Second Circuit Criminal Law Blog
Categories / Search
Search Blog
Filter By Categories:
- Acquittal
- Appellate Procedure
- Bail Proceedings
- Conspiracy
- Conviction Error
- Cybercrimes/Technology
- DOJ Policy
- Due Process
- Evidentiary Rulings
- Expert Testimony
- FCPA
- Fifth Amendment
- Forfeiture
- Fourth Amendment
- Grand Jury
- Guidelines
- Guilty Plea
- Habeas Corpus
- Hearsay
- Honest Services Fraud
- Immigration
- Ineffective Assistance
- Insider Trading
- Internal Investigations
- Jurisdiction and Procedure
- Juror Misconduct
- Mandatory Minimums
- Maritime Law
- New Trial
- Newly Discovered Evidence
- Obstruction of Justice
- Plea
- Plea Agreements
- Politics
- Procedural Reasonableness
- Qualified Immunity
- Reasonableness Review
- Recusal
- Restitution
- Ripeness
- Rule 11
- Sarbanes-Oxley
- Scienter
- Second Amendment
- Section 2255
- Securities Fraud
- Sentencing
- Sentencing and Eighth Amendment
- Sixth Amendment
- Speedy Trial
- Statutory Interpretation
- Sufficiency
- Supervised Release
- Tax Violations
- Trials and Evidentiary Rulings
- Vagueness
- Venue
- White Collar Crime
- Wire Fraud
Filter By Industries:
Category: FCPA
Show All CategoriesFirm Highlights
Blog Post
AI Companies Find Value in Bankrupt Companies
Spirit Airlines filed for bankruptcy in November 2024 and, after emerging from bankruptcy, filed again in August 2025. During the second case, the company tried to find a way to keep the airline in business but to no avail. In May 2026, Spirit Airlines pivoted towards a wind-down and ceased operations.
This summer, as a part of its wind-down, Spirit Airlines began marketing its remaining assets. It had plenty of traditional assets to sell. For example, the debtors’ bid procedures motion filed in May 2026 listed the following assets: takeoff and landing slots at LaGuardia Airport; aircraft hangar(s); corporate headquarters; training center; multi-family residential buildings; ground service equipment; spare engines; flight simulators; aircraft maintenance equipment; and assets related to the...
Blog Post
Fees Recoverable by Oversecured Creditors in Bankruptcy: The Application of Code Sections 506(b) and 502(b)
Bankruptcy Code section 506(b) entitles an oversecured creditor to post-petition interest and reasonable fees and other charges. Are a creditor’s pre-petition charges also subject to a court’s view of what is reasonable?
Courts are split on this issue. A judge in New York recently explained why, in his view, reasonableness is not the right standard for the pre-petition portion of a claim. Pre-petition charges should be determined by applicable state law and not a judge’s analysis of what is reasonable. In re 1300 Desert Willow Road, LLC, No. 25-11375, 2026 WL 2088511 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jul. 20, 2026).
The debtor is a single-asset real estate company. The creditor had loaned the debtor $20 million secured by a mortgage on real property. The debtor...
Blog Post
You Win Some and Lose Some: Judge Liman Decides Competing Motions to Compel
On September 4, 2026, District Judge Lewis J. Liman (S.D.N.Y.) granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Lashify, Inc.’s (“Lashify”) motion to compel discovery and denied Defendants Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a UCoolMe and Vivicute Limited’s (“UCoolMe”) motion to compel. Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Network Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 25-cv-4183 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 4, 2026).
Lashify’s Motion to Compel
Lashify moved to compel UCoolMe to provide responses to discovery requests relating to: (i) product samples and raw materials; (ii) manufacturing; (iii) employees and supply chain; (iv) marketing; and (v) finances. Id. at *2. The Court found that each of those topics were relevant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) and that UCoolMe did not sufficiently respond to discovery requests related to...
Publication
Supreme Court Declines to Revisit “Undue Hardship” Standard in Religious Accommodations Cases
On October 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a request by a group of Washington firefighters for further clarification as to whether employers accused of illegally denying religious accommodations pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”) must show that the requested workplace adjustments present an actual hardship. Petersen et al. v. Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue et al., No. 25-1210. The Court’s denial of the petition for certiorari signals a vote of confidence from the Justices in their landmark 2023 Groff v. DeJoy decision, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), which heightened the previous “de minimis” standard for employers’ showing of undue hardship in cases of denied religious accommodations requests.
