NY Legislature Reinstates 6-Year Statute of Limitations for Martin Act
“The Martin Act has become an invaluable tool for enforcement against financial crimes and unfortunately the court decision made it harder to use that tool, and we wanted to go back to the way it was originally used,” Gianaris said.
June 21, 2019 at 02:13 PM
5 minute read
The state Attorney General's Office will once again have a six-year statute of limitations to pursue criminal charges and civil claims of securities fraud against Wall Street firms, after lawmakers approved a bill this week to reverse the effect of a recent decision by the New York Court of Appeals.
In that decision, handed down one year ago, the state's highest court ruled that actions brought under the Martin Act, a 1920s law used by the Attorney General's Office to police fraud, had a three-year statute of limitations.
But New York Attorney General Letitia James had other plans. She delivered to lawmakers what's called a program bill, which is when a statewide elected official proposes legislation but needs someone to carry it.
The legislation is simple; it adds a new subdivision to a section of the state's civil practice law that will allow actions brought under the Martin Act to be pursued within six years of an alleged violation. The change will also apply to Executive Law 63(12), a part of the state's law that allows the Attorney General's Office to seek restitution or damages in cases of persistent fraud.
“Our state's ideals are rooted in the fair pursuit of justice and the protection of our people. Restoring the statute of limitations for these two laws to six years is a tremendous victory for the people of New York,” James said. “The passage of this bill will enable my office to fulfill our duty to protect consumers and investors and prevent fraudulent acts in a way that New Yorkers have come to expect of this office.”
The bill is carried by state Sen. Michael Gianaris, D-Queens, and Assemblyman Robert Carroll, D-Brooklyn. It passed both the State Senate and Assembly in the final hours of this year's legislative session, which ended early Friday morning.
“The Martin Act has become an invaluable tool for enforcement against financial crimes and unfortunately the court decision made it harder to use that tool, and we wanted to go back to the way it was originally used,” Gianaris said in an interview with the New York Law Journal.
The decision was handed down by the Court of Appeals last June in litigation brought against Credit Suisse by former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. Schneiderman had filed the lawsuit in 2012, alleging the company misled investors about the quality of loans that embodied residential mortgage-backed securities sold in 2006 and 2007.
But there was a question as to whether those claims were subject to a three- or six-year statute of limitations under different sections of the state's civil practice law and rules.
New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood had argued at the time that the claims were subject to a six-year window because they were alleged as common-law fraud, which carries such a statute of limitations under state law. Credit Suisse had argued that, because the laws imposed a new liability, state law allowed a three-year statute of limitations.
Chief Judge Janet DiFiore wrote in the majority opinion of the high court at the time that, because obligations imposed by the Martin Act went beyond those in common law fraud cases, such claims were subject to a three-year statute of limitations.
“The Martin Act imposes numerous obligations—or 'liabilities'—that did not exist at common law, justifying the imposition of a three-year statute of limitations under CPLR 214(2),” DiFiore wrote.
The decision was considered a blow to the power of the Martin Act, which had been used frequently during the prior decade by former Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to pursue claims of fraud by Wall Street firms. Spitzer's use of the law was frequent enough to earn him the moniker of 'Sheriff of Wall Street.'
Before Spitzer's time, the Martin Act was rarely used. It was first passed nearly a century ago by the New York Legislature to give the state Attorney General's Office more power over securities fraud and related cases. Few would make use of the tool over the next eight decades, until Spitzer took office in 1999.
It's been regularly used since Spitzer brought it out of the woodwork two decades ago. The Attorney General's Office has used it to secure more than a billion dollars for the state and millions in consumer relief. It was also used in recent years to seek restitution for victims of Hurricane Sandy, according to the Attorney General's Office.
The bill will now head to Gov. Andrew Cuomo for a signature. Assuming he's not opposed to the measure, the change will take effect immediately when it becomes law.
READ MORE:
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 AllRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readEric Adams Trial Set for April as Defense Urges Dismissal of Bribery Count
Major Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1First California Zantac Jury Ends in Mistrial
- 2Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 3Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 4Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 5Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
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