Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A U.K. citizen and former hedge fund manager predicted that the South African rand would strengthen against the U.S. dollar following a South African election. Acting on this belief, he purchased a one-touch barrier option for his hedge fund, which would pay $20 million if the rand-to-dollar exchange rate dropped below 12.50 before the option’s expiration. As the expiration approached and the rate hovered just above the threshold, he instructed a banker in Singapore to sell large amounts of dollars for rand to push the exchange rate below 12.50, thereby triggering the option and securing the payout for his fund. The trades were executed while he was in South Africa, and the payout obligations ultimately fell on U.S.-based financial institutions.A grand jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York indicted him for commodities fraud and conspiracy to commit commodities fraud under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). At trial, the government presented evidence of his intent to manipulate the market to trigger the option. The jury convicted him of commodities fraud but acquitted him of conspiracy. The district court denied his post-trial motions for acquittal or a new trial, finding sufficient evidence of a direct and significant connection to U.S. commerce, adequate jury instructions, and no due process violation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction. The court held that the CEA’s extraterritoriality provision applied because the conduct had a direct and significant connection to U.S. commerce, given that U.S. financial institutions bore the payout risk. The court also found the jury instructions on intent and materiality were proper, that proof of an artificial price was not required under the charged anti-fraud provision, and that the defendant had fair notice his conduct was unlawful. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Nine inmates at a Connecticut correctional facility challenged their confinement in a unit known as Q-Pod, which is used to transition inmates from more restrictive housing back to the general population. The plaintiffs alleged that Q-Pod imposed harsher conditions than the general population, including extended periods of isolation, unsanitary conditions due to toilet restrictions, lack of access to medical care and counseling, limited vocational and educational opportunities, and restricted religious services. Two plaintiffs specifically claimed they were denied access to Native American religious practices, such as sweat lodge ceremonies and smudging, which are congregate religious activities.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted summary judgment to the prison officials on the basis of qualified immunity for all federal claims, finding that the conditions in Q-Pod did not rise to the level of constitutional violations under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments, and that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment free exercise claims. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and denied injunctive relief as moot. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was denied, and they appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment as to the Eighth Amendment, procedural due process, and the free exercise claims of seven plaintiffs, holding that the conditions and restrictions in Q-Pod did not violate clearly established law. However, the Second Circuit reversed as to the free exercise claims of two plaintiffs who were denied participation in Native American congregate religious services, finding that the denial, without any penological justification, violated clearly established law. The court remanded with instructions to deny summary judgment on these claims and vacated the dismissal of the related state-law claims. View "Baltas v. Chapdelaine" on Justia Law

Several former employees of a social media company were required, as part of their hiring process, to sign agreements mandating that any employment-related disputes be resolved through individual arbitration before a specified arbitral body. These agreements allowed employees to opt out within 30 days, but those who did not were bound to arbitrate disputes under the arbitral body’s rules. After being terminated, the employees initiated arbitration proceedings, but a dispute arose over who was responsible for paying the ongoing arbitration fees. The company argued for a pro-rata split based on the agreements, while the arbitral body, referencing its own rules and minimum standards (incorporated by reference into the agreements), required the company to pay all but the initial case management fees. The company refused to pay the full amount, citing a clause that fee disputes should be resolved by the arbitrator, not the arbitral body. As a result, the arbitral body stayed the proceedings, refusing to appoint arbitrators until the fees were paid.The employees then filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to compel the company to pay the fees under the Federal Arbitration Act, arguing that the company’s refusal constituted a failure to arbitrate. The district court agreed, holding that it had authority to compel the company to pay the fees as allocated by the arbitral body, and ordered the company to do so.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The Second Circuit held that disputes over the payment of ongoing arbitration fees in the context of an ongoing arbitral proceeding are procedural matters for the arbitrator or arbitral body to resolve, not the courts. The court concluded that a party’s refusal to pay such fees does not constitute a “failure, neglect, or refusal to arbitrate” under 9 U.S.C. § 4, and therefore, the district court lacked authority to compel payment. The case was remanded with instructions to deny the petition. View "Frazier v. X Corp." on Justia Law

