Zohar CDO 2003-1 Ltd. v. Xinhua Sports & Entertainment Ltd.

137 A.D.3d 541, 26 N.Y.S.3d 689
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Zohar CDO 2003-1 Ltd. v. Xinhua Sports & Entertainment Ltd.. Read the opinion of the Court — 111 A.D.3d 578
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 2016·No. 494 651473/11·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered January 15, 2015, which granted defendant Loretta Freddy Bush’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the *542 complaint as against her, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

The motion court correctly found that, in view of defendant Xinhua Sports & Entertainment Limited’s (XSEL) contractual agreements with its affiliates, defendant Bush’s representations that XSEL had “effective control” over those companies were not false when made, and therefore could not support a cause of action for fraudulent inducement.

However, Bush failed to eliminate all material issues of fact as to whether she knew that XSEL’s internal financial projections sent to plaintiffs in October 2008 and March 2009, its 2010 revenue forecast for Shanxi Satellite TV sent to plaintiffs in December 2008, and the earnings reported in its 2007 Form 20-F were false and unreasonable (see East 32nd St. Assoc. v Jones Lang Wootton USA, 191 AD2d 68 [1st Dept 1993]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Zohar CDO 2003-1 Ltd. v. Xinhua Sports & Entertainment Ltd., 137 A.D.3d 541, 26 N.Y.S.3d 689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

137 A.D.3d 541 (Zohar CDO 2003-1 Ltd. v. Xinhua Sports & Entertainment Ltd.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

East 32nd Street Associates v. Jones Lang Wootton USA
191 A.D.2d 68 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)