Bloomberg Breach-of-Contract Suit Against UBS Survives Dismissal Motion
U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni said the financial firm's venue choice was sensible, and refused to dismiss three of the four breach-of-contract claims against UBS over its use of Bloomberg's proprietary data.
December 19, 2018 at 06:25 PM
4 minute read
A federal breach-of-contract suit brought against Swiss bank UBS by Bloomberg's financial arm over the use of the former's proprietary financial information survived a motion to dismiss Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni of the Southern District of New York rejected UBS' venue challenges, as well as the bank's attempts to have three of the four claims brought against it dismissed.
UBS and Bloomberg have a long-standing data licensing agreement, including the use of the data as part of a risk and portfolio management system called UBS Delta, which the bank made available to third-party clients.
According to the suit, UBS announced plans to sell the UBS Delta application to a U.K.-based company. Bloomberg became concerned the sale would result in an unauthorized handover and exposure of proprietary data, resulting in a cease-and-desist demand against UBS and the termination of multiple Bloomberg Terminal subscriptions for former UBS Delta employees.
An audit authorized by the agreement allowed Bloomberg to discovery the UBS Delta product gave bank clients access and the ability to download the information provided to UBS, regardless of whether those clients had their own Bloomberg licenses.
After UBS told Bloomberg the financial company was being replaced as the data source for UBS Delta in July 2018, Bloomberg raised concerns its proprietary info would be made available during the transfer, potentially to a competitor. UBS allegedly refused to confirm or deny it wiped UBS Delta clean of Bloomberg data.
Bloomberg's breach-of-contract claims soon followed.
In its motion to dismiss, UBS argued on forum non conveniens ground that the suit was better handled in the U.K. In rejecting the argument, Caproni found Bloomberg's choice of a New York venue made logical sense since it was where the company's primary place of business occurred. There was also the language in the agreement identifying New York as the venue in which the parties agreed relief should be sought. She was also unpersuaded by UBS' claims that potential evidence and witnesses in Europe would be overly burdened by having to make an appearance in New York.
Caproni likewise dismissed UBS' motion to dismiss three counts for failure to state a claim, as well as a question of Article III standing in one claim. Bloomberg's breach-of-contract claim over the unauthorized redistribution of its propriety data was supported by language in the contract limiting UBS' use of the information, and the evidence so far that it may have done so. Despite the bank's attempts to read the language differently, Caproni found the financial firm plausibly asserted the breach.
Similarly, Caproni affirmed Bloomberg's claim of contract breach by UBS to use Bloomberg's data to compete with the company itself. Since the allegations were plausibly laid out that Bloomberg's data was made available to customers of UBS without those same customers having to be Bloomberg licensees. This would give the customers “little reason to pay for a separate subscription to receive that data directly from Bloomberg,” Caproni noted.
“If that is not competition, then it is unclear what is,” she wrote.
Lastly, Caproni found Bloomberg had standing under federal law to pursue its breach-of-contract claims before the court.
UBS' legal team was led by Cahill Gordon & Reindel partner Charles Gilman. In a referred request for comment, a UBS spokesman provided a statement from the company that expressed disappointment in the ruling, but noted no determination on the merits was made by the court.
“It simply decided that the case would be heard in NY instead of London, and gave Bloomberg an opportunity to try to substantiate their allegations, without saying they have any merit,” the company said. “UBS intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit, and is confident of prevailing as the evidence will show that Bloomberg's allegations are false.”
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan partner David Mader led Bloomberg's legal representation in the case. He declined to comment. A Bloomberg spokesman did not immediately return a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'No Evidence'?: Big Law Firms Defend Academic Publishers in EDNY Antitrust Case
3 minute readDapper Labs $4M Settlement, $1.3M in Attorney Fees Reveal NFT Settlement Trend
4 minute readSyracuse Courtroom Dedicated to Trailblazing City Court Judge Langston McKinney
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250