PWRES's reply left DG Meyer with no immediate way of discovering who had overpaid, because either of the clearing agents could have wrongly debited any one of their hundreds of accounts. DG Meyer then called PWRES to find out whether it had a shortage, but PWRES insisted that its books were in balance. When DG Meyer received its daily activity statement from SecPac, it did discover the million dollar overpayment. By then charging PWRES only for the correct amount, and not informing them of the overpayment, UST made it difficult for PWRES to discover the overpayment. Without informing plaintiff, defendant, or SecPac, UST then made an "internal book entry" adjustment, recording the additional debit to PWRES's account. It did not at that time, however, debit PWRES's account for that amount, but instead only for the agreed upon $7,680,155.53 purchase price. In any event, UST did, in fact, pay SecPac $8,738,621.01, although it is unclear whether it did so based on SecPac's delivery ticket or by making the same mistake on its own receive ticket. As the affiant explained, "his arms-length relationship between clearing banks is one of the key reasons that dealers, at that time (1985) engaged clearing banks to settle their trades." Id. Trust could act only upon the copy of the trade confirmation supplied by its own customer, PaineWebber." Affidavit of Peter B. Regardless of this error, according to the uncontested affidavit of defendants' expert in this field, UST should not have paid any money in reliance on SecPac's ticket "n generating a `receive ticket' U.S. See Defendant's Notice of Motion, Exhibit I. Although neither party could produce the original SecPac delivery ticket, a duplicate ticket, which may or not be the one received by UST, erroneously reported the amount to be paid to DG Meyer as $8,738,621.01 (the current balance of the bond), instead of the correct $7,680,155.533 figure (the net money owed). The seller's clearing agent, SecPac, then produced a delivery ticket, which it sent to UST on the settlement date. ![]() ("UST") and Security Pacific Clearing Corp. As was the practice in the industry, however, instead of PWRES paying the purchase price directly to DG Meyer, both parties mailed their confirmations of the trade to their clearing agents, U.S. Both printed confirmations correctly reported the net amount of money owed on the trade. See Defendants' Notice of Motion, Exhibits H and J. Following their regular practice, the two companies produced printed confirmations of the trade and mailed them to each other. ("DG Meyer") sold to Paine Webber Real Estate Securities ("PWRES") a Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation bond for an agreed upon price of $7,680,155.53. ![]() Because the statute of limitations has run on any meritorious action arising out of that event, I grant defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismiss the complaint. McVann, Jr., Westhampton Beach, NY, for defendants.ĭefendants move to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment, in this action arising out of a May 1985 overpayment by plaintiffs' clearing agent to defendant. Joseph D'Elia, Huntington, NY, for plaintiff. 116(1993) PAINE WEBBER REAL ESTATE SECURITIES, INC., Plaintiff,ĭ.G.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |