In 2015, Guo Wengui, a/k/a Kwok Ho Wan, a Chinese citizen, billionaire investor and political provocateur, fled China for the United States amid reported investigations by the Chinese government involving several of his businesses and business partners. Mr. Guo reportedly left behind approximately $17 billion in Chinese assets, which have been frozen. Despite living
Ian Pai was an early participant in the 
Blue Man Group (“BMG”). Between 1989 and 1991, he met and began collaborating with the founders of BMG, namely, Chris Wink, Phillip Stanton and Matt Goldman. Pai claims to have made significant contributions to BMG’s creative and musical aspects over the decades-long relationship he had with the
Frequent readers of this blog may recall my post from the end of last year in which I highlighted a decision of the Appellate Division, First Department affirming a decision of New York County Commercial Division Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich, that examined the application of Judiciary Law § 470. For those needing a refresher, Judiciary
My colleague Adam Rafsky’s astute post last week on Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich’s recent reminder regarding the importance of proper service and claim viability when seeking a default judgment under CPLR 3215 reminded me of another default decision last fall from the same judge also addressing issues of service.
“The expert discovery rules are promulgated so no party will be ‘sandbagged’ or surprised by another expert’s opinion” – Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Eileen Bransten
Several weeks ago, we reviewed some of the newer Commercial Division Rules and reported on a couple of recent decisions from Justice Shirley Werner Korneich of the Manhattan Commercial
Under Delaware law, the decision to commence litigation on behalf of a corporation is, of course, a fundamental exercise of business judgment, which decision rests with the Board of Directors. A shareholder, therefore, cannot bring a derivative action without pleading that a demand on the corporation to do so had been made, or that
As we have come to expect, the Commercial Division Advisory Council periodically makes recommendations to amend and/or supplement the Rules of the Commercial Division, many of which are eventually adopted following a solicitation process for public comment by the Office of Court Administration.
In 2015, as a host of new Commercial Division rules
Statutorily imposed deadlines are not optional for commercial litigants; this much should be obvious. Notwithstanding, and despite numerous technological calendaring options available to commercial litigators, deadlines are blown in the Commercial Division, including the mother of all deadlines: the defendant’s time to answer or otherwise move against a complaint (see CPLR 3012). As
Visitors to this blog may recall our recent posts (here and here) concerning the individual practice rules of Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Bransten and Queens County Commercial Division Justices Gray and Livote. “Check the rules!”, was the cautionary theme of those posts.
But just how much of a stickler for compliance
As any seasoned commercial litigator knows, courts are generally loathe to overturn the independent decisions of arbitrators.
New York County Commercial Division Justice Charles E. Ramos recently examined the standard for doing so in Daesang Corp. v NutraSweet Co., a dispute arising from Daesang Corporation’s attempted $79,250,000 sale of its aspartame business to iconic