You Can’t Cross Examine A Map!

 by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Drug free zone (pd)In a case decided earlier last week, State v. Wilson, the New Jersey Supreme Court answered an interesting Constitutional Law question: Whether the admission into evidence of a map showing the designated 500-foot  "drug free zone" around a public park violated an accused's right, under both the U.S. Constitution and New Jersey Constitution, to be "confronted with the witnesses against him." The court held that maps like this do not violate the Confrontation Clause and, if properly authenticated, are admissible. The problem in Wilson, however, was that the map was not properly authenticated as a public record, therefore it was inadmissible hearsay. 

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that, "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The New Jersey Constitution contains an almost identical provision. "The Confrontation Clause affords a procedural guarantee that the reliability of evidence will be tested 'in a particular manner' through the crucible of cross-examination." As interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Confrontation Clause provides that a "testimonial statement against a defendant by a non-testifying witness is inadmissible . . . unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him or her." The threshold issue, therefore, is whether a statement is "testimonial."

The U.S. Supreme Court has "labored to flesh out what it means for a statement to be 'testimonial.'" It eventually arrived at the "primary purpose" test, which asks whether a statement has the primary purpose of "establishing or proving past events potentially relevant to a later criminal prosecution." If it does, then it is testimonial. If not, then it is not. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that statements made to police to assist them in responding to an "ongoing emergency," rather than to create a record for a future prosecution, are not testimonial. 

The New Jersey Supreme Court has wrestled with this "primary purpose" test as well. For example, in one case, police sent a defendant's blood to a private laboratory after a fatal car crash. Approximately 14 analysts performed a variety of tests on the blood. A supervisor at the lab then wrote a report concluding that the defendant's blood contained traces of cocaine and other drugs and that this "would have caused the defendant to be impaired an unfit to operate a motor vehicle." The State sought to admit the report, or statements from it, into evidence. The court refused, holding that the report was testimonial because its primary purpose was to "serve as a direct accusation against the defendant." Similarly, the court held, in a separate case, that the statements in an autopsy report were testimonial because the autopsy was conducted after a homicide investigation had begun, after the defendant was a suspect, and after he had spoken to police, and because the autopsy was conducted in the presence of the lead State investigator. Thus, the court held, the "primary purpose of the report was to establish facts for later use in the prosecution."

Continue reading “You Can’t Cross Examine A Map!”

It is Still Not a Breach Of The Duty Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing For Lenders To Enforce The Terms Of Their Loan Documents

         by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher)

It seems like I read cases like this every few weeks: A borrower defaults on a loan, tries to work something out with the bank, but the bank for some reason decides not to work out a deal and instead decides to enforce the terms of the underlying loan documents (usually through foreclosure or some other means). The borrower then sues, alleging that the lender acted in bad faith by thinking about working out a deal, and maybe even taking some steps to do so, but eventually deciding not to. Although I have obviously summarized these cases in broad terms and the devil is often in the details, the result is almost always the same – the borrower loses.

The reason for this is simple. The law in New Jersey is well settled that a lender will not generally be deemed to have acted in bad faith when it seeks to enforce the terms of a note or mortgage as written.  Stated differently, lenders cannot be barred from enforcing loan and mortgage documents merely because they seek to enforce their express contractual rights.  Indeed, “a creditor's duty to act in good faith does not extend to foregoing its right to accelerate upon default or otherwise compromising its contractual rights in order to aid its debtor.” Glenfed Financial Corp. v. Penick Corp.   For instance, in Creeger Brick & Building Supply, Inc. v. Mid-State Bank & Trust Co., — a decision cited by the Appellate Division with approval in Glenfed — a Pennsylvania appeals court held:

. . . a lending institution does not violate a separate duty of good faith by adhering to its agreement with the borrower or by enforcing its legal and contractual rights as a creditor. The duty of good faith imposed upon contracting parties does not compel a lender to surrender rights which it has been given by statute or by the terms of its contract. Similarly, it cannot be said that a lender has violated a duty of good faith merely because it has negotiated terms of a loan which are favorable to itself. As such, a lender generally is not liable for harm caused to a borrower by refusing to advance additional funds, release collateral, or assist in obtaining additional loans from third persons. A lending institution also is not required to delay attempts to recover from a guarantor after the principal debtor has defaulted.

