Search Results

invalidate a release due to fraudulent inducement must ‘establish the basic elements of fraud, namely a representation of material fact, the falsity of that representation, knowledge by the party who made the representation

the allegedly deceptive act.[3] For purposes of GBL § 349, “deceptive acts and practices, whether representations

The SEC declined to identify the whistleblower or the wrongdoers. might directly or indirectly reveal the whistleblower’s identity. No money is taken or withheld from harmed investors to pay whistleblower awards. The SEC’s whistleblower program is, by all accounts, a success . Both have previously voiced support for whistleblower programs.

to recover damages for fraudulent inducement, there must be a knowing misrepresentation of material present requirement, the plaintiff must allege such facts as the time, place, and content of the defendant’s false representations false, that not an actionable basis for fraud.” 11 A plaintiff must allege misrepresentations of present rather, facts must be alleged establishing that the adverse party, at the time of making the promissory representation

requirement, the plaintiff must allege such facts as the time, place, and content of the defendant’s false representations remedy is to sue for breach of contract.”[9] However, if the plaintiff alleges a misrepresentation of “present As noted, the court found that plaintiff adequately alleged misrepresentations of present facts that

DB made representations and warranties in the MLPA as to the “quality and characteristics” of the pooled pursuant to which the sponsor, DB, was required to cure or buy back loans that were in breach of the representations certificate holders commissioned a forensic analysis of the loans that revealed significant breaches of the representations HSBC argued that “CPLR 205 (a) authorized commencement of the present action, which would otherwise be

The Court also held that the misrepresentations did not duplicate the representations in the offering , that plaintiff alleged actionable misrepresentations of existing fact, as opposed to inactionable representations According to plaintiff, the accounting defendants and FHI repeated the foregoing representations, both

Plaintiffs claimed that beginning in August 2017, Energy Transfer made representations about the progress Based on those representation, plaintiffs alleged that they invested $50 million in EdgeMarc.  Plaintiffs maintained that the explosion exposed the truth about Energy Transfer’s prior representations Plaintiffs alleged that at the time of each representation, Energy Transfer had knowledge and notice The Court reasoned that the fraud claim was predicated on representations that were “not alleged in the

regard, a plaintiff alleging fraud must allege the time, place, and content of the defendant’s false representations one paragraph of the complaint. 3 And, in that paragraph, plaintiff merely alleged: “ efendants made representations requirement, the plaintiff must allege such facts as the time, place, and content of the defendant’s false representations

In cases such as Brody , it is critical that the foreclosing mortgagee presents to the court in admissible

reasonably satisfactory to [MIP Acquisition] pursuant to which [plaintiff] shall provide customary representations

met their initial burden of establishing the absence of justifiable reliance on defendants’ alleged representations