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

Draft Amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) — Expert Witness Rule — Issue to be Considered by Standing Committee in June

Download associated file: Draft Amendments to Expert Witness Rule.pdf  Attached is the March 2008 draft of the proposal to amend the Expert Witness Rule, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The draft would protect against disclosure of draft reports and most communications between co ...
Download associated file: Draft Amendments to Expert Witness Rule.pdf  Attached is the March 2008 draft of the proposal to amend the Expert Witness Rule, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The draft would protect against disclosure of draft reports and…
Continue Reading

Groundless Verification of Interrogatory Answers Not Sanctionable under Rule 26(g)

The individual who verified plaintiff State Farm’s interrogatory answers in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. New Horizon, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37571 (E.D. Pa. May 7, 2008), did little or nothing to insure their accuracy. The defendants moved for sanctions under Rule 26(g), which provides that “[e]very disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1) or (a)(3) and ...
The individual who verified plaintiff State Farm’s interrogatory answers in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. New Horizon, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37571 (E.D. Pa. May 7, 2008), did little or nothing to insure their accuracy. The defendants…
Continue Reading

Class Actions — American Pipe Tolling Applies to Individual Action Filed Pending Class Certification — Circuit Split

From Phillips v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 521 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2008): The Sixth Circuit... [has] held that the purposes of class action tolling under American Pipe "are not furthered when plaintiffs file independent actions before decision on the issue of class certification." Wyser-Pratte Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Telxon,
From Phillips v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 521 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2008): The Sixth Circuit… [has] held that the purposes of class action tolling under American Pipe “are not furthered when plaintiffs file independent actions before decision…
Continue Reading

Class Action Fairness Act — Securities Class Action Pursued as a State Consumer Fraud Claim Is Removable under CAFA

The Second Circuit held in Estate of Pew v. Cardarelli, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10269 (2d Cir. May 13, 2008), that federal jurisdiction exists under CAFA (28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(9) (C) and 1453(d)(3)) over a class action alleging that officers of an issuer — abetted by the issuer's auditor — failed to disclose, while marketing debt certificates, that the is ...
The Second Circuit held in Estate of Pew v. Cardarelli, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10269 (2d Cir. May 13, 2008), that federal jurisdiction exists under CAFA (28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(9) (C) and 1453(d)(3)) over a class action alleging that officers…
Continue Reading

Securities — $1.2 Million Civil Penalty Imposed Under § 20(d) of the Securities Act and § 21(d) of the Securities Exchange Act — Factors Affecting Quantum

An individual defendant in SEC v. AmeriFirst Funding, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36782 (N.D. Tex. May 5, 2008) committed violations involving fraud or deceit under both the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act. The SEC requested that the final judgment against him (Bruteyn) include third-tier civil penalties under § 20(d) of the Securities Act an ...
An individual defendant in SEC v. AmeriFirst Funding, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36782 (N.D. Tex. May 5, 2008) committed violations involving fraud or deceit under both the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act. The SEC requested that the…
Continue Reading

Witness Intimidation as Spoliation

From United States v. Manns, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10016 (6th Cir. May 5, 2008) (unpublished), in which the defendant threatened the lives of two witnesses in statements — not to the witnesses — but to his cellmate: We find unconvincing Manns's arguments that his alleged statement to Steven Tackett does not constitute admissible spoli ...
From United States v. Manns, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10016 (6th Cir. May 5, 2008) (unpublished), in which the defendant threatened the lives of two witnesses in statements — not to the witnesses — but to his cellmate: We find…
Continue Reading

Duties and Discretion of District Court in Implementing Appellate Mandate

The plaintiff in Pardini v. Allegheny Intermediate Unit, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10196 (3d Cir. May 12, 2008), contended that the District Court on remand had ignored the Third Circuit’s prior opinion, which held as follows regarding the plaintiff’s entitlement to recover attorneys' fees: We do not think that Mr. Pardini is precluded fr ...
The plaintiff in Pardini v. Allegheny Intermediate Unit, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10196 (3d Cir. May 12, 2008), contended that the District Court on remand had ignored the Third Circuit’s prior opinion, which held as follows regarding the plaintiff’s entitlement…
Continue Reading

$50,000 Sanction Imposed on Lawyer and Client for Presenting Forged Documents to Court

From Mullins v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34811 (E.D. Mich. April 29, 2008): Concerned about the allegations of fraud, the Court conducted a series of evidentiary hearings. At the conclusion of the hearings, the Court determined that the three documents presented by Plaintiff were indeed fraudulent. In a July 25, 2007 or ...
From Mullins v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34811 (E.D. Mich. April 29, 2008): Concerned about the allegations of fraud, the Court conducted a series of evidentiary hearings. At the conclusion of the hearings, the Court determined that…
Continue Reading

Email Admissibility — Hearsay — Rules 807 (Catchall Exception) and 803(1) (Present Sense Impression)

The plaintiff in Trade Finance Partners, LLC v. AAR Corp, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32512 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2008), was suing for a commission. Plaintiff TRP’s entitlement to the commission depended on characterization of the deal that the defendant (AAR) entered into Northwest Airlines (NWA). The admissibility of two emails was challenged on hearsay grounds ...
The plaintiff in Trade Finance Partners, LLC v. AAR Corp, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32512 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2008), was suing for a commission. Plaintiff TRP’s entitlement to the commission depended on characterization of the deal that the defendant…
Continue Reading

Binding Effect of 30(b)(6) Deposition Testimony — Admission vs. Judicial Admission — Impact on Summary Judgment vs. at Trial

State Farm’s 30(b)(6) witness in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. New Horizon, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37571 (E.D. Pa. May 7, 2008), Mr. Bowles, did nothing to prepare for his testimony other than meet with counsel. Accordingly, when questioned about the basis of certain claims asserted by State Farm — one of the purposes of the deposition — “c ...
State Farm’s 30(b)(6) witness in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. New Horizon, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37571 (E.D. Pa. May 7, 2008), Mr. Bowles, did nothing to prepare for his testimony other than meet with counsel. Accordingly,…
Continue Reading
Previous456457458459460461462Next

Recent Posts

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

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

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