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

Securities — Circuit Split as to Whether PSLRA’s Heightened Pleading Standards Apply to Loss Causation Allegations — Rebound in Stock Price after Disclosure of Fraud Does Not Defeat Inference of Economic Loss

Acticon AG v. China NE Petroleum Holdings Ltd., 2012 WL 3104589 (2d Cir. Aug. 1, 2012): This case requires us to consider whether the fact that a stock’s share price recovered soon after the fraud became known defeats an inference…
Continue Reading

Sanctions Based on Misinterpretation of Substantive Law — Where Claims “Quickly and Correctly” Dismissed, They Did Not Vexatiously Multiply the Proceedings within § 1927 — Recklessness Suffices for § 1927 Sanctions in Ninth Circuit

Braunstein v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transportation, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13150 (9th Cir. June 27, 2012): Under § 1927, an attorney who unreasonably and vexatiously “multiplies the proceedings” in a case may be required to pay the excess fees and…
Continue Reading

“Motion” to Voluntarily Dismiss under Rule 41(a)(1) May = Notice of Dismissal Despite Title — Court Retains Jurisdiction to Sanction, Cite for Criminal Contempt and Possibly Grant 60(b) Relief

Edwards-Brown v. Crete-Monee 201 U School Dist., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16358 (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2012): We note first that the district court properly construed Brown’s “motion” for voluntary dismissal as a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1).…
Continue Reading

Rule 26(b)(4)(E) Supersedes 28 U.S.C. § 1821 and Authorizes Award of Expert Fees and Expenses Over § 1821’s Cap — Appellate Brief Filed within 30 Days of Appealed Order = Additional Notice of Appeal for Issues Unmentioned in Original Notice

Halasa v. ITT Educational Servs., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16930 (7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2012): ITT Educational Services is a for-profit corporation that runs “ITT Technical Institutes” in several locations throughout the United States, including Lathrop, California. Plaintiff Jason Halasa…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Reasonable Prefiling Investigation May Negate Bad Faith — Misconduct in Another Court Sanctionable Only If It Is in Direct Defiance of Sanctioning Court — Relationship between Rule 11 and 35 U.S.C. § 285

Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16450 (Fed Cir. Aug. 7, 2012): Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc. (“Allcare”) appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas…
Continue Reading
Previous312313314315316317318Next

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