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

Honest Services Mail Fraud Does Not Require Proof that Conduct Violated an Applicable State Law — Circuit Split

From United States v. Weyhrauch, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24248 (9th Cir. Nov. 26, 2008): This … interlocutory appeal … presents a matter of first impression in this circuit — whether a federal honest services mail fraud prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346 requires proof that the conduct at issue also violated an applicable s ...
From United States v. Weyhrauch, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24248 (9th Cir. Nov. 26, 2008): This … interlocutory appeal … presents a matter of first impression in this circuit — whether a federal honest services mail fraud prosecution under 18…
Continue Reading

European-Style Digital Options Are Likely Securities, Precluding Civil RICO Claim

From Affco Invs., LLC v. KPMG, LLP, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94396 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2008), a civil RICO claim (among others) against a law firm (among others) in connection with a tax shelter gone awry: This case involves a complicated scheme whereby taxpayers with substantial income or capital gains could claim a purportedly legal tax lo ...
From Affco Invs., LLC v. KPMG, LLP, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94396 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2008), a civil RICO claim (among others) against a law firm (among others) in connection with a tax shelter gone awry: This case involves…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions for Frivolous Denial of Factual Allegations in Answer

From Williams v. R.W. Cannon, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82916 (S.D.Fla. Sept. 24, 2008): ...Rule 11 sanctions must be imposed against Defendants because they frivolously denied factual allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint, even though the allegations were true and Defendants either knew that they were true or would have known that they ...
From Williams v. R.W. Cannon, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82916 (S.D.Fla. Sept. 24, 2008): …Rule 11 sanctions must be imposed against Defendants because they frivolously denied factual allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, even though the allegations were true and Defendants…
Continue Reading

Bruton Inapplicable to Joint Bench Trial

From Johnson v. Tennis, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 23849 (3d Cir. Nov. 19, 2008): Do the teachings of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S. Ct. 1620, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476 (1968), apply to a bench trial in a criminal proceeding? Bruton and its progeny established that in a joint criminal trial before a jury, a defendant's Sixt ...
From Johnson v. Tennis, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 23849 (3d Cir. Nov. 19, 2008): Do the teachings of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S. Ct. 1620, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476 (1968), apply to a bench trial…
Continue Reading

Expert Evidence on Summary Judgment

From Reichhold, Inc. v. U.S. Metals Refining Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94584 (D.N.J. Nov. 20, 2008): In deciding whether an issue of material fact exists, the court must consider all facts and their reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.... The court must consider the pleadings, depositions, answers t ...
From Reichhold, Inc. v. U.S. Metals Refining Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94584 (D.N.J. Nov. 20, 2008): In deciding whether an issue of material fact exists, the court must consider all facts and their reasonable inferences in the light most…
Continue Reading

Filing Notice of Substantively Frivolous Appeal Sanctionable under 28 U.S.C. § 1927

From Gruppo v. FedEx Freight Sys., Inc., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 22203 (10th Cir. Oct. 15, 2008) (unpublished): Defendants have requested sanctions against Mr. Gruppo's counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 on the grounds that this appeal is groundless and frivolous. Despite having the opportunity to respond to this request in a reply brief, coun ...
From Gruppo v. FedEx Freight Sys., Inc., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 22203 (10th Cir. Oct. 15, 2008) (unpublished): Defendants have requested sanctions against Mr. Gruppo’s counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 on the grounds that this appeal is groundless and…
Continue Reading

Experts, Daubert & Junk

From McGovern v. Brigham & Women’s Hosp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94403 (D. Mass. Nov. 5, 2008) (Young, J.): [A] district judge performing the "gatekeeper" function required by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence asks three preliminary questions: First, is this junk science? The Daubert analysis ought resolve ...
From McGovern v. Brigham & Women’s Hosp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94403 (D. Mass. Nov. 5, 2008) (Young, J.): [A] district judge performing the “gatekeeper” function required by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence asks three preliminary questions:…
Continue Reading

Securities — Reversible Error under Tellabs to Require Inference of Scienter Be Most Compelling of Competing Inferences

