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

Securities — Class Certification

On January 24, 2007, the Second Circuit instructed the prevailing defendants/appellants in the IPO Securities Litigation (In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 29859 (2d Cir. Dec. 5, 2006)) to respond to the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc filed by the plaintiffs/appellees. Since petitions for rehearing are often denied withou ...
On January 24, 2007, the Second Circuit instructed the prevailing defendants/appellants in the IPO Securities Litigation (In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 29859 (2d Cir. Dec. 5, 2006)) to respond to the petition for rehearing…
Continue Reading

Electronic Discovery — Form of Production — Sanctions

As amended effective December 1, 2006, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) requires that, at the initial discovery conference, the parties discuss ‛any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced.“ Williams vs. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5477 (D. Kan. Jan. 23, ...
As amended effective December 1, 2006, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) requires that, at the initial discovery conference, the parties discuss ‛any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced.“…
Continue Reading

Summary Judgment — Rulemaking

As previously noted, the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is holding a mini-conference in New York today (Monday, 1/29/07) to consider possible amendments to summary judgment practice under Rule 56. A summary of the discussion will appear in a posting tomorrow (Tuesday, 1/30/07). ...
As previously noted, the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is holding a mini-conference in New York today (Monday, 1/29/07) to consider possible amendments to summary judgment practice under Rule 56. A summary of the discussion will…
Continue Reading

Experts — Deposition Supplements Report

One of the plaintiffs’ experts in B.H. v. Gold Fields Mining Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4612 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 22, 2007), testified at his deposition to a theory not set forth in his Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report. The District Court concluded that the new theory was not trivial but constituted ‛a significant extension of [the] generic opinion“ set forth in the exp ...
One of the plaintiffs’ experts in B.H. v. Gold Fields Mining Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4612 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 22, 2007), testified at his deposition to a theory not set forth in his Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report. The District Court…
Continue Reading

Sovereign Immunity — Commercial Activities

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides, in 28 U.S.C. § 1609, that "the property in the United States of a foreign state shall be immune from attachment[,] arrest and execution except as provided in section[] 1610...." Section 1610 in turn provides: "The property in the United States of a foreign state ... used for a commercial activity in the United St ...
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides, in 28 U.S.C. § 1609, that “the property in the United States of a foreign state shall be immune from attachment[,] arrest and execution except as provided in section[] 1610….” Section 1610 in turn…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege — Corporate Metamorphoses

Businesses move from one corporate entity to another. Does the attorney-client privilege covering communications between business executives and their counsel move with the business? Sometimes. It is well-settled that a transfer of corporate assets, without more, does not transfer the right to assert or waive the attorney-client privilege. ...
Businesses move from one corporate entity to another. Does the attorney-client privilege covering communications between business executives and their counsel move with the business? Sometimes. It is well-settled that a transfer of corporate assets, without more, does not transfer the…
Continue Reading

Removal — Written Consent of All Defendants

The Third Circuit has never embraced — or for that matter rejected — the majority position that each defendant must consent in writing (as opposed to orally) to removal of a state court action to federal court, according to the decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Elec. Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3572 (D.N.J. Jan. 18, 2007). Nonetheless, that decision c ...
The Third Circuit has never embraced — or for that matter rejected — the majority position that each defendant must consent in writing (as opposed to orally) to removal of a state court action to federal court, according to the…
Continue Reading

District and Magistrate Judges — Yes, They Talk

Lawyers often wonder whether about the extent of informal communication between District and Magistrate Judges. In Trustees of Laborers Local 310 v. Able Contracting Group, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3988 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 19, 2007), the District Judge imposed discovery sanctions decision on defense counsel and the defendant, which ignored discovery orders after a failed ...
Lawyers often wonder whether about the extent of informal communication between District and Magistrate Judges. In Trustees of Laborers Local 310 v. Able Contracting Group, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3988 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 19, 2007), the District Judge imposed discovery…
Continue Reading

28 U.S.C. § 1782 — Application to International Arbitration

Does 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) authorize discovery for use in a private international arbitration? Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004), it was well-settled that a private international arbitration tribunal was not ‛a foreign or international tribunal“ within § 1782. Intel, however, relied heav ...
Does 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) authorize discovery for use in a private international arbitration? Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004), it was well-settled that a private international arbitration…
Continue Reading

Securities — PSLRA Safe Harbor for Forward-Looking Statements

Rich Rosen of Paul Weiss has written an excellent article in the current issue of the BNA Securities Regulation & Law Report that comprehensively explores the last two years' (Nov. 2004 to Nov. 2006) judicial decisions applying the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Paul Weiss has poste ...
Rich Rosen of Paul Weiss has written an excellent article in the current issue of the BNA Securities Regulation & Law Report that comprehensively explores the last two years’ (Nov. 2004 to Nov. 2006) judicial decisions applying the safe harbor…
Continue Reading
Previous509510511512513514515Next

Recent Posts

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

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

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