In Republic Natl. Bank v. Hales, 75 F Supp 2d 300 [SDNY 1999], affd 4 Fed Appx 15 [2d Cir 2001], a bank sued an individual for amounts due on, among other things, a swap transaction governed by an ISDA agreement. In seeking to avoid his obligations under that agreement, Hales interposed many of the same defenses and counterclaims as CCM, including counterclaims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Applying New York law, the court dismissed these claims and granted the bank summary judgment on its claims. The court therein found it clear that Hales was a sophisticated party: While Hales has made efforts to pass himself off as a "babe in the woods" who was taken advantage of by an unscrupulous banking institution possessed of superior information and resources, he nevertheless represented himself to [the bank] as a sophisticated businessman. Indeed, the very transcripts offered by Hales in connection with the instant motion reveal that Hales represented himself as having significant experience with swaps and options, and make rather clear Hales' own favorable assessment of his business acumen. He is neither a widow nor an orphan, however, and his effort to avoid his contractual obligations by playing the fool are not well taken (id. at 313).