American Stevedoring Inc. , 105 A.D.3d 178, 183 (1 st Dep’t 2013). For example, in American E Group LLC v. affirmed the District Court’s refusal to enforce a promissory note and the dismissal of the lender’s action The borrowers defaulted on their repayment obligations under the note and the lender commenced action as interest on the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or things in action at a rate exceeding the

Haber The Custody Rule provides that “it is a fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative act, practice or course of business within the meaning of section 206(4) of the [Advisers] Act … for [a registered investment The trust agreements further stated that each co-trustee could act independently. During the Relevant Period, said the SEC, Munakata’s President acted as an authorized agent with power from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act

alleged that Defendants violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(l), 17(a)(2), and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) <15 u.s.c. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c), 77q(a)(l), 77q(a)(2), and 77q(a)(3)>; Sections l0(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) <15 u.s.c. §§ 78j(b), 78o(a) and abetted Burkhalter’s and Drive Planning’s alleged violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act <15 u.s.c. § 77q(a)>, Section l0(b) of the Exchange Act <15 u.s.c. § 78j(b)>, and Rules 10b-5(a), (b

often dismayed to learn that attorney’s fees are not generally recoverable in litigation under the “American The “American Rule” “reflects a fundamental legislative policy decision that, save for particular exceptions Exceptions to the “American Rule” exist where the recovery of attorney’s fees “is authorized by agreement federal courts have inherent power to assess attorney’s fees against counsel, even though the so-called “American Third, and most relevant here, a court may assess attorney’s fees when a party has acted in bad faith

Freiberger Much has been written in this Blog about mortgage foreclosure actions.  In the event of a borrower default, among the choices available to a lender are an action at law, by which the lender sues on the note for monetary damages, or an action in equity to foreclose the mortgage The desired result of a foreclosure action is the foreclosure sale – a public auction at which the subject amount owing on all prior liens and encumbrances with interest, plus costs and disbursements of the action

of a parent corporation exercise control over the daily operations of a subsidiary corporation and act as the true prime movers behind the subsidiary’s actions, and/or (2) where a parent corporation conducts business, as distinct from the corporate business, the courts have held the shareholder liable for acts When that occurs, “the dominating corporation will be held liable for the actions of its subsidiary … Takeaway Under New York law (and elsewhere), a parent corporation may be held liable for its subsidiaries’ acts

Givens addresses three issues encountered in mortgage foreclosure actions:[1] motions for extensions prescribed by law, the court may extend the time fixed by any statute, rule or order for doing any act “CPLR 2004 vests the trial court with discretion to extend the time to perform any act” and, when considering A.D.3d at 901 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas Givens In 2016, lender commenced a foreclosure action against borrower.

Department has stated that an “RPAPL 1304 notice is a notice pursuant to the Home Equity Theft Prevention Act requires that at least 90 days before a lender, an assignee, or a mortgage loan servicer commences an action Levy, 207 A.D.3d 735, 736 (2nd Dep’t 2022); see also Bank of America, Nat. Ass’n v. On June 18, 2025, the Appellate Division, Second Department, decided Bank of America, N.A. v. Reed, a mortgage foreclosure action addressing RPAPL 1304 and other interesting issues.

Commenting on the award, Jane Norberg, Acting Chief of the SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower, said: Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a whistleblower who provides original information to the SEC that leads to a successful enforcement action resulting in over $1 million in whistleblowers who “provided the SEC with original and useful information that led to a successful enforcement action

Haber On many occasions, we have written about Ponzi schemes that have been the subject of enforcement actions an ethnic group, or a community – also known as affinity fraud.[1] Today, we examine an enforcement action complaint (here),[3] the SEC charged defendant with violating the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) as well as the securities registration provisions of the Securities Act.

” and “may only be predicated on continuing, unlawful acts and not on the continuing effects of earlier The distinction between the consequences of a wrongful act and the wrongs themselves was discussed by – automatic monthly credit card fee charges – “represent the consequences of those wrongful acts in “Essentially,” noted the Court, “the allegations describe an arrangement by which CWCI acted as eyes “Thus,” concluded the Court, “while certainly a claim accrued the first time CWCI failed to act upon

failing to submit disputes to a FINRA forum, are rules violations that could result in disciplinary action Notwithstanding FINRA's July 2016 notice, brokers and investment advisors have a duty to act in a reasonable and prudent manner when acting as a fiduciary, and are required to put their customers' interests first