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

Experts — Rule 702 vs. Rule 56

The District Judge in Stilwell v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 482 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2007) excluded the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, finding that the testimony was not helpful, within Fed.R.Evid. 702, because it did not address the issue of causation, only defect, in this medical device products liability action. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that ...
The District Judge in Stilwell v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 482 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2007) excluded the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, finding that the testimony was not helpful, within Fed.R.Evid. 702, because it did not address the issue…
Continue Reading

Diversity Jurisdiction — Assignment of Claims by Non-Diverse Subsidiaries to Diverse Parent

28 U.S.C. § 1359 provides that "[a] district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of the court." There is a split in the Circuits as to whether to apply a presumption of collusive invocation of jurisdiction when evaluating assi ...
28 U.S.C. § 1359 provides that “[a] district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.”…
Continue Reading

Electronic Discovery — Unfettered Access to Opponent’s Hard Drive

The plaintiff-employer in Calyon v. Mizuho Secs. USA Inc. , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36961 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2007), sued several former employees for allegedly transmitting confidential business information to their new employer. The ex-employees agreed to preserve mirror images of the hard drives of their personal computers, PDAs, etc., and produced informatio ...
The plaintiff-employer in Calyon v. Mizuho Secs. USA Inc. , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36961 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2007), sued several former employees for allegedly transmitting confidential business information to their new employer. The ex-employees agreed to preserve mirror images…
Continue Reading

Complaints Must Plead Facts

On May 21, 2007, the Supreme Court changed the law of notice pleading. It held in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 5901 (U.S. May 21, 2007) that plaintiffs must allege facts sufficient to show an entitlement to relief. While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual al ...
On May 21, 2007, the Supreme Court changed the law of notice pleading. It held in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 5901 (U.S. May 21, 2007) that plaintiffs must allege facts sufficient to show an entitlement to…
Continue Reading

Pleading Standards — Rule 8(a) — Prolix and Unintelligible Pleadings

The pro se plaintiff in Wilkinson v. Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34287 (E.D. Wis. May 9, 2007) commenced this action with a ‛massive, nearly incomprehensible initial filing of roughly 200 pages“ in which his ‛central allegation … appear[ed] to be that numerous defendants have illegally attempted to collect a debt from ...
The pro se plaintiff in Wilkinson v. Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34287 (E.D. Wis. May 9, 2007) commenced this action with a ‛massive, nearly incomprehensible initial filing of roughly 200 pages“ in which his ‛central allegation…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege & Work Product Protection — Waiver by Failure to Log

Defendants withheld emails from production, did not log them pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5), yet later invoked attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine as defenses to production. In Nnebe v. Daus, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32981 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2007), District Judge Kenneth M. Karas upheld Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck's decision to order prod ...
Defendants withheld emails from production, did not log them pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5), yet later invoked attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine as defenses to production. In Nnebe v. Daus, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32981 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2007),…
Continue Reading

New York Convention — Authority of Federal Courts to Grant Relief in Aid of International Arbitration

There is a split of authority as to whether a federal court possesses the authority to entertain a request for an order pendente lite sought by a party to an international arbitration when the arbitral tribunal has the power to grant similar relief. The disparate authorities are collected and analyzed in District Judge Mark R. Kravitz’s thoughtful opinio ...
There is a split of authority as to whether a federal court possesses the authority to entertain a request for an order pendente lite sought by a party to an international arbitration when the arbitral tribunal has the power to…
Continue Reading

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act — Arbitration Abroad — Enforcement in the United States

Does a foreign sovereign’s agreement to arbitrate outside the United States waive sovereign immunity to an action brought here to enforce the resulting award rendered against that sovereign? No — at least, that is the answer if the foreign sovereign is not a signatory to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 9 U ...
Does a foreign sovereign’s agreement to arbitrate outside the United States waive sovereign immunity to an action brought here to enforce the resulting award rendered against that sovereign? No — at least, that is the answer if the foreign sovereign…
Continue Reading

Securities Laws — Issue of First Impression — Silence of the SEC

The issue of first impression in Neuberger Berman Real Estate Income Fund, Inc. v. Lola Brown Trust No. 1B, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34054 (D. Md. May 8, 2007), was whether a closed end investment company was precluded from issuing a series of shareholder rights plans (poison pills) — each under 120 days in duration — by Section 18(d) of the Investment Com ...
The issue of first impression in Neuberger Berman Real Estate Income Fund, Inc. v. Lola Brown Trust No. 1B, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34054 (D. Md. May 8, 2007), was whether a closed end investment company was precluded from issuing…
Continue Reading

Purged Email (Round 2) — Best Evidence

Our May 3, 2007, posting discusses United States v. Culberson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31044 (E.D. Mich. April 27, 2007), a drug conspiracy prosecution in which the Court admitted a DEA agent’s transcript of emails on a cell phone after the messages had been automatically purged while the phone was in government custody. The April 27th opinion dealt with aut ...
Our May 3, 2007, posting discusses United States v. Culberson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31044 (E.D. Mich. April 27, 2007), a drug conspiracy prosecution in which the Court admitted a DEA agent’s transcript of emails on a cell phone after…
Continue Reading
Previous496497498499500501502Next

Recent Posts

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

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

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