Mathew James, a former nurse and owner of a medical billing business, was convicted after a jury trial for health care fraud, conspiracy to commit health care fraud, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft. The charges arose from a scheme in which James and his employees falsified insurance claims by “upcoding” and “unbundling” medical procedures, directed patients to emergency rooms for pre-planned surgeries, and impersonated patients in communications with insurance companies. The fraudulent activity spanned several years, involved nearly 150 physicians, and resulted in tens of thousands of claims. While some of James’s business was legitimate, the government’s evidence focused on the fraudulent aspects of his operations.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Judge Seybert) presided over the trial and sentencing. The jury convicted James on most counts but acquitted him of money laundering conspiracy. During trial, jurors were inadvertently given access to transcripts of two recorded calls not admitted into evidence, but the district court declined to conduct an inquiry into the exposure, instead instructing the jury to disregard any material not in evidence. At sentencing, the court imposed a 144-month prison term, a forfeiture order of over $63 million, and restitution of nearly $337 million. The court applied sentencing enhancements for James’s leadership role and abuse of trust, and increased the sentence after considering James’s potential eligibility for earned time credits and rehabilitation programs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed James’s conviction, finding any jury exposure to extra-record material harmless. However, the court vacated the sentence, including the forfeiture and restitution orders, holding that the district court erred by enhancing the sentence based on potential earned time credits and rehabilitation program eligibility, misapplied sentencing enhancements without adequate findings, and failed to properly calculate forfeiture and restitution by including legitimate business revenue. The case was remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. James" on Justia Law

The defendant pled guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition after a felony conviction. At sentencing, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York imposed a term of imprisonment followed by supervised release. During the sentencing hearing, the court orally imposed several “special” conditions of supervised release, as recommended in the presentence report, but did not specify or discuss any “standard” or additional discretionary conditions. The court also stated that the defendant would not be required to contribute to the cost of mental health services, contrary to a recommendation in the presentence report. However, the written judgment later included not only the special conditions but also thirteen additional discretionary “standard” conditions of supervised release, as well as a requirement that the defendant contribute to mental health service costs.After sentencing, the defendant appealed, arguing that his constitutional right to be present at sentencing was violated because the thirteen discretionary conditions were not pronounced in his presence, and that the written judgment’s requirement to pay for mental health services contradicted the oral sentence. Both parties agreed that the payment requirement should be eliminated due to this inconsistency.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting en banc, reviewed the case de novo. The court overruled its prior precedent in United States v. Truscello, which had allowed non-mandatory “standard” conditions to be added to the written judgment without oral pronouncement. The Second Circuit held that all non-mandatory conditions of supervised release, including those labeled as “standard” in the Sentencing Guidelines, must be pronounced in the defendant’s presence at sentencing. The court vacated the portions of the sentence imposing the thirteen discretionary conditions and the payment requirement, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Maiorana" on Justia Law

Armistice Capital, LLC and its client fund held warrants to purchase shares in Vaxart, Inc., a biotech company developing an oral COVID-19 vaccine. Stephen J. Boyd, Armistice’s Chief Investment Officer, served on Vaxart’s board. The warrants included “blocker provisions” limiting Armistice’s ownership to 4.99% and 9.99% of Vaxart’s shares. Boyd requested that Vaxart’s board amend these provisions to allow Armistice to own up to 19.99%. The board, with full knowledge that Boyd and another director were Armistice representatives, unanimously approved the amendment. Shortly after Vaxart announced its vaccine’s selection for a federal study, Armistice exercised the warrants and sold its shares, allegedly realizing an $87 million profit.Andrew E. Roth, a Vaxart shareholder, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that Armistice and Boyd, as statutory insiders, violated Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act by engaging in a prohibited short-swing transaction. Roth sought disgorgement of the profits to Vaxart. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that even if a short-swing transaction occurred, they were exempt from liability under SEC Rule 16b-3(d) because the Vaxart board had approved the transaction with knowledge of all material facts. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the exemption applied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision de novo. The Second Circuit held that the exemption under SEC Rule 16b-3(d) applied because the transaction involved the acquisition of issuer equity securities by insiders, those insiders were directors at the time, and the transaction was approved in advance by the issuer’s board with full knowledge of the relevant relationships. The court affirmed the District Court’s judgment, holding that the defendants were exempt from Section 16(b) liability under Rule 16b-3(d). View "Roth v. Armistice Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

