In October, the First Department rendered two interesting decisions. In Netologic v. Goldman Sachs Group,1 the court considered the pleading of a claim premised upon the alleged breach of an efforts clause in a contract. In Warberg Opportunistic Trading Fund v. GeoResources,2 the court considered the effect that should be given to the language of a “trumping” clause.
‘Netologic’
Netologic alleged that it engaged in the business of developing, promoting and selling, complex performance analysis and management systems designed to capture, explore and evaluate research, sales and trading ideas that would be of interest to the financial community, including brokerage and investment firms. Netologic claimed it developed a method and tool that provided transparency into Wall Street equity research services. Netologic allegedly had a confidential and proprietary product that allowed the performance of Wall Street analysts to be evaluated and ranked.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
