Fraud – Page 19 – New York Appellate Digest

LIFETIME BAN ON PARTICIPATION IN THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND DISGORGEMENT OF WRONGFULLY OBTAINED PROFITS ARE AVAILABLE REMEDIES UNDER ANTI-FRAUD STATUTES.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, determined the Martin Act (General Business Law article 23-A) allowed a permanent injunction imposing a lifetime ban on defendants' participation in the securities industry and service as an officer or director of a public company. The court further found that both the Martin Act and the Executive Law allowed the remedy of disgorgement of wrongfully obtained profits. [This is the second time this securities-fraud case reached the Court of Appeals. The underlying facts were laid out in the prior decision (21 NY3d 439).]:

… [T]he Attorney General may obtain permanent injunctive relief under the Martin Act and Executive Law § 63 (12) upon a showing of a reasonable likelihood of a continuing violation based upon the totality of the circumstances … . “This is not a 'run of the mill' action for an injunction, but rather one authorized by remedial legislation, brought by the Attorney General on behalf of the People of the State and for the purposes of preventing fraud and defeating exploitation” … . “'[T]he standards of the public interest not the requirements of private litigation measure the propriety and need for injunctive relief'”. Therefore, we reject defendants' argument that the Attorney General must show irreparable harm in order to obtain a permanent injunction. * * *

We further conclude that disgorgement is an available remedy under the Martin Act and the Executive Law. The Martin Act contains a broad, residual relief clause, providing courts with the authority, in any action brought under the Act, to “grant such other and further relief as may be proper” (General Business Law § 353-a). Indeed, this Court has previously recognized that the courts are not limited to the remedies specified under either of these statutes … . In our view, disgorgement “merely requires the return of wrongfully obtained profits [and] does not result in any actual economic penalty” … . As we have previously stated, in an appropriate case, disgorgement may be an available “equitable remedy distinct from restitution” under this State's anti-fraud legislation … . People v Greenberg, 2016 NY Slip Op 04253, CtApp 6-2-16

SECURITIES (LIFETIME BAN ON PARTICIPATION IN THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND DISGORGEMENT OF WRONGFULLY OBTAINED PROFITS ARE AVAILABLE REMEDIES UNDER ANTI-FRAUD STATUTES)/MARTIN ACT (LIFETIME BAN ON PARTICIPATION IN THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND DISGORGEMENT OF WRONGFULLY OBTAINED PROFITS ARE AVAILABLE REMEDIES UNDER ANTI-FRAUD STATUTES)/EXECUTIVE LAW (SECURITIES, LIFETIME BAN ON PARTICIPATION IN THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND DISGORGEMENT OF WRONGFULLY OBTAINED PROFITS ARE AVAILABLE REMEDIES UNDER ANTI-FRAUD STATUTES)/FRAUD (SECURITIES, LIFETIME BAN ON PARTICIPATION IN THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND DISGORGEMENT OF WRONGFULLY OBTAINED PROFITS ARE AVAILABLE REMEDIES UNDER ANTI-FRAUD STATUTES)

June 2, 2016

Corporation Law, Fraud

PLAINTIFF, A SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY IN WHICH PLAINTIFF INVESTED AND PURCHASED A CONTROLLING INTEREST, PLAINTIFF HAD THE MEANS TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH BEHIND ANY ALLEGED FALSE CLAIMS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined plaintiff, a sophisticated investor, did not state a cause of action for fraud on the part of the company (DuCool) in which plaintiff invested:

Where a cause of action is based in fraud, “the complaint must allege misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact, falsity, scienter on the part of the wrongdoer, justifiable reliance and resulting injury” … . Furthermore, where the plaintiff is a sophisticated party, “if the facts represented are not matters peculiarly within the [defendant's] knowledge, and the [plaintiff] has the means available to [it] of knowing, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth or the real quality of the subject of the representation, [the plaintiff] must make use of those means, or [it] will not be heard to complain that [it] was induced to enter into the transaction by misrepresentations” … . Circumstances constituting fraud must be set forth in a complaint in detail (CPLR 3016[b]). * * *

