§Why CasetextPricing

Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Series 2006-FM2, by HSBC Bank USA, National Association, solely in its capacity as Trustee, et al., Respondents,v.Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., Appellant. (And Three Other Actions.)

Brief

5 Cited authorities

  1. Kenford Co. v. County of Erie

    73 N.Y.2d 312 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 315 times
    Holding that “unusual and extraordinary damages,” such as “lost profits,” are recoverable in contract if the damages were “brought within the contemplation of the parties as the probable result of a breach at the time of or prior to contracting”

  2. Muzak Corp. v. Hotel Taft Corp.

    1 N.Y.2d 42 (N.Y. 1956)   Cited 267 times
    Holding that the specific provision trumped the general provision, even in the absence of any inconsistency between those provisions

  3. People v. Ford

    69 N.Y.2d 775 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 58 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Argued January 12, 1987 Decided February 10, 1987 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Duncan S. McNab, J., Joseph Cohen, J. Henry Winestine and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant. Mario Merola, District Attorney (Peter D. Coddington and Michael R. Gordon of counsel), for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant was charged in a six-count indictment with attempted murder in the first degree as the

  4. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. Nomura Holding Am. Inc.

    68 F. Supp. 3d 439 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)   Cited 8 times

    No. 11cv6201 DLC. 2014-12-18 FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, Plaintiff, v. NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA INC., et al., Defendants. Philippe Z. Selendy, Andrew R. Dunlap, David B. Schwartz, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff Federal Housing Finance Agency. David B. Tulchin, Steven L. Holley, Bruce E. Clark, Bradley A. Harsch, Katherine J. Stoller, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Amanda F. Davidoff, Elizabeth A. Cassady, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Washington, DC, for Nomura Holding

  5. Section 860F - Other rules

    26 U.S.C. § 860F   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) 100 percent tax on prohibited transactions (1) Tax imposed There is hereby imposed for each taxable year of a REMIC a tax equal to 100 percent of the net income derived from prohibited transactions. (2) Prohibited transaction For purposes of this part, the term "prohibited transaction" means- (A) Disposition of qualified mortgage The disposition of any qualified mortgage transferred to the REMIC other than a disposition pursuant to- (i) the substitution of a qualified replacement mortgage for