Search Results

“A cause of action for fraud does not arise when the only fraud charged relates to a breach of contract “To plead a viable cause of action for fraud arising out of a contractual relationship, the plaintiff Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing, inter alia , that plaintiff’s fraud cause of action duplicated The Court also rejected defendants’ argument that the fraud claim was duplicative because “the damages Indeed, the New York Court of Appeals has made it clear that a fraud claim should be dismissed where

Plaintiffs filed suit, alleging, among other things, (1) aiding and abetting fraud; (2) conspiracy to commit fraud; (3) fraudulent inducement; (4) breach of the 2013 Subordination Agreement; (5) breach We examine the motion with regard to the fraudulent inducement and breach of contract claims.  The motion court held that plaintiffs stated a claim for fraudulent inducement. In the First Department, the Court has dismissed fraud claims in which the damages sought by the fraud

that a conveyance made without fair consideration by a defendant in an action for money damages is fraudulent Such allegations, held the Court “do not state a claim for constructive fraud under the Debtor and Creditor Even when alleging constructive fraud, in which intent is not required, creditors must allege facts to the Eagle Eye Court, “‘speculative and conclusory allegations’ do not state a claim for constructive fraud Eagle Eye also shows that a constructive fraud claim cannot survive a dismissal motion where the conveyance

, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”) announced (here) the filing of fraud (“CPTLCoin”) and Bitchain Exchanges (“Bitchain”), in connection with the unregistered offerings and fraudulent unsuspecting investors on false promises of outlandish returns and used investor funds raised from this fraudulent and asset freeze helps preserve investor assets and puts a stop to the defendants’ alleged ongoing fraudulent The SEC’s complaint charges defendants with violating the registration and anti-fraud provisions of the

court granted the motion as to the third cause of action seeking rescission or reformation based upon fraudulent that plaintiffs failed to allege any affirmative misrepresentation by defendant to support a claim of fraud Further, the motion court held that plaintiffs did not satisfy the justifiable reliance element of a fraud Therefore, the party seeking reformation must “show in no uncertain terms, not only that mistake or fraud

that falls within the scope of a release when he/she can demonstrate that the release was procured by fraud Where a party “releases a fraud claim”, he/she “may later challenge that release as fraudulently induced only if can identify a separate fraud from the subject of the release.” Consequently, concluded the Court, “each of the plaintiffs’ claims in this action, including their fraud The Court found that plaintiffs failed to allege a fraud “separate from that which was the subject of

(the “prior proceeding”) on the grounds that, inter alia , it was procured by fraud. for summary judgment dismissing the prior proceeding finding that Brody had ratified the purportedly fraudulent plaintiff seeks an absolute and unencumbered title to the property, and alleges, among other things, fraud decided in the prior proceeding, wherein he sought to invalidate the subject mortgages on the basis of fraud The prior proceeding was dismissed on summary judgment because plaintiff ratified the purportedly fraudulent

representations or omissions as to the specific matter, is a plaintiff precluded from later claiming fraud The third cause of action alleged a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The motion court also held that the merger clause barred the fraud and negligent misrepresentation causes “In light of this specific agreement,” concluded the Court, “plaintiff’s claims sounding in fraud and Consequently, the contract provision at issue was specific enough to preclude the fraud and negligent

Finally, the Court held that the motion court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ fraud and conspiracy to failed to sufficiently allege that they sustained an actual pecuniary loss as a result of the alleged fraudulent Under New York law, “ amages for a cause of action sounding in fraud are limited to the actual pecuniary

or could with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud. NK’s Founders concerning Chodos’ alleged participation in the fraud. NK’s Founders filed suit against Chodos, asserting causes of action for fraud, aiding and abetting fraud Chodos’ involvement in the fraud because Mr. Frost literally purloined Z! Without such evidence, plaintiffs could not have been on inquiry notice of the alleged fraud.

Medicare and Medicaid fraud costs taxpayers billions of dollars each year.  It is estimated that fraud and abuse account for approximately 10% of all Medicare and Medicaid expenditures Unfortunately, the government’s resources dedicated to anti-fraud enforcement are limited. those willing to risk career, financial security, reputation and sometimes personal safety to report fraud Lampert added: “Health care fraud schemes like the one alleged here loot government health programs,

corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud when affiliate or subsidiary corporations are used by a dominating parent corporation to engage in fraudulent WTC alleged claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and imposition of a constructive trust, fraudulent purportedly dominated companies (the Hellas entities), let alone how ‘such domination was used to commit a fraud