The opinion of the court was delivered by: Denise Cote, District Judge
The defendants have moved to dismiss this RICO complaint, filed on May 2, 2007. Their motion is granted, with a limited leave to amend. This is essentially a breach of contract claim governed by two complex agreements negotiated between sophisticated parties. The plaintiffs' effort to add other statutory and common law claims largely fails.
The following is drawn from the complaint and the two contracts which underlie this lawsuit, each of which is integral to the complaint. The parties are engaged in the life settlements industry, a secondary market for life insurance policies. The industry operates as follows. Paying a sum of money that is more than the price an owner of a life insurance policy would receive if a policy were returned to the issuing insurance company, and yet less than the death benefit, a buyer acquires the policy and continues to pay premiums until the insured's death. The buyer then receives the death benefit, and if the costs of paying premiums have been less than the death benefit, makes a profit.
The plaintiffs allege that the four corporate defendants, which they refer to collectively as Coventry, are leading players in the life settlements industry, having purchased over 1,300 life insurance policies representing more than $3 billion in death benefits between 2001 and 2005. Beginning in 2005, plaintiff Ritchie Capital Management, L.L.C. ("Ritchie Capital") entered into negotiations with Coventry to purchase policies. At some point it contributed the majority of the financing that Coventry used to purchase policies, while Coventry exercised its expertise in analyzing which policies should be purchased and in servicing purchased policies. Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ireland), Limited ("Ritchie I") and Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ireland) II, Limited ("Ritchie II") sent money to Coventry to buy the policies that Coventry acquired, and the policies were then transferred "to plaintiffs." After purchasing the policies, Ritchie I and II sent money to pay the monthly premiums in the amounts that Coventry determined were owed, and Coventry arranged for those funds to be disbursed to the issuing life insurance companies.
The first agreement between the parties governing this arrangement is the September 8, 2005 agreement between Ritchie I and defendant LST 1 LLC ("LST") signed by defendant Alex Seldin ("Seldin"). A second agreement dated December 15, 2005, was executed between Richie II and LST, and signed again by Seldin. The two agreements contain the following three representations, among others, by the seller LST:
The consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and the fulfillment of the terms hereof will not violate any United States federal, state or local law or regulation . . . .
There is no action, suit or proceeding before or by any court, regulatory body, administrative agency or other governmental agency or body, domestic or foreign, now pending, or to the Seller's knowledge, threatened, against or affecting the Seller or its assets or properties: . . . seeking any determination or ruling that might materially and adversely effect [sic] the performance by the Seller of its obligations under . . . this Agreement.
All Life Settlement Policies . . . have been  Originated by the Seller . . . in one or more transactions that in all material respects were in accordance with and in compliance with all applicable United States federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations applicable to life settlement transactions and the purchase and resale of life insurance policies . . . .
Section 7.12 of each agreement contained the following integration clause:
. . . [T]his Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the parties hereto relating to the subject matter hereof, and all prior understandings, written or oral, are superseded by this Agreement. . . . The Purchaser [Ritchie I or II] expressly acknowledges that the Seller [LST] has not made any representations and warranties other than as set forth herein and in the other Transaction Documents. The Purchaser represents and warrants to the Seller that, independently and without reliance upon the Seller (other than its reliance on the Seller's representations, warranties and covenants set forth in the Transaction Documents) and based upon such documents and information as it has deemed appropriate, it has made and will continue . . . to make its own appraisal of and investigation into the business, operations, . . . financial and other conditions . . . of the Seller, and its own decision to enter into this Agreement and to take, or omit to take, action under any Transaction Document. Except for items specifically required to be delivered hereunder, the Seller shall not have any duty or responsibility to provide the Purchaser or any of its Affiliates any information that comes into the possession of the Seller or any of its officers, directors, employees . . . or Affiliates.
Finally, the agreements had New York choice of law and forum selection clauses. They also waived the right to a jury trial for any action or cause of action "arising out of or in any way related to this agreement."
The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in fraud by both defrauding the insureds, and concealing from the plaintiffs that dishonesty and an ongoing investigation of the fraud being conducted by the Attorney General of the State of New York ("Attorney General"). Coventry defrauded the insureds by bribing brokers, who assisted Coventry in acquiring the policies from insureds, not to act on bids for the policies placed by Coventry's competitors. Coventry also falsified documents to conceal from the insureds the amount paid in brokerage commissions. The plaintiffs learned of this scheme in October 2006, when the Attorney General sued Coventry. Coventry first revealed the existence of an investigation to the plaintiffs in June 2006.*fn1 In conversations in June 2006, Seldin implied that Coventry was not engaged in precisely the conduct which was the target of an Attorney General's subpoena.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired with each other to defraud the insureds through acquiring policies in a rigged bidding process and to induce institutional investors like Ritchie Capital to acquire the policies. They list purported violations of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 1343. In addition to repeating allegations from the lawsuit filed by the Attorney General concerning the fraud on the insureds, the complaint contains two RICO predicate acts related to the deception of the plaintiffs. The first asserts that during the negotiations of the two agreements with Ritchie I and II, defendants Seldin, Reid Buerger, and Antonio Muniz ("Muniz") sent emails which contained the following misrepresentations: that the transactions the parties were about to enter would not violate federal or state law; that no proceeding before any government agency was then proceeding to "the Seller's knowledge" which would affect the performance of the Seller under the contemplated agreements; that the Seller had perfected ownership in each policy; and that the purchases of the policies were in compliance with laws applicable to life settlement transactions and the purchase and resale of life insurance policies. The second relevant predicate act asserts that in June 2006, defendant Reid Buerger misrepresented to plaintiffs the nature of the Attorney General's investigation.
Insofar as damages are concerned, the complaint asserts that the value of the policies purchased by Ritchie I and II has greatly diminished "since the New York Attorney General's action was commenced." It contends that the plaintiffs had anticipated profiting from the sale of the policies to others in a securitization transaction, and for that purpose had obtained a pre-sale report and rating from the Moody's service on a number of the policies. Moody's withdrew its rating because of the Attorney General's investigation. By interfering with the resale value of the policies, the defendants harmed not only Ritchie I and II, but the plaintiffs that own or are beneficially interested in Ritchie I and II. The complaint also asserts that Coventry owed fiduciary duties to these other plaintiffs.
The complaint contains seven causes of action. The first three are RICO claims pleaded against all of the defendants. A fraud claim and a fraudulent inducement claim are pleaded against the Coventry defendants, Alan and Reid Buerger, Muniz, and Seldin. Finally, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract claims are pleaded against the Coventry defendants. The plaintiffs seek, inter alia, $700 million, and demand a jury trial. The October 26, 2006 complaint filed by the Attorney General against Coventry First LLC, Montgomery Capital, Inc., the Coventry Group, Inc., and Reid Buerger is attached as an exhibit.
The defendants seek dismissal of this lawsuit for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction over each of the individual defendants and two of the corporate defendants. They also move to strike the demand for a jury trial. As of now it may be that only two of the plaintiffs --Ritchie I and II --- will succeed in stating a claim, and that claim is a breach of contract claim against the corporate defendants. It is therefore unnecessary at this time to reach the issue of personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants. ...