arbitration panel imposed $25,000 in sanctions for violating FINRA Rule 12209 by filing a parallel court action His mother, acting as fiduciary of his estate, initiated a FINRA arbitration in August 2022, alleging and by directing her to drop the court action. Plaintiff argued that because federal courts lack the discretionary authority under the Federal Arbitration Act petitioner can satisfy any of the enumerated bases under Section 10 of the FAA and CPLR 7511(b) or acted

wrongs,” the statute of limitations is tolled “until the date of the commission of the last wrongful act “The doctrine ‘may only be predicated on continuing unlawful acts and not on the continuing effects of “The doctrine is<, therefore,> inapplicable where there is one tortious act complained of since the cause of action accrues in those cases at the time that the wrongful act first injured plaintiff and the continuing wrong doctrine tolled the statute of limitations: “Here, there is one alleged tortious act

Plaintiff sued defendants, asserting fourteen causes of action in her complaint. The motion court rejected plaintiff’s contention, finding that it was “at odds with first cause of action for breach of the Partnership Agreement and fourteenth cause of action for a declaration that she is American Indus. Partners , 96 A.D.3d 646, 649-650 (1st Dept. 2012)). Id.

On August 9, 2021, the SEC announced (here) that it filed an emergency action charging nine individuals In a related action, the SEC charged a Mexican resident with engaging in deceptive penny stock schemes In a parallel action, the U.S. preserve market integrity, in other words: to protect investors from getting ripped off by crooks,” said Acting securities fraud very seriously and we will do everything we can to hold accountable those who steal from American

Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the action on the grounds that she was without knowledge of the circumstances underlying the action. participates in the commission of a tort may be held individually liable, regardless of whether the officer acted explained that, “[a]lthough an employee ‘acting on behalf of his employer does not create jurisdiction upon the employee individually’…, the record support[ed] a finding that [defendant] was acting in her

of 1933 (the “’33 Act” or the “Securities Act”), or whether the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”) pre-empts them from considering such cases. ( Here .) under SLUSA that allege only Securities Act claims. Act class where state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction. alleging only ’33 Act claims.

of the corporation did not allow the president to commence litigation, but instead provided that the act of a majority of the board should constitute the act of the board, the authority of the president to In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that the president could not act against the wishes of his Bernstein, Shamokin’s president, admitted that the Shamokin directors had not acted in the matter and NW Media illustrates this balancing act.

Sebrow was brought as a shareholder derivative action against Zvi Sebrow (“Defendant”) to recover the should not rely on such stockholders’ agreement to allege her causes of action.” to have a stake in the company on whose behalf the action is commenced.  American Broadcasting Cos. Inc. , 27 N.Y.3d 46 (2016); Leon , 84 N.Y.2d at 87-88. Biondi v. American Intl. Group, Inc. , 30 N.Y.3d 288, 298 (2017). Berger v.

materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act 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. This means that “ defendant’s acts or practices must have a broad impact on consumers at large.” no one but the parties to the contract, whether that breach be negligent or intentional, is not an act

Haber Two weeks ago, this Blog wrote about an enforcement action involving an investment adviser's former Today, this Blog examines another enforcement action involving a former investment adviser representative committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-7 promulgated In agreeing to settle, the SEC considered the voluntary remedial acts undertaken by SeaCrest and SeaCrest

justice the action should be heard in another forum.” Plaintiffs alleged that Byrne bribed certain of ARPD’s employees to act against ARPD’s interests in connection The appeal concerned two actions commenced by ARPD against Byrne (the “Byrne Action”) and against Pictet and nine individuals affiliated with it (the “Pictet Action”). , and the UAE in the Byrne Action). 

look at the duty to another in the context of negligence and negligent misrepresentation causes of action must establish the existence of a duty on the defendant’s part to the plaintiff, in addition to an actual The common thread between the two causes of action is the duty to another. Privity is not an element of a fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action. In this regard, said the Court, “Shavolian allege that Defendants, acting in concert with Mokhtar, made