Skip to main content
S.D. New York· 4/17/2001

Cromer Finance Ltd. v. Berger

Citations

  • 137 F. Supp. 2d 452
  • 189 A.L.R. Fed. 593
  • 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4681
  • 2001 WL 392669

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting that a substantial part of the alleged misconduct occurred in New York
  • noting New York’s strong interest in having its law apply where defendants conducted themselves pursuant to standards in New York
  • plaintiffs alleged that the fund administrator used false NAV figures provided by introducing broker despite concurrent receipt of accurate financial information from clearing broker
  • “Ordinary economic motive, however, is insufficient to support the [pleading of a clear opportunity and motive to aid the fraud]”
  • “A plaintiff need only plead facts supporting a reasonable inference of control to survive a motion to dismiss.” (quotations omitted)
  • “A clear- ing broker does not provide ‘substantial assistance’ to or ‘partici- pate’ in a fraud when it merely clears trades.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cote

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

105 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Cromer Finance Ltd. v. Berger

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.