Photo of Charles Michael

Charles Michael

Subscribe to Charles Michael's Posts

Charles Michael is an accomplished commercial litigator who resolutely defends clients in high stakes disputes and arbitrations. He is also experienced in regulatory and criminal investigations, and represents clients under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Contact:Read more about Charles Michael

It is rare for a judge to express views on the merits of a case ahead of a trial, but last week Judge Engelmayer did so, apparently at the urging of the parties who both thought that it would foster settlement. The views were set forth in an Order last week denying summary judgment in a case over escrowed funds following a corporate acquisition (see an earlier ruling here with more background). In the Order, Judge Engelmayer “took note of counsels’ observation that their attempts to resolve this matter would be assisted by some guidance from the Court as to its present assessment of certain issues in the case.”

Accordingly, ahead of a forthcoming bench trial, Judge Engelmayer essentially foreshadowed that the buyer had a strong case that the seller breached a particular warranty in the deal documents, but some risk associated with its associated theory of damages:
Continue Reading Judge Engelmayer Shows Willingness to Preliminarily Assess Contract Dispute, to Help Foster Settlement

In a new putative class action complaint filed today, former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores accuses the NFL of racial discrimination in hiring. One aspect of the allegations concerns the “Rooney Rule,” by which teams are supposed to interview at least one diverse candidate when coaching and management vacancies arise.
Continue Reading Complaint: Bill Belichik’s Text to the Wrong “Brian” Proves Giants Engaged in “Sham” Interview of Black Coaching Prospect

In an opinion today, Judge Furman dismissed a putative class action against a retailer, Bonobos, whose customer data (names, addresses, emails, and the like) was stolen and posted online. Judge Furman found that the plaintiff, Bradley Cooper, did not allege a level of impending harm or risk that was sufficient to establish standing to sue. Judge Furman contrasted the facts at issue with those in other cases where more sensitive information was stolen (like Social Security numbers), giving rise to high risk of identity theft.

Cooper had sought to establish standing based on his alleged risk of “credential stuffing,” which is described in the opinion as a “technique in which [hackers] enter credentials gained from a hack into third-party websites, hoping that they will match an existing account because the consumer has reused the same password elsewhere,” but Judge Furman was not persuaded:
Continue Reading Judge Furman Dismisses Data Breach Class Action Because Stolen Information Didn’t Give Rise to “Impending” Harm

In an opinion Monday, Judge McMahon denied a motion by Blackberry and certain former executives for summary judgement in a securities class action. In the same ruling, she denied Blackberry’s motion to strike the plaintiffs’ Rule 56.1 statement, which allegedly contained improper legal arguments instead of factual responses.  Judge McMahon criticized the motion as “pointless”…

In an opinion yesterday, Judge McMahon vacated the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement because she found that the bankruptcy court lacked authority to issue releases in favor of the Sackler family.  (See our previous coverage here.) The family members had “offered to contribute toward a settlement, but if—and only if—every member of the family could ‘achieve global peace’ from all civil (not criminal) litigation, including litigation by Purdue to claw back the money that had been taken out of the corporation.”

But Judge McMahon concluded that there was no authority in the bankruptcy law for those releases. This is an issue that has been the subject of “long-standing conflict among the Circuits that have ruled on the question,” with no clear answer yet from the Second Circuit.

Among the reasons that Judge McMahon cited for siding with the Circuits that have refused to find authority for third party releases is the fact that Congress in 1994 authorized third-party releases in the specific context of asbestos, with the Judiciary Committee noting: “How the new statutory mechanism works in the asbestos area may help the Committee judge whether the concept should be extended into other areas.” This statement suggested to Judge McMahon that a broader authority to issue third-party releases in “other areas” did not exist in the first place, particularly given that Congress has not acted on the question since:
Continue Reading Judge McMahon: Bankruptcy Court Lacked Authority to Release Sackler Family as Part of Purdue Settlement

In an opinion Friday, Judge Crotty dismissed a case brought by MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell over an article in the Daily Mail accusing him of having a secret romantic relationship with Jane Krakowski, the actress best known for her role on the TV show 30 Rock. Judge Crotty concluded that the article’s statements, even if false, were simply not defamatory:
Continue Reading Judge Crotty: Falsely Accusing a Single Man of Dating an Actress is Not Defamatory

In an order yesterday in the appeal of the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy case, Judge McMahon invited briefing, due Monday at 9:00 a.m., on whether the Sackler family, which contributed $4.5 billion to the Purdue estate in exchange for releases, abused the bankruptcy system by distributing excessive profits to themselves in the years immediately prior to the bankruptcy:
Continue Reading Judge McMahon Asks for Briefing on Whether Purdue Pharma’s Profit Distributions to Sackler Family Were “Abusive”

In an opinion yesterday, Judge Cote ruled inadmissible certain deposition designations that a group of defendants wanted to use at a forthcoming antitrust trial because the witnesses were corporate representatives who lacked personal knowledge of the matters to which they testified.

As Judge Cote explained, even though Rule 30(b)(6) authorizes deposition testimony via corporate representatives that are supposed to gather knowledge from others, it does not follow that the testimony meets the standards for admissibility at trial:
Continue Reading Judge Cote: Corporate Representative Deposition Testimony Must Be Based on Personal Knowledge to Be Admissible at Trial

In the long-running case between former New York Knicks player Charles Oakley and Madison Square Garden over his removal from a game in 2017 (see our prior posts here), Judge Sullivan (apparently still winding down some of his District Court cases) yesterday granted summary judgment to the defendants.

Judge Sullivan found that the video evidence made clear that no excessive force was used:
Continue Reading Judge Sullivan: Video Evidence Disproves Charles Oakley’s Case Over Ejection from Madison Square Garden