6 Citing briefs
National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 163 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 54 Memorandum & Opinion . MOTION for Certificate of Appealability . MOTION to Stay /Motion for Reconsideration of Motion to Dismiss Decision or, in the Alternative, for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292
Filed July 11, 2014
at 2183 (second alteration in original) (citation omitted). By contrast, Illinois’ notice rule is a time limit for providing notice of one’s intent to rescind a transaction (not for filing suit), 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/13(B), and its purpose is to prevent plaintiffs from treating voidable securities as option contracts, or otherwise gaining an unfair advantage or imposing an unfair detriment on a defendant, by sitting on known claims.8 Nothing in the FCUA’s text, structure, or history suggests a desire to alter the state-law regime addressing these distinct concerns. In short, the “case for federal pre-emption is particularly weak,” CTS, 134 S. Ct. at 2188 (quoting Wyeth, 555 U.S. at 575), and NCUA has not satisfied its heavy burden of establishing that the ISL’s notice provision and the FCUA are in such direct and irreconcilable conflict that the former poses “an unacceptable obstacle to the attainment of [the latter]’s purposes.”
National Credit Union Administration Board v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC et al
MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 230 Notice
Filed April 5, 2016
Stat. 5/13(B) .............................................................................................. 31 § 13(D), 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13(D) ............................................................................................. 31 Texas Securities Act, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 581 (Texas Blue Sky Law) ................................
Western and Southern Life Insurance Company et al v. Countrywide Financial Corp. et al
REPLY In Support Of MOTION to Dismiss Case 168
Filed February 3, 2012
. at 2 & ¶ 6. 67 See Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co., 595 N.E.2d 565, 568 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (equi- table tolling provision of 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D) may extend the three year limitations period by up to two years, “provided that plaintiffs properly allege and demonstrate the requisite grounds”); Frank E. Basil, Inc. v. Liedesdorf, 713 F. Supp. 1194, 1201 (N.D. Ill. 1989)
National Credit Union Administration Board v. RBS Securities, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 181 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings . . Document
Filed March 6, 2015
The Illinois statute, however, provides an express private cause of action that extends to “[e]very sale of a security made in violation of the provisions of this Act.” 815 ILCS 5/13(A). Under the plain language of that provision, because reliance is not required for the State of Illinois to prove a violation of § 12(G) (as both the text and the analogy to § 17(a)(2) demonstrate), it is also unnecessary for any private plaintiff to prove reliance in order to recover.
National Credit Union Administration Board v. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC et al
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of 28 MOTION to Dismiss the National Credit Union Administration Board's Complaint
Filed October 27, 2011
See 15 U.S.C. § 77m; Cal. Corp. Code § 25506(b); 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/13(D); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17-12a509(j); Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat.
National Credit Union Administration Board v. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC et al
RESPONSE to J.P. Morgan Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority Concerning Credit Suisse Securities v. Simmonds
Filed April 5, 2012
So, too, do the state statutes relevant to NCUA’s claims, see Cal. Corp. Code § 25506 (“Limitation of actions”); 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/13(D)(2) (“period of limitation”); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 17- 12a509(j) (“Statute of limitations”); Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat.