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 Required in 5th Circuit — Raising Patently Frivolous Legal Argument and Threatening Further Meritless Litigation = Bad Faith — Pro Se Litigant — Vexatious Litigant Injunction Must Be Tailored

Terra Partners v. Rabo Agrifinance, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26291 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2012): On September 20, 2012, Steve Veigel sought to file a pro se amicus brief in support of Terra Partners. Steve Veigel has an obvious…
Continue Reading

Transmittal of Letter Drafted by Counsel Does Not Waive Privilege as to Investigation and Communications Leading up to Letter — Lawyer’s Testimony as to Process Insufficient

Le v. City of Wilmington, 480 Fed. Appx. 678 (3d Cir. 2012): c) Attorney-client privilege Finally, Le asserts that the District Court erred in refusing to compel testimony from a former lawyer working in Wilmington’s legal department, Mr. Mili. During…
Continue Reading

Spoliation Sanctions Inapt against Individual Where Plaintiff Put Only Entity on Notice of Possible Claim, without Notifying Individual of Prospective Claim against Him Personally — 10th Circuit Requires Bad Faith for Adverse Inference Instruction

Smith v. Nichols, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16 (10th Cir. Jan. 2, 2013): Plaintiff-Appellant Tommie Smith, an inmate in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections (“CDOC”), appeals a jury verdict denying his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Counsel Still Caused “Excess” Fees within § 1927 Despite 42 U.S.C. § 1988 Award against Client for Same Fees — Default in Responding to Motion Suffices as a Substitute for Required Finding of Bad Faith (1 Judge Dissenting)

Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 383 (11th Cir. Jan. 7, 2013): Appellants William Tedards and Michael Weeks, two attorneys who represented their client, Plaintiff Young Apartments, in this civil lawsuit, appeal the district court’s…
Continue Reading

Entity May Appeal Privilege Order to Disclose Its Data Held by Former Employee But Not by Employees’ Counsel at Its Request — Perlman Unaffected by Mohawk (Circuit Split) — Reasonable-Basis-to-Suspect-Test for Crime-Fraud Excepttion

In re Grand Jury, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25318 (3d Cir. Dec. 11, 2012): ABC Corp., John Doe 1, and John Doe 2 are subjects of an ongoing grand jury investigation into an alleged criminal tax scheme. As part of…
Continue Reading

Non-Signatory May Not Compel Arbitration Merely Because It Is an Agent of a Signatory, Even if Clause Extends to Agents — Dispute Must Arise Out of Agency — Equitable Estoppel to Compel Arbitration: Standards

Baldwin v. Cavett, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22777 (5th Cir. Nov. 6, 2012): Clifford W. Cavett (“Cavett”), Larry A. Turner (“Turner”), and Robert J. Wyble (“Wyble”) are partners in the accounting firm Cavett, Turner & Wyble L.L.P. (“CTW”). According to…
Continue Reading
Previous298299300301302303304Next

Recent Articles

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

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

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