Plaintiff is an experienced and sophisticated investor. It did not plead facts to support the justifiable reliance element of fraud … . Plaintiff had total, unfettered access to every aspect of DuCool's company information both before and after its initial investment, even before it held a controlling interest in DuCool. Although learning through the due diligence conducted by its own technology and business consultants that there were frequent technological problems with DuCool products, some of them “severe,” plaintiff proceeded to invest in the company. Thereafter, as the 49% shareholder, plaintiff had the largest percentage ownership of any individual shareholder and it had access to information concerning the operations of the business. There is no factual basis on which to conclude that the alleged fraud involved matters peculiarly within defendants' knowledge, because plaintiff had the means to discover the truth behind any false claims about the condition of the company and whether this was a feasible investment… . MP Cool Invs. Ltd. v Forkosh, 2016 NY Slip Op 04159, 1st Dept 5-31-16

FRAUD (PLAINTIFF, A SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY IN WHICH PLAINTIFF INVESTED, PLAINTIFF HAD THE MEANS TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH BEHIND ANY ALLEGED FALSE CLAIMS)/CORPORATION LAW (PLAINTIFF, A SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY IN WHICH PLAINTIFF INVESTED, PLAINTIFF HAD THE MEANS TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH BEHIND ANY ALLEGED FALSE CLAIMS)/CORPORATION LAW (PLAINTIFF, A SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY IN WHICH PLAINTIFF INVESTED AND PURCHASED A CONTROLLING INTEREST, PLAINTIFF HAD THE MEANS TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH BEHIND ANY ALLEGED FALSE CLAIMS)

June 1, 2016

Contract Law, Fraud, Labor Law-Construction Law

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD OR IN UNFAIR CIRCUMSTANCES.

The Second Department determined questions of fact whether a general release from liability was procured by fraud precluded summary judgment in favor of the defendant in this Labor Law (fall from scaffold) action:

“A release is a contract, and its construction is governed by contract law” … . In general, “a valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release” … . “A release may be invalidated, however, for any of the traditional bases for setting aside written agreements, namely, duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake'” … . Moreover, there is a requirement that a release covering both known and unknown injuries be ” fairly and knowingly made'” … .

“A party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him [or her] on the ground that . . . the cause of action may not be maintained because of . . . [a] release” (CPLR 3211[a][5]). However, a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss a complaint on the basis of a release “should be denied where fraud or duress in the procurement of the release is alleged” … .

Here, in support of their motion to dismiss the complaint, the defendants submitted a general release executed by the plaintiff, which, by its terms, barred the instant action against them … . However, the plaintiff’s allegations were nevertheless sufficient to support a possible finding that the defendants procured the release by means of fraud and that the release was signed by the plaintiff ” under circumstances which indicate unfairness'” … . Pacheco v 32-42 55th St. Realty, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 03727, 2nd Dept 5-11-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL RELEASED PROCURED BY FRAUD OR IN UNFAIR CIRCUMSTANCES)/CONTRACT LAW (GENERAL RELEASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL RELEASED PROCURED BY FRAUD OR IN UNFAIR CIRCUMSTANCES)/RELEASES (GENERAL RELEASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL RELEASED PROCURED BY FRAUD OR IN UNFAIR CIRCUMSTANCES)/FRAUD (GENERAL RELEASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL RELEASED PROCURED BY FRAUD OR IN UNFAIR CIRCUMSTANCES)

May 11, 2016

Fraud

PARTY WHO SIGNS A DOCUMENT WITHOUT READING IT IS CONCLUSIVELY BOUND BY ITS TERMS.

The Second Department, affirming the dismissal of a fraud cause of action, noted that plaintiff's acknowledgment he did not read the relevant documents before signing them prevented plaintiff from establishing justifiable reliance on any alleged misrepresentations in the documents:

“The elements of a cause of action sounding in fraud are a material misrepresentation of an existing fact, made with knowledge of the falsity, an intent to induce reliance thereon, justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation, and damages” … . Each of the foregoing elements must be supported by factual allegations containing the details constituting the wrong sufficient to satisfy CPLR 3016(b) … . Here, the complaint, as supplemented by the plaintiff's affidavit in opposition, does not contain any allegations setting forth any material misrepresentations the defendants made to the plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiff's averment that he did not read the documents before signing them prevents him from establishing justifiable reliance, an essential element of fraud … . “A party who signs a document without any valid excuse for not having read it is conclusively bound' by its terms” … . Stortini v Pollis, 2016 NY Slip Op 02984, 2nd Dept 4-20-16

April 20, 2016

Civil Procedure, Fraud

FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK STEMMING FROM THE COLLAPSE OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, ACCUSATIONS AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK WERE WELL-KNOWN MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT.

