Search Results

the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud forum selection clauses at issue did not govern the dispute and was alleged to have been procured by fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud. In other words, said the Court, “ f an action is ‘the product of fraud,’ it is void.”  As noted by the Court, acts of fraud are void.

Cloopen arose from an alleged accounting fraud perpetrated by the former Operating Management Director Managers, who headed the department that handled Cloopen’s strategic customers, had orchestrated a fraudulent

Haber Affinity fraud is a type of securities fraud in which the promoter of the fraud preys upon members The promoter of an affinity fraud frequently is – or pretends to be – a member or a good friend of the Affinity frauds exploit the trust and friendship that exist in a group of people who have something in Many affinity frauds involve Ponzi schemes. For this reason, many Ponzi schemes involve an affinity fraud.

Haber Under New York law, an action based upon fraud must be commenced within six years of the date the action accrued, or within two years of the time, the plaintiff discovered or could have discovered the fraud hotly contested is the determination of when the plaintiff discovered or could have discovered the fraud In New York, “plaintiffs will be held to have discovered the fraud when it is established that they were The failure to bring suit when the facts suggest fraud will result in dismissal.

By: Jeffrey M. Haber “Understanding what investors value and look for in a financial adviser is critical to both the client’s and adviser’s success.”1 One factor investors consider is reputation. For an adviser, a good reputation can be a valuable tool. It can be used to attract new clients and generate revenue. But, it can also undermine an advisor’s business in complex litigation. Indeed, there are many circumstances that can negatively impact an adviser’s reputation (e.g., here). These include, among others: Misleading Investors – Advisers who mislead investors with false and misleading information can severely undermine the strength of their reputation. Poor Working Conditions – An advisory firm can see its reputation negatively affected by promoting a toxic culture, subjecting employees to discrimination, or acting unethically toward employees. Poor Service – Poor performance can sink an adviser’s reputation. Poor Data Security and Privacy – Data breaches are a significant source of reputational risk. Advisers who cannot safeguard client data and information can see their reputation plummet in the eyes of their clients and potential clients. Poor Regulatory Compliance – Poor regulatory compliance is a source of reputational risk. Enforcement actions and regulatory investigations negatively impact the perception of an adviser in the eyes of clients. The importance of a good reputation was at the heart of the SEC’s enforcement action against (and settlement with) Atlanta-based Angel Oak Capital Advisors, LLC and its portfolio manager Ashish Negandhi. As discussed in the SEC’s announcement of the charges (here), the SEC charged Angel Oak and its portfolio manager Ashish Negandhi for misleading investors about the firm’s fix-and-flip loan securitization’s delinquency rates. Angel Oak and Negandhi agreed to settle the charges and pay a penalty of $1.75 million and $75,000, respectively. According to the SEC’s order (here), in March 2018, Angel Oak raised $90 million through a first-of-its-kind securitization of loans made to borrowers for the purpose of purchasing, renovating, and selling residential properties, also known as “fix-and-flip” loans, which were originated by an Angel Oak-affiliated entity. The deal included a provision that would accelerate Angel Oak’s obligation to return funds to certain investors if delinquencies reached a pre-defined threshold. Shortly after the deal closed, loan delinquency rates increased unexpectedly. Concerned about the reputational and financial harm its securitization business would suffer from an early repayment, Angel Oak and Negandhi allegedly artificially reduced delinquency rates by improperly diverting funds ostensibly held to reimburse borrowers for renovations made to the mortgaged properties, to instead pay down outstanding loan balances. Because Angel Oak and Negandhi did not disclose these actions, said the SEC, the performance data regularly disseminated to investors provided an inaccurate view of the actual delinquency rates on the mortgages in the securitization pool as well as the securitization’s compliance with the early repayment trigger. The SEC found that had Angel Oak and Negandhi not engaged in the foregoing practices, the triggers would have been breached, and an early amortization would have been declared, in November 2018. “Angel Oak and Negandhi failed to disclose the firm’s improper use of funds while continuing to issue larger securitizations, which painted a misleading picture for investors,” said Osman Nawaz, Chief of the Division of Enforcement’s Complex Financial Instruments Unit. “Firms must provide investors with full and accurate information regarding the performance of an investment, even after closing, to ensure the integrity of our markets.” The SEC found that Angel Oak and Negandhi violated the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, and that Angel Oak violated, and Negandhi caused Angel Oak’s violation of, the antifraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, Angel Oak and Negandhi agreed to a cease-and-desist order, a censure, and the imposition of civil monetary penalties in the amounts referenced above. Jeffrey M. Haber is a partner and co-founder of Freiberger Haber LLP. This article is for informational purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. Footnote Ryan O. Murphy, PhD.; Samantha Lamas; and Ray Sin, PhD. Identifying What Investors Value in a Financial Adviser: Uncovering Opportunities and Pitfalls, Journal of Financial Planning (July 2020) (here).

In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine Cohen Bros. Realty Corp. v. Mapes , 2020 N.Y. A Refresher on Fraud To state a cause of action for fraud, a plaintiff must allege “a material misrepresentation they are engaged in the perpetration of a fraud”; rather, “intent to commit fraud is to be divined from Goldberg sued Torim for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and fraud. After all, without falsity, there can be no cause of action for fraud.

recorded the song – the McCoys – claimed that they were cheated out of substantial sums of money due to fraud or two years from the time the plaintiff … discovered the fraud, or could with reasonable diligence Courts look at whether the plaintiff should have discovered the alleged fraud objectively. The Court agreed, granting the motion with regard to the fraud claims. In Baiul , the court dismissed Oksana Baiul’s fraud claims pursuant to CPLR 213(8).

13, 2021) ( here ), the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s fraud With regard to the fraud claim, defendant argued that plaintiff failed to establish the elements of a The Second Department affirmed, holding that “plaintiff failed to state a cause of action alleging fraud the plaintiff the benefits owed under the policy are insufficient to state a cause of action alleging fraud Takeaway To state a claim for fraud, a plaintiff must allege “a misrepresentation or a material omission

Haber In prior articles, we discussed the impact a disclaimer clause in a contract can have on a fraud Namely, a disclaimer clause can preclude a fraud claim when (1) the disclaimer is specific to the fact claim may later challenge that release as fraudulently induced only if it can identify a separate fraud Silver Point brought suit, asserting causes of action for (i) common law fraud , (ii) fraudulent inducement With regard to Silver Point’s fraud, fraudulent inducement and fraudulent concealment claims – which

the past several months, this Blog has examined cases in which plaintiffs brought contract claims and fraud Similarly, this Blog has examined cases involving veil piercing and the Statute of Fraud. We look at the Court’s decision with respect the contract claims and the fraud claim. Having sustained most of the contract claims, the Court turned its attention to the fraud claim. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the fraud cause of action.

Readers of this Blog know that a fraud claim, which “ar from the same facts , s identical damages and Fraud damages are meant to redress a different harm than damages for breach of contract. Lacher , 115 A.D.3d 600, 600-601 (1st Dept. 2014) (dismissing fraud claim seeking duplicative damages Michael and 661 West moved to dismiss the fraud and indemnification/contribution cross-claims. fraud cross-claim to be duplicative of the breach of contract cross-claim: “the fraud claim is based

In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine two cases decided by the Appellate Division, First Department: Knox Knox concerned the justifiable reliance element of a fraud claim and WCapital Invs. concerned the damages element of a fraud claim.  “Because cognizable damages cannot be reasonably inferred,” the Court concluded that the fraud causes When there are hints of falsity, the obligation to root out the fraud is heightened.