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

Prelitigation Email from Counsel Admissible against Client as Admission

From Cleveland Regional Med. Ctr., LP v. Celtic Props., L.C., 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 7942 (Tex. App. Sept. 30, 2010): In issue three, appellants assert that the trial court erred by improperly excluding an alleged admission by Celtic that the Master Lease was in "full force and effect." Specifically, appellants argue that the trial court er ...
From Cleveland Regional Med. Ctr., LP v. Celtic Props., L.C., 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 7942 (Tex. App. Sept. 30, 2010): In issue three, appellants assert that the trial court erred by improperly excluding an alleged admission by Celtic that the…
Continue Reading

RICO Has No Extraterritorial Reach

From Cedeño v. Intech Group, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88026 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2010): This civil action brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, seeks "damages arising out of a wide-ranging money laundering scheme that utilized New York-based U.S. banks to hold, move and ...
From Cedeño v. Intech Group, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88026 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2010): This civil action brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, seeks “damages arising out of a wide-ranging money…
Continue Reading

Only an Original Judgment That Is Registered Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963 May be Re-Registered in Other Jurisdictions — A Judgment Created by Registration Cannot — Caselaw Split

From De Leon v. Marcos, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100644 (D. Colo. Sept. 23, 2010): The operative facts for purposes of the instant motion are undisputed. The Plaintiff is the named representative of a class that holds a judgment2 of almost $2 billion against former Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos. The judgment was entered on February ...
From De Leon v. Marcos, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100644 (D. Colo. Sept. 23, 2010): The operative facts for purposes of the instant motion are undisputed. The Plaintiff is the named representative of a class that holds a judgment2 of…
Continue Reading

Contractual Limitations Period Construed Strictly — Claim for Unearned Premium Is Not a Claim “under” Insurance Policy

From Archway Ins. Servs. v. James River Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99708 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 21, 2010): The dispositive question is whether a claim for unearned premiums is a "claim under this policy" as specified in section 4(B). Although this question appears to be an issue of first impression in this Circuit, other courts have answere ...
From Archway Ins. Servs. v. James River Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99708 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 21, 2010): The dispositive question is whether a claim for unearned premiums is a “claim under this policy” as specified in section 4(B).…
Continue Reading

Securities — Personal Jurisdiction for Control Group Claims — Fiduciary Shield Doctrine Inapt — Group Pleading Doctrine Not Viable under Private Securities Litigation Reform Act

From Snowstorm Acquisition Corp. v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99259 (D. Del. Sept. 21, 2010): The standard for personal jurisdiction under § 20(a) is met if plaintiff makes a non-frivolous allegation that defendant controlled a person liable for securities fraud. 15 U.S.C. §§ 78t(a), 78aa. ...
From Snowstorm Acquisition Corp. v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99259 (D. Del. Sept. 21, 2010): The standard for personal jurisdiction under § 20(a) is met if plaintiff makes a non-frivolous allegation that defendant controlled a person liable…
Continue Reading

Elements of the Torts of Spoliation under West Virginia Law

From Williams v. Great West. Cas. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46247 (N.D. W.V. June 1, 2009): A. Negligent Spoliation ***To prevail on a claim for the tort of negligent spoliation by a third party under West Virginia law, a plaintiff must show that (1) a pending or potential civil action existed; (2) the alleged spoliator h ...
From Williams v. Great West. Cas. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46247 (N.D. W.V. June 1, 2009): A. Negligent Spoliation ***To prevail on a claim for the tort of negligent spoliation by a third party under West Virginia law, a…
Continue Reading

No Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege under New York Law Where Son Received Email and Forwarded It to Parents, But Parents’ Disclosure to Financial Advisor Did Effect Waiver

From Green v. Beer, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87484 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2010): The magistrate judge rejected Plaintiffs' assertion of attorney-client privilege with respect to email communications shared with certain persons who are neither attorneys nor parties in this litigation. These persons are identified as: (1) Paul Lenker, financial ad ...
From Green v. Beer, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87484 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2010): The magistrate judge rejected Plaintiffs’ assertion of attorney-client privilege with respect to email communications shared with certain persons who are neither attorneys nor parties in this litigation.…
Continue Reading

“Spoliation Can Be Knowing or Intentional Even If Not Done with Bad Faith.”

From Schumacher Immobilien und Beteiligungs AD v. Prova, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74144 (M.D.N.C. July 21, 2010): *** Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and other claims related to two written contracts between the parties in which Plaintiff agreed to purchase from Defendant Prova a 1997 Porsche GT1 race car and various accompanying ...
From Schumacher Immobilien und Beteiligungs AD v. Prova, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74144 (M.D.N.C. July 21, 2010): *** Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and other claims related to two written contracts between the parties in which Plaintiff agreed to…
Continue Reading

Reliance on Fact of Consultation with Counsel ≠ Reliance on Advice of Counsel Nor Effect Waiver — Beneficiary May Not Pierce Privilege of Indenture Trustee under Fiduciary Exception (Garner v. Wolfinbarger) for Substantive Advice

From CFIP Master Fund Ltd v. Citibank N.A., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97771 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2010): [Footnote 27] Contrary to the Fund's contentions, U.S. Bank is not asserting an "advice of counsel" defense, which would require the waiver of attorney-client privilege, by referring to the fact of its communication with counsel in the c ...
From CFIP Master Fund Ltd v. Citibank N.A., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97771 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2010): [Footnote 27] Contrary to the Fund’s contentions, U.S. Bank is not asserting an “advice of counsel” defense, which would require the waiver of…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Reversible Error Not to Consider Lawyer’s Ability to Pay under Rule 37 — Inherent Power vs. Rule-Based Power in Punishing Discovery Abuse

In reversing all but $121,000 of a $2.7 million sanctions award, the Court in Clearvalue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 560 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2009) held the imposition of joint-and-several liability on counsel to the sanctioned plaintiffs was improper because his ability to pay the award was not considered: [Need to Consider ...
In reversing all but $121,000 of a $2.7 million sanctions award, the Court in Clearvalue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 560 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2009) held the imposition of joint-and-several liability on counsel to the sanctioned plaintiffs was…
Continue Reading
Previous369370371372373374375Next

Recent Posts

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

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