In another lawsuit stemming from the collapse of mortgage-backed securities, the First Department determined fraud causes of action by Aozora Bank against Deutsche Bank were properly dismissed as untimely. Investigations, including a Congressional investigation, into the relevant actions of Deutsche Bank were well-known more than two years before the suit was brought:

The parties do not dispute that plaintiff's fraud causes of action were not timely under New York's six-year limitations period and, to be timely, must have been commenced within two years from the time plaintiff discovered the fraud, or with reasonable diligence could have discovered it (CPLR 213[8]). * * *

… [O]ne of the most significant sources of public information putting plaintiff on notice of its fraud claims is the Senate Report and its associated emails, which actually form the centerpiece of plaintiff's complaint. In fact, the Senate Report contains a 45-page section on Deutsche Bank entitled “Running the CDO Machine: Case Study of Deutsche Bank.” Taken with all the other information available in the public domain, the Senate Report is more than sufficient to have placed Aozora on inquiry notice of possible fraud by April 2011 at the latest … . Aozora Bank, Ltd. v Deutsche Bank Sec. Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02511, 1st Dept 3-31-16

FRAUD (FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK STEMMING FROM THE COLLAPSE OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, ACCUSATIONS AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK WERE WELL-KNOWN MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT)/SECURITIES (FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK STEMMING FROM THE COLLAPSE OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, ACCUSATIONS AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK WERE WELL-KNOWN MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT)/MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK STEMMING FROM THE COLLAPSE OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, ACCUSATIONS AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK WERE WELL-KNOWN MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK STEMMING FROM THE COLLAPSE OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, ACCUSATIONS AGAINST DEUTSCHE BANK WERE WELL-KNOWN MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT)

March 31, 2016

Fraud, Trusts and Estates

FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD ACTION DID NOT APPLY, FIDUCIARIES WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND DID NOT STAND TO BENEFIT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOCUMENTS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, determined an affirmative defense alleging constructive fraud on the part of attorneys who drafted irrevocable releases of powers of appointment of trust assets was properly dismissed by the Appellate Division. The Benihana Protective Trust (BPT) was formed by Rocky, the founder of the Benihana restaurant chain. The irrevocable releases of powers of appointment allowed disposition of the trust assets only to Rocky's descendants. However, irrespective of the releases, Rocky's will attempted to pass trust assets to his wife. Rocky indicated in a deposition that he would not have signed the releases had he known they would prohibit the disposition of trust assets to his wife. Upon Rocky's death, Rocky's wife sought to have the releases declared invalid under a fiduciary constructive-fraud theory. Rocky's wife argued that the fiduciary exception to the usual constructive fraud proof requirements shifted the burden to the trust beneficiaries to prove the releases were not procured by fraud. Rejecting the applicability of the fiduciary exception, the court affirmed the Appellate Division's grant of summary judgment in favor of the trust beneficiaries:

It is a well-settled rule that “'fraud vitiates all contracts, but as a general thing it is not presumed but must be proved by the party seeking to [be] relieve[d] . . . from an obligation on that ground'” … . However, an exception to that general rule provides that where a fiduciary relationship exists between the parties, the law of constructive fraud will operate to shift the burden to the party seeking to uphold the transaction to demonstrate the absence of fraud … . * * *

[The attorneys who drafted the Releases] were clearly Rocky's fiduciaries. But that is only one part of the equation. The critical inquiry is whether they were either parties to the Releases or stood to directly benefit from their execution, such that the burden shifted to [trust beneficiaries] to demonstrate that the Releases were not procured by fraud.

