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

Plain Language Trumps Interpretative Conventions — “Confronted with … Paeans to the Precepts of Statutory Construction … We Are Reminded That Even ‘[T]he Devil Can Cite Scripture for His Purpose’” — RICO/ Hobbs Act — (Good Quote)

Ambulance Ass’n of Pa. v. Highmark, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1648 (3d Cir. Jan 23, 2012): The parties place a single, dispositive issue before us: whether Act 68 requires direct payment to non-participating providers. The Association brings to bear several canons of statutory construction to support its view that Act 68 does, in fac ...
Ambulance Ass’n of Pa. v. Highmark, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1648 (3d Cir. Jan 23, 2012): The parties place a single, dispositive issue before us: whether Act 68 requires direct payment to non-participating providers. The Association brings to bear…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — “Manifest Disregard” Survives in Fourth Circuit

Wachovia Securities, LLC v. Brand, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3047 (4th Cir. Feb. 16, 2012): We find that the Supreme Court's more recent decision in Stolt-Nielsen sheds further light on the operation of "manifest disregard" post-Hall Street. Footnote 7 Our sister circuits have split into three camps about the mea ...
Wachovia Securities, LLC v. Brand, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3047 (4th Cir. Feb. 16, 2012): We find that the Supreme Court’s more recent decision in Stolt-Nielsen sheds further light on the operation of “manifest disregard” post-Hall Street. Footnote 7 Our…
Continue Reading

Arbitration: Circuit Split on Manifest Disregard — Adhesion Contract Shortening Statute of Limitations Is Void on Public Policy Grounds If It Leaves Plaintiff Too Little Time to Investigate Her Claim

Tucker v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16666 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 2012): In this case, Plaintiff's principal argument is that the arbitrator acted in contravention of the court's holding in Thurman v. DaimlerChrysler, Inc., 397 F.3d 352 (6th Cir. 2004). Specifically, the arbitrator did not recognize that "an agreem ...
Tucker v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16666 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 2012): In this case, Plaintiff’s principal argument is that the arbitrator acted in contravention of the court’s holding in Thurman v. DaimlerChrysler, Inc., 397 F.3d 352…
Continue Reading

RICO — Minority Member of LLC May Bring Direct (Not Derivative) Action for Injury Resulting from Harm to Entity — Relevance of State Law — Analogy to Close Corporations Noted

Cameron v. Rohn, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18986 (D.V.I. Feb. 14, 2012): This dispute arises out of the relationship between Rohn and Cameron and the breakup of their former law partnership, The Law Offices of Rohn and Cameron, LLC ("the Law Office"). *** Although Cameron and Rohn never signed a written partnership agreement or a written LLC ...
Cameron v. Rohn, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18986 (D.V.I. Feb. 14, 2012): This dispute arises out of the relationship between Rohn and Cameron and the breakup of their former law partnership, The Law Offices of Rohn and Cameron, LLC (“the…
Continue Reading

Improper Golden Rule Arguments — Circuit Split as to Whether Golden Rule Arguments Are Always Improper or Only If Directed to Damages

Caudle v. District of Columbia, 804 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.D.C. 2011): In June and July of 2010, a three-week jury trial was held in this case. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs Frazier Caudle, Nikeith Goins, William James, Sholanda Miller, and Donald Smalls, concluding that the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (" ...
Caudle v. District of Columbia, 804 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.D.C. 2011): In June and July of 2010, a three-week jury trial was held in this case. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs Frazier Caudle, Nikeith Goins, William James,…
Continue Reading

Employee-Union Representative Privilege Recognized (Federal Court) — Issue of First Impression

Bell v. Village of Streamwood, 806 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (N.D. Ill. 2011): Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to compel Ryan Ruthenberg's deposition testimony. The motion raises a question of first impression regarding whether an employee-union representative privilege should be adopted as a matter of federal common law in connectio ...
Bell v. Village of Streamwood, 806 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (N.D. Ill. 2011): Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Ryan Ruthenberg’s deposition testimony. The motion raises a question of first impression regarding whether an employee-union representative privilege should…
Continue Reading

SEC May Proceed Summarily in Federal Court to Compel SIPC to Act to Protect Investors — Full Gamut of Federal Rules Inapplicable — SEC Determination Is Subject to Judicial Review

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16357 (D.D.C. Feb. 9, 2012): This case was commenced by an Application of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). (Dkt. No. 1). The SEC seeks an order from this Court mandating that the Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("S ...
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16357 (D.D.C. Feb. 9, 2012): This case was commenced by an Application of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). (Dkt. No. 1). The SEC seeks an order…
Continue Reading

Is the Cost of Computerized Research a Recoverable Litigation Expense under Federal Fee-Shifting Statutes, or a Part of Overhead? Circuit Split

In re McKenzie, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 5265 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. Oct. 5, 2011): GKH correctly states that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has not definitively ruled on whether computerized research should be considered part of attorney's fees or whether that expense should be allowed as a litigation expense that may be in addition to an awa ...
In re McKenzie, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 5265 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. Oct. 5, 2011): GKH correctly states that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has not definitively ruled on whether computerized research should be considered part of attorney’s fees or whether…
Continue Reading

