AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The New Mexico State Investment Council (NMSIC) and several intervenors, including Frank Foy, Suzanne Foy, and John Casey, filed lawsuits against various defendants, alleging misconduct related to NMSIC's management of funds. The cases involved allegations of "pay-to-play" schemes and false claims regarding the risks and performance of certain financial instruments and hedge funds. NMSIC developed a plan to recover from those involved, focusing on individuals first, then entities, using theories of liability other than the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA) (paras 3-12).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Approved settlements between NMSIC and three sets of defendants, which were challenged by the appellants (para 2).
• Court of Appeals of New Mexico: Affirmed the district court's approval of the settlements (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants: Argued that the district court's approval of the settlements was inconsistent with FATA and that NMSIC's Litigation Committee failed to comply with the Open Meetings Act (OMA) (para 2).
• NMSIC: Defended the settlements, arguing that they were consistent with FATA and that the Litigation Committee's actions complied with the OMA.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's approval of the settlements was consistent with the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.
• Whether NMSIC's Litigation Committee complied with the Open Meetings Act.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's approval of the settlements between NMSIC and the defendants (para 2).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the appellants did not demonstrate that their rights under FATA were infringed upon by the settlement process. It also concluded that the Litigation Committee's actions were initially void due to improper delegation of settlement authority and violations of the OMA. However, these issues were cured when NMSIC approved the settlements in a properly noticed public meeting in May 2015, making the settlement agreements valid from that date forward. The court also determined that the appellants failed to show a violation of the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) related to the settlement agreements. The court's analysis included considerations of the OMA, the delegation of settlement authority, and the procedural and substantive aspects of the settlements (paras 69-94).