Here, the only individuals who stood to benefit from Rocky's execution of the Releases were his descendants. [The attorneys] were [not] parties to the Releases [and did not] to directly benefit from their execution … . If anything, the execution of the Releases all but ensured that [the attorneys] would have no interest in, nor would receive any benefit from, the trust assets. Therefore, the Appellate Division correctly determined that, because the fiduciary exception does not apply in this case, the Surrogate had improperly shifted the burden of proof to [the trust beneficiaries] to demonstrate that the Releases were not procured by fraud. Matter of Aoki v Aoki, 2016 NY Slip Op 02474, CtApp 3-31-16

FRAUD (FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD ACTION DID NOT APPLY, FIDUCIARIES WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND DID NOT STAND TO BENEFIT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOCUMENTS)/ATTORNEYS (FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD ACTION DID NOT APPLY, ATTORNEYS WHO DRAFTED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE NOT PARTIES AND DID NOT STAND TO BENEFIT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOCUMENTS)/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD ACTION DID NOT APPLY, ATTORNEYS WHO DRAFTED RELEASES OF POWERS OF APPOINTMENT WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE RELEASES AND DID NOT STAND TO BENEFIT FROM THE RELEASES)/POWERS OF APPOINTMENT (FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD ACTION DID NOT APPLY, ATTORNEYS WHO DRAFTED RELEASES OF POWERS OF APPOINTMENT WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE RELEASES AND DID NOT STAND TO BENEFIT FROM THE RELEASES)

March 31, 2016

Civil Procedure, Fiduciary Duty, Fraud

SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS WHICH SOUND IN FRAUD.

The First Department, in a case remitted by the Court of Appeals, determined the six-year statute of limitations applied to “breach of fiduciary duty” causes of action because fraud allegations were at the heart of the claims. Where, as here, a “breach of fiduciary duty” cause of action seeks monetary damages and not equitable relief, the three-year statute of limitations usually applies. However, where, as here, allegations of fraud are central to the fiduciary duty cause of action, the six-year statute of limitations applies:

… [A] cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty based on allegations of actual fraud is subject to a six-year limitations period” … . An exception to this rule exists ” if the fraud allegation is only incidental to the claim asserted'” … . Thus, “where an allegation of fraud is not essential to the cause of action pleaded except as an answer to an anticipated defense of Statute of Limitations, courts look for the reality, and the essence of the action and not its mere name” … .

Here, although the fiduciary duty claims seek monetary relief, the six-year limitations period applies because the claims sound in fraud. Cusimano v Schnurr, 2016 NY Slip Op 01758, 1st Dept 3-15-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS WHICH SOUND IN FRAUD)/FRAUD (SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS WHICH SOUND IN FRAUD)/FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF (SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIMS WHICH SOUND IN FRAUD)

March 15, 2016

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Fraud

FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE (1) IT WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AND (2) PLAINTIFF, AS A SOPHISTICATED BUSINESS ENTITY, COULD NOT ARGUE IT RELIED ON ORAL REPRESENTATIONS WHICH CONTRADICTED THE WRITTEN CONTRACT; STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTACHMENT NOT MET.

The Third Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s fraud cause of action was properly dismissed because (1) it was duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action, and (2), plaintiff, a sophisticated business entity, could not be heard to rely upon alleged oral representations which contradicted the written contract. In addition, the Third Department determined the requirements for attachment pursuant to CPLR 6201 (3) were not met by plaintiff. There was insufficient proof defendant was secreting assets of frustrate a potential judgment:

A cause of action for fraud does not exist where the alleged fraudulent act is premised upon a breach of a contractual obligation … . * * * … [A] sophisticated business entity cannot justifiably rely on oral representations when it thereafter enters into a contract containing terms that directly contradict those oral representations … . Accordingly, plaintiff’s fraud cause of action is subject to dismissal, either as duplicative of the contract cause of action or, in the alternative, based on plaintiff’s own allegations that it relied on oral representations that were contradicted by the terms of the contract that it thereafter entered into. Northeast United Corp. v Lewis, 2016 NY Slip Op 01713, 3rd Dept 3-10-16

CONTRACT LAW (SOPHISTICATED BUSINESS ENTITY CAN NOT ARGUE IT RELIED ON ORAL MISREPRESENTATIONS WHICH CONTRADICTED THE WRITTEN CONTRACT)/FRAUD (FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AND BECAUSE PLAINTIFF, A SOPHISTICATED BUSINESS ENTITY, COULD NOT BE HEARID TO HAVE RELIED UPON ORAL MISREPRESENTATIONS WHICH CONTRADICTED THE WRITTEN CONTRACT)/ATTACHMENT (STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTACHMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 6201 (3) NOT MET)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTACHMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 6201 (3) NOT MET)

March 10, 2016

Civil Procedure, Fraud

STAND-ALONE EXECUTIVE LAW 63 (12) CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD REINSTATED AGAINST DONALD TRUMP ET AL.

In an action by the Attorney General against Donald Trump, alleging fraud in connection with the operation of Trump University, the First Department, overruling its own precedent, determined Executive law 63 (12) authorized a stand-alone fraud cause of action. The court further held that the three-year statute of imitations for causes of action created by statute did not apply because Executive Law 63 (12) did not create a cause of action which did not exist at common law, rather it merely authorized the Attorney General to bring a fraud cause of action. Applying the six-year statute of limitations, the First Department reinstated the Executive Law 63 (12) cause of action, and concluded questions of fact precluded summary judgment on both the statutory and common law fraud claims:

… [L]ike similar statutes that authorize causes of action, § 63(12) defines the fraudulent conduct that it prohibits, authorizes the Attorney General to commence an action or proceeding to foreclose that conduct, and specifies the relief, including equitable relief, that the Attorney General may seek. Indeed, the language of § 63(12) parallels the language of the Martin Act, under which the Attorney General is undisputedly authorized to bring a standalone cause of action for fraudulent conduct in the securities context … . * * *

… [W]e find … that the fraud claim under § 63(12) is not subject to the three-year statute of limitations imposed by CPLR 214(2), but rather, is subject to the residual six-year statute of limitations in CPLR 213(1) … . … § 63(12) does not create any liability nonexistent at common law, at least under the court’s equitable powers. … § 63(12) does not encompass a significantly wider range of fraudulent activities than were legally cognizable before the section’s enactment … .

Nevertheless, petitioner is not entitled to summary determination of its fraud claims, under either the common law or the statute, because material issues of fact exist as to those claims. Matter of People of the State of N.Y. by Eric T. Schneiderman v Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01430, 1st Dept 3-1-16

March 1, 2016

Contract Law, Fraud

EQUITABLE ACTION SEEKING RESCISSION BASED UPON FRAUD NEED NOT ALLEGE PECUNIARY LOSS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined a triable issue of fact had been raised about whether defendant made misrepresentations in a contract for a condominium such that the contract could be rescinded. Defendant agreed the condominium was to be used for residential purposes, but sought to operate a day care center on the premises. The court noted that pecuniary damages need not be alleged in an equitable action to rescind a contract based upon fraud:

Fraud sufficient to support the rescission requires only a misrepresentation that induces a party to enter into a contract resulting in some detriment, and “unlike a cause of action in damages on the same ground, proof of scienter and pecuniary loss is not needed” … . Thus, the fourth cause of action alleging that misrepresentations in defendant’s purchase application induced plaintiff to forgo exercise of its right of first refusal has a sound basis in the record, and Supreme Court properly concluded that a triable issue is presented. Board of Mgrs. of the Soundings Condominium v Foerster, 2016 NY Slip Op 01273, 1st Dept 2-23-16

CONTRACT LAW (RESCISSION FOR MISREPRESENTATIONS NEED NOT BE SUPPORTED BY AN ALLEGATION OF PECUNIARY LOSS)/RESCISSION (ACTION FOR RESCISSION BASED UPON MISREPRESENTATIONS NEED NOT ALLEGE PECUNIARY LOSS)/FRAUD (ACTION FOR RESCISSION OF A CONTRACT BASED UPON MISREPRESENTATIONS NEED NOT ALLEGE PECUNIARY LOSS)/DAMAGES (ACTION FOR RESCISSION OF A CONTRACT BASED UPON MISREPRESENTATIONS NEED NOT ALLEGE PECUNIARY LOSS)

February 23, 2016