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

Complex Lit Blog

Failure to Raise PSLRA Bar to RICO Action below Bars Consideration on Appeal — Not Purely Legal Question

Olivier Family Interests, Ltd. v. Wright, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17833 (8th Cir. Aug. 27, 2013): In Appeal No. 12-2573, Michael Bogart and Doris Wright, as the personal representative of the estate of Russell Wright (who died during the pendency of this proceeding), appeal the judgment of the District Court awarding damages of $12,900,000 in accordance with ...
Olivier Family Interests, Ltd. v. Wright, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17833 (8th Cir. Aug. 27, 2013): In Appeal No. 12-2573, Michael Bogart and Doris Wright, as the personal representative of the estate of Russell Wright (who died during the pendency…
Continue Reading

Which Is It — “Attorneys’ Fees” or “Attorney’s Fees” or “Attorney Fees” or “Attorney Fee” or “Attorneys’ Fee” or “Attorney’s Fee”?

Daybreak, Inc. v. Friedberg, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77366 (D.V.I. June 3, 2013): Before the Court is the motion of the plaintiff/counterclaim defendant Daybreak, Inc., doing business as Huber & Associates ("Daybreak"), for attorneys' fees and costs. Footnote 1. Before addressing the merits of the fee petiti ...
Daybreak, Inc. v. Friedberg, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77366 (D.V.I. June 3, 2013): Before the Court is the motion of the plaintiff/counterclaim defendant Daybreak, Inc., doing business as Huber & Associates (“Daybreak”), for attorneys’ fees and costs. Footnote 1. Before…
Continue Reading

Multiple30(b)(6) Witnesses = 1 Deponent — I.e., the Entity — Each Witness May Review and Sign Transcript Even If Request Made Only at First Witness’s Testimony — Substantive Errata Changes Permitted in Second Circuit, but Cross Is Broad

In re Weatherford Int’l Secs. Litig., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120321 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2013): The motion currently before the Court in this case presents an issue of first impression but little practical significance: when multiple witnesses are designated as corporate representatives pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of C ...
In re Weatherford Int’l Secs. Litig., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120321 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2013): The motion currently before the Court in this case presents an issue of first impression but little practical significance: when multiple witnesses are designated as…
Continue Reading

Does State or Federal Law Govern Interpretation of a Forum Selection Clause If the Underlying Contract Contains a Choice of Law Provision? If State, What State? Circuit Split

Indoor Billboard Northwest Inc. v. M2 Sys. Corp., 922 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Or. 2013): The parties do not address or analyze whether the Court should apply federal common law, Connecticut law, or Oregon law to determine the scope and effect of the forum-selection clause. As noted, the Promissory Note provides it "shall be construed and e ...
Indoor Billboard Northwest Inc. v. M2 Sys. Corp., 922 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Or. 2013): The parties do not address or analyze whether the Court should apply federal common law, Connecticut law, or Oregon law to determine the scope…
Continue Reading

Court May Convert Unpaid Portion of Disgorgement Remedy, Imposed as Compensatory Civil Contempt Sanction, into Money Judgment after Contemnor Has Disgorged What It Can — Breadth of, and Limitations on, Contempt—Good Quotes—No Election of Remedies

Federal Trade Comm’n v. Leshin, 719 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2013): This appeal presents an issue of first impression: whether a district court can convert the unpaid remainder of an equitable disgorgement remedy, stemming from a compensatory civil contempt sanction, into the legal remedy of a money judgment after the contemnor has disgor ...
Federal Trade Comm’n v. Leshin, 719 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2013): This appeal presents an issue of first impression: whether a district court can convert the unpaid remainder of an equitable disgorgement remedy, stemming from a compensatory civil contempt sanction,…
Continue Reading

What Exactly Is an “Outlaw”? — The Demise of Outlawry and Rise of the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine — The Latter’s Inaptness in Most Civil Cases

Niemi v. Lasshofer, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18589 (10th Cir. Sept. 6, 2013): An unconventional real estate financing scheme presents us with some unconventional legal questions. Questions ranging from whether an Austrian financier should be denied access to the American legal system because he failed to comply with an order freezing his as ...
Niemi v. Lasshofer, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18589 (10th Cir. Sept. 6, 2013): An unconventional real estate financing scheme presents us with some unconventional legal questions. Questions ranging from whether an Austrian financier should be denied access to the American…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Failure to Comply with Scheduling Order, Absent Motion to Compel or Interim Order from Court, Does Not Justify Dismissal — Scheduling Order Is Not the Type of Order Contemplated by Rule 37

Holmes v. Trinity Health, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18328 (8th Cir. Sept. 4, 2013): Holmes appeals the district court's denial of her "Motion for Summary Judgment or Default Judgment," which asked the court to grant a dispositive discovery sanction against Trinity for its "willful pattern of action in failing to comply" with the scheduli ...
Holmes v. Trinity Health, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18328 (8th Cir. Sept. 4, 2013): Holmes appeals the district court’s denial of her “Motion for Summary Judgment or Default Judgment,” which asked the court to grant a dispositive discovery sanction against…
Continue Reading

Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower May Recover Damages for Emotional Distress, Humiliation and Injury to Reputation — Caselaw Split

Rutherford v. Jones Lang LaSalle Am, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116872 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 29, 2013) (Report and Recommendation): This case involves a claim of retaliation against a corporate whistleblower in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ("SOX"). The issue raised in the pending motion is one of first impression in this District: do ...
Rutherford v. Jones Lang LaSalle Am, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116872 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 29, 2013) (Report and Recommendation): This case involves a claim of retaliation against a corporate whistleblower in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”). The issue…
Continue Reading

Is the Attorney-Client Privilege a Constitutional Right in Criminal Cases?

