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

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

Party’s Motion for a Stay Pending a Decision in Another Case to Which It Is Not a Party Is a Motion for an Indefinite Stay — Standards for Indefinite Stay

Red River Coal Co. v. United States, 2012 U.S. Claims LEXIS 32 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 31, 2012): When determining whether to issue an indefinite stay, the Court must (1) "identify a pressing need for the stay" and (2) "balance interests favoring a stay against interests frustrated by the action." Cherokee Nation of Okla., 124 F.3d at 1 ...
Red River Coal Co. v. United States, 2012 U.S. Claims LEXIS 32 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 31, 2012): When determining whether to issue an indefinite stay, the Court must (1) “identify a pressing need for the stay” and (2) “balance interests…
Continue Reading

Mere Testimony or Interrogatory Answer that Party Relied on Advice of Counsel Does Not Waive Privilege as Long as No Affirmative Defense of Advice of Counsel Is Asserted

BancInsure, Inc. v. Peoples Bank of the South, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5326 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 18, 2012): Peoples Bank does not contest specific documents identified on the privilege log. Rather, it makes a blanket argument that the attorney-client privilege is waived for all withheld documents based BancInsure's assertion of reliance on ad ...
BancInsure, Inc. v. Peoples Bank of the South, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5326 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 18, 2012): Peoples Bank does not contest specific documents identified on the privilege log. Rather, it makes a blanket argument that the attorney-client privilege…
Continue Reading

Updated Article on Internet & Email Evidence (Part 1)

An updated version of Internet and Email Evidence (with additional focus on social media), as published this month in The Practical Litigator, is available here. Part 2 will be published in April. Reprinted with permission ...
An updated version of Internet and Email Evidence (with additional focus on social media), as published this month in The Practical Litigator, is available here. Part 2 will be published in April. Reprinted with permission. Subsequent note: Part 2…
Continue Reading

No Rule 11 Sanctions for Conduct in State Court — Injunction Void under Rule 65(d) for Vagueness and for Proscribing Lawful Acts

Blanco River, LLC v. Green, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 378 (5th Cir. Jan. 6, 2012): Blanco River, L.L.C., a real estate investment vehicle, is a limited liability Arizona corporation that sought to purchase and develop land bordering the Blanco River in Texas. Green was the manager of this venture, which failed. Blanco River sued Green, alleg ...
Blanco River, LLC v. Green, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 378 (5th Cir. Jan. 6, 2012): Blanco River, L.L.C., a real estate investment vehicle, is a limited liability Arizona corporation that sought to purchase and develop land bordering the Blanco River…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — Second Circuit Sets High Threshold to Overturn Award on Grounds of “Evident Partiality” — Adopts Fourth Circuit Standards — Non-Disclosure Rarely Sufficient

Scandinavian Reins. Co. v. St. Paul F&M Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2082 (2d Cir. Feb. 3, 2012): The primary question presented on this appeal is whether the failure of two arbitrators to disclose their concurrent service as arbitrators in another, arguably similar, arbitration constitutes "evident partiality" within the meaning ...
Scandinavian Reins. Co. v. St. Paul F&M Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2082 (2d Cir. Feb. 3, 2012): The primary question presented on this appeal is whether the failure of two arbitrators to disclose their concurrent service as arbitrators…
Continue Reading

RICO — Horizontal and Vertical Relatedness

United States v. Cain, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1772 (2d Cir. Jan. 31, 2012): The substantive RICO provision under which the defendants were convicted makes it unlawful for "any person employed by or associated with any enterprise . . . to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a ...
United States v. Cain, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1772 (2d Cir. Jan. 31, 2012): The substantive RICO provision under which the defendants were convicted makes it unlawful for “any person employed by or associated with any enterprise . . .…
Continue Reading

Standards for Deposing Opposing Counsel — Claim for Attorney’s Fees Does Not Open Door to Deposition

United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. Goldin Metals, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4881 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 17, 2011): The Goldins are defendants in a related civil suit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. *** The Goldins tendered defense of the NCI lawsuit to Plaintiff, United States Liability Insurance ...
United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. Goldin Metals, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4881 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 17, 2011): The Goldins are defendants in a related civil suit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of…
Continue Reading

