You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Eternity Global Master Fund Limited v. Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York and Jpmorgan Chase Bank

Citations: 375 F.3d 168; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 14222; 2004 WL 1534169Docket: 03-7652

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; July 9, 2004; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves Eternity Global Master Fund Limited's appeal of a judgment dismissing its complaint against Morgan Guaranty Trust Company and JPMorgan Chase Bank concerning credit default swaps (CDSs) linked to Argentine sovereign bonds. Eternity alleged breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation after claiming that a voluntary debt exchange by Argentina triggered Morgan's payment obligations under the CDSs. The district court dismissed the misrepresentation claims and ruled against the breach of contract claim, prompting Eternity's appeal. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the misrepresentation claims but reversed the dismissal of the contract claim, remanding for further proceedings. The primary legal issue was the ambiguity of the CDS contracts under New York law, particularly whether the voluntary debt exchange constituted a restructuring credit event. The court concluded that the contract terms might be ambiguous, warranting further exploration. Additionally, the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims were dismissed due to insufficient specificity in pleading Morgan's knowledge of the secondary market's unavailability.

Legal Issues Addressed

Breach of Contract Requirements

Application: The court found that Eternity had sufficiently alleged the elements of a breach of contract, reversing the dismissal and remanding for further proceedings.

Reasoning: To establish a breach of contract, Eternity needed to show the existence of an agreement, adequate performance, breach by the defendant, and resulting damages. Eternity asserted that the CDS contracts were valid, it had fulfilled its obligations, Morgan breached the contract by refusing to settle, and that it suffered damages from this breach.

Contract Ambiguity under New York Law

Application: The appeals court determined that the terms of the CDS contracts may be ambiguous, necessitating further proceedings to ascertain whether a voluntary debt exchange qualifies as a restructuring credit event.

Reasoning: The central legal question is whether a voluntary debt exchange constitutes a 'restructuring credit event' under the Fund's CDS contracts with Morgan. The determination relies on the interpretation of the CDS contracts as governed by New York law, which emphasizes the parties' intent.

Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation Claims

Application: The court affirmed the dismissal of Eternity's fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims due to insufficient pleading, particularly the lack of specific allegations regarding Morgan's knowledge of the secondary market's unavailability.

Reasoning: The court agrees with the district court's finding that Eternity failed to sufficiently plead scienter, the intent or knowledge of wrongdoing.

Interpretation of Credit Derivatives under ISDA Definitions

Application: The interpretation of CDS contracts requires examining the ISDA 1999 Credit Derivatives Definitions and whether a voluntary debt exchange constitutes a restructuring event.

Reasoning: The contracts stipulate that a credit event occurs only if the government defaults on its debt obligations, regardless of whether Eternity held the reference bonds.