Joanne Sudakow entered into a contract with CleanChoice Energy, Inc. to purchase electricity. The initial agreement, which she accepted in October 2021, did not include an arbitration clause and specified that New York would be the exclusive venue for any lawsuits. About three weeks after the contract was executed, CleanChoice sent Sudakow a “Welcome Package” containing new terms, including an arbitration provision, but Sudakow did not sign or otherwise expressly assent to these new terms. She continued to pay for her electricity service until she terminated it in August 2022.Sudakow later filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging breach of contract and deceptive business practices by CleanChoice. CleanChoice moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provision in the subsequently mailed terms. The district court denied the motion, finding that Sudakow did not have sufficient notice of the arbitration provision and had not assented to it.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration de novo. The Second Circuit held that Sudakow was not bound by the arbitration provision because CleanChoice failed to provide clear and conspicuous notice of the new terms, and a reasonable person would not have understood that making payments constituted assent to those terms. The court also found that the language of the subsequent terms indicated that a signature was required for assent, which Sudakow never provided. Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment denying CleanChoice’s motion to compel arbitration. View "Sudakow v. CleanChoice Energy, Inc." on Justia Law

A New York State Police trooper stopped Daniel Delgado for erratic driving and discovered that his license was suspended. During an inventory search of his vehicle, the trooper found a loaded “ghost gun” and ammunition, which Delgado admitted belonged to him. Delgado had several prior convictions, including a felony conviction for attempted second-degree murder in Florida, where he had shot a man in the back. Delgado was indicted for possessing ammunition after a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and pleaded guilty without a plea agreement.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Delgado’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and to dismiss the indictment, finding that § 922(g)(1) did not violate the Second Amendment. At sentencing, the court determined that Delgado’s prior Florida conviction for attempted second-degree murder was a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a), resulting in a higher base offense level. Delgado was sentenced to thirty months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He timely appealed, challenging both the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) and the classification of his prior conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It held that Delgado’s constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1) was foreclosed by its recent decision in Zherka v. Bondi, which reaffirmed the statute’s constitutionality after New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. The court also held that Florida’s offense of attempted second-degree murder is categorically a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines, as it requires an intentional act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Delgado" on Justia Law

Investors who purchased shares of a fitness equipment company between February 2021 and January 2022 alleged that the company and several executives misled the public about the ongoing demand for its products and the state of its inventory following the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, demand for the company’s products surged, but plaintiffs claimed that by early 2021, demand had declined as gyms reopened. Plaintiffs asserted that the company concealed this decline and continued to assure investors that demand remained strong and that supply chain investments were necessary. Their allegations were supported by statements from numerous former employees who described declining sales, missed quotas, and growing excess inventory.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the case after the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege any actionable material misstatements or omissions. The court determined that most statements were either protected forward-looking statements, non-actionable puffery, or consistent with the company’s actual financial results. The court also found that the confidential witness accounts were anecdotal and did not reflect the company’s overall performance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that most of the challenged statements were not actionable, either because they were not materially false or misleading, or because they constituted non-actionable puffery. However, the Second Circuit found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged actionable misstatements or omissions regarding the company’s characterization of a price reduction as “absolutely offensive” and its risk disclosures about excess inventory in certain SEC filings, which may have been misleading because the risks had already materialized. The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal as to these statements and remanded for further proceedings, while affirming the dismissal of claims based on other statements. View "City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Peloton Interactive, Inc." on Justia Law

Several groups of plaintiffs sought to access approximately $3.5 billion in assets held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the name of Da Afghanistan Bank (DAB), the central bank of Afghanistan. The first group, the Pre-Judgment Plaintiffs, sought to confirm a pre-judgment attachment order on these funds to secure potential future judgments against the Taliban for its alleged role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa. The second group, the Judgment Plaintiffs, who already held judgments against the Taliban for its role in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, sought turnover of the same funds to satisfy their judgments. The assets in question were blocked by the U.S. government after the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan in August 2021, but the United States has not recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Valerie E. Caproni denied the Pre-Judgment Plaintiffs’ motion to confirm the attachment, finding that DAB’s funds were immune from attachment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Judge George B. Daniels denied the Judgment Plaintiffs’ turnover motions, concluding that the FSIA and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA) did not permit turnover of the funds, and that DAB was not an agency or instrumentality of the Taliban for TRIA purposes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed both district court orders. The court held that DAB, as the central bank of Afghanistan, is an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state recognized by the Executive Branch, and thus its assets are immune from attachment and execution under the FSIA. The court further held that while the TRIA abrogates FSIA immunity and provides an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction, DAB was not an agency or instrumentality of the Taliban at the time the assets were blocked. Therefore, the TRIA did not apply, and the plaintiffs could not access the funds. View "Havlish v. Taliban" on Justia Law