Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd., 2008 NCBC 6 (N.C. Super. Ct. March 13, 2008) (Diaz)

Wachovia was first to file its claims in North Carolina Superior Court, but the Business Court nevertheless stayed the action in favor of a later filed New York action.

The claims in both cases involved Wachovia’s arranging of $285 million in credit for Le Nature, which collapsed in a massive accounting fraud. After the fraud was revealed, the Defendants purchased some of Le Nature’s debt on the secondary market with the express intention of suing Wachovia for alleged complicity in the fraud.

Wachovia, in an effort to preempt the expected lawsuit by the Defendants in New York, filed a declaratory judgment in North Carolina and obtained an injunction prohibiting the Defendants from asserting any "personal tort claims." Wachovia asserted that Defendants had engaged in "illegal trafficking in litigation claims."

Undeterred, Defendants went ahead and filed a lawsuit against Wachovia Capital Markets in the Southern District of New York alleging a RICO violation. Defendants then moved to stay the North Carolina action pursuant to N.C.G.S. Sec. 1-75.12 in favor of their own later filed action.  The Court granted the motion after considering the ten factors enumerated in Lawyers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Nexsen Pruett Jacobs & Pollard, 435 S.E.2d 571, 573 (N.C. App. 1993).

Continue Reading NY Lawsuit Trumps NC Lawsuit, Even Though NC Lawsuit Was First Filed

The Court granted a Motion to Stay in this case, ruling that the plaintiff was required to litigate its claims in New York, even though its North Carolina action had been filed before the New York action.   N.C.G.S. Sec. 1-75.12 in favor of their own later filed action.  The Court granted the Motion after considering the ten factors enumerated in Lawyers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Nexsen Pruett Jacobs & Pollard, 435 S.E.2d 571, 573 (N.C. App. 1993).

One reason the Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the choice of its home forum was that it knew before filing its own suit that Defendants intended to sue, and "if the plaintiff in the declaratory suit was on notice at the time of filing that the defendant was planning to file suit, a court should look beyond the filing dates to determine whether the declaratory suit is merely a strategic maneuver to achieve a preferable forum.”

The Court also considered, and rejected, plaintiff’s argument that North Carolina’s public policy demanded that New York law be rejected. It held, in reliance on North Carolina Supreme Court precedent, that "North Carolina’s public policy exception to the comity generally afforded the laws of our sister states is a narrow one."

In the end, the Court determined that there was a "practical reality that the New York Action is better able to arrive at a more comprehensive resolution of the litigation, given the broader scope of claims and parties before it."

The Court did not resolve whether Defendant’s filing its New York lawsuit was a violation of a preliminary injunction previously entered in the case limiting filing any "personal tort claims" in any other jurisdiction, and whether the Court had the authority to enjoin federal litigation.  Those matters are addressed in the briefs of the parties on the subject of contempt.

Full Opinion

Defendant’s Brief in Support of Motion to Stay        Plaintiff’s Brf. in Support of Motion for Contempt

Plaintiff’s Brief Opposing Motion to Stay                  Defendant’s Brf. Opposing Motion for Contempt

Defendant’s Reply Brief on Motion to Stay               Plaintiff’s Reply Brf. in Support of Mot. for Contempt

Harco Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Grant Thornton LLP, 2008 NCBC 5 (N.C. Super. Ct. March 4, 2008)(Tennille)

Plaintiff sent discovery regarding the Defendant accounting firm’s insurance coverage.  In addition to obtaining information on the face amount of the policy, plaintiff also sought information on the other claims made under the policy and the amount of coverage left under the policy.  The Court rejected the argument that plaintiff was entitled to discovery on the other claims, because it would "lead to unnecessary argument over the policy limits."

The Court ruled, however, that plaintiff was entitled to the information regarding the coverage remaining, because "when it comes time to negotiate, the amount of liability coverage available to a defendant should be disclosed to the plaintiff." A plaintiff is entitled to the "true facts" about the amount of coverage, which means the actual amount remaining to be paid under the policy.

The Court also observed that a refusal to provide accurate information about liability insurance coverage at the time of mediation would not be mediating in good faith.