From Frank v. Dana Corp., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 23947 (6th Cir. Nov. 19, 2008): Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court dismissed the complaint.... In articulating the controlling pleading standard, the district court stated that it was "required to accept plaintiff's inferences of scienter onl ...
From Frank v. Dana Corp., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 23947 (6th Cir. Nov. 19, 2008): Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court dismissed the complaint…. In articulating the controlling pleading standard, the district…
Continue Reading

Typed Signature at End of Email Satisfies Statute of Frauds

From R.D. Weis & Co. v. Children’s Place Retail Stores, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94542 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2008) (dicta): [Footnote] 2 The Court notes that even if no exception to the statute of frauds applies, the electronic signatures at the bottom of the e-mails may qualify as signed writings by TCP. Courts have held that a typed sign ...
From R.D. Weis & Co. v. Children’s Place Retail Stores, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94542 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2008) (dicta): [Footnote] 2 The Court notes that even if no exception to the statute of frauds applies, the electronic signatures at…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Withdrawing Four Successive Putative Class Plaintiffs and Then Dismissing Action Sanctionable under 28 U.S.C. § 1927

Plaintiffs’ counsel in Jensen v. Phillips Screw Co., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 23076 (1st Cir. Oct. 29, 2008), proposed and withdrew four successive putative lead plaintiffs, at which point they dismissed the class action. The defense sought sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for unreasonable and vexatious multiplication of the litigation.
Plaintiffs’ counsel in Jensen v. Phillips Screw Co., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 23076 (1st Cir. Oct. 29, 2008), proposed and withdrew four successive putative lead plaintiffs, at which point they dismissed the class action. The defense sought sanctions under 28…
Continue Reading
Previous444445446447448449450Next

Recent Posts

United States Trinity Energy Servs., L.L.C. v. Se. Directional Drilling, L.L.C., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10178 (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2025): FRAP 38 Separate Motion Requirement FRAP 38 Sanctions Properly Denied for Want of Separate Motion — Request in Brief Insufficient — “Manifest Disregard” Is Not A Freestanding Ground for Vacatur of Arbitration Award in Fifth Circuit (Or First, Eighth Or Eleventh)

§ 1927 Sanctions Apt for Failing to Withdraw Claim Until Summary Judgment Hearing, Requiring Opponent and Court to Prepare for An Abandoned Argument — Bad Faith Established by False and Misleading Statements to Court — Raising New Argument for First Time in Reply Brief Does Not Warrant § 1927 Sanctions

RICO: Mail and Wire Fraud: Act of Emailing Transcript of Court Proceedings Containing Allegedly False Statements Made in Court ≠ Wire Fraud — Mailing (Serving on Opposing Party) Declarations Allegedly Containing False Statements ≠ Mail Fraud

Supreme Court: (1) Rule 11 Sanctions Available Where Affirmative Defense “Obviously Applies” and Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s Counsel “Lack A Good Faith Basis to Believe Otherwise” — (2) If Affirmative Defense Pled, Court May Require Plaintiff to File a Reply to the Answer Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) Setting forth “Specific, Nonconclusory Factual Allegations” Showing That The Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply — (3) The Title of a Statute And The Heading of a Section May Properly Be Used to Interpret the Text

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Sixth Circuit Usually Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions Unless An Improper Purpose Was Behind the Appeal

FRAP 38: Permissible for Appeals Court to Affirm Sanctions But Deny FRAP 38 Sanctions for Appeal — A Defendant’s Voluntary Cessation of Complained of Behavior Does Not Moot a Case Unless It Is Clear That The Behavior Could Not Reasonably Be Expected to Recur

Rule 11: Violation of 21 Day Safe Harbor “Overlook[ed]” As Non-Prejudicial by First Circuit — “Rule 11 Monetary Sanctions Must Be Reasonable” (Good Quote) — Rule 11(c)(4) Requires Consideration of Offender’s Ability to Pay

Temporary Restraining Order = Preliminary Injunction: 3 Supreme Court Cases (TRO=PI x 3)

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report — Eighth Circuit’s 4-Factor Test

RICO: So Insubstantial A Claim As to Fail to Confer Subject Matter Jurisdiction

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