Religious Accommodations and Undue...
Publication
U.S. Department of Education Formally Reverts to Title IX Rules from 2020
On September 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education (the “ED”) published a Final Rule, “Recodification of Title IX Rules,” formally removing the 2024 Title IX Rule from the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) and restoring the provisions of the 2020 Title IX Rule, with a few exceptions.[1] The 2026 Title IX Rule took effect upon publication. For most schools, colleges, and other recipients of federal education funding, the 2026 Rule does not change day-to-day obligations, because the 2020 framework has governed since early 2025. It does, however, close a chapter of litigation and set the stage for further regulatory action.
As we reported in our February 6, 2025 Alert, a federal district court vacated the entirety of the 2024...
Firm News
Firm Attorneys Honored by The Legal Aid Society at 2026 Pro Publico Awards
On October 7, 2026, The Legal Aid Society honored Of Counsel David Dykhouse and Associates Kimberly Black and Jillian Horowitz at its annual Pro Bono Publico Awards Ceremony. The Pro Bono Publico Award recognizes pro bono partners for their outstanding contributions to advancing equal justice for New Yorkers.
Mr. Dykhouse, Ms. Black, and Ms. Horowitz were honored for their work representing a group of tenants in connection with a real estate group’s bankruptcy filing. Prior to its bankruptcy, the group owned 93 different properties with over 5,000 residential units. The tenants lived in unsafe and unsanitary conditions due to real estate group’s years of neglect. Patterson Belknap filed an objection to the group’s proposed sale of its real estate portfolio, asserting that the...
Publication
Data Sale In Spirit Bankruptcy Raises Novel Privacy Risks
In August 2025, Spirit Airlines filed its second bankruptcy less than a year after its first. Although the company tried to find a way to keep the lights on, in May 2026, Spirit Airlines pivoted toward liquidation in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
Though asset sales are routine practice in large Chapter 11 cases like Spirit Airlines, in this case, the debtors' proposed sale of assets has raised novel data privacy questions that the law may not be ready to answer.
To continue reading Daniel A. Lowenthal and Kimberly Black's article on this topic, please click here.
Blog Post
Delaware Bankruptcy Court Crafts Test Concerning Post-Confirmation “Related-To” Jurisdiction
The filing of a bankruptcy case creates an estate consisting of the debtor’s legal and equitable property. The estate will continue until the debtor’s confirmed plan of reorganization or liquidation goes effective. It will then terminate, and the property will either revest in the reorganized debtor or be transferred to another entity such as a post-confirmation liquidation trust.
Now and then, bankruptcy judges face this issue: after plan confirmation, when can a liquidation trustee assert state law claims in a lawsuit filed in the bankruptcy court?
In terms of a bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the question can be articulated this way: when can a bankruptcy court have post-confirmation related-to jurisdiction over such claims under 28 U.S.C. section 1334?[i]
A bankruptcy judge...
Firm News
Firm Lawyers Honored for Pro Bono Work by New York County Lawyers Association
On Tuesday, October 20, 2026, the New York County Lawyers Association (NYCLA) recognized three firm attorneys for achievements in connection with their pro bono work.
Shelley Attadgie was recognized for her work related to the State Central Registry (SCR) Project. Ms. Attadgie represented a client in connection with a petition to amend and seal a report entered against them in the SCR by the Administration for Children's Services. Ms. Attadgie prepared the client for his hearing testimony before an Administrative Law Judge, drafted and collected supporting evidence, cross-examined the Agency’s witness, and assisted the client with his direct testimony. Following the two-day hearing, the finding of maltreatment was amended to unfounded and sealed, removing a significant barrier that had impacted the client...
Firm News
Law360 Spotlights Firm’s Litigation Department
Joshua Goldberg, Partner and Chair of the firm’s Litigation Department, was profiled by Law360 on the hallmarks of the department, including its trial-ready mindset and commitment to zealous advocacy. The feature also highlights the firm’s single-office operation as a key strength, along with its unique clerkship hiring model, focus on talent development, strategic lateral recruiting, and diverse litigation practice offerings.
The profile is featured in Law360’s Litigation Daily and New York Pulse.
To read the full profile, please click here.
