NJ Justices Challenge Writing Rule For Investment Job Suit

Law360 (September 15, 2020, 11:04 PM EDT) -- The New Jersey Supreme Court on Tuesday challenged a would-be employer's stance that an investment adviser couldn't pursue a suit over a rescinded job offer because he didn't pen a written services agreement, noting that he wasn't seeking money based on any such contract.

The justices expressed skepticism during a Zoom hearing over investor David Solimine's bid to overturn an appellate ruling that plaintiff Jed Goldfarb's promissory estoppel claim was not barred by regulations under the New Jersey Securities Law mandating a written contract to provide investment advisory services.

Instead of contract damages, Goldfarb sought so-called reliance damages constituting the difference...

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.


  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Beta
Ask a question!