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

Odyssey Marine Exploration

Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137633 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2013):  This action between Odyssey Marine Exploration and the Kingdom of Spain adjudicates the right to possession and ownership of more than $600,000,000.00 in silver specie.  This action presented from the outset not merely the dicey ...
Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137633 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2013):  This action between Odyssey Marine Exploration and the Kingdom of Spain adjudicates the right to possession and ownership of more than $600,000,000.00…
Continue Reading

Discovery Sanctions — Default Judgment — Standards — Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine vs. Rule 37

SEC v. Razmilovic, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14765 (2d Cir. July 22, 2013): A. The Entry of Default Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part that if a party "fails to obey an order to provide . . . discovery, . . . the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders,&qu ...
SEC v. Razmilovic, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14765 (2d Cir. July 22, 2013): A. The Entry of Default Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part that if a party "fails to obey an order to…
Continue Reading

Even After 2011 Federal Courts Jurisdiction & Venue Clarification Act, Earlier-Served Defendants Must Consent to Removal within 30-Day Period within Which Later-Served Defendant Must File Notice of Removal

Chakra 5, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128692 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2013): Defendants seeking removal to federal court under 28 U.S.C. section 1441 must do so according to the procedures in 28 U.S.C. section 1446. Prior to the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-63, 125 Stat. 758 (codified i ...
Chakra 5, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128692 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2013): Defendants seeking removal to federal court under 28 U.S.C. section 1441 must do so according to the procedures in 28 U.S.C. section…
Continue Reading

London Merger

Download associated file: London Merger.pdf  Effective today, Gregory P. Joseph Law Offices LLC is merged with Hage Aaronson Limited of London to form Joseph Hage Aaronson Limited.  A copy of the announcement is attached.  C ...
Download associated file: London Merger.pdf  Effective today, Gregory P. Joseph Law Offices LLC is merged with Hage Aaronson Limited of London to form Joseph Hage Aaronson Limited.  A copy of the announcement is attached.  Current email addresses will automatically…
Continue Reading

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
Previous275276277278279280281Next

Recent Posts

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