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
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Relaxed Timeliness Requirements for Rule 11 Motions under the PSLRA

Download PDF

From In re Star Gas Secs. Litig., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103475 (D. Conn. Sept. 30, 2010):

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' motion was untimely filed on April 3, 2007, because judgment entered against Plaintiffs on August 23, 2006. Although PSLRA Section 78u-4(c), which mandates that a court conduct a inquiry under Rule 11(b) "upon final adjudication of the action" includes no other time requirement, Plaintiffs look to the time-limits for moving to alter or amend a judgment (14 days) and for motions under Rule 11(c) (21 days) to support their argument that Defendants failed to move for the PSLRA-mandated inquiry in a timely manner. However, Plaintiffs cite no other authority for their contention that the PSLRA requires a motion for a Rule 11 inquiry be filed within a particular time-frame. More significantly, Plaintiffs moved to modify the judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) two weeks after judgment entered, and Defendants awaited the Court's ruling on that motion finally adjudicating the action, before moving under Section 78u-4(c) for a mandatory Rule 11 inquiry. Even if Section 78u-4(c) imposed a clear time limit for seeking a Rule 11 inquiry, the relevant date from which that time limit would run would have been March 23, 2009, the date the Court ruled on Plaintiffs' motion to modify the judgment, which was only eleven days before Defendants so moved. Therefore, Defendants' motion was timely.

Note that the sanctions inquiry under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act is mandatory and not dependent on a motion.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO: Indirect Injury Unrecoverable — Indirect Purchaser Rule Imported from Antitrust

Rule 11 Sanctions: (1) Improper Purpose of Harassment Reasonably Determined Based on Past Tactics (25 Lawsuits, 14 Ethics Complaints, and 150 FOIA Requests) As Well As Present Behavior — (2) Hearings Are Not Only Not Required to Satisfy Due Process But, If The Record Is Otherwise Adequate, Are Affirmatively Discouraged

RICO and Probate Exception to Federal Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction over RICO Claim Not Barred by Probate Exception Even If the Federal Judgment May Be Binding on the Probate Proceedings (Or Vice Versa) — Calculating Damages Based on Diminution of Value of Estate ≠ Administration of the Estate — Doesn’t Matter If RICO Misconduct Includes Defendants’ Actions with Respect to The Estate

RICO: No Causation Where Harm Flowed Several Steps After the Fraudulent Acts — RICO Causation Same As Antitrust Causation

Sanctions vs. Automatic Stay: Imposition of Sanctions (Here, Inherent Power Sanctions) Is Subject to the Police Power Exception to the Automatic Stay in Bankruptcy

The Word “Include” May Be A Word of Limitation As Opposed to a Word of Enlargement, Depending on the Context

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

Depositions: Improper to Object to Form to Straightforward Questions (Not Compound, Vague, Leading or Speculative) — Lack of Foundation Objection Improper in 30(b)(6) Deposition — Improper to “Educate” Witness During Breaks of 30(b)(6) Deposition Through Witness Calls to Knowledgeable Corporate Colleagues — Magistrate Judge May Impose Financial Sanctions

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

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

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice