waste, self-dealing and usurpation of a corporate opportunity); trademark infringement under the Lanham Act deciding, the court reasoned that the “business judgment rule” does not apply where the challenged “acts corporation, especially when the directors have a personal stake in the corporation” and where “the board acted which exists where “(1) a defendant affirmatively assists, helps conceal, or by virtue of failing to act infringement claim as duplicative because plaintiff may be entitled to treble damages under the Lanham Act

Haber To state a cause of action for fraud, a plaintiff must allege “a material misrepresentation of that section 3016 (b) should not be so strictly interpreted as to prevent an otherwise valid cause of action court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that the foregoing projections were based on actionable The motion court concluded that the “challenged statements were ‘not actionable because such projections Furthermore, the allegations in DaPuzzo were more indicative of fraud than the ones in the instant action

On October 31, 2022, plaintiff commenced the action, alleging five causes of action, including (a) breach of contract (second cause of action) and (b) breach of fiduciary duty (third cause of action). In the second cause of action, plaintiff contended that ACMGP breached the Agreement by retaining and a written limited partnership agreement and the third cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty.” The Court also held that the motion court correctly dismissed the third cause of action for breach of

While most brokers and financial advisors act in their customer’s best interest, some do not.  In the event the broker or financial advisor breach their duty to their customer (or acts negligently That changed in 1987 when the United States Supreme Court decided Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. in Congress, who have objected to arbitration agreements that prohibit consumers from joining class actions Although most brokers and investment advisors act in their client’s best interest, some fail to do so

Thus, if a party wants to disaffirm a contract made under duress, he/she must act promptly to repudiate It did not squarely address the second prong of the test because the plaintiff failed to act promptly to repudiate the duress: “while there is a question whether Blackrock acted reasonably in imposing the November 9, 2014 was a Sunday, so the actual maturity date pursuant to the agreement was November 7. Plaintiff asserted three causes of action: breach of contract, asserting that Blackrock misconstrued

settlement marks the latest run-in with regulators for BF Borgers, which previously faced disciplinary action

Disagreements arose, leading plaintiff to commence an action against FSD, the two management companies While the first action was pending, plaintiff commenced the action before the Court against defendants with the first action.  and reinstating those causes of action, and, as modified, affirmed the order. Footnotes Plaintiff filed the action pro se.

The Commission charged Lucia with violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“IAA”), and the Investment Company Act of 1940. Exchange Act Release No. 73,857, at 3, 2015 WL 5172953 (SEC Sept. 3, 2015) (here). constitutional issue and found that the ALJs were wrongfully appointed under the Administrative Procedure Act If the Commission were to pursue such action, going forward, it should reduce the possibility of later

dealing (second cause of action) and the cause of action for breach of contract (the first cause of action). motion as to the first cause of action.  The First Department affirmed the rulings with regard to the two causes of action. These allegations, however, do not support the cause of action.

The plaintiff filed a mechanic’s lien and commenced and breach of contract action against the defendant

The account was active for three years, during which time the defendant earned $31,000 in fees. Teva Realty is an action for, inter alia , specific performance and anticipatory breach with respect In fact, RC was not formed until 2019 – just prior to commencing its action.  When the defendant failed to close, the plaintiffs commenced their action.  As this action was not commenced until 2019, the defendants established, prima facie, that RC cannot

preferred remedy for deterring malicious or vexatious litigation has been the use of separate, plenary actions shall incur any cost, fee or expense . . . including reasonable legal fees . . . in connection with any action other matter or thing relating to this lease, or to any alleged failure by the Lessor to perform any act attorneys' fees provision which provides that the tenant must pay attorneys' fees if it commences an action of the proprietary lease permits the landlord to recover attorneys' fees when the tenant brings an action