Search for: "Oppenheimer & Co. v. Oppenheim" Results 21 - 40 of 83
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 May 2011, 7:16 am by Broc Romanek
Second, the Company's public filings disclosed that Oppenheimer & Co., Orchid's financial advisor, had advised the board that "no third party would likely propose a bid for the [C]ompany that would yield a result for the stockholders that would be higher than LabCorp's ... $2.80 per share indication of interest. [read post]
13 May 2022, 4:53 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Nor is it dispositive that plaintiffs and the Williams Defendants did not have a retainer agreement with respect to the engagement, given Stone’s explanation of the agreement he had with the Williams Defendants, the advice they gave him, the acts he undertook as part of the Williams Defendants’ engagement, and his reliance on their advice (see Pellegrino v Oppenheimer & Co. [read post]
19 May 2023, 3:51 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The settlement of the wife’s elective share claim does not utterly refute plaintiffs’ allegations of proximate cause because the complaint supports the inference that the settlement was effectively compelled by defendants’ malpractice (see Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428, 429-430 [1st Dept 1990]). [read post]
25 Nov 2009, 7:10 am by Erin Miller
(You can read Elisabeth Oppenheimer's preview of the case for Scotuswiki here.) [read post]
4 Sep 2009, 2:04 pm
(NFP).She has also held positions with Salomon Smith Barney and CIBC World Markets(formerly Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.). [read post]
20 Nov 2019, 4:27 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
A legal malpractice cause of action “is viable, despite settlement of the underlying action, if it is alleged that settlement of the action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel” (Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428, 430 [1990]; see Maroulis v Sari M. [read post]
21 Apr 2021, 4:00 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“‘A claim for legal malpractice is viable, despite settlement of the underlying action, if it is alleged that settlement of the action was effectively compelled by the mistakes of counsel'” (Katsoris v Bodnar & Milone, LLP, 186 AD3d at 1505, quoting Bernstein v Oppenheim & Co., 160 AD2d 428, 430; see Gad v Sherman, 160 AD3d 622, 623). [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 2:34 am
DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKAlternative Dispute Resolution Bank Cannot Be Compelled to Participate In US Airway's FINRA Arbitration Oppenheimer & Co. [read post]
20 May 2010, 2:55 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Oppenheim & Co., 160 A.D.2d 428, 554 N.Y.S.2d 487, 489-90 (N.Y. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 3:45 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Oppenheim & Co., P.C., 160 AD2d 428, 429-430 [1st Dept 1990]) (emphasis added). [read post]
19 Apr 2018, 3:59 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Contrary to purported ongoing representation by decedent’s family and advisors, the record evidence demonstrates the lack of a mutual understanding that defendant would continue to represent the estate in the Devine action, even if there was a continuation of a general professional relationship (see Pellegrino v Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. [read post]