New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

July 2009

RICO — Same Act Cannot Constitute Both Predicate Offense and Requisite Investment within § 1962(a), as Investment Injury Must Be Distinct from Pattern Injury

From Guy’s Mechanical Sys., Inc., v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14065 (3d Cir. June 22, 2009) (unpublished): GMSI is a small company in western Pennsylvania that performs mechanical contracting services. Its principal owner, Wilbur Guy, has a credit card account with FIA that he mainly uses for business purchases. GMS ...
From Guy’s Mechanical Sys., Inc., v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14065 (3d Cir. June 22, 2009) (unpublished): GMSI is a small company in western Pennsylvania that performs mechanical contracting services. Its principal owner, Wilbur Guy, has…
Continue Reading

New York Recognizes a Claim for Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Concealment Based on Intentional Spoliation by Third Party Subpoena Recipient Even Though State Rejects an Independent Tort of Third-Party Negligent Spoliation

From IDT Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. 2009 NY Slip Op 5253, 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5167 (1st Dept. June 25, 2009): The issue on this appeal is whether cognizable claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment may be based on intentional spoliation of evidence, notwithstanding that New York does not r ...
From IDT Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. 2009 NY Slip Op 5253, 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5167 (1st Dept. June 25, 2009): The issue on this appeal is whether cognizable claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent…
Continue Reading

When May a District Court Abstain from Entertaining a Declaratory Judgment Action that Includes a Claim for Monetary Relief? Circuit Split over Wilton/Brillhart Doctrine

From R.R. Street & Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 13780 (7th Cir. June 25, 2009): Under what is known as the Wilton/Brillhart abstention doctrine, district courts possess significant discretion to dismiss or stay claims seeking declaratory relief, even though they have subject matte ...
From R.R. Street & Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 13780 (7th Cir. June 25, 2009): Under what is known as the Wilton/Brillhart abstention doctrine, district courts possess significant discretion to dismiss…
Continue Reading
1234

Recent Articles

nherent Power Sanction of Dismissal — Preponderance of the Evidence Burden of Proof, Not Clear and Convincing Evidence (7th Circuit)

§ 1927 Sanctions — Must A Lawyer Who Unreasonably and Vexatiously Multiplies Federal Court Proceedings Be Acting “As An Attorney” When Committing the Misconduct To Be Subject to Sanction under § 1927?

Rule 37 Sanctions — Unfamiliarity With Litigation Process Does Not Excuse Intentional Disregard of Court Order — Also Affirming Rule 26(g) Sanctions on Clients and Counsel for False Representations That All Responsive Documents Had Been Produced

Supreme Court: Notice of Appeal Filed After The Original Deadline But Before Reopening by The District Court Is Timely — It Relates Forward to The Date of The Order Making The Appeal Possible — Second Notice of Appeal After Reopening Unnecessary

Rule 37 Default Judgment: Second Circuit’s Four-Factor Test for Imposing Defaults and Three-Factor Test for Lifting Them

Rule 37 Default Judgment — Tenth Circuit Multifactor Test Is Not Exhaustive But a Non-Exclusive List of “Sometimes-Helpful Criteria Or Guide Posts”— Appeal from Preliminary Injunction Mooted by Entry of Permanent Injunction — Difficulty in Collecting Damages Award May Equal Irreparable Injury — A Monetary Award For Past Conduct Does Not Preclude A Permanent Injunction Against Similar Wrongful Conduct Likely To Occur In The Future

RICO: Cover-Up Within Limitations Period of Untimely RICO Violation “Was Merely A Continuation” Of The Original Injury And Could Not Be Used “As A ‘Bootstrap’ To Salvage [The] Time-Barred Claims–Declining to Apply Pinkerton Doctrine to Civil RICO Claims

Inherent Power — Circumstantial Evidence — Fact That Bad Faith May Be Shown by Establishing That Conduct Was So Egregious It Was Necessarily Committed in Bad Faith Does Not Mean That Bad Faith Must Be The Sole Explanation for The Bad Conduct

RICO Causation: Testing Labs’ Misstatements As to Alcohol Tests’ Efficacy Not Communicated to Plaintiffs’ Employers Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Professional Harm

Supreme Court: Standing — When The Government Prohibits Or Impedes Company A from Using Company B’s Product, Both Are Objects of the Government’s Action And Have Standing to Contest It — “To Demonstrate Standing, Plaintiffs Must Answer A Basic Question—‘What’s It To You?’” (Good Quote) — Expert Evidence Not Required to Establish Standing — “Judges Are Not Required To Exhibit A Naiveté From Which Ordinary Citizens Are Free’” (Good Quote)

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice