By:  Jeffrey M. Haber Two weeks ago, this Blog wrote about an enforcement action involving an investment adviser's former co-chief investment officer who had been charged with running a more than $600 million cherry-picking scheme ( here ). Today, this Blog examines another enforcement action involving a former investment adviser representative, charged with engaging in a fraudulent trade allocation scheme – i.e. , cherry-picking scheme – wherein he benefitted himself in the

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In almost every litigation, the question that clients most often ask is whether they can get back their attorney’s fees. As we have explained in past articles ( e.g. , here , here , and here ), attorney’s fees are not generally recoverable in litigation under the “American Rule”. The American Rule “was originally derived from federal legislation passed in 1853 which recognized that ‘losing litigants were being unfairly saddled with exorbitant fees.’” Un

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Today’s BLOG article is about Thorobird Grand LLC v. M. Melnick & Co. , a case decided by the Appellate Division, First Department, on December 12, 2024, and which involves mechanic’s liens. The Facts of Thorobird Plaintiff, as owner, hired defendant M. Melnick & Co., as contractor, on several projects. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, contractor was required to procure performance and payment bonds from a surety; in this case, defendant Federa

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In today’s article, we revisit some familiar principles concerning claims of fraudulent inducement. We will also examine the impact of a contractual exculpatory clause on the viability of a fraud claim, as well as the impact of contractual provision that negates the basis for a fraud claim. Our examination of these issues and principles is centered on MREF REIT Lender 2 LLC v. FPG Maiden Holdings LLC , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 06161 (1st Dept. Dec. 10, 2024) (

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Valkyrie AI LLC v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 06141 (1st Dept. Dec. 5, 2024) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed an order involving claims for unfair competition, tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective business relations. As discussed below, the Court found that plaintiff stated a claim for unfair competition and tortious interference with contract against PwC but fa

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Today’s BLOG article concerns CPLR 306-b . As previously explained in prior articles, actions or proceedings (collectively, “Actions”) are commenced by filing the initiatory papers with the appropriate county clerk. CPLR 304(a) . Once the Action is commenced, the plaintiff is required to serve the initiatory papers on the defendant, and generally such service must occur within 120 days after the Action is commenced. CPLR 306-b. “If service is not

By: Jeffrey M. Haber It has been some time since we have examined cherry-picking – a practice that can be an effective way to generate returns as well as a practice that is fraudulent and violative of the federal securities laws. Therefore, today, we examine SEC v. Leech , Case 1:24-cv-09017 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2024), a case involving the former co-chief investment officer of an investment adviser, who has been charged with running a more than $600 million cherry-picking schem

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Farage v. Associated Ins. Mgt. Corp. , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 05875 (Nov. 26, 2024) ( here ), the New York Court of Appeals examined the enforceability of an insurance contract’s two-year suit limitation period. In a 4-3 decision, written by Judge Madeline Singas, the Court held that the contract provision in the parties’ insurance agreement shortening the statute of limitations barred plaintiff from receiving payment for the restoration of her property t

“The doctrine of equitable estoppel prevents a party from denying her own expressed or implied admission which has in good faith been accepted and acted upon by another.” “The purpose of equitable estoppel is to preclude a person from asserting a right after having led another to form the reasonable belief that the right would not be asserted, and loss or prejudice to the other would result if the right were asserted.” Stated differently, the purpose of the doctrine “is to