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

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

Dismissal Motion — Affidavit Offered to Address a Fact Issue Integral to the Complaint

The plaintiff in Jackson v. Alpharma Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12787 (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2008), a putative class action, asserted federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. CAFA jurisdiction requires 100 or more potential class members and an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million. The defendant filed an affidavit from a corporate officer ...
The plaintiff in Jackson v. Alpharma Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12787 (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2008), a putative class action, asserted federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. CAFA jurisdiction requires 100 or more potential class members and an…
Continue Reading
Previous467468469470471472473Next

Recent Posts

FRAP 38 Sanctions: (1) Pressing Objectively Frivolous Arguments, Multiple Misstatements at Oral Argument and Failure to Address What District Judge Said Warrant Award against Appellants’ Counsel (Only) — (2) “General Award” of $5,000 Warranted Where Appellee Failed to Sufficiently Document Its Fees and Expenses [Goodyear v. Haegar Issue]]

RICO: Capital Call Investment Process Increasing Equity of Those Responding to Call at Expense of Those Not Responding ≠ Collection of An Unlawful Debt

RICO [And Constitutional] Standing: Concrete Injury Requirement Not Satisfied by Alleged Intangible Injuries of Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Confusion And Emotional Distress, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Deterred Speech On Nondefamatory Matters, Violation Of First Amendment Rights, And Compulsion

Rule 37(b) Sanctions: Striking of Answer, Default Judgment, Civil Contempt and Piercing Corporate Veil for Deliberate Disregard of Multiple Orders to Produce — Finding of Deliberate Disregard of Court Order Is Factual, Triggering Clear Error Review — Discretion Narrows When Default Sanction Involved — Fourth Circuit Factors for Rule 37 Default Sanction Are Different Than Those for Inherent Power Dismissal Sanction — Continued Defiance of Court Orders And Millions in Unpaid Judgments And Tax Liens Render Lesser Sanctions Futile

RICO: No Causation for Company Harmed by Governmental Customers Shunning It After Employee Publishes Book Admitting He Bribed Governmental Officials — Harm Too Indirect, Not from Bribery (Predicate Act) But from Customers’ Decisions to Shun and Publication of Book (Both Lawful) — Customers Injured by Bribery of Their Officials Are More Direct Plaintiffs

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Opposition to Arbitration

Extrinsic Fraud Exception to Rooker-Feldman — Where Defendants’ Perjury, False Evidence, Flawed Legal Arguments Prevented Plaintiffs from Presenting Their Claim in State Court

Federal Jurisdiction: Party Can Waive Subject Matter Jurisdiction — While Federal Courts Must Ensure They Do Not Lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction, There Is No Duty to Find and Exercise It

“RICO Is a Judge’s Nightmare” — “The Requisite RICO Pleading Standards Are Far From Explicit, And The RICO Jurisprudence Offers Courts (And Plaintiffs) Little Guidance” (Good Quotes) — Common Elements of § 1962(a), (c) and (d)-Based Claims — Closed-End Continuity: Duration > 1 Year = Substantial Period of Time — Continuity: Courts Skeptical If Number of Victims and Schemes Is Limited — Untargeted Persons Who Suffer Derivative Injury Do Not Add to the Number of Victims Considered for Continuity Purposes — Open Ended Continuity Can Be Established by Showing Defendant Commits Predicate Acts As “Regular Way of Doing Business” — Citing the Existence of Other Lawsuits Alleging Similar Predicates ≠ Pleading Facts Demonstrating Defendant’s Commission of Similar Predicates Against Others

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

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