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

Bankruptcy Court Power to Impose Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions

From In re Green, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 195, 2010 WL 346090 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2010): The Court has the power to sanction Farinella for this conduct pursuant to (1) its inherent power, (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and (3) Local Bankruptcy Rule 9020-1. “Bankruptcy courts, like Article III courts, enjoy inherent power to sanction parties f ...
From In re Green, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 195, 2010 WL 346090 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2010): The Court has the power to sanction Farinella for this conduct pursuant to (1) its inherent power, (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and (3)…
Continue Reading

PSLRA — Issuance of Press Releases by Putative Lead Plaintiff’s Counsel Does Not Necessarily Mean the Suit is Lawyer Driven or that the Plaintiff Is Inadequate — District Court Discretion over Selection of Lead Counsel

From Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6463 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2010): ***DeKalb and Operating Engineers argue that Cho's lawsuit is lawyer-driven because his counsel issued two press releases. The first one, sent out the day before his counsel filed the first lawsuit, announced that the Rosen Law Firm was commencing an i ...
From Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6463 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2010): ***DeKalb and Operating Engineers argue that Cho’s lawsuit is lawyer-driven because his counsel issued two press releases. The first one, sent out the day…
Continue Reading

Second Circuit Panel Unable to Agree as to whether Magistrate Judges May Impose Rule 11 Sanctions — Circuit Split

From Kiobel v. Millson, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 378 (2d Cir. Jan. 8, 2010): Opinion of Court In this appeal we consider a challenge to the imposition of sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Appellants are defense counsel in an action brought pursuant to the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), 28 U.S.C. § ...
From Kiobel v. Millson, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 378 (2d Cir. Jan. 8, 2010): Opinion of Court In this appeal we consider a challenge to the imposition of sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Appellants…
Continue Reading

Civil Contempt Standards — Order of Civil Contempt for Failure to Pay Sanctions Award Vacated — Unresolved Question as to Contemnor’s Ability to Pay

From Camerons Hardware Inc. v. Independence Blue Cross, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 2028 (3d Cir. Jan. 15, 2010): On July 28, 2008, the District Court, after a hearing, granted the motions for sanctions. The Court concluded that "[a]t the time Mr. Otter filed the Complaint on behalf of his clients, he had been informed four times previously his ...
From Camerons Hardware Inc. v. Independence Blue Cross, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 2028 (3d Cir. Jan. 15, 2010): On July 28, 2008, the District Court, after a hearing, granted the motions for sanctions. The Court concluded that “[a]t the time…
Continue Reading

Email Authentication Other than through the Author

From EEOC v. Olsten Staffing Servs. Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88903 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 28, 2009): This case raises questions about the scope of an employment agency's obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Zachary Schaefer is a deaf person who sought employment unsuccessfully through defendant Olsten Staffing Services Co ...
From EEOC v. Olsten Staffing Servs. Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88903 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 28, 2009): This case raises questions about the scope of an employment agency’s obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Zachary Schaefer is a deaf…
Continue Reading

Standards for Proving “Deliberate Ignorance” to Establish Knowledge — Collective Knowledge Not Appropriate to Establish Subjective Intent

From Chaney v. Dreyfus Service Corp., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1572 (5th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010): Plaintiffs, receivers of seven insurance companies (the "Receivers"), appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of Dreyfus Service Corporation ("DSC"). Throughout the 1990s the insurance companies' assets were looted through a complex fraud sche ...
From Chaney v. Dreyfus Service Corp., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1572 (5th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010): Plaintiffs, receivers of seven insurance companies (the “Receivers”), appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of Dreyfus Service Corporation (“DSC”). Throughout the 1990s…
Continue Reading

Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Issues of First Impression under European Antitrust Law Declined

From Carpenter Co. v. BASF SE, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5791 (D. Kan. Jan. 25, 2010): Section 1367(c) provides that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if "(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court ...
From Carpenter Co. v. BASF SE, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5791 (D. Kan. Jan. 25, 2010): Section 1367(c) provides that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power, But Not §1927, Sanctions Appropriate for Pre-Litigation Misconduct — §1927 Sanctions Imposable on Pro Se Lawyer Representing Self

