In the coming week, the New York Court of Appeals will be hearing argument on several cases that concern commercial litigation issues.
For example, in Docket No. 121: Norex Petroleum Limited v. Blavatnik (To be argued Tuesday, May 6, 2014), the Court will address an unresolved issue under CPLR 202, New York’s “borrowing statute.” Under the borrowing statute, New York courts are requird to apply the shorter statute of limitations from either New York or the place where an injury accrued applicable to a non-resident plaintiff, usually the place where plaintiff resides. The appeal in Blavatnick concerns whether CPLR 202 trumps 28 USC § 1367(d) and CPLR 205(a), which toll the statute of limitations to allow plaintiffs to re-file dismissed federal suits in state court, in situations where the foreign jurisdiction has no analogous tolling statute.
Another example is Docket No. 109: Morpheus Capital Advisors LLC v. UBS AG (To be argued Tuesday, May 6, 2014), which is considering the effect of an exclusive agency agreement where the buyer was procured by the seller, not a third-party.
There is also Docket No. 110: KeySpan Gas East Corporation v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. (To be argued Tuesday, May 6, 2014), which is considering whether insurers have a duty under the common law to make a coverage determination as soon as reasonably possible or waive their right to deny coverage.
Finally, there is Docket No. 112: Quadrant Structured Products Co., Ltd. v. Vertin (To be argued Wednesday, May 7, 2014), which considers a question certified from the Delaware Supreme Court: whether, under New York law, the absence of any reference in the no-action clause to the Securities precludes enforcement only of contractual claims arising under the Indenture, or whether the clause also precludes enforcement of all common law and statutory claims that security holders as a group may have.