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

Supreme Court—Securities: Non-Maker Liable for Knowing Dissemination under 10b-5 & 17(a)(1) — Same Conduct Can Create Both Primary & Secondary Liability, Violate Multiple Subparts of 10b-5 –Janus Limited to Non-Disseminating Drafters?

Lorenzo v. SEC, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2295, 2019 WL 1369839 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2019): Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 makes it unlawful: [*6]  “(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, “(b) To make any untrue…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Failure of Expert in Social Security Hearing to Disclose Supporting Data Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Substantial Evidence Standard Unmet — “Substantial” Evidence in Agency Proceedings Is “More Than a Mere Scintilla” (Good Quote)

Biestek v. Berryhill, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2480 (U.S. April 1, 2019): The Social Security Administration (SSA) provides benefits to individuals who cannot obtain work because of a physical or mental disability. To determine whether an applicant is entitled to …
Continue Reading

Dismissal Sanction — Neither R. 37 Nor Inherent Power Requires Clear & Explicit Warning — Lack = Factor for Court to Consider in Selecting Sanction — Rendering Discovery & Summary Judgment Useless with New Evidence Suffices (4th Cir. Factors)

Rangarajan v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 5194 (4th Cir. Feb. 22, 2019): Mitra Rangarajan, who claims that she was constructively discharged as a nurse practitioner at the School of Medicine of Johns Hopkins University — whether…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Service by Mail on Foreign State Per FSIA §1608(a)(3) Must Be Mailed to Foreign Minister in Home Country, Not Embassy — Court Lacks Response to One Argument “Other Than … Not … Perfect Draftsmanship” (Good Quote)

Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2293 , 2019 WL 1333259 (U.S. Mar. 26, 2019): This case concerns the requirements applicable to a particular method of serving civil process on a foreign state.  Under the Foreign Sovereign …
Continue Reading

§1927 Sanctions: Tantamount-to-Bad Faith Standard (11th Cir.) — Inherent Power/1927: Fees May Be Incurred “Because of” Counsel’s Misconduct Even after S/he Withdraws — That Some Evid. May Support a Different Finding Isn’t Clear Error (Good Quot

Eldredge v. EDCare Mgmt., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8076 (11th Cir. Mar. 19, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Amlong & Amlong, P.A., a law firm, appeals the district court's imposition of sanctions against it totaling $422,433.30 in attorney's fees and …
Continue Reading

Disqualification Should Be Decided before Merits — No Informed Consent Where Waiver Letter Merely States Interests “Are Or May Become Adverse” without Explanation — No Prejudice in Fact from Ethical Breach

Cedar Rapids Bank & Trust Co. v. Mako One Corp., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8507, 2019 WL 1283988 (8th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019): In August 2013, Mako One Corporation ("Mako") acquired the historic Badgerow Jackson Building in downtown Sioux …
Continue Reading

Spoliation: Timeliness of Sanctions Motion — 4 Factors for Gauging Whether Delay Should Bar Relief under Rule 37(e) [Or Otherwise] — Eve of Trial Too Late, If Non-Preservation Known Years Earlier, Even If Party Didn’t Realize Prejudice Earlier

Wakefield v. Visalus, Inc., 2019 WL 1411127 (D. Or. Mar. 27, 2019) ( Wakefield v. ViSalus, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48012 (D. Or., Mar. 22, 2019)): *1 Trial is set to begin in this class action lawsuit on…
Continue Reading

Even State RICO Stat. Allowing Suit for “Indirect” Injury Doesn’t Permit Shareholder Suit for Harm to Corp. Devaluing Stock — It Is a Derivative Claim — Contempt for Violating Automatic Stay Where Corp. = Debtor

Nicole Gas Production, Ltd. v. Bowers, 2019 WL 850960 (6th Cir. Feb. 22, 2019): *1 This is a bankruptcy contempt dispute. Normally a party’s conduct is contemptuous or it is not. But in this unusual case, whether the defendants are …
Continue Reading

Rule 404(b): Prior Bad Act Evidence Offered to Prove Matters Other Than Characteristic “Has Always Been Problematic for the Courts” — OK to Prove Lack of Accident when Defense Makes It Clear It Will Assert Accident Defense

Fairbanks v. State, 2019 WL 1374382 (Ind. Mar. 27, 2019): In criminal cases, Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b)’s purpose is to prevent the jury from indulging in the “forbidden inference”—that a defendant must be guilty of the charged crime because,…
Continue Reading
Previous71727374757677Next

Recent Articles

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 Propoerty 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?

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

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