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

Sixth Circuit Spoliation Standards for Adverse Inference Instruction

Stocker v. United States, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1089 (6th Cir. Jan. 17, 2013): [A] "party seeking an adverse inference instruction based on the destruction of evidence must establish (1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed; (2) that the records were destroyed wi ...
Stocker v. United States, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1089 (6th Cir. Jan. 17, 2013): [A] “party seeking an adverse inference instruction based on the destruction of evidence must establish (1) that the party having control over the evidence had an…
Continue Reading

RICO Does Not Provide for Nationwide Personal Jurisdiction (Circuit Split) — “Transacts His Affairs” in RICO and Clayton Acts Are Synonymous

Pincione v. D’Alfonso, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25986 (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2012): RICO's "Venue and Process" section, § 1965(a), "does not provide for nationwide personal jurisdiction over every defendant in every civil RICO case, no matter where the defendant is found." PT United Can Co. Ltd. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., 138 F. ...
Pincione v. D’Alfonso, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25986 (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2012): RICO’s “Venue and Process” section, § 1965(a), “does not provide for nationwide personal jurisdiction over every defendant in every civil RICO case, no matter where the defendant…
Continue Reading

Fact that RICO Claim Would Not Exist But for Plaintiff’s Entry into Contract Is Insufficient to Permit Non-Signatories to Assert Equitable Estoppel to Enforce Forum Selection Clause — Court Will Apply Law All Parties Assume Is Applicable

Bahamas Sales Assoc., LLC v. Ginn Fin’l Servs., LLC, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24887 (11th Cir. Dec. 4, 2012): In late 2006, Donald Cameron Byers purchased a lot in the Bahamas. His purchase contract contains a provision that requires all disputes to be litigated in the Bahamas under Bahamian law. Byers financed the purchase with a mor ...
Bahamas Sales Assoc., LLC v. Ginn Fin’l Servs., LLC, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24887 (11th Cir. Dec. 4, 2012): In late 2006, Donald Cameron Byers purchased a lot in the Bahamas. His purchase contract contains a provision that requires all…
Continue Reading

When Person Acts in Dual Capacity as Expert and Non-Expert, Any Ambiguity as to Role in Generating Documents — and, Potentially, Communications — Is Resolved in Favor of Party Seeking Discovery

Paradigm Biodevices, Inc. -v- Centinel Spine, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7312 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2013): By letter dated January 9, 2013, Defendants sought an order requiring Plaintiff to produce a draft report prepared by Zolfo Cooper (the "Report"), an entity appointed by an English court as liquidator of Surgicraft, and other communi ...
Paradigm Biodevices, Inc. -v- Centinel Spine, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7312 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2013): By letter dated January 9, 2013, Defendants sought an order requiring Plaintiff to produce a draft report prepared by Zolfo Cooper (the “Report”), an…
Continue Reading

Even If Rule 11 Violated, Court Has Discretion to Deny Sanctions — § 1927 Requires “Conduct Constituting or Akin to Bad Faith” — Once Claim Is Adjudicated, Res Judicata Bars More Litigation under Different Theory or Seeking New Remedy

WD Music Prods., Inc. v. Muller, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25990 (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2012): We affirm the dismissal of WD Music's complaint for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. In sum, WD Music's second state-court action was brought to a final conclusion by the New York State Supreme Court's dismissal on res judica ...
WD Music Prods., Inc. v. Muller, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25990 (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2012): We affirm the dismissal of WD Music’s complaint for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. In sum, WD Music’s second state-court…
Continue Reading

RICO: Freeze-Out Merger Does Not Constitute Fraud in the Sale of Securities within PSLRA Bar — Shareholder Cannot Show Proximate Cause If Injury Is Derivative of Harm to Corporation

Amos v. Franklin Fin’l Servs. Corp., 2011 WL 5903875 (M.D. Pa. November 22, 2011), aff’d, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 868 (3d Cir. Jan. 11, 2013) (the following is from the Court of Appeals’ affirmance): Matthew P. Amos and twenty four other plaintiffs have appealed the district court's order dismissing their first amended complaint for ...
Amos v. Franklin Fin’l Servs. Corp., 2011 WL 5903875 (M.D. Pa. November 22, 2011), aff’d, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 868 (3d Cir. Jan. 11, 2013) (the following is from the Court of Appeals’ affirmance): Matthew P. Amos and twenty four…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Distinctive Rationales and Intertwined Applicability of Rule 11 and 35 U.S.C. § 285 in Patent Cases

Raylon, LLC. v. Complus Data Innovations, Inc., 700 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Reyna, J., concurring): II. Distinct Rule 11 and § 285 Inquiries Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 35 U.S.C. § 285 of the Patent Act offer courts distinct, yet overlapping, rationales for awarding an injured party relief. ...
Raylon, LLC. v. Complus Data Innovations, Inc., 700 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Reyna, J., concurring): II. Distinct Rule 11 and § 285 Inquiries Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 35 U.S.C. § 285 of the…
Continue Reading

“Purely Factual Material” in Work Product Document Not Subject to Production — Waiver of Privilege vs. Waiver of Work Product — Fed.R.Evid. 502 “Abolished the Dreaded Subject Matter Waiver”

Appleton Papers, Inc. v. EPA, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26346 (7th Cir. Oct. 26, 2012): After the government alleged Appleton Papers Inc. ("API") and seven other companies caused $1 billion in contamination in the Fox River near Green Bay, Wisconsin, the government hired a consultant that prepared reports on the companies' responsibility fo ...
Appleton Papers, Inc. v. EPA, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26346 (7th Cir. Oct. 26, 2012): After the government alleged Appleton Papers Inc. (“API”) and seven other companies caused $1 billion in contamination in the Fox River near Green Bay, Wisconsin,…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions: Bad Faith Required in 5th Circuit — Raising Patently Frivolous Legal Argument and Threatening Further Meritless Litigation = Bad Faith — Pro Se Litigant — Vexatious Litigant Injunction Must Be Tailored

Terra Partners v. Rabo Agrifinance, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26291 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2012): On September 20, 2012, Steve Veigel sought to file a pro se amicus brief in support of Terra Partners. Steve Veigel has an obvious interest in this case. He is an authorized managing agent for Terra Partners, is a corporate officer for all fo ...
Terra Partners v. Rabo Agrifinance, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26291 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2012): On September 20, 2012, Steve Veigel sought to file a pro se amicus brief in support of Terra Partners. Steve Veigel has an obvious…
Continue Reading

Spoliation Claim Mooted by Court’s Assuming Truth of Party’s Factual Position

Lawler v. Montblanc N. Am., LLC, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 761 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2013): Finally, Lawler argues that the district court abused its discretion by declining to draw a negative inference of discrimination against Defendants because they "willfully" destroyed the August 5, 2009 security tape capturing the exchange between Schmitz ...
Lawler v. Montblanc N. Am., LLC, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 761 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2013): Finally, Lawler argues that the district court abused its discretion by declining to draw a negative inference of discrimination against Defendants because they “willfully”…
Continue Reading
Previous286287288289290291292Next

Recent Posts

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

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

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice