Cuomo's Motion Seeking Names of Merrill Employees

In the Matter

of

the Petition by:ANDREW M. CUOMO, Attorney General

of

theState

of

New York,Petitioner,For an order pursuant to CPLR 2308(b) compellingcompliance with a certain subpoena dated January27,2009, issued by the Attorney General--against -JOHN

A.

THAIN,Respondent.Index No.: 400381109Justice: Bernard J. Fried

ELECTRONICALLY FILEDATTORNEY GENERAL'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITIONTO MOTION TO INTERVENE ANDPETITION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA

ANDREW

M.

CUOMOAttorney General

of

the State

of

New YorkOffice

of

the New York State Attorney General120 Broadway, 23rd FloorNew York, New York 10271(212) 416-8222

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

ii

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1STATENIENT OF FACTS 3ARGUMENT

11

I.

BANK OF AMERICA HAS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR INTERVENING IN THEATTORNEY GENERAL'S INVESTIGATION

11

A.

Private Parties May Not Intervene in Martin Act Investigations

11

B.

Even Absent the Explicit Prohibition Against Intervention in Martin ActInvestigations, Bank

of

America May Not Intervene as

of

Right

12

C. Intervention by Permission Would Prejudice the Attorney General'sSubstantive Rights

13

II.

BANK OF AMERICA'S PETITION TO QUASH, FIX CONDITIONS ORMODIFY SHOULD BE REJECTED

13

A. There Is No Basis For Quashing Any Part

of

the Subpoena

14

1.

The Attorney General Was Authorized to Issue the Subpoena 142. There Is A Factual Basis for the Attorney General's Investigation

14

3.

The Information the Attorney General Seeks is Centrally Relevant

to

HisInvestigation

14

4.

Bank

of

America's Privacy Arguments are Unavailing

17

B. Bank

of

America Has No Justification For Obtaining Any Form

of

Confidentiality Protection in the Attorney General's Investigation

181.

The Attorney General Has Discretion

to

Control Confidentiality in HisInvestigations

18

2. The Bonus Payments Are Not a Trade Secret 20CONCLUSION 24

TABLE

OF

AUTHORITIESStatutes

CPLR 1012[a][2]

12

Debtor and Creditor Law

§

274

16

Executive Law § 63[12]

1,

14

General Business Law § 352

1,

14,

19,20

Cases

Am. Dental Coop., Inc. v Attorney General

o/the

State

o/New

York,

127 AD2d 274 [1stDept 1987] 15,

17

Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Abrams,

71

NY2d 327 [1988] 2,

15

Ashland Mgmt.

Inc.

v Janien,

82 NY2d 395 [1993] 20

Attorney-General v Katz,

104 Mise 2d 846 [Sup Ct 1980]. 2, 11,

13

Baker v Cohn,

42 NYS2d 159 [Sup Ct 1942]

17

Carlisle v Bennett,

268 NY 212 [1935]

18

Dibble v Penn State Geisinger Clinic Inc.,

806 A2d 866 [2002]

23

Ferranti Elec., Inc. v Harwood,

43 Mise 2d 533 [Sup Ct 1964]

21

First Energy Leasing Corp. v Attorney-General

of

the State

o/New

York,

68 NY2d 59[1986]

19

Greenthal

&

Co., Inc. v Lefkowitz,

41

AD2d 818 [1st Dept 1973]

12

In

re Abrams v Thruway Food Mkt.

&

Shopping Ctr., Inc.,

147 AD2d 143 [2d Dept 1989].................................................................................................................................

13,

14

In

re Application

0/

Gilchrist,

130 Mise 456 [Sup Ct 1927]

17

In

re Attorney General v Am. Research Council,

10

NY2d 108 [1961]

12

In re Citizens Org. to Protect Envt. v Planning Bd.

of

Irondequoit,

50 AD3d 1460 [2008].......................................................................................................................................

13

In

reEstateo/Mayer,

110Mise2d346

[SupCt

1981]

12

11