Low
Low v. Altus Finance S.A.
Opinion
Opinion
Matz, J.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
I.
INTRODUCTION
A. Overview of Motions
1. The Artemis Parties ’ Motions
The Artemis Parties (including Francois Pinault) moved to dismiss the claims against them in the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) on the following basic grounds:
The Artemis Parties also joined in the Aurora Parties’ motions, described Joelow.
2. The Aurora Parties’Motion
Aurora National Life Assurance and New California Life Holdings (“NCLH”) (collectively, the “Aurora Parties”) moved to dismiss the claims against them in the TAC on these basic grounds:
The parties briefed these motions very extensively. They collectively filed some 150 pages of briefs, cited hundreds of cases, statements and authorities, and submitted reams of exhibits (which was procedurally questionable on motions to dismiss).
On January 31, 2001, this Court issued an abbreviated tentative order and solicited additional information from the Commissioner. After reviewing that material, the Court presided over a hearing on March 5, 2001 that lasted almost two hours.
B. General Considerations
Executive Life Insurance Company (“ELIC”) collapsed more than a…