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

RICO — Injury to Business or Property — Loss of a Cause of Action

It is well-settled that personal injuries are not injuries to "business or property" within 18 U.S.C. 1964(c). What about a chose in action for personal injuries? In an unpublished opinion (whatever vitality that distinction enjoys in the E-Age) rendered on November 6, 2007, Magnum v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 25812 (3d Cir. Nov. 6, ...
It is well-settled that personal injuries are not injuries to “business or property” within 18 U.S.C. 1964(c). What about a chose in action for personal injuries? In an unpublished opinion (whatever vitality that distinction enjoys in the E-Age) rendered on…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege — Email — Waiver by Use of Another’s Computer

Our June 3, 2007 post reported a decision in which transmittal of attorney-client privileged communications via a fiancй’s computer was held not to effect a waiver of privilege. Use of a computer at work can be another matter. In Scott v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 2007 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 7114 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Oct. 17, 2007), the plaintiff, a physician on ...
Our June 3, 2007 post reported a decision in which transmittal of attorney-client privileged communications via a fiancй’s computer was held not to effect a waiver of privilege. Use of a computer at work can be another matter. In Scott…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege — Common Interest Privilege — Tax Practitioner’s Privilege

The Seventh Circuit in U.S. v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 492 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2007), was dealing with the same tax shelter strategy that brought about the demise of the law firm of Jenkens & Gilchrest. The IRS was seeking to enforce administrative subpoenas against the accounting firm of BDO Seidman, which defended in part on the ground that certain of the docume ...
The Seventh Circuit in U.S. v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 492 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2007), was dealing with the same tax shelter strategy that brought about the demise of the law firm of Jenkens & Gilchrest. The IRS was seeking…
Continue Reading

Expert Evidence — Historians & Daubert

The question in State of N.Y. v. Shinnecock Indian Nation, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80443 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2007), was whether New York state authorities were entitled to an injunction preventing the Shinnecock Indian Nation from constructing a casino in Suffolk County. A potentially dispositive legal issue was whether aboriginal title to the property held by ...
The question in State of N.Y. v. Shinnecock Indian Nation, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80443 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2007), was whether New York state authorities were entitled to an injunction preventing the Shinnecock Indian Nation from constructing a casino in…
Continue Reading

Reply Briefs — Why Do We Even Bother?

Did the plaintiff act sanctionably in Liberty Sav. Bank v. GE Capital Corp., 236 Fed. Appx. 353, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 12606 (10th Cir. 2007)? The District Court didn’t find any specifics in defendant General Electric’s moving brief and that ended the matter. In denying GE's Rule 11 motion, the District Court wrote: In support of it ...
Did the plaintiff act sanctionably in Liberty Sav. Bank v. GE Capital Corp., 236 Fed. Appx. 353, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 12606 (10th Cir. 2007)? The District Court didn’t find any specifics in defendant General Electric’s moving brief and that…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions — The Hidden Safe Harbor — Surviving Summary Judgment

The 21-day safe harbor to withdraw challenged papers stated in the text of Rule is well known. (It will go undercover on December 1, when it skulks from Rule 11(c)(1)(A) into hiding in Rule 11(c)(2), evidently renumbered on the theory that research is too easy if the rule numbers remain the same.) But the 21-day safe harbor isn’t the only one adopted in 1993 — ...
The 21-day safe harbor to withdraw challenged papers stated in the text of Rule is well known. (It will go undercover on December 1, when it skulks from Rule 11(c)(1)(A) into hiding in Rule 11(c)(2), evidently renumbered on the theory…
Continue Reading

SLUSA and Reversed Incentives

Normally, corporate defendants sued for fraud seek, wherever possible, to have the fraud claims dismissed as redundant of contract claims, under such authorities as Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Recovery Credit Servs., Inc., 98 F.3d 13 (2d Cir. 1996) (in order to maintain a claim of fraud, a plaintiff must either ‛(i) demonstrate a legal duty separate from ...
Normally, corporate defendants sued for fraud seek, wherever possible, to have the fraud claims dismissed as redundant of contract claims, under such authorities as Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Recovery Credit Servs., Inc., 98 F.3d 13 (2d Cir. 1996) (in order to…
Continue Reading

International Perspectives on Electronic Evidence

On November 1, 2007, I participated in a panel discussion of electronic evidence at the 51st Congress of the Union Internationale des Avocats in Paris with lawyers from Germany, Switzerland and India. Both Germany and Switzerland only allow certain means of evidence. In Germany the accepted means of evidence are: • Interrogation of ...
On November 1, 2007, I participated in a panel discussion of electronic evidence at the 51st Congress of the Union Internationale des Avocats in Paris with lawyers from Germany, Switzerland and India. Both Germany and Switzerland only allow certain means…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct

