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

The 5 Most Important Developments in Federal Civil Practice in 2011

1. Class Actions: The Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart and its ramifications for (a) commonality determinations and (b) the application of Daubert at class certification (on which there is already a Circuit split). 2. Evidence: The restyled Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly Rule 101(b) (Definitions) and its impact on the self- ...
1. Class Actions: The Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart and its ramifications for (a) commonality determinations and (b) the application of Daubert at class certification (on which there is already a Circuit split). 2. Evidence: The restyled Federal Rules of…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — Res Judicata Is for Arbitrator to Decide, Waiver by Litigation for Court — Abandonment of Issue on Appeal by Failing to Brief It

Grigsby & Assocs., Inc. v. M Secs. Inv., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25217 (11th Cir. Dec. 20, 2011): This case is about whether the district court should have permitted a dispute to be arbitrated. Plaintiffs, Grigsby & Associates, Inc., argue that the district court should have enjoined the arbitration proceedings, in part because Defendants, ...
Grigsby & Assocs., Inc. v. M Secs. Inv., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25217 (11th Cir. Dec. 20, 2011): This case is about whether the district court should have permitted a dispute to be arbitrated. Plaintiffs, Grigsby & Associates, Inc., argue…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power — Bad Faith of Counsel in Flagrantly Violating In Limine Order Attributed to Client — Exclusion of Expert Testimony as Sanction Upheld

O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23125 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 18, 2011) (Background: The defense violated an in limine order that it not refer to the fact that the plaintiff was headquartered in the Cayman Islands. On voir dire, defense counsel asked: “Now, are there any of you who have a problem with a compa ...
O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23125 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 18, 2011) (Background: The defense violated an in limine order that it not refer to the fact that the plaintiff was headquartered…
Continue Reading

Sarbanes-Oxley’s Addition of 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e) as a Predicate Authorizes RICO Claim for Firing as a Result of Whistleblowing Where Retaliation Linked to Racketeering Activity — Offering Raise + Confi + Release Suffices

DeGuelle v. Camilli, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24868 (7th Cir. Dec. 15, 2011): Michael J. DeGuelle, a tax employee of S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., was terminated after reporting an alleged tax fraud scheme to the company and federal law enforcement agencies. Following his termination, DeGuelle filed suit asserting two civil claims under the Ra ...
DeGuelle v. Camilli, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24868 (7th Cir. Dec. 15, 2011): Michael J. DeGuelle, a tax employee of S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., was terminated after reporting an alleged tax fraud scheme to the company and federal law…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Requiring Attorney to Notify any Court within Circuit before Which He Appears in Next Year of Sanctions Imposed in This Case — Leaving Open Other Remedies If Monetary Sanction Not Paid within 60 Days

From Gallop v. Cheney, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20862 (2d Cir. Oct. 14, 2011) — imposing sanctions under § 1927, Rule 38, and the inherent power of the Court: *** (2) Gallop [client] is hereby ADMONISHED that the submission of future frivolous filings may result in sanctions. (3) Dennis Cunningham, Mustapha Ndanusa, and Wi ...
From Gallop v. Cheney, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20862 (2d Cir. Oct. 14, 2011) — imposing sanctions under § 1927, Rule 38, and the inherent power of the Court: *** (2) Gallop [client] is hereby ADMONISHED that the submission of…
Continue Reading

Non-Party May Not Intervene to Seek Relief Identical to That Already Being Sought by Party — Mere Fact That Lawsuit May Impede Non-Party’s Ability to Recover in Separate Suit Insufficient Grounds to Intervene — First-to File Rule

Worthington v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144369 (D.N.J. Dec. 15, 2011): In these purported class actions brought in the above-captioned matters, Robert Worthington, Dino Rikos, and Troy Yuncker ("Plaintiffs") allege that Bayer Heathcare LLC ("Bayer") deceptively advertised and marketed several of Bayer's colon health p ...
Worthington v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144369 (D.N.J. Dec. 15, 2011): In these purported class actions brought in the above-captioned matters, Robert Worthington, Dino Rikos, and Troy Yuncker (“Plaintiffs”) allege that Bayer Heathcare LLC (“Bayer”) deceptively advertised…
Continue Reading

May District Court in District in Which Subpoena Issues Remit Motion to Quash to Court Presiding over Underlying Litigation? Circuit Split

Nat’l Benefit Programs, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137946 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 1, 2011): There is a split in the Circuits regarding whether the court sitting in the district where the subpoena issued may properly exercise its discretion to "remit" a motion to quash for ruling by the court where the underlying li ...
Nat’l Benefit Programs, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137946 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 1, 2011): There is a split in the Circuits regarding whether the court sitting in the district where the subpoena issued may properly exercise…
Continue Reading

State Does Not Waive Sovereign Immunity by Removing Case to Federal Court unless Removal Confers Unfair Advantage — Circuit Split

Bergemann v. R.I. Dep’t of Envt’l Mgmt., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25148 (1st Cir. Dec. 20, 2011): This appeal poses a question that has divided the circuits. The question, which is a matter of first impression for this court, is whether a state waives its sovereign immunity to a pleaded claim by removing that claim to the federal court ...
Bergemann v. R.I. Dep’t of Envt’l Mgmt., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25148 (1st Cir. Dec. 20, 2011): This appeal poses a question that has divided the circuits. The question, which is a matter of first impression for this court, is…
Continue Reading

RICO — Financial Injury Wholly Derivative of Personal Injury ≠ Injury to Business or Property — Circuit Split as to Whether Certain Pecuniary Losses from Personal Injuries Confer RICO Standing

Alexander v Boone Hosp. Ctr., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145354 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 19, 2011): On April 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging receipt of a defective pacemaker manufactured by former defendant Medtronic, Inc., and implanted at Boone Hospital Center in 2007. *** Plaintiff brings two counts against current Defendants ...
Alexander v Boone Hosp. Ctr., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145354 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 19, 2011): On April 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging receipt of a defective pacemaker manufactured by former defendant Medtronic, Inc., and implanted at Boone Hospital…
Continue Reading

Securities — Circuit Split as to Whether Plaintiff or Defendant Must Show Control Person’s Good/Bad Faith and Inducement, Vel Non, of Primary Violation under Section 20(a)

Poptech, LP v. Stewardship Credit Arbitrage Fund, LLC, 792 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Conn. 2011): Section 20(a) [of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a),] provides that a controlling person is liable unless the defendant acted in good faith and did not induce the primary violation. See 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a). But Section 20(a) does ...
Poptech, LP v. Stewardship Credit Arbitrage Fund, LLC, 792 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Conn. 2011): Section 20(a) [of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a),] provides that a controlling person is liable unless the defendant acted in good faith…
Continue Reading
Previous323324325326327328329Next

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