Search Results

Khorassani involved alleged fraud in connection with the merger of Torchlight Energy Resources (“Torchlight unidentified brokers and market makers for spoofing, naked short selling, market manipulation, and fraud ascertaining the identity of the defendants, and (b) failed to assert a meritorious cause of action for fraud other words, the Court found that the petitioner failed to state a meritorious cause of action for fraud failed to provide the “how” and “why” of the claimed fraud, and failed to allege any damages resulting

In Breton , defendant moved to amend his answer to interpose a counterclaim for fraud. Defendant moved to amend his answer to interpose a counterclaim alleging fraud by plaintiff. Plaintiff further argued that defendant had not alleged fraud with sufficient particularity such as Finally, the motion court “rejected outright” “plaintiff’s conclusory statement that defendant’s fraud The requirement that a fraud claim be pleaded with particularity can be found in CPLR 3016(b).

Oct. 4, 2023) ( here ), the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the dismissal of a fraud complaint on two grounds: collateral estoppel and failure to plead fraud with particularity. The Requirement To Plead Fraud With Particularity To state a claim for fraud, a plaintiff must allege to commit fraud. The motion court also held that plaintiff failed to state a fraud cause of action.

23, 2023, the Appellate Division, Second Department issued two decisions that briefly touched upon fraud In Hershman , the Court affirmed the dismissal of a fraud claim for failure to state a claim, and in Hillary , the Court reversed the denial of a motion to dismiss fraud claims in a third-party action for Mellon   In Hershman , plaintiff brought suit to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud in and the Bank of America (together, the “defendants”) to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud

misrepresentation; (6) aiding and abetting fraud; and (7) actual and constructive fraudulent conveyances In opposition, Merchant maintained that the fraud claim was pleaded in the alternative and that, even court held that Merchant’s fraud claim was not duplicative of its breach of contract claims. than establishing fraud. alleged fraud after formation of contract); Minnie Rose LLC v.

motion to amend a complaint seeking damages for “diminution of enterprise value” due to the alleged fraud caused by the fraud—not speculative gains or lost profits. the profits that would have been realized in the absence of the fraud. Sire brought the action in 2023, against defendants for, among other claims, fraud. One cannot recover for potential lost earnings on a fraud theory. [27] Sire appealed.

In this regard, we talked about the need to plead the who, what, where, when and how of the alleged fraud inference” that the allegations of fraud are true. 1 In Pludeman v. Plaintiff moved to dismiss the fraud-based counterclaims. Fraud does not, however, always concern an affirmative statement. Sometimes a person can perpetrate a fraud through the omission of a material fact.

By: Jeffrey M. Haber On June 26, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC”) announced (here) that it charged a Manchester, New Hampshire resident, Robynne Alexander, a real estate investment coach and real estate investment coach, with defrauding investors through real estate investment schemes resulting in losses of at least $3 million. According to the complaint filed by the SEC (here), from 2018 through 2024, defendant solicited investors to buy securities in real estate investment projects for multiple properties in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, that she represented she would buy, renovate, and sell for a profit. The SEC alleged that defendant did not use the investment proceeds as represented. Instead, said the SEC, defendant used a substantial amount of investor money to pay fictitious investment returns to certain favored investors (in Ponzi-like fashion), to repay some investors and lenders in unrelated projects, and as her primary means of paying her personal expenses. The SEC’s complaint (here), filed in the United States District Court for the District of New 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. Defendant consented to the entry of an order permanently enjoining her from violating the charged provisions; enjoining her from participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any security, and from engaging in activities for the purpose of inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any security, except for her own account; permanently barring her from serving as an officer or director of any public company; and providing that the Court order disgorgement plus prejudgment interest and a civil monetary penalty, in amounts to be determined by the Court. In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Hampshire filed criminal charges against defendant. Defendant pleaded guilty and agreed to, among other things, provide $3 million in restitution to investors harmed by her actions. Additionally, defendant entered into a consent order (here) with the New Hampshire Bureau of Securities Regulation (the “Bureau”) pursuant to which defendant agreed to cease and desist from offering or selling securities in New Hampshire. Defendant also agreed not to hold any securities licensure in New Hampshire and to pay $96,730.06 in restitution to the victims. _________________________________ Jeffrey M. Haber is a partner and co-founder of Freiberger Haber LLP. This article is for informational purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

common, such as a religious group, an ethnic group, or an immigrant community – also known as affinity fraud According to the SEC, since at least August 2019, defendants operated a Ponzi scheme and affinity fraud The government charged defendant with one count of wire fraud and one count of securities fraud, which justice for victims of financial frauds.” Footnotes In 2014, the SEC issued an investor alert about affinity fraud.

As alleged by the SEC, Defendants’ fraudulent scheme involved at least two forms of abusive trading.  According to the SEC, Defendants engaged in this fraudulent trading scheme because it was more profitable According to the SEC, Defendants took multiple steps to conceal their fraudulent scheme and misconduct In addition, Defendants allegedly submitted fraudulent order instructions to the brokers, identifying While Defendants were often able to conceal from the market their fraudulent trading scheme, on some

inducement claim did not duplicate its breach of contract claim. 7 The Court found that “the fraud contract been performed; the former damages are meant to indemnify losses suffered as a result of the fraud . 10 Thus, where all the damages are remedied through the contract claim, the fraud claim is duplicative representations or omissions as to the specific matter, is a plaintiff precluded from later claiming fraud Since the alleged misrepresentations were collateral to the various agreements, IBM’s fraud claim did

Haber The statute of frauds provides that “ contract for the . . . the sale, of any real property, or to be charged, or by his lawful agent thereunto authorized by writing.” 1 “To satisfy the statue of frauds memorandum may be informal – it can be a series of emails – and therefore in compliance with the statute of frauds Department addressed the foregoing issues and held that the alleged agreement violated the statute of frauds transaction, there was no binding contract between the parties sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds