the foregoing basis, the motion court granted plaintiff’s motion with regard to his first cause of action COVID-19 pandemic as grounds for a finding of frustration of purpose or impossibility.”¹³ In those actions

anti-retaliation protections enjoyed under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank” or the “Act”). Ninth and Second Circuits held that Dodd-Frank did not limit the anti-retaliation protections of the Act under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley” or “SOX”) and other laws, rules, and regulations ( e.g. , Section 21F(h)(1)(A) of the Act). 

In 2011, the Dernick Group asserted a claim that Cinco, via Yorktown, had acted improperly by selling The Court noted that Petrides acted on behalf of Yorktown and its executives during the settlement negotiations

The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1) the formation of an agreement, (2) performance A strict application of the definiteness doctrine could actually defeat the underlying expectations of sufficient to take such contract out of the statute of frauds only if it can be demonstrated that the acts of legal fees, in the event there was other than “CPC” (Community Preservation Corp.) construction activity

this Blog has examined cases in which plaintiffs brought contract claims and fraud claims in the same action As to the former, the courts dismissed the actions because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate with First Bank of Americas v. Motor Car Funding, Inc. , 257 A.D.2d 287, 291 (1st Dept. 1999). Accordingly, the Court dismissed the fraud cause of action. Such action violated the “contemporaneous ownership rule”, concluded the Court.

brokers, financial advisers, and other investment professionals (collectively, “Financial Advisors”) to act The DOL proposed the Rule to close loopholes within the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 Under ERISA, pension managers are required to act in the best interest of pensioned employees. carefully considered the record in this case, and the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act addition to the numerous lawsuits challenging the Rule (discussed here and here ), passage of the CHOICE Act

Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) announced (here) that it had settled an insider trading action The action involved unlawful trading in the securities of G&K Services, Inc. The SEC alleged that Fettner violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b “The penalty in this action takes such improper trading profits into account.”

there shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action documents and information at issue are “material and necessary” (often interpreted as relevant) to the action After all, a person or entity cannot disclose documents and information material and necessary to an action It requires preservation of materials known, or reasonably known, to be relevant to the action. Rather, the duty requires a party to act in good faith and take reasonable steps to preserve documents

In August 2014, plaintiffs commenced the action seeking, among other things, the release of the $300,000 economic duress requires the party asserting it to demonstrate that the duress involved a wrongful act record showed that Feehan not only had alternatives but weighed them before deciding on a course of action

Real estate brokers have a fiduciary relationship with their client and an affirmative duty not to act A broker, cannot act as agent for both seller and purchaser of the property. Relying on the “law of the case” doctrine, Supreme Court held that because plaintiffs acted in a dual that “they simply introduced DHA…to Sentry, without being called upon to do anything more, and thus acted If called upon to act in numerous capacities for different parties, full disclosure to all parties should

Notably, “not all business activity engaged in by a foreign corporation constitutes doing business in The entity’s activities cannot be “merely casual or occasional.…” United Arab Shipping Co. Term 1st Dept. 1994) (“where a corporation’s activities within New York are merely incidental to its were so systematic and regular as to manifest continuity of activity. When Excelsia did business with them, they merely acted as a conduit of the merchandise.

The SEC’s order finds that Credit Suisse negligently violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act. violating various securities laws and rules, including Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Ruled 10b-5(a) and 10b-5(c) thereunder. and Grace with violating the antifraud provisions of Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 206(4) and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder