DECISION, ORDER, AND JUDGMENT AFTER INQUEST INTRODUCTION This 13-year-long dispute arises from several failed securitization transactions between plaintiffs UBS Securities LLC and UBS AG London Branch (“UBS”), defendant Highlight Capital Management, L.P. (“HCM”), and HCM-controlled entities Highland CDO Opportunity Master Fund, L.P. (“CDO Fund”), Highland Special Opportunities Holding Company (“SOHC”) (together with CDO Fund, the “Funds”), Highland Financial Partners, L.P. (“HFP”), Highland Credit Strategies Master Fund, L.P. (“Credit Strategies), Highland Crusader Offshore Partners, L.P. (“Crusader Fund”), Highland Credit Opportunities CDO, L.P. (“Credit Opp.”), Strand Advisors, Inc. (“Strand”) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 764, pg. 1). In its second amended complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”), dated May 11, 2011, UBS sought “to recover damages in excess of $686 million resulting from the wrongful conduct of defendants” and asserted causes of action for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, fraudulent conveyances, and declaratory judgment” (id., 1). This decision after inquest determines UBS’ damages on its remaining claims for Fraudulent Inducement (First Cause of Action), Fraudulent Conveyance (Fifth Cause of Action) and Alter Ego (Eighth Cause of Action), as against three remaining, defaulting defendants: CDO Fund, SOHC and HFP (NYSCEF Doc. No. 762). BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT FACTS The court presumes familiarity with all prior decisions and orders delineating the facts in this 2009 case. I. The Underlying Agreements and the Restructuring Agreements In 2007, UBS, the CDO Fund, SOHC and HCM entered into agreements (the “Underlying Agreements”) to securitize collateral loan obligations and credit-default swaps (id., pg. 8). The Underlying Agreements provided that the Funds would be liable to UBS for certain losses if the parties’ agreements terminated without a successful securitization (id.). After the contemplated securitization failed, the parties agreed to enter into negotiations to restructure the Underlying Agreements (id.). UBS ultimately agreed to restructure these agreements (the “Restructuring Agreements”), and it also agreed to release all claims as against the Funds arising from the Underlying Agreements (id.). UBS alleges that the Funds intentionally misrepresented material facts and made omissions about the Funds’ creditworthiness and their finances and assets in negotiations concerning the Restructuring Agreements to induce UBS to enter into them (NYSCEF Doc. No. 764,