The pro se defendant in BidZirk, LLC v. Smith, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78481 (D.S.C. Oct. 22, 2007), was a blogger being sued for trademark infringement for improperly placing the plaintiff’s trademark on his blog. That isn’t the interesting part (the trademark claim was dismissed on summary judgment). In the course of the litigation, the plaintiff ...
The pro se defendant in BidZirk, LLC v. Smith, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78481 (D.S.C. Oct. 22, 2007), was a blogger being sued for trademark infringement for improperly placing the plaintiff’s trademark on his blog. That isn’t the interesting part…
Continue Reading

Class Action Fairness Act — University of Pennsylvania Symposium

Professors Steve Burbank and Tobias Wolff have put together a stellar symposium on CAFA that will be held at the University of Pennsylvania Law School on Friday afternoon, November 30 and Saturday, December 1. Six panels will discuss the Class Action Fairness Act from six perspectives, based on a series of papers prepared for the symposium. Participants include Pe ...
Professors Steve Burbank and Tobias Wolff have put together a stellar symposium on CAFA that will be held at the University of Pennsylvania Law School on Friday afternoon, November 30 and Saturday, December 1. Six panels will discuss the Class…
Continue Reading
Previous480481482483484485486Next

Recent Posts

Rule 37 Sanctions Properly Denied for Failure to Produce Documents That Were Already in the Requester’s Possession And Were Not Relevant to The Principal Issue in the Lawsuit — Experts/Daubert: Exclusion Appropriate Where Opinion Was Predicated on Erroneous Assumptions of Law

Supreme Court: Obtaining a Preliminary Injunction Does Not Render the Plaintiff a “Prevailing Party” Entitled to Attorney’s Fees — Must Win “Enduring Relief” On The Merits From A Judicial Order — Extraneous Events, Like Legislation, That Preserve The Outcome And Moot The Lawsuit Do Not Turn The Plaintiff into A Prevailing Party (Note, However, That A Defendant Need Not Obtain A Favorable Judgment On The Merits In Order To Be A “Prevailing Party”)

Supreme Court: When A Plaintiff Amends The Complaint To Delete The Federal-Law Claims That Enabled Removal To Federal Court, Leaving Only State-Law Claims, The Federal Court Loses Supplemental Jurisdiction, And The Case Must Be Remanded To State Court

Supreme Court: A Rule 41(a) Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice = A Final Proceeding Within Rule 60(b) — Advisory Committee Notes Are “A Reliable Source Of Insight Into The Meaning Of A Rule” — Prior to Dismissal or Entry of Judgment, A District Court May Always Rehear and Reconsider Prior Rulings

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report — Burden Is On Noncompliant Party to Prove Harmlessness — Court Need Not Hold Hearing If Noncompliant Party Fails to Argue Harmlessness, Even When Exclusion Is Tantamount to Dismissal

RICO: (1) Continuity: 4th Circuit Factors — (2) 4th Circuit Reserves RICO Liability for Unlawful Activities That Pose A Special Threat to Social Well-Being — (3) For Purposes of Determining Closed-Ended Continuity, Even Time-Barred Conduct Considered — (4) No Open-Ended Continuity If Racketeering Activity Has Built-In Ending Point — (5) Unlike General Federal Conspiracy, RICO Conspiracy Doesn’t Require Each Defendant to Perform an Overt Act in Furtherance of the Conspiracy

Whether Party Waived Arbitration by Litigating Is a Question for the Court, Not the Arbitrator

RICO: (1) Assignability of RICO Claims Uncertain — (2) Declining to Decide Whether Indirect-Purchaser Rule Applies to RICO (Given the Directness Requirement, How Much Does It Matter?) — (3) Two Types of Directness of Injury in Proximate Cause Analysis — (4) Proximate Cause As a Court Not Jury Issue in the First Instance

(1) RICO Pattern: Open-Ended Continuity — The Vendetta Exception — Jury Could Reasonably Infer That Scheme Directed at One Person, With Goal of Destroying His Current and Future Business Prospects, Presented A Threat of Continued Racketeering Activity Extending Indefinitely into the Future — Lawsuit’s “Fortuitous Interruption” of Scheme ≠ Lack of Threat of Continuing Racketeering Activity — Acts of Concealment Used to Perpetuate Violations — Multiple Schemes Not Required — Jury Could Judge Defendant’s Credibility in Assessing Threat of Continuing Criminal Activity — (2) RICO Conspiracy — Two Methods of Proof: Agreement to Overall Objective Or to Commit Predicate Acts — Agreement Can Be Inferred from Conduct — Conspirator Needn’t Know All Details, Have Contact with Other Conspirators Or Participate in Every Stage

Experts: “Normally, Courts Are Loath to Outright Dismiss An Expert” (Good Quote) — Experts Are Unhelpful If They Misstate the Law [Note Premise That Testimony on Law Not Precluded Outright] — Rule 37 Sanctions Unwarranted for Unjustifiable Failure to Produce Relevant Document Already in Requester’s Possession

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