From Carr v. Tillery, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 685 (7th Cir. Jan. 12, 2010): Turning now to the cross-appeal, we think the defendants' motion for sanctions should not have been denied. *** The motion complained that [plaintiff] Carr is harassing the defendants with repetitive litigation, including a suit — this suit — that borders ...
From Carr v. Tillery, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 685 (7th Cir. Jan. 12, 2010): Turning now to the cross-appeal, we think the defendants’ motion for sanctions should not have been denied. *** The motion complained that [plaintiff] Carr is harassing…
Continue Reading

RICO — Even Boyle’s Generous Definition of “Enterprise” Unsatisfied

From Rao v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 589 F.3d 389 (7th Cir. 2009): After BP Products North America, Inc. ("BP") determined that Salik Rao had secretly paid a BP manager to influence the award of operating agreements in Rao's favor, BP told Rao it was terminating its franchise relationship with him at his two BP gas stations. *** The ...
From Rao v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 589 F.3d 389 (7th Cir. 2009): After BP Products North America, Inc. (“BP”) determined that Salik Rao had secretly paid a BP manager to influence the award of operating agreements in Rao’s…
Continue Reading

“Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later” — Excerpts from Judge Scheindlin’s Major New Electronic Spoliation Sanctions Decision

Titled “Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later,” Judge Scheindlin’s new decision in Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4546 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010) (amended opinion) explores critical spoliation sanctions issues, including important procedural nuances. Key excerpts: I. INTRODUCTION In a ...
Titled “Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later,” Judge Scheindlin’s new decision in Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4546 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010) (amended opinion) explores critical spoliation sanctions issues, including important procedural nuances. Key excerpts: I.…
Continue Reading
Previous403404405406407408409Next

Recent Posts

RICO Statute of Limitations — Storm Warnings, Not Thunder and Lightning (Good Quote)

Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions: Ninth Circuit’s Five-Factor Test for Gauging Appropriateness of Dismissal — The Limited Utility of Rule 12(f) Motions to Strike

RICO: Employer Suffered Harm to Business or Property When Kickbacks Paid to Employees in Real Estate Transactions Done for Employer — Expert Testimony Sufficient to Prove Harm — Proof That Employer Paid Above-Market Prices Not Essential — Non-Disclosure of Certain Damages in Initial Disclosures Cured by Expert Report, Which Also Rendered Initial Non-Disclosure Harmless

Spoliation: Dismissal Under Rule 37(e)(2) and Monetary Sanctions Under Rule 37(e)(1), Implicitly Reading The “Or” Between 37(e)(1) and 37(e)(2) As Conjunctive, Not Disjunctive — Clear Error Standard of Review for District Court’s Intent (= Bad Faith) Finding under 37(e)(2)(C) — Additional Monetary Sanctions Imposed on Claimants under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 37(a)(5) — No Right to Jury Determination of Intent under Rule 37(e)(2) — “Substantially Justified” in Rule 37(a)(5) Has Same Meaning As In Equal Access to Justice Act and Thus Rule 11 — Meaning of “Unreasonable and Vexatious” in 7th Circuit

Inherent Power Sanction of Dismissal — Preponderance of the Evidence Burden of Proof, Not Clear and Convincing Evidence (7th Circuit)

§ 1927 Sanctions — Must A Lawyer Who Unreasonably and Vexatiously Multiplies Federal Court Proceedings Be Acting “As An Attorney” When Committing the Misconduct To Be Subject to Sanction under § 1927?

Rule 37 Sanctions — Unfamiliarity With Litigation Process Does Not Excuse Intentional Disregard of Court Order — Also Affirming Rule 26(g) Sanctions on Clients and Counsel for False Representations That All Responsive Documents Had Been Produced

Supreme Court: Notice of Appeal Filed After The Original Deadline But Before Reopening by The District Court Is Timely — It Relates Forward to The Date of The Order Making The Appeal Possible — Second Notice of Appeal After Reopening Unnecessary

Rule 37 Default Judgment: Second Circuit’s Four-Factor Test for Imposing Defaults and Three-Factor Test for Lifting Them

Rule 37 Default Judgment — Tenth Circuit Multifactor Test Is Not Exhaustive But a Non-Exclusive List of “Sometimes-Helpful Criteria Or Guide Posts”— Appeal from Preliminary Injunction Mooted by Entry of Permanent Injunction — Difficulty in Collecting Damages Award May Equal Irreparable Injury — A Monetary Award For Past Conduct Does Not Preclude A Permanent Injunction Against Similar Wrongful Conduct Likely To Occur In The Future

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