Impact of Daubert at Class Certification — Conflicting Circuit Views

Third Circuit: “[The district court] need not turn class certification into a mini-trial.... We understand the Court’s observation [i.e., the Supreme Court’s observation in Dukes] to require a district court to evaluate whether an expert is presenting a model which could evolve to become admissible evidence, and ...
Third Circuit: “[The district court] need not turn class certification into a mini-trial…. We understand the Court’s observation [i.e., the Supreme Court’s observation in Dukes] to require a district court to evaluate whether an expert is presenting a model which…
Continue Reading

Extraterritorial Reach of RICO — Is Test Location of Enterprise or of Pattern? — No Proximate Cause between Money Laundering Predicate and Pretextual Firing

Cedeño v. Castillo, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1469 (2d Cir. Jan. 25, 2012) (affirming the decision excerpted in our post of October 10, 2010): On appeal, Cedeño ... [f]irst ... contends that his claim fits within the scope of RICO's domestic application because it alleges conduct in the United States that is within RICO's "focus." See Morr ...
Cedeño v. Castillo, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1469 (2d Cir. Jan. 25, 2012) (affirming the decision excerpted in our post of October 10, 2010): On appeal, Cedeño … [f]irst … contends that his claim fits within the scope of RICO’s…
Continue Reading
Previous329330331332333334335Next

Recent Posts

Inherent Power — Circumstantial Evidence — Fact That Bad Faith May Be Shown by Establishing That Conduct Was So Egregious It Was Necessarily Committed in Bad Faith Does Not Mean That Bad Faith Must Be The Sole Explanation for The Bad Conduct

RICO Causation: Testing Labs’ Misstatements As to Alcohol Tests’ Efficacy Not Communicated to Plaintiffs’ Employers Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Professional Harm

Supreme Court: Standing — When The Government Prohibits Or Impedes Company A from Using Company B’s Product, Both Are Objects of the Government’s Action And Have Standing to Contest It — “To Demonstrate Standing, Plaintiffs Must Answer A Basic Question—‘What’s It To You?’” (Good Quote) — Expert Evidence Not Required to Establish Standing — “Judges Are Not Required To Exhibit A Naiveté From Which Ordinary Citizens Are Free’” (Good Quote)

Rule 37(d) Sanctions — For Failure to Serve Answers, Objections, Or Written Response to Discovery Requests — Are Not Limited to Intentional Misconduct; Even Innocent Mistakes May Be Covered

Sanctions: (1) Rule 11 Does Not Apply to Litigation Papers Initially Filed in State Court — Only Reaffirmance in Federal Court Post-Removal Is Subject to Sanction — (2) “The Fact That A Legal Theory Is A Long-Shot Does Not Necessarily Mean It Is Sanctionable” (Good Quote)

Supreme Court: Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) Requires Extraordinary Circumstances Even If It Is Invoked to Allow Amendment of The Complaint–Rule 15’s Liberal Approach to Amendment Does Not Change That (Reversing Second Circuit)

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Eleventh Circuit Generally Does Not Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Litigants, But May Do So If They Have Persisted Despite Judicial Warnings of Frivolousness

Inherent Power Sanctions: No Dismissal with Prejudice If Lesser Sanctions Will Suffice — The Liberal Pleading Standard of Swierkiewicz “Is Still Good Law”

Supreme Court: (1) Fraudulent Inducement Theory of Mail Fraud: Statute Violated If Victim Is Tricked into Parting with Money Or Property, Even If Victim Suffers No Pecuniary Loss — (2) “A Fraud Is Complete When The Defendant Has Induced The Deprivation Of Money Or Property Under Materially False Pretenses” — (3) The Old Soil Principle of Statutory Construction Applies Only to the Extent That a Common-Law Term Has Accumulated a Settled Meaning — (4) Rescission for Fraud Does Not Require Economic Loss; Sufficient If Property of A Different Character Or Condition Provided — i.e, If Victim Tricked into A Bargain Materially Different from The One Promised — (5) “At The Right Level Of Specificity, Anything Can Be Described As ‘Unique’ Or ‘Different From’ Something Else” (Good Quote) — (6) “Materiality Look[s] To The Effect On The Likely Or Actual Behavior Of The Recipient Of The Alleged Misrepresentation” (Good Quote)

Statements in Briefs As Judicial Admissions

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