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

Joseph Hage Aaronson

Inherent Power Sanctions — Bad Faith Inferable If Acts Are “So Completely without Merit” — More Exacting Abuse of Discretion Standard in Sanctions Appeals — Claim Colorable If It Has Some Legal, Factual Support and a Reasonable Belief in It

Hollon v. Merck & Co., Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20237 (2d Cir. Oct. 20, 2014): UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be VACATED AND REMANDED. Gary J. Douglas …
Continue Reading

Derivative Actions — Massachusetts Business Trusts — Applicable Law (Substantive (Mass.) vs.Procedural (Forum) — Dismissal Based on Special Litigation Committee Investigation

Rotz v. Van Kampen Asset Mgmt., 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4663 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Oct. 22, 2014): In these shareholder derivative suits, plaintiffs allege that certain officers of the nominal defendant trusts and the trusts' former investment advisers breached…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanction of Summary Judgment for Declining to Pay Attorney’s Fees Ordered as a Prerequisite to the Party’s Supplementing Its Claims (a Requirement of a Local Rule of Court) Reversed — Bad Faith Violation of Local Rule Essential

Anticancer, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20059 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 20, 2014): This litigation concerns patents owned by AntiCancer, Inc. on technology related to the imaging of gene expression using a green fluorescent protein linked to a…
Continue Reading

Is All Legal Advice Privileged or Only If Confidential Client Information Is Revealed? — Circuit Split — Corporate Antitrust Compliance Policy ≠ Privileged — Primarily, a Business Policy—Wide Distribution, Not Labeling It Confidential = Waiver

In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144263 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 9, 2014): At issue is whether the Court should grant the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of Defendant CertainTeed Gypsum, Inc.'s antitrust compliance policy, …
Continue Reading
Previous235236237238239240241Next

Recent Articles

FRAP 38 and Pro Se Litigants — Observations, Not Sanctions, For Non-Existent Quotations

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion Sanction: Under R&R Sails, A Discovery Sanction Is Not Claim Dispositive Just Because It Makes It “Much More Difficult, Perhaps Almost Impossible” For A Party To Proceed With Its Claim Or Argument — The Sanction Must Be Fatal — Only Then Is Proof of Willfulness, Fault Or Bad Faith Required — To The Extent The Imposition Of Sanctions Turns On The Resolution Of An Issue Of Law, Review Is De Novo

Supreme Court: Party Moving to Set Aside Void Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(4) Must Do So Within A Reasonable Time Per Rule 60(c)(1)

Supreme Court: Erie/Rule 8/Rule 11: Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Conflicts with and Overrides Delaware’s Affidavit of Merit in Medical Malpractice Actions — A Valid Rule of Civil Procedure Displaces Contrary State Law Even If The State Law Is Substantive — Rule 11’s Proviso That “[U]nless A Rule Or Statute Specifical States Otherwise, A Pleading Need Not Be Verified Or Accompanied By An Affidavit” Refers to Rules Or Statutes Requiring Represented Parties To Verify Pleading Or Sign Affidavits — It Has Nothing To Do With Affidavits From Third Parties — Good Quote: Drawing A Negative Inference from Text Is Sometimes the Best Way To Understand It

RICO Statute of Limitations — Storm Warnings, Not Thunder and Lightning (Good Quote)

Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions: Ninth Circuit’s Five-Factor Test for Gauging Appropriateness of Dismissal — The Limited Utility of Rule 12(f) Motions to Strike

RICO: Employer Suffered Harm to Business or Property When Kickbacks Paid to Employees in Real Estate Transactions Done for Employer — Expert Testimony Sufficient to Prove Harm — Proof That Employer Paid Above-Market Prices Not Essential — Non-Disclosure of Certain Damages in Initial Disclosures Cured by Expert Report, Which Also Rendered Initial Non-Disclosure Harmless

Spoliation: Dismissal Under Rule 37(e)(2) and Monetary Sanctions Under Rule 37(e)(1), Implicitly Reading The “Or” Between 37(e)(1) and 37(e)(2) As Conjunctive, Not Disjunctive — Clear Error Standard of Review for District Court’s Intent (= Bad Faith) Finding under 37(e)(2)(C) — Additional Monetary Sanctions Imposed on Claimants under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 37(a)(5) — No Right to Jury Determination of Intent under Rule 37(e)(2) — “Substantially Justified” in Rule 37(a)(5) Has Same Meaning As In Equal Access to Justice Act and Thus Rule 11 — Meaning of “Unreasonable and Vexatious” in 7th Circuit

Inherent 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?

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

© 2026 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice