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

Expert Spoliation — Diligence in Maintaining Files — Computer Crash

The deposition of the defense expert in Jama v. Esmor Correctional Servs., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45706 (D.N.J. June 25, 2007), suggested that defense counsel had not been diligent in instructing the expert to preserve his files and, worse, that some data had been lost: Q. In May were you asked when you were retained by the defendant's law ...
The deposition of the defense expert in Jama v. Esmor Correctional Servs., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45706 (D.N.J. June 25, 2007), suggested that defense counsel had not been diligent in instructing the expert to preserve his files and, worse, that…
Continue Reading

Daubert, Rule 702 and The Humble Expert

The interesting issue in Watson v. United States, 485 F.3d 1100 (10th Cir. 2007), was, in the Court’s words: ‛What to do when an expert witness says he isn't really so expert?“ The plaintiff prisoner was suing the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act for negligent treatment of his medical condition, resulting in a brain hemorrhage. The govern ...
The interesting issue in Watson v. United States, 485 F.3d 1100 (10th Cir. 2007), was, in the Court’s words: ‛What to do when an expert witness says he isn’t really so expert?“ The plaintiff prisoner was suing the government under…
Continue Reading

Obstruction as a Cause of Action for Spoliation

Negligent failure to diagnose cancer was the original tort but it was not the basis for suit in Grant v. High Point Regional Health Sys., 2007 N.C. App. LEXIS 1331 (N.C. App. June 19, 2007). Three years after the treatment, plaintiff’s counsel notified the hospital by letter of the potential malpractice claim and requested records and x-rays (enclosing an ...
Negligent failure to diagnose cancer was the original tort but it was not the basis for suit in Grant v. High Point Regional Health Sys., 2007 N.C. App. LEXIS 1331 (N.C. App. June 19, 2007). Three years after the treatment,…
Continue Reading

No Reliance vs. Merger/Integration Clauses

The issue in FMC Techs., Inc. v. Edwards, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42512 (W.D. Wash. June 12, 2007) was whether a no-reliance clause embedded in a merger/integration clause operated to foreclose a claim of fraud in the inducement. The clause in question read as follows: Full Integration/Amendments in Writing. This Agreement is the ...
The issue in FMC Techs., Inc. v. Edwards, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42512 (W.D. Wash. June 12, 2007) was whether a no-reliance clause embedded in a merger/integration clause operated to foreclose a claim of fraud in the inducement. The clause…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — Waiver — Choice of Law — Non-Signatories

Kidnapping led to the suit in Khan v. Parsons Global Servs., 480 F. Supp. 2d 327 (D.D.C. 2007). Plaintiff Azhar Ali Khan worked for defendant Parsons Global abroad. While in the Philippines, he was kidnapped. Following his release, he and his wife sued Parsons Global and affiliated entities in connection with the kidnapping, including counts of negligence ...
Kidnapping led to the suit in Khan v. Parsons Global Servs., 480 F. Supp. 2d 327 (D.D.C. 2007). Plaintiff Azhar Ali Khan worked for defendant Parsons Global abroad. While in the Philippines, he was kidnapped. Following his release, he and…
Continue Reading

Agent Admissions — Lay Conclusions of Law

How much corroborative evidence do you need to be able to introduce the admission of an apparent agent? If you have enough, is the entire statement necessarily admissible against the principal? Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) provides that an extrajudicial statement is not hearsay if: The statement is offered against a party and is . ...
How much corroborative evidence do you need to be able to introduce the admission of an apparent agent? If you have enough, is the entire statement necessarily admissible against the principal? Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) provides that an extrajudicial…
Continue Reading

Dismissal without Prejudice Converted to Dismissal with Prejudice by Appellate Court’s Exercise of § 1291 Jurisdiction

The District Court in S. Freedman & Co., Inc. v. Raab, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44532 (D.N.J. June 18, 2007), had originally dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice under Rule 12(h)(3) because the complaint lacked adequate jurisdictional allegations. Rather than correcting the allegations, plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Third Circuit c ...
The District Court in S. Freedman & Co., Inc. v. Raab, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44532 (D.N.J. June 18, 2007), had originally dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice under Rule 12(h)(3) because the complaint lacked adequate jurisdictional allegations. Rather than…
Continue Reading

Multi-Party Cases — Right to Cross-Examine Experts of Parties Aligned in Interest

The interesting issue in Kominar v. Health Mgmt. Assocs. of W. VA., Inc., 2007 W. Va. LEXIS 51 (W. Va. Sup. Ct. June 7, 2007) was whether each party aligned in interest (here, each defendant) had an absolute right to cross-examine expert witnesses put on the stand by a co-party (another defendant), or whether the court was vested with the discretion to limit ...
The interesting issue in Kominar v. Health Mgmt. Assocs. of W. VA., Inc., 2007 W. Va. LEXIS 51 (W. Va. Sup. Ct. June 7, 2007) was whether each party aligned in interest (here, each defendant) had an absolute right to…
Continue Reading

Foreign Antisuit Injunctions

An American plaintiff obtained a $35 million jury verdict against a Japanese defendant under the Antidumping Act of 1916, 15 U.S.C. § 72 (repealed 2004). During the pendency of the Japanese entity’s appeal, Congress prospectively repealed the Act. Shortly thereafter, the Japanese government enacted a clawback statute allowing Japanese nationals to sue for the r ...
An American plaintiff obtained a $35 million jury verdict against a Japanese defendant under the Antidumping Act of 1916, 15 U.S.C. § 72 (repealed 2004). During the pendency of the Japanese entity’s appeal, Congress prospectively repealed the Act. Shortly thereafter,…
Continue Reading

New York Convention — Confirmation of Interim Arbitral Awards

The plaintiff in Hall Steel Co. v. Metalloyd, Ltd., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41366 (E.D. Mich. June 7, 2007), commenced an action in federal court which, on the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, was ‛remanded ... for arbitration in London, England in accordance with the parties' agreement.“ The defendant then sought and obtained from the arbitrat ...
The plaintiff in Hall Steel Co. v. Metalloyd, Ltd., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41366 (E.D. Mich. June 7, 2007), commenced an action in federal court which, on the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, was ‛remanded … for arbitration in London,…
Continue Reading
Previous493494495496497498499Next

Recent Posts

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

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

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