore v Banc of Am.Sec. LLC, 485 F Supp 2d 464, 470-471 [SD NY 2007]). Accordingly, plaintiffs' allegationsof fraud and breach of fiduciary duty/duty of care are not duplicative of the contract claim againstBeacon Hill.
Nevertheless, the court appropriately dismissed the third (against the E & Y defendants)cause of action for aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duty. To state such a claim, a [*3]plaintiff must plead a breach of fiduciary duty, that the defendantknowingly induced or participated in the breach, and damages resulting therefrom (see Global Mins. & Metals Corp. vHolme, 35 AD3d 93, 101 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 804 [2007]). Moreover, a"person knowingly participates in a breach of fiduciary duty only when he or she provides'substantial assistance' to the primary violator" (Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d 113, 126[2003]). "Actual knowledge, as opposed to merely constructive knowledge, is required and aplaintiff may not merely rely on conclusory and sparse allegations that the aider or abettor knewor should have known about the primary breach of fiduciary duty" (Global Mins. &Metals, 35 AD3d at 101-102). In the absence of any allegation that the E & Y defendants hadactual knowledge of the primary wrong or that these parties rendered substantial, as opposed toinadvertent, assistance to the underlying breach of fiduciary duty, the complaint does not advancea valid claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty on their part.
Plaintiffs also challenge the dismissal of their second cause of action for professionalmalpractice/negligence against E & Y LLP. However, there was no contractual relationshipbetween the Master Fund and E & Y LLP. "In the absence of a contractual relationship betweenthe accountant and the party claiming injury, the potential for accountant liability is carefullycircumscribed" (William Iselin & Co. v Mann Judd Landau, 71 NY2d 420, 424 n 1[1988]). Furthermore, a viable cause of action for professional malpractice or negligence"requires that the underlying relationship between the parties be one of contract or the bondbetween them so close as to be the functional equivalent of contractual privity" (OssiningUnion Free School Dist. v Anderson LaRocca Anderson, 73 NY2d 417, 419 [1989]). "Beforeaccountants may be held liable in negligence to noncontractual parties who rely to their detrimenton inaccurate financial reports, certain prerequisites must be satisfied: (1) the accountants musthave been aware that the financial reports were to be used for a particular purpose or purposes;(2) in the furtherance of which a known party or parties was intended to rely; and (3) there musthave been some conduct on the part of the accountants linking them to that party or parties,which evinces the accountants' understanding of that party or parties' reliance" (CreditAlliance Corp. v Arthur Andersen & Co., 65 NY2d 536, 551 [1985]).
It should be noted that the complaint does not allege E & Y LLP was retained to be theMaster Fund's auditor or, indeed, to furnish it with any services. On the contrary, it is assertedthat E & YCI was the entity hired by the Master Fund. With respect to functional privity, thecomplaint does not claim that E & Y LLP ever issued an audit report or made any other statementconcerning the Fund, and it is also silent as to any specific arrangement between the parties or theterms upon which they might have agreed. Consequently, the motion court properly dismissedthe second cause of action for professional malpractice/negligence as against E & Y LLP.
We have considered the arguments by E & YCI for dismissal of the claim against it forprofessional malpractice/negligence, including matters raised at oral argument that are dehors therecord, and find them unavailing at this juncture. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Friedman,Sullivan, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ. [See 2006 NY Slip Op 30069(U).]