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

Supreme Court on Anti-Injunction Act — Federal Denial of Class Certification Not Binding on State Court that Applies Different Standards — Absent Class Members Not Bound by Decisions in Putative (Not Certified) Class Action — Good Quotes

From Smith v. Bayer Corp., 180 L. Ed. 2d 341 (2011): [T]he "relitigation exception" to the Anti-Injunction Act ... permits a federal court to enjoin a state proceeding only in rare cases, when necessary to "protect or effectuate [the federal court's] judgments." 28 U.S.C. § 2283. Here, that standard was not met for two reasons. First, t ...
From Smith v. Bayer Corp., 180 L. Ed. 2d 341 (2011): [T]he “relitigation exception” to the Anti-Injunction Act … permits a federal court to enjoin a state proceeding only in rare cases, when necessary to “protect or effectuate [the federal…
Continue Reading

No Mandamus Review of Order Compelling Arbitration Even If Erroneous Because Claimants Are Exempt from Arbitrating under FAA — Existence of Exemption Is Not an Issue of Arbitrability — Error on Issue of First Impression Not “Clear”

From In re Van Dusen, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15398 (9th Cir. July 27, 2011): This matter comes before us on petition for a writ of mandamus. Petitioners argue that the District Court erred by refusing to resolve their claim of exemption from arbitration under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") ... before compelling arbitrati ...
From In re Van Dusen, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15398 (9th Cir. July 27, 2011): This matter comes before us on petition for a writ of mandamus. Petitioners argue that the District Court erred by refusing to resolve their claim…
Continue Reading

Lawyer Serving as Expert Is Not Subject to Lawyer Conflict-of-Interest Rules

The majority view is that a lawyer retained as an expert witness is not acting in a representational capacity and that therefore the attorney conflict-of-interest rules do not apply. See, e.g., ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 97-407 (1997); Nassau County (New York) Bar Opinion 2005-1 (April 6, 2005); D.C. Ethics Opin ...
The majority view is that a lawyer retained as an expert witness is not acting in a representational capacity and that therefore the attorney conflict-of-interest rules do not apply. See, e.g., ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion…
Continue Reading

Conclusory Finding of Bad Faith Cannot Sustain Inherent Power Sanction — § 105(a) of Bankruptcy Code Codifies Inherent Power — Sins of Lawyer Not Visited on Client, Whose Bad Faith Must Separately be Found — Good Quotes

From DeLauro v. Porto (In re Porto), 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13941 (11th Cir. July 8, 2011): "While bad faith is the key to unlocking the court's inherent power, a court must do more than conclude that a party acted in bad faith; it should make specific findings as to the party's conduct that warrants sanctions." Byrne v. Nezhat, 2 ...
From DeLauro v. Porto (In re Porto), 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13941 (11th Cir. July 8, 2011): “While bad faith is the key to unlocking the court’s inherent power, a court must do more than conclude that a party acted…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — What Constitutes a “Reasoned Award” — No Vacatur for Sparse Award Where Parties Did Not Contract for Findings and Conclusions and Primary Issue Was Credibility

From Cat Charter, LLC v. Schurtenberger, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14266 (11th Cir. July 13, 2011): The question here is whether arbitrators "exceeded their powers" — thereby justifying vacatur of their award under § 10(a)(4) [of the Federal Arbitration Act] — when they purportedly failed to provide a "reasoned award" as agreed to by the ...
From Cat Charter, LLC v. Schurtenberger, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14266 (11th Cir. July 13, 2011): The question here is whether arbitrators “exceeded their powers” — thereby justifying vacatur of their award under § 10(a)(4) [of the Federal Arbitration Act]…
Continue Reading

SEC Cannot Rely on Conspiracy Theory of Venue under § 78aa of the 1934 Act — Circuit Split

From SEC v. Johnson, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13123 (D.C. Cir. June 28, 2011): Venue for a civil action under the securities laws lies "in the district wherein the defendant is found or is an inhabitant or transacts business," or "in the district wherein any act or transaction constituting the violation occurred." § 78aa. By the reference ...
From SEC v. Johnson, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13123 (D.C. Cir. June 28, 2011): Venue for a civil action under the securities laws lies “in the district wherein the defendant is found or is an inhabitant or transacts business,” or…
Continue Reading

While Trial Court Must Follow Appellate Mandate, It Is Free to Consider as Matter of First Impression Issues Not Explicitly or Implicitly Decided by Court of Appeals

From Centrix HR, LLC v. On-Site Staff Mgmt., Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13001 (3d Cir. June 23, 2011): "[W]hether the district court properly interpreted and applied . . . our [remand] mandate . . . [is an] issue . . . of law, subject to plenary review[.] . . . A trial court must implement both the letter and spirit of the mandate, taki ...
From Centrix HR, LLC v. On-Site Staff Mgmt., Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13001 (3d Cir. June 23, 2011): “[W]hether the district court properly interpreted and applied . . . our [remand] mandate . . . [is an] issue .…
Continue Reading

Settlement Payments Doctrine Insulates Enron’s Voluntary Repurchase of Debt Shortly before Its Bankruptcy — Majority Panel Decision in Second Circuit

From In re Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa, S.A.B., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13177 (2d Cir. June 28, 2011): This appeal raises an issue of first impression in the courts of appeals: whether 11 U.S.C. § 546(e), which shields "settlement payments" from avoidance actions in bankruptcy, extends to an issuer's payments to redeem its comm ...
From In re Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa, S.A.B., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13177 (2d Cir. June 28, 2011): This appeal raises an issue of first impression in the courts of appeals: whether 11 U.S.C. § 546(e), which shields…
Continue Reading

Evidence Sufficient to Authenticate Profile Page on Social Networking Site

From Griffin v. Maryland, 419 Md. 343, 19 A.3d 415 (Ct. App. 2011) (reversing the decision of the Court of Special Appeals excerpted in our post of June 2, 2010): We ... hold that the pages allegedly printed from [Defendant] Griffin's girlfriend's MySpace profile were not properly authenticated.... Griffin was charged in numerous ...
From Griffin v. Maryland, 419 Md. 343, 19 A.3d 415 (Ct. App. 2011) (reversing the decision of the Court of Special Appeals excerpted in our post of June 2, 2010): We … hold that the pages allegedly printed from [Defendant]…
Continue Reading

PSLRA Precludes RICO Action Predicated on Aiding and Abetting Securities Fraud and other Conduct that Sounds in Securities Fraud but Is Not Actionable by the Plaintiff

From MLSMK Inv. Co. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13822 (2d Cir. July 7, 2011): This case arises out of the massive and now infamous Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff ***. Between October and December 2008, the plaintiff, MLSMK Investment Company ("MLSMK"), invested $12.8 million with Madoff's inv ...
From MLSMK Inv. Co. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13822 (2d Cir. July 7, 2011): This case arises out of the massive and now infamous Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff ***. Between October and…
Continue Reading
Previous338339340341342343344Next

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