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

Facebook Case: Sophisticated Party’s Release of All Claims Extends to Unknown Securities Fraud, Despite § 29(a) of Exchange Act — Nor Does § 29(a) Trump Confidentiality Agreement Barring Use of Statements Made in Mediation

From Facebook, Inc. v. Pac. Nw. Software, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7430 (9th Cir. Apr. 11, 2011): After signing the Settlement Agreement, Facebook notified the Winklevosses that an internal valuation prepared to comply with Section 409A of the tax code put the value of its common stock at $8.88 per share. The Winklevosses argue that Fa ...
From Facebook, Inc. v. Pac. Nw. Software, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7430 (9th Cir. Apr. 11, 2011): After signing the Settlement Agreement, Facebook notified the Winklevosses that an internal valuation prepared to comply with Section 409A of the tax…
Continue Reading

RICO: Corporation + Subsidiaries + Affiliates + Customers + Independent Contractors + Regulators ≠ Enterprise

From Shields v. UnumProvident Corp., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5611 (6th Cir. Mar. 17, 2011): In interpreting RICO, courts have applied a "distinctness" requirement, which requires the "person" charged with violating RICO be a separate entity from the "enterprise." See Begala v. PNC Bank, Ohio, 214 F.3d 776, 781 (6th Cir. 2000). Under this r ...
From Shields v. UnumProvident Corp., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5611 (6th Cir. Mar. 17, 2011): In interpreting RICO, courts have applied a “distinctness” requirement, which requires the “person” charged with violating RICO be a separate entity from the “enterprise.” See…
Continue Reading

Twiqbal Does Not Apply to Affirmative Defenses — Caselaw Split

From Tyco Fire Prods. v. Victaulic Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40012 (E.D. Pa. April 13, 2011): Plaintiff asks the Court to strike the affirmative defense to that effect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), and to dismiss the corresponding counterclaim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). *** Plaintiff's motion is governed by Rules ...
From Tyco Fire Prods. v. Victaulic Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40012 (E.D. Pa. April 13, 2011): Plaintiff asks the Court to strike the affirmative defense to that effect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), and to dismiss the…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Court Records and Factual Information Posted on Governmental Websites — Standards for Review of Pro Se Pleadings

From Chisolm v. McElvogue, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40377 (D.S.C. Mar. 16, 2011): Plaintiff, Donsurvi Chisolm (Plaintiff), proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee in Berkeley County's Hill Finklea Detention Center (HFDC) in Moncks Corner, South Carolina, files this action in ...
From Chisolm v. McElvogue, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40377 (D.S.C. Mar. 16, 2011): Plaintiff, Donsurvi Chisolm (Plaintiff), proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee in Berkeley County’s Hill Finklea Detention Center…
Continue Reading

Grable Does Not Overturn “Well-Pleaded Complaint” Doctrine for Determining Federal Jurisdiction, Which Must Arise Out of Claims Stated — Declaratory Judgment Claim Anticipating Defense Insufficient

From California Shock Trauma Air Rescue v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6756 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2011): [I]s the expectation of a federal defense, without more, sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim? *** CALSTAR provides air-ambulance rescue services to employees injured in ...
From California Shock Trauma Air Rescue v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6756 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2011): [I]s the expectation of a federal defense, without more, sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim? ***…
Continue Reading

No Right to Sidebars during Presentation of Testimony at Trial

From U.S. v. Aleynikov, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33345 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011): Sidebars Aleynikov contends that the Court's denial of his three requests for sidebars prejudiced the defense because it made it appear to the jury that Aleynikov was acting improperly in requesting a sidebar. Aleynikov has not shown that he ...
From U.S. v. Aleynikov, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33345 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011): Sidebars Aleynikov contends that the Court’s denial of his three requests for sidebars prejudiced the defense because it made it appear to the jury that Aleynikov was…
Continue Reading

No “Substantial Ground for Difference of Opinion” for § 1292 Purposes Where 14 District Courts in Circuit Have Addressed the Issue

From In re Regions Morgan Keegan ERISA Litig., 741 F. Supp. 2d 844 (W.D. Tenn. 2010): In deciding whether to grant an interlocutory appeal [under 28 U.S.C. § 1292], the Court considers three factors: (1) whether the order involves a "controlling question of law"; (2) whether there is "substantial ground for difference of opinion" a ...
From In re Regions Morgan Keegan ERISA Litig., 741 F. Supp. 2d 844 (W.D. Tenn. 2010): In deciding whether to grant an interlocutory appeal [under 28 U.S.C. § 1292], the Court considers three factors: (1) whether the order involves a…
Continue Reading

The Importance of Rule 403 in Evaluating Expert Testimony — Good Quote

From Brown v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33216 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 28, 2011): [I]f an expert's testimony survives the threshold scrutiny under Rule 702, it is subject to further review under Rule 403. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595; Brock v. Caterpillar, Inc., 94 F.3d 220, 226 (6th Cir. 1996). "[E]xpert evidence can ...
From Brown v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33216 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 28, 2011): [I]f an expert’s testimony survives the threshold scrutiny under Rule 702, it is subject to further review under Rule 403. See Daubert, 509…
Continue Reading

Samples of Overly Broad and Burdensome Interrogatories — Party May Not Refuse to Answer Interrogatories, Then Claim the Interrogatories Are Cumulative of Later Deposition — Examples of Meritorious Cumulativeness Objections

From SEC v. Berry, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39907 (N.D. Cal. April 1, 2011): [Sample Overly Broad and Burdensome Interrogatories.] The SEC correctly points out that none of the authority cited by Berry supports her claim that the interrogatories are, "by [their] nature," overbroad and unduly burdensome. Indeed, the cases cited by ...
From SEC v. Berry, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39907 (N.D. Cal. April 1, 2011): [Sample Overly Broad and Burdensome Interrogatories.] The SEC correctly points out that none of the authority cited by Berry supports her claim that the interrogatories are,…
Continue Reading

Mandatory Abstention from Federal “Related to” Bankruptcy Jurisdiction — What Constitutes “Timely Adjudicated” within 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2)

From Parmalat Capital Finance Limited v. Bank of Am. Corp., 632 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2011): The questions presented are (1) whether the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b); and (2) whether the district court properly declined to abstain from exercising that jurisdiction, p ...
From Parmalat Capital Finance Limited v. Bank of Am. Corp., 632 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2011): The questions presented are (1) whether the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b); and (2)…
Continue Reading
Previous347348349350351352353Next

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