Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

National Credit Union Administration Board v. RBS Securities, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

March 27, 2014

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION BOARD, as Liquidating Agent of Southwest Corporate Federal Credit Union and Members United Corporate Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff,
RBS SECURITIES, INC., formerly known as Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc. and RBS ACCEPTANCE, INC., formerly known as Greenwich Capital Acceptance, Inc., Defendants.

Fredrick R. Kessler, David H. Wollmuth, Steven S. Fitzgerald, and Ryan A. Kane, Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP, New York, NY, George A. Zelcs, Korein Tillery LLC, Chicago, IL, Stephen M. Tillery, Greg G. Gutzler, Peter H. Rachman, and Robert L. King, Korein Tillery LLC, St. Louis, MO, David Fredrick, Wan J. Kim, Gregory G. Rapawy, and Andrew C. Shen Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, for the Plaintiff.

David Ian Horowitz, Michael Courtney Keats, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY, Robert Alexander Pilmer, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for the Defendants.


DENISE COTE, District Judge.

On March 3, 2013, plaintiff moved for an order granting leave for Richard M. Elias ("Elias") to appear as counsel on behalf of plaintiff in this action. Defendants ("RBS") have not submitted any opposition to the motion. For the following reasons, the motion is granted.


Plaintiff's motion seeks a ruling that Elias should not be disqualified from this matter due to his prior government experience as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of California, during which he investigated JPMorgan Chase & Co. and affiliated entities ("JPMorgan") for possible violations of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act in connection with JPMorgan's issuing, underwriting, and sale of certain residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS"). Elias has since left that U.S. Attorney's Office and intends to join the firm of Korein Tillery, which represents plaintiff in this matter.

Elias has submitted a declaration stating as follows. During his time at the U.S. Attorney's Office, Elias did not investigate deals in which JPMorgan, Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. ("Bear Stearns"), or Washington Mutual, Inc. ("WaMu") was an underwriter for RMBS issued by RBS. Elias was not involved in any investigation related to RBS; he was not exposed to any information regarding RMBS issued by RBS; and he did not attend any meetings or conferences in which documents regarding RBS were discussed. The central repository of documents concerning RMBS to which Elias had access did not contain information regarding RMBS issued by RBS.

In January 2014, Elias left the U.S. Attorney's Office to join the St. Louis office of Korein Tillery. After consulting with ethics experts, Korein Tillery decided to screen Elias from matters concerning JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch. In a letter of January 22, Korein Tillery informed counsel for RBS of Elias's background and that it intended to assign Elias to its matters involving RBS. In correspondence in early February, counsel for RBS invoked New York Rule of Professional Conduct 1.11(c) ("Rule 1.11(c)") and expressed concern that Elias may have acquired confidential information that could be used to RBS's material disadvantage in private litigation. Despite further communication, counsel for RBS reserved its right to seek appropriate relief at a later time.

On March 3, plaintiff moved for an order granting Elias leave to appear in this matter. An Order of March 5 stated that any opposition to the motion must be served by March 21, 2013. No opposition was filed as of that date, and thus the motion is fully submitted.


"The authority of federal courts to disqualify attorneys derives from their inherent power to preserve the integrity of the adversary process." Hempstead Video, Inc. v. Inc. Vill. of Valley Stream , 409 F.3d 127, 132 (2d Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). "In deciding whether to disqualify an attorney, a district court must balance a client's right freely to choose his counsel against the need to maintain the highest standards of the profession." GSI Commerce Solutions, Inc. v. BabyCenter, L.L.C. , 618 F.3d 204, 209 (2d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

Motions to disqualify counsel are subject to strict scrutiny because of their potential to be used for tactical purposes. Murray v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. , 583 F.3d 173, 178 (2d Cir. 2009). "[E]ven when made in the best of faith, such motions inevitably cause delay" in the litigation. Bd. of Educ. v. Nyquist , 590 F.2d 1241, 1246 (2d Cir. 1979). As the Second Circuit has explained:

[D]isqualification has been ordered only in essentially two kinds of cases: (1) where an attorney's conflict of interests... undermines the court's confidence in the vigor of the attorney's representation of his client, or more commonly (2) where the attorney is at least potentially in a position to use privileged information concerning the other side through prior representation.

Bobal v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. , 916 F.2d 759, 764-65 (2d Cir. 1990) (quoting Nyquist , 590 F.2d at 1246). "[D]isqualification is warranted only if an attorney's conduct tends to taint the underlying ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.