"> Under CPLR § 3213, a plaintiff may seek summary judgment in lieu of a complaint “ hen action is based Plaintiff commenced the action in in December 2021, seeking recovery on the notes from defendant.  This accelerated procedure, however, is limited solely to an action based either upon an instrument for

“To show reliance, a party must demonstrate that was induced to act or refrain from acting to detriment cases because the issue before the Court was whether defendant could demonstrate that he was induced to act or refrain from acting to his detriment by virtue of the alleged misrepresentation or omission. content of the defendant’s false representations, as well as the details of the defendant’s fraudulent acts , including when the acts occurred, who engaged in them, and what was obtained as a result.

Hampshire, charged defendant with violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. from participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any security, and from engaging in activities In a parallel action, the U.S. guilty and agreed to, among other things, provide $3 million in restitution to investors harmed by her actions

“Ample-Tee”), a company that focused “on selling hard-to find ergonomic products for the physically disabled have a class of securities registered with the Commission under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). times relevant to the SEC’s complaint, Airborne’s stock was a “penny stock” as defined by the Exchange Act the exceptions to penny stock classification under Section 3(a)(51) and Rule 3a51-1 of the Exchange Act

Haber Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b‑5 promulgated securities on the basis of material nonpublic information through any deceptive device, scheme, or act A Primer on Insider Trading Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act makes it “unlawful for any person ... o implements Section 10(b), prohibits the use of “any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud” or “any act non-public information—is well established as a violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act

s discretion in the calculation of the amount of interest due to a lender in a mortgage foreclosure actions Regarding the court’s equitable powers, we stated: CPLR 5001(a) provides, in relevant part that “in an action In that regard, a “foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the The borrower in GMAC defaulted in appearing in the action.  may also be warranted where there is an unexplained delay in prosecution of a mortgage foreclosure action

Freiberger When an action is timely commenced but gets dismissed, CPLR 205(a) may permit a plaintiff to commence a new action within six months of the dismissal notwithstanding the expiration of the limitations ">   CPLR 205(a) provides: New action by plaintiff.  survives, his or her executor or administrator , may commence a new action upon the same transaction HSBC argued that while it is not the same entity as the plaintiff in the prior action, “this new action

written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the Investment Advisers Act The order charged Invesco with willfully violating the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. entry of the SEC’s order finding that it violated the antifraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, and the compliance rule in the Investment Advisers Act The SEC defines greenwashing as “the act of exaggerating the extent to which products or services take

GBL Section 349 prohibits “[d]eceptive acts or practices,” and Section 350 bars “[f]alse advertising. materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act Under that standard, the statement must be “likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably the statutes, though not necessarily pecuniary harm.[13] And, the plaintiff must prove the deceptive act private plaintiffs are not authorized to sue for violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

claims exclusively brought under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act”), and does not allow for facts and circumstances as the 1933 Act claims. and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”), Gross v. All Writs Act and the Anti-Injunction Act. is found to be conflicted or has some other disabling reason for not being able to adequately represent

these types of transactions implicates a variety of legal obligations under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”), particularly its fiduciary duty. Cross trading involving mutual funds implicates the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“ICA”). See, e.g., Advisers Act Sections 206(1), (2), and (3) and Rules 206(3)-2 and 206(4)-7. An adviser’s obligation as a fiduciary is enforceable through Section 206 of the Advisers Act.

and transactions or a board’s alleged failure to act. certain current and former members of ABM’s Board of Directors) made a “conscious” decision not to act Plaintiffs alleged that “demand would be a futile and useless act because the Individual Defendants , or acted in bad faith.” The Court also held that Plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to show that the Board acted with