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

Inadvertent Spoliation Warrants Dismissal

From Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Mid-South Drillers Supply, Inc., 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 39 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2008): The issue presented by this appeal is whether a trial court may exercise its discretion granted under rules 34 and 37 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss a party's case for spoliation of evidence where th ...
From Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Mid-South Drillers Supply, Inc., 2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 39 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2008): The issue presented by this appeal is whether a trial court may exercise its discretion granted under rules 34 and…
Continue Reading

Books and Records Provision in Merger Agreement Supports Spoliation Claim

In Forsythe v. Black Hills Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10430 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2008), Sections 2.3 and 2.6 of the Merger Agreement required defendant Black Hills to provide the plaintiffs with "access for all work papers underlying . . . Earn-Out Period Financial Statements" and, in the event of an earn-out dispute, to provide "full access to the books, rec ...
In Forsythe v. Black Hills Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10430 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2008), Sections 2.3 and 2.6 of the Merger Agreement required defendant Black Hills to provide the plaintiffs with “access for all work papers underlying .…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 and Discovery Disputes

From Paradigm Alliance, Inc. v. Celeritas Techs., LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15334 (D. Kan. Feb. 28, 2008): This is the second attempt by defendants to disrupt the relationship between Paradigm and its outside counsel. In both attempts, defendants have asserted questionable arguments. Moreover, during the most recent dispute, defense ...
From Paradigm Alliance, Inc. v. Celeritas Techs., LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15334 (D. Kan. Feb. 28, 2008): This is the second attempt by defendants to disrupt the relationship between Paradigm and its outside counsel. In both attempts, defendants have…
Continue Reading

RICO and Rule 11

Some fact scenarios speak for themselves. From Williams v. Select Media Servs., LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14773 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 27, 2008): Defendants move to sanction Plaintiffs' attorney ... for continuing to bring the RICO claim in this case, even though it has been dismissed by six previous federal district courts. *** In this case, ...
Some fact scenarios speak for themselves. From Williams v. Select Media Servs., LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14773 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 27, 2008): Defendants move to sanction Plaintiffs’ attorney … for continuing to bring the RICO claim in this case,…
Continue Reading

Primary Jurisdiction Primer (9th Circuit)

Greene v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12605 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 7, 2008): Primary jurisdiction is properly invoked when a claim is cognizable in federal court but requires resolution of an issue of first impression, or of a particularly complicated issue that Congress has committed to a regulatory agency. [Citation omitted].< ...
Greene v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12605 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 7, 2008): Primary jurisdiction is properly invoked when a claim is cognizable in federal court but requires resolution of an issue of first impression, or of a…
Continue Reading

Senate Judiciary Committee Report S. 2450 (Fed. R. Evid. 502)

Download associated file: Senate Judiciary Committee Report S. 2450.pdf  Attached is the Senate Judiciary Committee Report for S. 2450 -- Federal Rule of Evidence 502 (Waiver of Privilege and Work Product) -- which was passed by the Senate on February 27, 2008. ...
Download associated file: Senate Judiciary Committee Report S. 2450.pdf  Attached is the Senate Judiciary Committee Report for S. 2450 — Federal Rule of Evidence 502 (Waiver of Privilege and Work Product) — which was passed by the Senate on…
Continue Reading

RICO and Res Judicata

Several years after his business was put into receivership to effect a settlement agreement he had entered into with the FTC (for deceptive trade practices), the plaintiff in Peterson v. Saperstein, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 4213 (10th Cir. Feb. 27, 2008) (unpublished), brought a civil RICO action attacking the conduct of the receivership and raising anew issues r ...
Several years after his business was put into receivership to effect a settlement agreement he had entered into with the FTC (for deceptive trade practices), the plaintiff in Peterson v. Saperstein, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 4213 (10th Cir. Feb. 27,…
Continue Reading

$10 Million Inherent Power Sanction for Bad Faith Litigation Abuse

The $10 million sanction imposed in DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13759 (D. Mass. Feb. 25, 2008), a patent case, is one of the ten largest reported sanctions awards (at least, it makes the top ten list in Chapter 1 of my book). The District Judge’s summary of the misconduct: Throughout trial ...
The $10 million sanction imposed in DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13759 (D. Mass. Feb. 25, 2008), a patent case, is one of the ten largest reported sanctions awards (at least, it makes…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Reliance on Government Agency Complaint in Pleading a Private Action

The plaintiffs’ counsel in In re Connetics Corp. Secs. Litig., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9634 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2008), a securities class action, allegedly took several paragraphs from a complaint filed by the SEC and inserted them in the class action complaint. Certain defendants moved to strike on the ground that “lifting allegations from an SEC complain ...
The plaintiffs’ counsel in In re Connetics Corp. Secs. Litig., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9634 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2008), a securities class action, allegedly took several paragraphs from a complaint filed by the SEC and inserted them in the…
Continue Reading
Previous466467468469470471472Next

Recent Posts

Practice of Seeking Leave to Amend after The Case Is Dismissed Is Discouraged

RICO: Release Executed After Alleged RICO Violations Extinguishes RICO Claim — Eighth Circuit Declines to Address Enforceability of A Release “That Is An Integral Part of An Alleged RICO Scheme Or That Immunizes Future RICO Conduct

Pleading — “Civil pleadings are supposed to mark the boundaries for discovery; discovery is not supposed to substitute for definite pleading” (Good Quote) — Shotgun Pleadings (11th Circuit):  Four Categories/Types

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report: Failure to Argue Harmlessness Essentially Waives Issue

Rule 37(b) Sanctions — Exclusion of Supplemental Expert Report for Advancing New Opinions — Third Circuit Exclusion Factors — “Importance of Excluded Evidence:” If, As Proponent Argues, There Is Nothing New, Then Exclusion Doesn’t Harm Proponent; If There Is, It Harms Opponent

RICO Pleading: Generic Allegations of Fraud (Failing Even to Set Forth Any False Representation) And Extortion (Failing to Describe Actual Threats) Too Conclusory to State a Claim

RICO Standing: Antitrust’s Indirect Purchaser Rule Applies in RICO Cases, Barring Claims by Indirect Purchasers Two Or More Steps Removed From The Violator In A Distribution Chain (Here, Truck Purchasers/Lessees Suing Manufacturer), Though Court Considers Bar “Unsupported by Sensible Principles”

RICO Pleading: Statutory Directive That RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Extend to More Liberal Pleading Requirements

Inherent Power and FRAP 38 Sanctions — Inherent Power Sanctions (Here, A Deterrence Payment of $25,000 to the Court — Goodyear Issue Not Addressed) May Be Imposed in Addition to Statutory Attorney’s Fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Exceptional Patent Case) — § 285 Does Not Preclude A Separate Award of Sanctions Or Fees under Another Authority — Recidivism (25 Prior Lawsuits with Same Perceived Venue Deficiency) A Factor — Fact That Rule 11 Sanctions Were Unavailable Due to Dismissal of Lawsuit Opened the Door to Inherent Power Sanctions Under Chambers — FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Because Issue Previously Unaddressed in Circuit — A Meritless Appeal Is By No Means Necessarily A Frivolous One (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions Imposed Due to the “Striking Legal Emptiness” of Brief/Appeal, “A Legal Nothingburger” — Bad Faith Not Required: An Appeal “May Also Be Frivolous If It Is Filed Out Of Sheer Obstinacy” (Good Quotes)

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