Cuomo Signs Bill Reinstating 6-year Statute of Limitations Under Martin Act
The new law reverses a decision last year from the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, which interpreted the law to have a three-year statute of limitations.
August 26, 2019 at 12:24 PM
5 minute read
Legislation to reinstate a six-year statute of limitations for the Martin Act, which gives the New York Attorney General's Office authority to prosecute and pursue civil claims of securities fraud against Wall Street's financial firms, was signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo Monday.
The new law reverses a decision last year from the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, which interpreted the law to have a three-year statute of limitations. While those cases are typically considered a priority for the office, last year's decision placed a first-time limit on how they're pursued.
Enter New York Attorney General Letitia James, who referred a bill to state lawmakers earlier this year to reinstate the six-year statute of limitations. That's called a program bill, which is when a statewide official proposes a change in law to the Legislature.
"If Main Street has to play by a set of rules, then so must Wall Street," James said. "This law strengthens two of our most critical tools in holding corporate greed accountable and delivering justice for victims of financial fraud."
Despite the complexity of the securities fraud litigation brought under the Martin Act, the measure is relatively straightforward.
The law adds a new subdivision to a section of the state's civil practice law that allows actions brought under the Martin Act to be pursued within six years of an alleged violation. The change also applies 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.
The bill was carried in the Legislature by Assemblyman Rober Carroll, D-Brooklyn, and state Sen. Michael Gianaris, D-Queens. Both lawmakers worked with James to move the bill before this year's legislative session ended in June.
"The Martin Act has become an invaluable tool for enforcement against financial crimes and unfortunately a misguided court decision made it harder to use that tool," Gianaris said. "We wanted to go back to the way it was originally used and allow the state the maximum time possible to go after wrongdoing in the financial services industry."
The Martin Act, which was first approved by the Legislature nearly a century ago, was sparsely used to pursue financial crimes on Wall Street until two decades ago, when Eliot Spitzer took office as state attorney general under former Gov. George Pataki. Spitzer would later go on to become the state's governor.
Spitzer was the first state attorney general in decades to use the law generously, so much so that he was dubbed the "Sheriff of Wall Street." His immediate successors—Gov. Andrew Cuomo and former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman—also made use of the law.
James, who took office this year, has said she plans to use the Martin Act wherever her office sees fit, but that she doesn't plan to focus her tenure exclusively on financial crimes.
The law has been used in recent decades to secure more than a billion dollars for the state and millions in consumer relief, according to the Attorney General's Office. It was used in recent years, for example, to seek restitution for victims of Hurricane Sandy.
One such case, brought by Schneiderman's office, resulted in last year's decision from the Court of Appeals that cut the statute of limitations in half.
Schneiderman's office was pursuing civil claims in 2012 against Credit Suisse, a global financial services company, for allegedly misleading investors about the quality of loans that embodied residential mortgage-backed securities sold in 2006 and 2007.
That type of civil litigation, both from the attorney general and between financial services companies, has been common since the Great Recession of the last decade.
But, in the Credit Suisse case, 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.
State Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, who would later succeed Schneiderman as an interim attorney general, had argued at the time that the claims were subject to a six-year statute of limitations because they were alleged as common-law fraud.
Credit Suisse had argued at the time that, because the laws imposed a new liability, the statute of limitations was limited to three years. The company was represented by Richard Clary, a partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore.
Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, writing for the majority, agreed with the latter interpretation of the law.
"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 legislation signed by Cuomo Monday, instead, moves the Martin Act to a different part of the state's civil practice law to allow a six-year statute of limitations. The change takes effect immediately.
"At a time when the Trump administration is hell-bent on rolling back consumer financial protections, New York remains dedicated to preventing and prosecuting fraudulent financial activity," Cuomo said.
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
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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