the harm inflicted” must fail. (Id. 15.) To the extent that CIH argues it lost the opportunity to settle tax claims under the Brazilian government’s amnesty program “rather than risk payment of substantial interest and penalties,” (PL Mem. 15), this argument is purely speculative and does not demonstrate prejudice, as BT may ultimately win all of the pending tax claims. See Starr v. Sony BMG Music Entm’t, 592 F.3d 314, 321 (2d Cir.2010) (stating that “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)” (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955)); U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. Stewart Title Ins. Co., 37 A.D.3d 822, 832 N.Y.S.2d 223 (2d Dep’t 2007) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, CIH has failed to allege that it
holding that the plaintiffs liability to the defendant was absolved as a result of the bankruptcy order and the defendants were barred from collecting debts from property of the plaintiffs holding that plaintiffs were no more likely than the average   citizen to be victims of future attacks and so their claimed injury was purely speculative holding that defendants allegations of prejudice on ground that plaintiffs allegedly untimely notice prevented defendant from participating in foreclosure action so as to mitigate its liability and protect its interests were purely speculative holding that the trial court committed no abuse of discretion in denying the appointment of the defendants requested expert as there was no undue prejudice to the defendant because the defendants claim on the predicted effect of the experts testimony was purely speculative holding that the defendants had received sufficient notice where the original defendants and the newly added defendants shared an identity of interests and were represented by attorneys who were involved in the litigation from its inception