from potential collateral exchanges are ‘lost.’” 9 To recover lost profits in a breach of contract action Under New York law, “ cause of action for fraud does not arise when the only fraud charged relates to a breach of contract.” 11 “To plead a viable cause of action for fraud arising out of a contractual defendants were required to allege “facts sufficient to show” that plaintiff “‘never intended to honor or act American List Corp. v. U.S. News & World Report , 75 N.Y.2d 38, 43 (1989) 9.

In that regard, under Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 17a-8 promulgated thereunder any requirement of the Bank Secrecy Act, or (4) have no business or apparent lawful purpose. – of the suspicious activity being reported.” found that Wedbush violated the registration provisions of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, and the recordkeeping requirements of Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

“The election of remedies doctrine requires knowledge of the alleged breach and an affirmative action This requirement, known as a condition precedent,  is defined as “an act or event, other than a lapse “Most conditions precedent describe acts or events which must occur before a party is obliged to perform In other words, when the non-performance is trivial, courts will not find an actionable breach. The Court found that the “Fee Provision’s language relating to the loans ‘actually received’ plainly

conduct beyond existing suitability obligations, by requiring broker-dealers to, among other things: act This includes a disclosure that the firm or representative is acting in a broker-dealer capacity; the In sum, Reg BI requires a broker, dealer, or associated person to act in the best interest of a retail Grewal, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, stated: “Reg BI is clear: broker-dealers must act See Regulation Best Interest: The Broker-Dealer Standard of Conduct, Exchange Act Release No. 34-86031

Just prior to commencement of the action, Plaintiff and his wife executed an agreement in which she “ Plaintiff commenced the action on September 29, 2023, and amended the complaint on December 22, 2023. They further argued, inter alia, that their actions were protected by the business judgment rule and individual board members all participated in, directed, controlled and/or approved the alleged tortious acts rule and exculpatory by-law provisions have limits when a plaintiff alleges facts that board members acted

Singh, 204 A.D.3d 732, 734 (2nd Dep’t 2022); Bank of America, N.A. v. or her delay in appearing and answering the complaint and a potentially meritorious defense to the action Gallo, a mortgage foreclosure action[2] decided on May 28, 2025 by the Appellate Division, Second Department

should be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action Co. of America, 188 A.D.3d 1083, 1086 (2nd Dep’t 2020). The plaintiff commenced his action in 2020, claiming that his townhouse was damaged in 2018 by water

Because the amount of interest could not be readily discerned, the case was converted to a plenary action of material present fact, which is intended to deceive another party and induce that party to act on First, the motion court found that plaintiff failed to identify any “specific actions by each defendant 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.

explained that Intervenors were not referencing a diverse group of defendants to which entirely different acts Instead, Intervenors were referring to three individuals who were alleged to have engaged in the same acts Tang acted as a manager of and exercised control over the Company and KG Bayside, and that she used this the pleading stage, a plaintiff must do more than merely allege that a defendant engaged in improper acts or acted in bad faith; plaintiff must allege facts that, if proved, indicate that the defendant exercised

In certain situations, however, the failure of a litigant to act quickly when the Court issues a favorable (b) Failure to submit the order or judgment timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action an order permitting the entry of the judgment and defendant cross-moved for an order dismissing the action The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed and dismissed the action holding that the 60-day Nutter commenced an action to foreclose a mortgage and its unopposed motion for a judgment of foreclosure

securities fraud and other violations of the securities laws, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act its authority to reward whistleblowers from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”). As set forth in the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC protects the confidentiality of whistleblowers and does not Commenting on the awards announced on August 6, 2021, Emily Pasquinelli, Acting Chief of the SEC’s Office

derivative and direct claims is grounded upon the principle that does not have an individual cause of action Sometimes, the distinction between the two types of actions is not readily apparent. Direct vs. d)(i)(B) of the LP Agreement, the General Partner could be “removed with Cause upon the affirmative act Slip Op. 00147 (1st Dept. 2025) (the “Black Action”)). Rather,” said the Court, “the letter was signed by a single limited partner who did not purport to be acting