The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gerard E. Lynch, District Judge
Plaintiff Marc S. Kirschner, in his capacity as Trustee of the Refco Litigation Trust ("Trustee"), originally filed this action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, asserting claims under Illinois state law against certain Refco insiders, professionals, and advisors for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, malpractice, and negligent misrepresentation. The case was removed by certain defendants to the Northern District of Illinois and subsequently transferred by the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL Panel") to this Court, where a multitude of other Refco-related actions are pending. In a recent decision, the Court denied the Trustee's motion to remand or, in the alternative, to abstain. See In re Refco, Inc. Secs. Litig., No. 07 Civ. 11604, 2008 WL 1827644, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. April 21, 2008). This Opinion and Order addresses a motion by defendant Ernst & Young LLP ("EY")*fn1 to stay proceedings as to it pending mediation and, if necessary, arbitration. For the reasons stated below, the motion will be granted.
Prior to its collapse in the fall of 2005, Refco was among the world's largest providers of brokerage and clearing services in the international derivatives, currency, and futures markets.
(Compl. ¶ 56.*fn2 ) Beginning in the late 1990s, members of Refco's senior management, allegedly with the aid of certain of Refco's professionals and financial advisors (collectively, the "defendants"), orchestrated a fraudulent scheme to artificially boost Refco's performance and conceal Refco's true financial condition so that these senior executives, through the company's August 2004 leveraged-buy-out and August 2005 initial public offering ("IPO"), could cash out their interests in Refco on lucrative terms. (Id. ¶¶ 4-7, 32, 59-149.) Defendants allegedly carried out this scheme by "concealing substantial Refco trading losses and operating expenses, recording hundreds of millions in fictitious Refco income, and funding Refco's operating expenses and acquisitions with misappropriated customer assets." In re Refco, 2008 WL 1827644, at *1 (internal quotation marks omitted).
On October 10, 2005, just two months after its IPO, Refco announced that it had discovered an undisclosed $430 million receivable due from Refco Group Holdings, Inc. ("RGHI"), an entity controlled by Refco's CEO, Philip R. Bennett. (Comp. ¶¶ 147-48.) As a result, the company announced that its financial statements for the preceding four years could no longer be relied upon. (Id. ¶ 148.) Following these disclosures, Refco's stock plummeted and was de-listed by the New York Stock Exchange, leading to over $1 billion in lost market capitalization. (Id. ¶¶ 148-49.) On October 17, 2005, Refco Inc. and over twenty of its subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy protection. (See id. ¶¶ 32, 34.)
II. EY's Provision of Tax-Related Services to Refco
A. EY's Role in the Refco Fraud
The complaint alleges that EY "actively participated in and substantially assisted the Refco Insiders and others" in carrying out the fraudulent scheme at Refco. (Id. ¶ 248.) From 1991 through at least 2005, EY provided tax-related services to various Refco entities. (Id. ¶¶ 249, 274.) EY was initially retained by Refco to review tax returns and answer tax questions. (Id. ¶ 249.) By 1993 or 1994, EY began preparing Refco's tax returns and later assisted with IRS, state, and municipal audits. (Id.) EY also provided tax consulting and advice on numerous Refco transactions beginning in the mid-1990s through 2002. (Id. ¶¶ 251-273.)
The complaint alleges that as early as 1997, EY was concerned about its own liability for helping the Refco insiders with their fraud but consciously decided to continue to participate in the scheme. (Id. ¶¶ 268-69.) By 1998, EY allegedly knew that Refco insiders were falsifying Refco's financial statements and hiding bad debts and losses in the RGHI receivable. (Id. ¶ 260.) Throughout the period of the Refco fraud, EY allegedly "prepar[ed] false tax returns based on . . . phony financial results." (P. Mem. 3-4, citing Compl. ¶¶ 249-50, 276-77.) Between 1997 and 2002, EY also structured various transactions that allegedly enabled Refco insiders to hide Refco's losses and "monetize and cash-out their interests in Refco for far more than those interests were worth." (Compl. ¶ 251; see id. ¶¶ 252-56, 278.)
In November 2003, EY "purported to resign from the Refco engagement based in large part on its concerns over potential liability for aiding and abetting the Refco Fraud." (Id. ¶ 273.) The complaint, however, alleges that EY "did not really resign" and that it "continued to ...