On appeal from a judgment entered in the Southern District of New York (Marrero, J.), dismissing as untimely this contract action pertaining to defendant's unpaid bonds, plaintiff challenges that part of the district court's ruling regarding his claim for interest. Plaintiff maintains that, even if the statute of limitations-which he argues is six years as provided by statute, rather than four years as stated in the bonds' Indenture-bars his claim for unpaid principal, interest continued to accrue for as long as the principal remained unpaid, such that his claim for interest accruing within six years of the filing of his complaint is timely. Because existing New York law does not clearly settle whether claims for interest on principal continue to accrue after a claim for the principal itself is time‐barred, we certify questions pertaining to that issue to the New York Court of Appeals, deferring our resolution of this appeal in the interim.DECISION RESERVED and QUESTIONS CERTIFIED.
To summarize, we defer decision in this case, and certify to the New York Court of Appeals the following questions:
1. If a bond issuer remains obligated to make biannual interest payments until the principal is paid, including after the date of maturity, see NML Capital v. Republic of Argentina, 17 N.Y.3d 250, 928 N.Y.S.2d 666 (2011), do enforceable claims for such biannual interest continue to accrue after a claim for the principal of the bonds is time‐barred?2. If the answer to the first question is "yes," can interest claims arise ad infinitum as long as the principal remains unpaid, or are there limiting principles that apply?
In certifying these questions, we do not bind the Court of Appeals to the particular questions stated. Rather, the Court of Appeals may expand this certified inquiry to address any pertinent questions of New York law involved in this appeal.6===Footnote 6: While perhaps not necessary to the resolution of this case, another question that arises from the identified legal ambiguity is whether, if the answer to the first question is "no," claims for interest that accrued before a claim for the principal of the bonds is time‐barred expire when the principal claim becomes time‐barred. We leave to the New York Court of Appeals whether to address this related question of New York law.
[I]n one common version of the scam, victims received e-mails that used official-seeming documentation with the SEC seal to support a false claim that the victim must pay a fee in order to receive a portion of a legal settlement. In another version of the scheme, victims received e-mails and official-seeming documents labeling the victim as a defendant in a civil lawsuit alleging that the victim owed tens of thousands of dollars in supposed disgorgement, penalties and fees. The documents gave the victim a choice of either appearing in court to contest the lawsuit or paying a smaller fee.
[I]n December 2016, federal law enforcement responded to an ad ONG had placed regarding buying and selling bitcoin - a cryptocurrency that can be used for purchases on the dark web and elsewhere. Later in December, and again in February and March 2017, ONG traveled to the Seattle area to exchange cash for bitcoin. At various times the undercover agents specifically told ONG that the funds they were exchanging for bitcoin came from drug trafficking. ONG repeatedly told them he did not want to hear that so that he had 'plausible deniability.'In May 2017, ONG was observed by other HSI agents in Blaine, Washington running cash through a bill counter while sitting in his car. The agents informed him he needed to register as a money remitter with FinCEN, a bureau of the U.S. Treasury whose mission is to safeguard the financial system from illicit use and money laundering. ONG registered with FinCEN, and informed Homeland Security that he had done so. However, even after registering he failed to follow FinCEN regulations requiring the reporting of suspicious transactions - including three more with undercover agents.