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

28 USC § 1782 — A Foreign Bankruptcy Proceeding Is Within The Scope of § 1782

Download PDF

SUMMARY ORDER

In re Ex Parte Application of Gissin, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9131 (2d Cir. May 17, 2016):

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Alan Freedman, Moore Capital Management, LLC, and LM Moore SP Investments, Ltd. (together, the "Moore Defendants") appeal from the January 7, 2016 and February 5, 2016 orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Hellerstein, J.) granting the application of Guy Gissin for discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

Gissin seeks to obtain evidence pursuant to Section 1782, which allows district courts to issue orders that allow parties to take discovery in the United States "for use [*2]  in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal." 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). On appeal, the only argument advanced is that the discovery sought is not "for use" in a foreign proceeding, and thus does not fall within the parameters of Section 1782.

We agree with the district court that Lancaster Factoring Co. v. Mangone, 90 F.3d 38, 42 (2d Cir. 1996) controls the outcome here. There, our Court held that a foreign bankruptcy proceeding "is within the intended scope of § 1782." Id. We rejected respondent's argument that the discovery was not for use in a foreign proceeding "because Lancaster may or may not exercise its option to acquire whatever claims it may find and may or may not decide to commence a proceeding to pursue those claims." Id. "[R]egardless of what may happen in the future, there is already a proceeding pending, to wit, the bankruptcy proceeding in Milan." Id.; see also In re Application of Hill, No. M19-117(RJH), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10838, 2005 WL 1330769, at * 5 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2005) (granting Section 1782 petition to liquidator in a Hong Kong liquidation proceeding, noting that "[t]he fact that the Liquidators may use the fruits of discovery to pursue potential claims against third parties does not undermine their equally legitimate goals of reconstructing financial records, evaluating key transactions and identifying and recovering the debtors' assets").

We have considered [*3]  the remainder of the Moore Defendants' arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

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

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

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