Grand Avenue II

Wells Fargo Wins Summary Judgment Motion on All Claims Brought by German Bank LBBW Luxemburg

 

On March 30, 2017, Judge J. Paul Oetken granted Defendants Wells Fargo Securities LLC (“Wells Fargo“), f/k/a Wachovia Capital Markets LLC (“Wachovia“), and Fortis Securities LLC’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the remaining causes of action and closing the case in LBBW Luxemburg S.A. v. Wells Fargo Securities LLC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In a prior motion to dismiss order in 2014, the Court granted in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, “keeping alive” only one theory of liability brought by LBBW. That remaining theory was that Wachovia’s internal valuation markdown of the Grand Avenue II (“GAII“) CDO Preference Shares, for which Defendants had served as some of the initial purchasers, on the same day it issued those shares allegedly signaled Wachovia’s potential misrepresentation or omission to purchasers of other GAII’s securities. Plaintiffs argued this markdown supported a plausible inference that Wachovia knowingly misrepresented the value of CDO shares and constituted circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior.

In its ruling, the Court held that LBBW failed to show that it conveyed its right to sue to another German entity, Landesbank, when the two companies merged in 2014, and therefore failed to establish standing.

Judge Oetken also found that LBBW failed to overcome the motion for summary judgment on the merits. The Court found that LBBW’s single surviving theory of liability was unsupported by the record, as discovery in the case had not produced evidence to connect the markdown to any secretly held view by Wells Fargo that GAII’s portfolio of assets was in trouble.

The Court also rejected the fraud claims brought against Defendants, finding that LBBW failed to point to specific evidence as to a misrepresentation or material omission on Defendants’ part based on the single surviving theory. Judge Oetken also dismissed constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims against Defendants, concluding again that there was a lack of evidence to support any misrepresentation, an essential element of both claims. Finally, the Court found that LBBW’s breach of contract claim, which alleged that Defendants agreed to notify it of any material changes to the CDO’s capital structure, must fail, as the “evidence establishes beyond genuine dispute that the internal markdown on the Preference Shares was not related to any change in Wachovia’s view of GAII’s underlying portfolio of assets.”

In addition to granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Judge Oetken also denied LBBW’s motion to supplement the summary judgment record as untimely; LBBW’s motion to strike certain of Defendants’ arguments; and LBBW’s motion for adverse inference sanctions. Opinion.