In an opinion Wednesday, Judge Kaplan awarded attorneys’ fees to news networks that broadcast brief excerpts of the plaintiff’s live-streaming on Facebook of his partner’s childbirth.  Alongside the broadcasts, the networks offered “social commentary about the phenomenon of someone publicly live-streaming a life event that traditionally is considered personal.”  Judge Kaplan dismissed the plaintiff’s copyright claims on fair use grounds, and in the ruling Wednesday, he found the case so meritless as to justify fee-shifting:
Continue Reading

In an opinion today, Judge Kaplan denied the motion of CDO manager Harding Advisory and its principal Wing Chau to preliminarily enjoin SEC administrative proceedings against them.  The hearing has already been completed, but they await a decision that is expected next month.  As we reported in March, the plaintiffs initially moved to stay the proceedings before they even began (see our prior post here), but that motion was denied. Harding and Mr. Chau’s basic allegation is that administrative proceedings are so lacking in procedural protections that they violate due process, especially as compared to federal court.  Judge Kaplan concluded, however, that they could make those arguments within the administrative process itself – i.e., through an appeal to the Commission and then to the Second Circuit.  The cumbersome nature of that route, Judge Kaplan ruled, does not deny the plaintiffs due process:
Continue Reading

Attorneys at Skadden Arps and Post & Schell, on behalf of a client named Joseph Stilwell and his firm, today filed a complaint arguing that SEC administrative proceedings are unconstitutional:

SEC administrative proceedings violate Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which states that the “executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
Continue Reading

In a discovery order dated yesterday, Judge Kaplan ruled (among other things) that Bank of New York Mellon could claw back a privileged email that it had inadvertently produced.  The order acknowledges the realities of large-scale document productions in which mistakes will be made “more often than desirable”:

The fact that the document as originally

In a complaint filed Tuesday, CDO manager Harding Advisory and its principal Wing Chau allege that the SEC violated their due process and equal protection rights by “shoehorning” a case against them into an administrative proceeding instead of suing in federal court.  The plaintiffs allege that an administrative hearing is wholly unsuitable for a complex case like theirs, especially given the rigid requirement that hearings occur within approximately four months of the matter being initiated.  They  seek to enjoin the proceeding, and force the SEC to sue in federal court instead. The plaintiffs allege that the SEC has refused to explain why their case, as compared to similar CDO cases, was “singled out” to be kept out of court, and argue that the SEC’s must be acting based upon one or more of the following improper motives:
Continue Reading

Judge Kaplan issued a 485-page opinion this morning siding with Chevron in its long-running challenge to a $19 billion Ecuadorian judgment against it. From the introduction of the opinion:

[T]he Court finds that Donziger began his involvement in this controversy with a desire to improve conditions in the area in which his Ecuadorian clients live. To be sure, he sought also to do well for himself while doing good for others, but there was nothing wrong with that. In the end, however, he and the Ecuadorian lawyers he led corrupted the Lago Agrio case. They submitted fraudulent evidence. They coerced one judge, first to use a court-appointed, supposedly impartial, “global expert” to make an overall damages assessment and, then, to appoint to that important role a man whom Donziger hand-picked and paid to “totally play ball” with the LAPs. They then paid a Colorado consulting firm secretly to write all or most of the global expert’s report, falsely presented the report as the work of the court-appointed and supposedly impartial expert, and told half-truths or worse to U.S. courts in attempts to prevent exposure of that and other wrongdoing. Ultimately, the LAP team wrote the Lago Agrio court’s Judgment themselves and promised $500,000 to the Ecuadorian judge to rule in their favor and sign their judgment. If ever there were a case warranting equitable relief with respect to a judgment procured by fraud, this is it. . . . .


Continue Reading