Every now and then a litigant or counsel fails to meet a deadline or otherwise acts in an untimely manner SRP 2015-1 was a mortgage foreclosure action commenced by the lender to foreclose on property owned provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action

that rose to the level of a claim of fraud against the Officer who, at all relevant times, was simply acting defendant: “Plaintiff’s fraud claims are based on the same facts as its breach of contract cause of action As to the cause of action against the Officer, the Court noted that corporate officers may be held liable As to the cause of action for fraudulent inducement against the corporate defendant, the Court held that were the same as the ones it sought in the breach of contract cause of action.

can file suit against their employers under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank Act” or “Dodd-Frank”) for retaliation, even if they do not report their concerns At issue in Digital Realty is whether the anti-retaliation provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act protect , Somers was not a whistleblower entitled to protection from retaliatory acts. He sued his employer for disability when he injured his other eye.

after judgment: res judicata precludes a party from asserting a claim that was litigated in a prior action N.Y.2d 343, 347 (1999)), while collateral estoppel precludes relitigating an issue decided in a prior action Rapid American Corp. , 80 N.Y.2d 640, 649 (1993)). When an appellate court resolves an issue in a prior appeal of the action, as in Getty Properties , that

D’Artagnan involved an action to recover the money that plaintiff paid to license an integrated software Plaintiff then commenced the action. The third cause of action alleged a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The fourth cause of action sought relief for negligent misrepresentation. The sixth cause of action sought relief for unjust enrichment. Defendant moved to dismiss.

RPAPL 1304 requires that at least ninety days prior to commencing legal action against a borrower with list of approved housing agencies that provide free or low-cost counseling; and, advise that legal action may be commenced after ninety days if no action is taken to resolve the matter.  Bank of America, N.A. v. Wheatly , 158 A.D.3d 736 (2 nd Dep’t 2018) (citations omitted).  Accordingly, borrowers frequently interpose a defense to mortgage foreclosure actions, lender’s lack

Middlebrooks, an enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission and further charged Middlebrooks with aiding and abetting EIA’s violations of the Investment Advisers Act A copy of the SEC’s press release announcing the enforcement action can be found here.

Research, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) filed 33% fewer enforcement actions , compared to 92 actions in fiscal year 2016. reporting and disclosure, investment advisers and investment companies, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act In the first half of fiscal year 2017, 94% of the actions settled for money. monetary settlements, compared to 88% of actions with concurrent resolutions.

LiTrenta involved an action to recover damages for breach of contract. As a result, Plaintiff commenced the action for breach of contract. Plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order to restrain Defendant from taking any action to terminate Thereafter, Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendant from taking any action to American Home Prods. Corp. , 58 N.Y.2d 293, 305 (1983); see also Lobosco v. NY Tel. Co.

Fiduciaries, such as those listed here, have an obligation to act in a trustworthy manner, with honesty The duty of candor requires a fiduciary to act with honesty and transparency – i.e. , he/she must fully The duty of loyalty requires fiduciaries to act in good faith and with the best interests of the business Examples of a breach of the duty of loyalty include: usurping a corporate or business opportunity; acting A person cannot fairly act for his/her interest and the interest of others in the same transaction.

s Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant To Section 15(b) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 203(e) and 203(k) of The Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Making Findings, and of 1933, Section 15(b) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Section 203(e) of The Investment of 1933, Section 15(b) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Section 203(e) of The Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order

brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) (the “SEC Action”) and elsewhere that PPCO Thereafter, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, asserting the same causes of action. The Court’s Decision With regard to the first cause of action, Sterling claimed that plaintiffs failed must allege that the defendant (1) affirmatively assisted, helped conceal, or by virtue of failing to act Sterling failed “to challenge Platinum’s improper valuations when required to do so and that failure to act