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

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 LEXIS 10016 (6th Cir. May 5, 2008) (unpublished), in which the defendant threatened the lives of two witnesses in statements — not to the witnesses — but to his cellmate: We find unconvincing Manns's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 LEXIS 10016 (6th Cir. May 5, 2008) (unpublished), in which the defendant threatened the lives of two witnesses in statements — not to the witnesses — but to his cellmate: We find…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

Sanctions — Experts — Misstatement of Fact in Expert Report as Potentially Outside Rule 11

Plaintiff’s expert in Vidalia Dock & Storage Co. v. Donald Engine Serv., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32026 (W.D. La. April 17, 2008), made a misstatement of fact, asserting that the plaintiff owned a vessel (M/V CARLA J) that was owned by someone else. Plaintiff’s counsel and plaintiff were evidently aware of the error but did not correct it. The Court questi ...
Plaintiff’s expert in Vidalia Dock & Storage Co. v. Donald Engine Serv., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32026 (W.D. La. April 17, 2008), made a misstatement of fact, asserting that the plaintiff owned a vessel (M/V CARLA J) that was owned…
Continue Reading

Securities — SEC May Not Seek Monetary Penalties for Aiding and Abetting Violations of the Investment Advisers Act

In SEC v. Bolla, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36401 (D.D.C. May 6, 2008), United States District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly held that Section 209(e) of the Advisers Act, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-9(e), does not authorize the SEC to seek, and does not confer jurisdiction on the Court to impose, monetary penalties for aiding and abetting violations of the Advisers Act. Her ...
In SEC v. Bolla, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36401 (D.D.C. May 6, 2008), United States District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly held that Section 209(e) of the Advisers Act, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-9(e), does not authorize the SEC to seek, and does…
Continue Reading

Sale of Business as Spoliation

After the plaintiff filed suit in Centimark Corp. v. Pegnato & Pegnato Roof Mgmt., Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37057 (W.D. Pa. May 5, 2008), the corporate defendant filed for bankruptcy and the individual defendants arranged for the sale of all of the corporation's assets (a sale that was approved by the bankruptcy court). No provision was made in the contra ...
After the plaintiff filed suit in Centimark Corp. v. Pegnato & Pegnato Roof Mgmt., Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37057 (W.D. Pa. May 5, 2008), the corporate defendant filed for bankruptcy and the individual defendants arranged for the sale of…
Continue Reading

Expert Report and Evidence Checklist

From Brawhaw v. Mariner Health Care, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37884 (N.D. Miss. May 8, 2008): Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) 1. Did the expert turn in an expert report? 2. Did the expert report contain: (a) a complete statement of all opinions? (b) the basis and reasons t ...
From Brawhaw v. Mariner Health Care, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37884 (N.D. Miss. May 8, 2008): Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) 1. Did the expert turn in an expert report? 2. Did the expert report contain: (a) a complete…
Continue Reading
Previous464465466467468469470Next

Recent Posts

Statements in Briefs As Judicial Admissions

Supreme Court: TRO As Appealable Order — And District Court Inaction As Tantamount to Refusing An Injunction And Thus Appealable

“Slow-Playing Discovery” in Response to Court Order, Prejudicing Opponent, Violates Rule 37(b)(2)(A)

RICO Pattern: No Closed-Ended Continuity If Racketeering Activity Lasted Less Than One Year (11th Circuit) — Conspiracy Allegations Governed by Rule 8(a), Not 9(b) — Two Paths to Establishing A RICO Conspiracy: Agreement to Objective Or to Commit 2 Predicate Acts — Plaintiff Need Not Show Reliance When The Predicate Acts Are Wire Fraud — In Dicta, 11th Circuit Intimates That Even If The Primary RICO Violation Allegations Fail, The RICO Conspiracy Allegations Might Survive, But Is Probably Talking About A Conspiracy to Commit The Predicate Acts

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

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