d instead shall look to Virgin Islands law to deter- mine whether the plaintiffs have stated claims cognizable in this jurisdiction. 2. New York's Martin Act Does Not Apply to this Lawsuit The defendants aver that the Martin Act, New York General Business section 352 et seq., bars the plaintiffs' claim

be et Internationale D 'Investissement v. 20 Claimants' breath of fiduciary duty claim also must be dismissed as a matter of law because New York's Martin Act bars Claimants' claim for breach of fiduciary duty. See N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 352a -352c (McKinney 2007). The Martin Act entrusts to New York State'

neral broad regulatory and remedial powers to prevent securities fraud. There is no private right of action under the Martin Act. Prior to 2011, the Martin Act preempted common law claims in the context of securities fraud to the extent said claims did not require proof of deceitful intent. See e.g., Caste

f ( e:[email protected] ) Eliott Spitzer is said to have revived the law during his tenure as Attorney General.[6] In 2001, his office launched a Martin Act investigation against Merrill Lynch for suspected fraud.[6] When the investigation was made public, Merrill's market value dropped $5 billion in on

s, and that there is no private right of action. (Defs.' Mem. Of Law in Support of Mot. To Dismiss at 44-46.) The plaintiffs counter that New York's Martin Act does not apply to nor bar their claims, (Pls.' Mem. Of Law in Opp'n to Mot. To Dismiss at 48-49.) The plaintiffs correctly assert that New York law

s, and that there is no private right of action. (Defs.' Mem. Of Law in Support of Mot. To Dismiss at 44-46.) The plaintiffs counter that New York's Martin Act does not apply to nor bar their claims. (Pls.' Mem. Of Law in Opp'n to Mot. To Dismiss at 48-49.) The plaintiffs correctly assert that New York law

pm Martin act 01:34:38 pm Eliott Spitzer is said to have revived the law during his tenure as Attorney General.[6] In 2001, his office launched a Martin Act investigation against Merrill Lynch for suspected fraud.[6] When the investigation was made public, Merrill's market value dropped $5 billion in on