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

Federal Arbitration Act § 10(a)(4) — Whether Arbitrator Exceeded Authority — Standards — Arbitration Agreement Must Require Explication of Reasoning

From In re Texans-Cuso Ins. Group, LLC, 421 B.R. 769 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2009): The Debtor relies on section 10(a)(4) of the FAA *** for its argument that the Accounting Arbitration Award should be vacated. The FAA provides that an arbitration award may be vacated when "the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed t ...
From In re Texans-Cuso Ins. Group, LLC, 421 B.R. 769 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2009): The Debtor relies on section 10(a)(4) of the FAA *** for its argument that the Accounting Arbitration Award should be vacated. The FAA provides that an…
Continue Reading

Ipse Dixit Pleading after Iqbal

From Willey v. J.P. Morgan Chase, N.A., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57826 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2009): [I]pse dixit pleading is insufficient. *** Iqbal unequivocally rejects the notion that conclusory statements unsupported by factual allegations can subject a defendant to the burdens of discovery. Quoted with approval ...
From Willey v. J.P. Morgan Chase, N.A., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57826 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2009): [I]pse dixit pleading is insufficient. *** Iqbal unequivocally rejects the notion that conclusory statements unsupported by factual allegations can subject a defendant to the…
Continue Reading

Securities — What Does It Mean to “Make” a Statement within 10b-5? — First Circuit En Banc — Good Quotes on Statutory Construction

From SEC v. Tambone, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5031 (1st Cir. March 10, 2010): Rule 10b-5(b), promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the aegis of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), renders it unlawful "[t]o make any untrue statement of a material fact . . . in connection with the pur ...
From SEC v. Tambone, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5031 (1st Cir. March 10, 2010): Rule 10b-5(b), promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the aegis of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), renders…
Continue Reading

RICO — Distinctiveness Requirement of § 1962(c) Unsatisfied by Enterprise Alleged to Consist of Defendants (Dentist and PCs He Formed to Defraud Insurer)

From State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cohan, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125653 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2009): The plaintiff argues, first, that it has sufficiently alleged that the defendants constitute an "association-in-fact enterprise" for RICO purposes. RICO defines an enterprise as "any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or ot ...
From State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cohan, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125653 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2009): The plaintiff argues, first, that it has sufficiently alleged that the defendants constitute an “association-in-fact enterprise” for RICO purposes. RICO defines an…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege — Crime-Fraud Exception — 7th Circuit Standards

From United States v. Boender, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20670 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2010): Unless limited by the U.S. Constitution, an Act of Congress, or a Supreme Court Rule, privileges are "governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in light of reason and experience." Fed. R. ...
From United States v. Boender, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20670 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2010): Unless limited by the U.S. Constitution, an Act of Congress, or a Supreme Court Rule, privileges are “governed by the principles of the common law…
Continue Reading

First Amendment Privilege Against Discovery

From In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Pracs. Litig., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19752 (D. Kan. Mar. 4, 2010): In the first motion, plaintiffs sought information and documents from certain defendants relating to their communications with trade associations, weights and measures organizations and government agencies. *** Defendants objected th ...
From In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Pracs. Litig., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19752 (D. Kan. Mar. 4, 2010): In the first motion, plaintiffs sought information and documents from certain defendants relating to their communications with trade associations, weights and…
Continue Reading

§ 1292(b) Interlocutory Appeal Standards — Second Circuit

From Goldberg v. UBS AG, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19754 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2010): A district court has the discretion to certify an order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) if the court "is of the opinion that: (1) the order 'involves a controlling question of law'; (2) 'as to which there is substantial ground for d ...
From Goldberg v. UBS AG, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19754 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2010): A district court has the discretion to certify an order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) if the court “is of the opinion…
Continue Reading

Attorney as Officer of the Court Is Not a Federal Officer Permitting Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 — Fees Awarded under § 1447(c) — Fed.R.App.P. 38 Sanctions Imposed

From Howard v. St. Germain, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 4727 (5th Cir. Mar. 5, 2010): Appellants do not seek review of the district court's decision to remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Thus, we only consider the district court's decision to impose liability on all Appellants for Appellee's legal fees. We review a district court's awa ...
From Howard v. St. Germain, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 4727 (5th Cir. Mar. 5, 2010): Appellants do not seek review of the district court’s decision to remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Thus, we only consider the district court’s decision…
Continue Reading

Newspaper Has Standing to Object to Subpoena to Protect Privacy of Anonymous Posters to Its Website — The Privacy Right of Anonymity

From McVicker v. King, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18864 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2010): Presently before the Court is the MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO SUBPOENA directed to non-party Trib Total Media, Inc.... For the reasons that follow, the Motion to Compel Response to Subpoena will be denied. *** On April 14, 2009, Plaintiff, William L. McVic ...
From McVicker v. King, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18864 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2010): Presently before the Court is the MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO SUBPOENA directed to non-party Trib Total Media, Inc…. For the reasons that follow, the Motion…
Continue Reading
Previous389390391392393394395Next

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