Blog Post
AI Companies Find Value in Bankrupt Companies
Spirit Airlines filed for bankruptcy in November 2024 and, after emerging from bankruptcy, filed again in August 2025. During the second case, the company tried to find a way to keep the airline in business but to no avail. In May 2026, Spirit Airlines pivoted towards a wind-down and ceased operations.
This summer, as a part of its wind-down, Spirit Airlines began marketing its remaining assets. It had plenty of traditional assets to sell. For example, the debtors’ bid procedures motion filed in May 2026 listed the following assets: takeoff and landing slots at LaGuardia Airport; aircraft hangar(s); corporate headquarters; training center; multi-family residential buildings; ground service equipment; spare engines; flight simulators; aircraft maintenance equipment; and assets related to the...
Blog Post
Fees Recoverable by Oversecured Creditors in Bankruptcy: The Application of Code Sections 506(b) and 502(b)
Bankruptcy Code section 506(b) entitles an oversecured creditor to post-petition interest and reasonable fees and other charges. Are a creditor’s pre-petition charges also subject to a court’s view of what is reasonable?
Courts are split on this issue. A judge in New York recently explained why, in his view, reasonableness is not the right standard for the pre-petition portion of a claim. Pre-petition charges should be determined by applicable state law and not a judge’s analysis of what is reasonable. In re 1300 Desert Willow Road, LLC, No. 25-11375, 2026 WL 2088511 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jul. 20, 2026).
The debtor is a single-asset real estate company. The creditor had loaned the debtor $20 million secured by a mortgage on real property. The debtor...
Blog Post
You Win Some and Lose Some: Judge Liman Decides Competing Motions to Compel
On September 4, 2026, District Judge Lewis J. Liman (S.D.N.Y.) granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Lashify, Inc.’s (“Lashify”) motion to compel discovery and denied Defendants Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a UCoolMe and Vivicute Limited’s (“UCoolMe”) motion to compel. Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Network Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 25-cv-4183 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 4, 2026).
Lashify’s Motion to Compel
Lashify moved to compel UCoolMe to provide responses to discovery requests relating to: (i) product samples and raw materials; (ii) manufacturing; (iii) employees and supply chain; (iv) marketing; and (v) finances. Id. at *2. The Court found that each of those topics were relevant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) and that UCoolMe did not sufficiently respond to discovery requests related to...
Publication
Supreme Court Declines to Revisit “Undue Hardship” Standard in Religious Accommodations Cases
On October 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a request by a group of Washington firefighters for further clarification as to whether employers accused of illegally denying religious accommodations pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”) must show that the requested workplace adjustments present an actual hardship. Petersen et al. v. Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue et al., No. 25-1210. The Court’s denial of the petition for certiorari signals a vote of confidence from the Justices in their landmark 2023 Groff v. DeJoy decision, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), which heightened the previous “de minimis” standard for employers’ showing of undue hardship in cases of denied religious accommodations requests.
Religious Accommodations and Undue...
Publication
U.S. Department of Education Formally Reverts to Title IX Rules from 2020
On September 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education (the “ED”) published a Final Rule, “Recodification of Title IX Rules,” formally removing the 2024 Title IX Rule from the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) and restoring the provisions of the 2020 Title IX Rule, with a few exceptions.[1] The 2026 Title IX Rule took effect upon publication. For most schools, colleges, and other recipients of federal education funding, the 2026 Rule does not change day-to-day obligations, because the 2020 framework has governed since early 2025. It does, however, close a chapter of litigation and set the stage for further regulatory action.
As we reported in our February 6, 2025 Alert, a federal district court vacated the entirety of the 2024...
Firm News
Firm Attorneys Honored by The Legal Aid Society at 2026 Pro Publico Awards
On October 7, 2026, The Legal Aid Society honored Of Counsel David Dykhouse and Associates Kimberly Black and Jillian Horowitz at its annual Pro Bono Publico Awards Ceremony. The Pro Bono Publico Award recognizes pro bono partners for their outstanding contributions to advancing equal justice for New Yorkers.
Mr. Dykhouse, Ms. Black, and Ms. Horowitz were honored for their work representing a group of tenants in connection with a real estate group’s bankruptcy filing. Prior to its bankruptcy, the group owned 93 different properties with over 5,000 residential units. The tenants lived in unsafe and unsanitary conditions due to real estate group’s years of neglect. Patterson Belknap filed an objection to the group’s proposed sale of its real estate portfolio, asserting that the...