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

Sanctions Reversed Where Inference of Bad Faith Drawn in Part from Conduct of Others — “[O]nly Conduct Explicitly Referred to in the Instrument Providing Notice Is Sanctionable” —

Cameron Int’l Trading Co. v. Hawk Importers, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22294 (2d Cir. Oct. 25, 2012): Movants J. Curtis Edmondson and Scott D. Frendel (collectively “movants”), defendants’ counsel in this matter, appeal from a January 18, 2011, memorandum…
Continue Reading

Testifying Expert in Related Case Is Afforded Work Product Protection under 2010 FRCP Amendments — Notes of Experts and Communications with Non-Lawyers Unprotected — Communication Through, or Copying, Agents Does Not Undo Protection

In re Application of Republic of Ecuador … under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157497 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 2, 2012): This proceeding is a small part of an expansive, long-running international dispute. The principal adversaries are the…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions: Abuse of Discretion Review Enhanced — Conduct Must Constitute/Be Tantamount to Bad Faith and Be Motivated by Improper Purpose — Unmade Argument Not Waived Where No Chance to Timely Raise It

Wilson v. Citigroup, N.A., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26381 (2d Cir. Dec. 26, 2012): On March 21, 2011, plaintiff Robert E. Wilson III filed a complaint in the district court alleging that various defendants wrongfully denied him participation in the…
Continue Reading

Adoption of Arbitral Rules That Grant Arbitrator the Power to Determine Arbitrability Evinces Parties’ Binding Agreement to Forgo Judicial Resolution — So, Too, Does Use of Broad Arbitration Clause

Wynn Resorts, Ltd. v. Atlantic-Pacific Capital, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23312 (9th Cir. Nov. 13, 2012): 1. Responsibility for Deciding the Arbitrability Issue “The question whether the parties have submitted a particular dispute to arbitration, i.e., the ‘question of…
Continue Reading

Experts — Rule 26(e)(2) Duty to Supplement Expert Report or Deposition Cannot Be Used to “Sandbag One’s Opponent” and Introduce New Opinions after Court-Ordered Deadline — Rule 37(c)(1) Preclusion Applies — Good Quote

Stuhlmacher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164722 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 19, 2012) (note: This LEXIS citation is subject to change when the opinion is annotated and Shepardized by LEXIS): Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D) states…
Continue Reading

Securities — Nature and Extent of § 16(b) Liability — Violation of Statutorily-Imposed Fiduciary Duty to Issuer Defeats Argument That Derivative Plaintiff Lacks Constitutional Standing — Violation of Statutorily-Granted Right = Injury in Fact

Donoghue v. Bulldog Investors G.P., 696 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2012): Defendants Bulldog Investors General Partnership and principal Phillip Goldstein (collectively, “Bulldog”) appeal from a judgment entered on March 31, 2011, by the United States District Court for the Southern…
Continue Reading
Previous299300301302303304305Next

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