Holders of Less than a Majority of Company’s Shares Did Not Have a Fiduciary Duty to Company

Holders of Less than a Majority of Company’s Shares Did Not Have a Fiduciary Duty to Company

On January 17, 2022, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Eccles v. Shamrock Capital Advisors, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op. 30187(U), holding that holders of less than a majority of a company’s shares did not have a fiduciary duty to the company . . . Continue reading Holders of Less than a Majority of Company’s Shares Did Not Have a Fiduciary Duty to Company

Benchmark Manipulation: SIBOR Update, Part I

Benchmark Manipulation: SIBOR Update, Part I

When we last posted about the litigation challenging alleged manipulation of SIBOR – the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate – the district court had just dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for lack of standing. But that wasn’t the end of the line for Fund Litigation, et al: Plaintiffs’ appeal of the standing decision was successful, and a fourth amended complaint has been filed—and, of course, a new motion to dismiss. This post will cover the Second Circuit’s decision and the latest complaint; next week, we’ll provide a full review of the motion to dismiss briefing.   Continue reading Benchmark Manipulation: SIBOR Update, Part I

When Dispute Resolution Provisions of English and Foreign Language Versions of Agreement Conflict, There is No Agreement to Arbitrate

When Dispute Resolution Provisions of English and Foreign Language Versions of Agreement Conflict, There is No Agreement to Arbitrate

On January 25, 2022, Justice Platkin of the Albany County Commercial Division issued a decision in Matter of New York State Dept. of Health (Rusi Tech. Co., Ltd.), 2022 NY Slip Op. 50041(U), holding that when the dispute resolution provisions of the English and foreign language versions of an agreement conflict, there is no agreement to arbitrate . . . Continue reading When Dispute Resolution Provisions of English and Foreign Language Versions of Agreement Conflict, There is No Agreement to Arbitrate

Insurance Policy Provision That did not Comply with Insurance Law § 3404 is Unenforceable

Insurance Policy Provision That did not Comply with Insurance Law § 3404 is Unenforceable

On January 3, 2022, Justice Walker of the Eighth Judicial District Commercial Division issued a decision in Niagara BYG Capital, LLC v. Leatherstocking Coop. Ins. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op. 22015, an insurance policy provision that did not comply with Insurance Law § 3404 was unenforceable . . . Continue reading Insurance Policy Provision That did not Comply with Insurance Law § 3404 is Unenforceable