Howell v. Trammell, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18477 (10th Cir. Sept. 5, 2013): The relevant out-of-court statements admitted against Howell are Watson's private conversations with her former attorneys and Watson's testimony at the preliminary hearing. While testifying at Howell's trial--under oath and subject to Howell's cross-examination-- ...
Howell v. Trammell, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18477 (10th Cir. Sept. 5, 2013): The relevant out-of-court statements admitted against Howell are Watson’s private conversations with her former attorneys and Watson’s testimony at the preliminary hearing. While testifying at Howell’s trial–under…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — Nonsignatories — Equitable Estoppel, Agency and Third-Party Beneficiary Theories Permitting Nonsignatory to Enforce Arbitration Agreement — Requirements of Each

Murphy v. DircecTV, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15580 (July 30, 2013): In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), the Supreme Court held that Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") preempts the State of California's rule rendering unenforceable--as unconscionable--arbitration provisions in consumer contracts that w ...
Murphy v. DircecTV, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15580 (July 30, 2013): In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), the Supreme Court held that Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts the State of California’s…
Continue Reading
Previous269270271272273274275Next

Recent Posts

(1) RICO Pattern: Open-Ended Continuity — The Vendetta Exception — Jury Could Reasonably Infer That Scheme Directed at One Person, With Goal of Destroying His Current and Future Business Prospects, Presented A Threat of Continued Racketeering Activity Extending Indefinitely into the Future — Lawsuit’s “Fortuitous Interruption” of Scheme ≠ Lack of Threat of Continuing Racketeering Activity — Acts of Concealment Used to Perpetuate Violations — Multiple Schemes Not Required — Jury Could Judge Defendant’s Credibility in Assessing Threat of Continuing Criminal Activity — (2) RICO Conspiracy — Two Methods of Proof: Agreement to Overall Objective Or to Commit Predicate Acts — Agreement Can Be Inferred from Conduct — Conspirator Needn’t Know All Details, Have Contact with Other Conspirators Or Participate in Every Stage

Experts: “Normally, Courts Are Loath to Outright Dismiss An Expert” (Good Quote) — Experts Are Unhelpful If They Misstate the Law [Note Premise That Testimony on Law Not Precluded Outright] — Rule 37 Sanctions Unwarranted for Unjustifiable Failure to Produce Relevant Document Already in Requester’s Possession

FRAP 38 Sanctions: (1) Pressing Objectively Frivolous Arguments, Multiple Misstatements at Oral Argument and Failure to Address What District Judge Said Warrant Award against Appellants’ Counsel (Only) — (2) “General Award” of $5,000 Warranted Where Appellee Failed to Sufficiently Document Its Fees and Expenses [Goodyear v. Haegar Issue]]

RICO: Capital Call Investment Process Increasing Equity of Those Responding to Call at Expense of Those Not Responding ≠ Collection of An Unlawful Debt

RICO [And Constitutional] Standing: Concrete Injury Requirement Not Satisfied by Alleged Intangible Injuries of Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Confusion And Emotional Distress, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Deterred Speech On Nondefamatory Matters, Violation Of First Amendment Rights, And Compulsion

Rule 37(b) Sanctions: Striking of Answer, Default Judgment, Civil Contempt and Piercing Corporate Veil for Deliberate Disregard of Multiple Orders to Produce — Finding of Deliberate Disregard of Court Order Is Factual, Triggering Clear Error Review — Discretion Narrows When Default Sanction Involved — Fourth Circuit Factors for Rule 37 Default Sanction Are Different Than Those for Inherent Power Dismissal Sanction — Continued Defiance of Court Orders And Millions in Unpaid Judgments And Tax Liens Render Lesser Sanctions Futile

RICO: No Causation for Company Harmed by Governmental Customers Shunning It After Employee Publishes Book Admitting He Bribed Governmental Officials — Harm Too Indirect, Not from Bribery (Predicate Act) But from Customers’ Decisions to Shun and Publication of Book (Both Lawful) — Customers Injured by Bribery of Their Officials Are More Direct Plaintiffs

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Opposition to Arbitration

Extrinsic Fraud Exception to Rooker-Feldman — Where Defendants’ Perjury, False Evidence, Flawed Legal Arguments Prevented Plaintiffs from Presenting Their Claim in State Court

Federal Jurisdiction: Party Can Waive Subject Matter Jurisdiction — While Federal Courts Must Ensure They Do Not Lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction, There Is No Duty to Find and Exercise It

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