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

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 of economic loss in a securities fraud suit. Plaintiff–Appellant Acticon AG (“Acticon”) is t ...
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 costs caused by such conduct. Unlike an award of attorneys' fees under § 1988, an award of sanc ...
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). That she incorrectly called it a "motion to dismiss" is irrelevant. See S ...
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

Sanctions Proceedings and Imposition of Discipline Not Subject to Automatic Stay of Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)

In re Halo Wireless, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12284 (5th Cir. June 18, 2012): [I]n Alpern v. Lieb, 11 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 1993), the Seventh Circuit held that a proceeding to impose sanctions under Rule 11 was exempt from the automatic stay. The court stated: [t]he Rule 11 sanction is meted out by a gov ...
In re Halo Wireless, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12284 (5th Cir. June 18, 2012): [I]n Alpern v. Lieb, 11 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 1993), the Seventh Circuit held that a proceeding to impose sanctions under Rule 11 was exempt…
Continue Reading

Circuit Split as to Whether Dismissal Motion Based on Forum Selection Clause Is Properly Raised under Rule 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3) or 12(b)(6)

Lanier v. Syncreon Holdings, Ltd., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114117 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 14, 2012): Whether a motion to dismiss based on the existence of a valid forum selection clause is properly granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue, or Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to stat ...
Lanier v. Syncreon Holdings, Ltd., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114117 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 14, 2012): Whether a motion to dismiss based on the existence of a valid forum selection clause is properly granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of…
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 was the Lathrop Campus's College Director for six months ...
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

Notice of Removal May Not Be Amended to Add Jurisdictional Facts Not in Existence at Time Notice Was Filed

Am. Int’l Grp. v. Bank of Am., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106072 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2012): Plaintiffs initiated this action in New York State Court in August 2011. Defendants removed the action to federal court, and Plaintiffs then filed a motion in this Court to remand the case to state court. On October 20, 2011, the Court denied Plainti ...
Am. Int’l Grp. v. Bank of Am., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106072 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2012): Plaintiffs initiated this action in New York State Court in August 2011. Defendants removed the action to federal court, and Plaintiffs then filed a…
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 finding this case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding attorneys' fees and cost ...
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

Posthumous Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege Must Be in the Interest of the Decedent or the Estate — Reputational Damage to Decedent Benefitting Personal Representative / Executor Precludes Waiver

United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2011): A jury found Geffrey A. Yielding guilty of two federal offenses: one count of aiding and abetting a violation of the so-called Medicare anti-kickback statute, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and one count of aiding and abetting the falsification of ...
United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2011): A jury found Geffrey A. Yielding guilty of two federal offenses: one count of aiding and abetting a violation of the so-called Medicare anti-kickback statute, in violation of 42 U.S.C.…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Power to Disbar Should be Exercised with Great Caution

Parker v. Jacobs (In re Parker), 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16552 (11th Cir. Aug. 9, 2012): On February 17, 2011, Teresa Jacobs, the bankruptcy administrator for the Middle District of Alabama, moved for the bankruptcy court to impose sanctions on Parker. Jacobs alleged that, over the course of several cases, Parker committed numerous violati ...
Parker v. Jacobs (In re Parker), 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16552 (11th Cir. Aug. 9, 2012): On February 17, 2011, Teresa Jacobs, the bankruptcy administrator for the Middle District of Alabama, moved for the bankruptcy court to impose sanctions on…
Continue Reading
Previous301302303304305306307Next

Recent Posts

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

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

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