Intervenor Who Satisfies Rule 24(a)(2) Need Not Also Show Article III Standing in Order to Intervene as of Right — Circuit Split

NAACP, Inc. v. Dulin County, N.C., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12513 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 3, 2012): Rule 24(a)(2) governs intervention by right, and states as follows, On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who . . . claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the actio ...
NAACP, Inc. v. Dulin County, N.C., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12513 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 3, 2012): Rule 24(a)(2) governs intervention by right, and states as follows, On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who . . . claims…
Continue Reading

No Sanctions for Local Counsel Who Was Uninvolved in Drafting Complaint or Devising Litigation Strategy

Gallop v. Cheney, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2154 (2d Cir. Feb. 2, 2012): In an order dated October 14, 2011, Gallop v. Cheney, 660 F.3d 580 (2d Cir. 2011) ("Gallop III"), this Court imposed sanctions on counsel of record to plaintiff-appellant April Gallop -- Dennis Cunningham, Mustapha Ndanusa, and William W. Veale --f or filing a frivolous ...
Gallop v. Cheney, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2154 (2d Cir. Feb. 2, 2012): In an order dated October 14, 2011, Gallop v. Cheney, 660 F.3d 580 (2d Cir. 2011) (“Gallop III”), this Court imposed sanctions on counsel of record to…
Continue Reading
Previous318319320321322323324Next

Recent Posts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

Electronic Spoliation/Rule 37(e): (1) Finding of Recklessness But Neither Gross Negligence Nor Willfulness in Loss of Video Evidence Precludes Rule 37(e)(2)’s Severest Sanctions Because (i) No Intent to Deprive and (ii) Rule 37(e)(2) Displaces District Court’s Power to Invoke Inherent Power to Impose Those Sanctions — (2) Appellate Review = Abuse of Discretion, With The Caveat That Whether The District Court Applied The Correct Legal Standards Is Reviewed De Novo — (3) Inherent Power Is Often Available As An Alternate Source of Sanctioning Power But Can Be Limited by Rule or Statute, Something Which Courts Do Not Lightly Presume — (4) The Text of Rule 37(e)(2), As Confirmed by the Advisory Committee Note, Displaces Inherent Power to Impose the Sanctions Specified in the Rule or Any More Severe Sanctions — (5) “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) = “The Willful Destruction Of Evidence With The Purpose Of Avoiding Its Discovery By An Adverse Party” — (6) Appellate Standing Conferred by Virtue of Issuance of Sanctions Regardless of Merits Outcome — (7) Value of Advisory Committee Notes in Interpreting Rules Enacted without Change Despite General Reticence to Rely on Legislative History

RICO: (1) Plaintiff Need Not Suffer Injury from Each Predicate Act to Establish Standing, And The Pattern May Include Predicates As to Which No Plaintiff Has Standing — (2) 7 Elements of a Civil RICO Claim (2d Circuit Articulation) Which Must Be Established As to Each Defendant — (3) Requirements of an Association-in-Fact Enterprise — (4) Each Defendant Must Personally Commit 2 or More Predicate Acts — (5) Pattern of Racketeering Activity: Horizontal and Vertical Elements — (6) No Requirement That All Members of a RICO Enterprise Joined at Inception — Can Join Over Time/Others Can Quit — (7) Cannot Charge 2 Predicate Acts Where One Action Violates Two Statutes — (8) A Footnote to Consider for Briefs: “Unless Otherwise Noted, When Quoting Judicial Decisions This Order Accepts All Alterations And Omits All Citations, Footnotes, And Internal Quotation Marks.”

For An Appeal to Be Timely, A Motion for Reconsideration in The District Court (A Rule 59(e) Motion) Must Be Filed, And Not Just Served within 30 Days of The Decision, to Toll The 30-Day Period for Filing An Appeal

There Is No Good-Faith Defense For Issuing An Overly Burdensome Subpoena

Purposes of Rule 37 and Section 1927 Sanctions

While Rule 11 Doesn’t Apply to Appellate Proceedings (Unless It Has Been Incorporated in Local Appellate Rules), Rule 11 Caselaw Is Looked to for Guidance in Interpreting Applicable Sanctions Powers on Appeal

Rule 11 Sanctions & Appellate Review: Abuse of Discretion Standard Applies Unless Sanctions Are Based Solely (Not Just in Part) on Legal Issues, in Which Case Review Is De Novo

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions for Altering Expert’s 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Without the Expert’s Knowledge or Approval — by Converting It from PDF to Word, Changing Headings and Other Formatting, and Omitting a Page of Relevant Text and Appendices, Even Though Expert Testified That The Overall Substance of the Report Was Unchanged — Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions May Be Reversed If Failure to Comply with Discovery Order Was Due to Misunderstanding or Inability to Comply

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