Try as borrowers might, New Jersey courts have repeatedly and consistently rejected efforts to hold lenders liable for violating the duty of good faith and fair dealing when those lenders have simply attempted to enforce the terms of their loan agreements.

 

Continue reading “It is Still Not a Breach Of The Duty Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing For Lenders To Enforce The Terms Of Their Loan Documents”

JPMorgan Settles With The SEC

by:  Peter J. Gallagher

The SEC announced yesterday that JPMorgan Securities LLC agreed to pay $153.6 million to settle SEC charges that the company "misled investors in a complex mortgage securities transaction just as the housing market was starting to plummet."  Pursuant to the settlement, "harmed investors will receive all of their money back.”  Just like it did with Goldman Sachs and its now infamous ABACUS 2007-1 deal, the SEC alleged that JPMorgan allowed a hedge fund manager to pick the assets that went into its (equally obscurely named) Squared CDO 2007-1 deal without disclosing that the hedge fund chose the worst assets it could find because it planned to short the offering.  You know how this story ended – investors lost their shirts, the hedge fund got rich(er).     

The settlement has been widely reported in the media, with some interesting takes on the meaning of the settlement to the overall prosecution (by the SEC, private investors, attorneys general, and the DOJ) of the banks for their role in the crisis.  Among the more interesting pieces:

"Is JPMorgan's Settlement The End Of Subprime Claims?" (Reuters) (arguing that that the settlement was a win for JPMorgan but that it does not mark the end of the pain for the bank or its competitors who all face dozens of pending investor lawsuits)

"JPMorgan Settlement Suggests More Pain Ahead For Wall Street" (WSJ – Law Blog) (predicting increased pressure by the SEC on other banks for similar settlements and including the most bizarre and disturbing quote from an email that the JPMorgan employee in charge of selling the Squared CDO 2007-1 deal wrote to his sales team: “We are soooo pregnant with this deal, we need a wheel-barrow to move around . . . Let’s schedule the Cesarean please!”)

"JPMorgan Settlement With SEC Recalls Case Against Goldman Sachs" (providing more detailed reporting on the story and less commentary than the others)

How Do You Say Scapegoat In French? “Fabulous Fab” Still The Only Target Of SEC Investigation Into Goldman Sach’s Mortgage Trading Operations

by:  Peter J. Gallagher

Several years after the start of the financial crisis, and the mortgage meltdown that caused it, only one individual, Fabrice Toure – a/k/a “Fabulous Fab,” his self-imposed moniker — has been sued by the SEC for selling the mortgage backed securities that created, or at the very least exacerbated, the crisis.  According to a recent piece in the New York Times,"SEC Case Stands Out Because It Stands Alone," Toure was an obscure trader for Goldman Sachs who was thrust into the national spotlight in 2010 when the SEC sued him for his role in creating and marketing Abacus, one of the many mortgage backed securities created by Goldman during the irrational exuberance of the early to mid 2000s.  (Abacus is interesting in its own right because it is one of the securities that was devised with the help of John Paulson, the hedge fund manager who famously made billions shorting mortgage backed securities like Abacus.)  As the article notes, the question many have raised is why Toure and why only Toure?

According to at least one former co-worker, Toure was a “junior” and “insignificant” member of a larger team at Goldman responsible for developing mortgage backed securities.  In their response to the SEC, Toure’s lawyers emphasized this point, identifying all of the other members of the team, and arguing that “singling Mr. Toure out for criticism regarding the content of this clearly collaborative effort is unreasonable.” For its part, the SEC has not explained why it focused on just one member of one team at one bank, and further on just one deal created by that bank.  However, as the article notes, recent increased interest from other regulators, including New York’s attorney general, indicates that this may not be the case for long, and the banks may soon be called upon to answer for their role in the crisis. 

 Finally, as interesting as Toure’s story is, equally interesting is the story behind how many of the documents that tell the story – including Toure’s non-public response to the SEC lawsuit – came to light.  The Times received them from an artist and filmmaker named Nancy Cohen who found the materials on a laptop given to her by a friend in 2006.  The friend told her that he found the laptop in a garbage can downtown.  Apparently, emails to Tourre continued “streaming into the device.”  While Cohen ignored them for years, she began paying attention when she learned about the SEC’s lawsuit, and subsequently gave the documents to the Times.