Michael Reynolds Participates in Webinar for the Historical Society of the New York Courts and Woodlawn Cemetery & Conservancy

On January 19, 2021, the New York Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the complete dismissal of claims against Cravath client Goldman Sachs (“Goldman”) by the New York State Supreme Court’s Commercial Division in May 2020. Those claims by Goldman’s former client, United Natural Foods, Inc. (“UNFI”), alleged breach of contract and fraud relating to Goldman’s handling of the syndication of a term loan that UNFI used to finance its $3 billion acquisition of SuperValu Inc. UNFI sought to recover damages in excess of $230 million, representing recoupment of fees paid and other costs of syndication, as well as incremental interest costs it expects to pay over the life of the loan.

On May 5, 2020, Justice Andrea Masley of the New York State Supreme Court’s Commercial Division dismissed claims against Cravath client Goldman Sachs, which was sued in January 2019 by its former client, United Natural Foods, Inc. (“UNFI”), the largest publicly traded distributor of natural, organic, specialty conventional grocery and non‑food products in the U.S. and Canada and a major supplier to Whole Foods. In its complaint, UNFI brought claims alleging breach of contract and fraud relating to Goldman’s handling of the syndication of a term loan that UNFI used to finance its $3 billion acquisition of SuperValu Inc., which was announced in July 2018 and closed in October 2018. UNFI sought to recover damages in excess of $230 million, representing recoupment of fees paid and other costs of syndication, as well as incremental interest costs it expects to pay over the life of the loan.

On April 3, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed, with prejudice, purported class action litigation brought by fantasy sports contestants against Cravath client Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. (the “Red Sox”), as well as Major League Baseball and MLB Advanced Media, L.P. (collectively “MLB”) and the Houston Astros, LLC (the “Astros”). The named plaintiffs in the suit were five individuals who, between 2017 and 2019, participated in daily fantasy baseball contests hosted by DraftKings Inc. (“DraftKings”). On behalf of themselves and similarly situated DraftKings participants, plaintiffs alleged that the Red Sox and Astros engaged in electronic sign‑stealing in violation of MLB rules and that the MLB failed to prevent, remedy and disclose the violation. They further alleged that the electronic sign‑stealing schemes improperly impacted player statistics, which form the basis for fantasy contests, and thereby corrupted the DraftKings contests promoted by defendants. Plaintiffs asserted various fraud, negligence, unjust enrichment and consumer protection law claims based on alleged harm arising from the electronic “sign‑stealing” scandal.