§Why CasetextPricing

Ambac Assurance Corporation, et al., Appellants,v.Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al., Respondents, Bank of America Corp., Defendant.

Brief

13 Cited authorities

  1. ABN AMRO Bank, N.V. v. MBIA Inc.

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 5542 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 250 times
    Holding that allegations of insolvency support a cause of action under DCL § 274

  2. HSH Nordbank AG v. UBS AG

    95 A.D.3d 185 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 178 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that data "derived from publicly available market information" was "not peculiarly within UBS's knowledge"

  3. Danann Realty Corp. v. Harris

    5 N.Y.2d 317 (N.Y. 1959)   Cited 713 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a similar disclaimer barred a fraudulent inducement claim without discussion of the level of sophistication of the parties

  4. Laub v. Faessel

    297 A.D.2d 28 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 168 times
    Holding that "plaintiff must establish that the alleged misrepresentations or other misconduct were the direct and proximate cause of the losses claimed"

  5. In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litig.

    693 F. Supp. 2d 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)   Cited 95 times
    Holding alleged GAAP violations actionable where company had not restated financials but plaintiffs had pleaded facts giving rise to strong inference of scienter

  6. Basis Yield Alpha Fund Master v. Stanley

    136 A.D.3d 136 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)   Cited 25 times

    652129/12 12527. 12-29-2015 BASIS YIELD ALPHA FUND MASTER, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Morgan STANLEY, et al., Defendants–Appellants, John Does 1–50, Defendants. Defendants Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC f/k/a Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC f/k/a Morgan Stanley & Co. International Limited appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered March 11, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, denied their

  7. Ambac Assurance Corp. v. EMC Mortgage LLC

    121 A.D.3d 514 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Ambac, the Court expressly held that MLPA § 7 (xx) was "essentially the same warranty" as the warranty in section 8 addressing the accuracy of information in the prospectus supplements regarding the mortgage loans.

  8. Cifg Assurance N. Am., Inc. v. Goldman

    106 A.D.3d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 24 times
    In CIFG Assurance North America, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. (106 AD3d 437 [1st Dept 2013] [CIFG]). the Appellate Division addressed the sufficiency of a monoline insurer's pleading of justifiable reliance in the RMBS context, holding that the insurer "was not required, as a matter of law, to audit or sample the underlying loan files."

  9. MBIA Ins. Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Sec. LLC

    45 Misc. 3d 1202 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014)   Cited 22 times
    In People v. Williams, 45 Misc 3d 1202(A), 3 N.Y.S.3d 286 at *2-3 (Crim Ct NY County 2014) (Statsinger, J.), this Court held that as long as the communication alleged had "no legitimate purpose" other than to harass or annoy the complainant, both clauses were satisfied.

  10. MBIA Ins. Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Sec., LLC

    144 A.D.3d 635 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 15 times

    11-02-2016 MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION, respondent-appellant, v. J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, LLC, formerly known as Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., appellant-respondent. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Richard A. Edlin, Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, Anastasia A. Angelova, and Misty L. Archambault of counsel), and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, N.Y. (Robert A. Sacks, Sharon L. Nelles, and Darrell S. Cafasso of counsel), for appellant-respondent (one brief filed). Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,

  11. Section 3105 - Representations by the insured

    N.Y. Ins. Law § 3105   Cited 321 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Requiring "inducement"

  12. Section 3106 - Warranty defined; effect of breach

    N.Y. Ins. Law § 3106   Cited 53 times

    (a) In this section "warranty" means any provision of an insurance contract which has the effect of requiring, as a condition precedent of the taking effect of such contract or as a condition precedent of the insurer's liability thereunder, the existence of a fact which tends to diminish, or the non-existence of a fact which tends to increase, the risk of the occurrence of any loss, damage, or injury within the coverage of the contract. The term "occurrence of loss, damage, or injury" includes the