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 Fraud
- Tax Violations
- Trials and Evidentiary Rulings
- Vagueness
- Venue
- White Collar Crime
- Wire Fraud
Filter By Industries:
Firm Highlights
Firm News
Firm Obtains Dismissal of Patent Infringement Lawsuit on Behalf of American Express
On July 6, 2026, the firm achieved the dismissal with prejudice of a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Loyal-T Systems LLC ("Loyal-T") against American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc. ("Amex") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The lawsuit was initially filed by Loyal-T in May 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, accusing Amex of infringing two related patents claiming methods of administering loyalty point programs. The accused system included features allegedly practiced in Amex's Membership Rewards loyalty point program and Amex’s Plenti Rewards program. The firm filed a motion to dismiss or transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New...
Publication
Retention of Bankruptcy Professionals: Court Concludes that a Debtor’s First Cousin Is Not a “Relative” and Thus Not an “Insider”
A professional seeking to represent a debtor under Bankruptcy Code section 327(a) must not hold an interest adverse to the bankruptcy estate and must be disinterested.
A debtor’s insiders often cannot satisfy these tests. The Bankruptcy Code defines “insider” to include a “relative” of the debtor. And a “relative” is someone related to the debtor “within the third degree as determined by the common law."
What does this latter phrase mean and how is it applied?
To continue reading Daniel A. Lowenthal's article in The Bankruptcy Strategist, please click here.
Firm News
Firm Tops The American Lawyer's 2026 Pro Bono Scorecard with Number 1 Ranking
Patterson Belknap has been recognized with a number 1 ranking in The American Lawyer's 2026 Pro Bono Scorecard. These rankings assess pro bono efforts among Am Law 200 firms and are based on the average number of pro bono hours per lawyer and the percentage of lawyers performing 20 or more pro bono hours in 2025.
The Scorecard highlights the firm's “intense focus” on pro bono work, with an average of 185.7 hours per lawyer and 85.1% of firm lawyers doing more than 20 hours of pro bono. The article includes commentary from Pro Bono Chair, Michael F. Buchanan, on the firm’s commitment to both impact litigation and pro bono work that has an impact on people's lives, such as access to health care,...
Publication
IRS Clarifies Application of the Non-Profit $1 Million Tax Post-OBBBA
The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) released Notice 2026-36 (Notice of Intent to Issue Regulations under Section 4960), (the “Notice”) relating to the tax on executive compensation under Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) Section 4960, as modified by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (the “OBBBA”). The Notice clarifies the IRS’s interpretation of the changes the OBBBA made to Section 4960.
Background
Prior to the passage of the OBBBA, Section 4960 of the Code imposed a 21% excise tax on remuneration paid to “covered employees,” which included the top five (5) highest compensated employees of a tax exempt organization (with a “once-in-always-in” rule that swept in any individuals who were previously in the “top five” for tax years beginning after December 31, 2016)....
Blog Post
Regulation E-Delivery: SEC Proposes to Make Electronic Communication the Default
On July 16, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a proposed rule to broaden many financial market participants’ use of electronic communications with investors and others who receive information pursuant to federal securities laws.[1]
Referred to as “Reg E-Delivery,” the new rule aims to help issuers and others who disseminate SEC-required information transition away from delivering paper documents, a communication method the Agency pointed out imposes “unnecessary costs and expenses” while “no longer reflect[ing] the preference of most investors.”[2]
Commenting on the proposed rule, Chair Atkins stated:
The world has changed dramatically since many of our rules were first adopted. But, all too often, our regulatory framework has remained static. … In an age of artificial intelligence and blockchain technology, a...
Blog Post
Bankruptcy Court Decides Issue of First Impression Concerning Code Section 365(h)
When a debtor that is a landlord rejects a real property lease in bankruptcy, the tenant has a choice. Either the tenant can treat the lease as terminated or retain its rights under the lease. These rights include the use, possession, quiet enjoyment, subletting, and hypothecation of the property.
In a recent case, the parties and the court grappled with this question: when does the tenant need to make that decision? When the lease is rejected, or by some other date? Interestingly, neither the court nor the parties found case law on this issue. It was one of first impression. In re All Star Props., LLC, No. 25-41314, 2026 Bankr. LEXIS 1461 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. June 15, 2026).
The debtor owns...
Firm News
Firm Amicus Brief Plays Key Role in U.S. Supreme Court Dissent
Patterson Belknap submitted an amicus brief that played a significant role in Justice Sonia Sotomayor's June 29, 2026 dissent in Trump v. Slaughter. The brief was filed on behalf of legal historians Noah A. Rosenblum and Nathaniel Donahue, arguing that the concepts "quasi-legislative" and "quasi-judicial" as used in Humphrey's Executor had long histories in American law and provide workable definitions to guide the Court's review of congressional limitations.
In the dissent, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown-Jackson, cited the brief extensively. Justice Sotomayor relied on the brief to explain that the concepts were well-established well before the Humphrey's decision, and were used by many political figures and by courts developing a “quasi-judicial” category for officers whose duties resembled a judge’s.
To read the amicus brief, please...
Event
Amy Vegari to Speak at American Conference Institute's Women Leaders in Life Sciences Law Conference
On Wednesday, July 29, Partner Amy Vegari will speak on a panel at the American Conference Institute's Women Leaders in Life Sciences Law Conference titled "Navigating the New Fraud and Abuse Landscape: Key Trends, Landmark Cases, and Compliance Lessons from the Last Year." Ms. Vegari will join firm alumna Jacqueline Bonneau (Senior Counsel, Commercial Litigation, Johnson & Johnson), Peena Patel (Senior Associate General Counsel, Abbvie), and Lisa Re (Partner, Arnold & Porter) for a discussion examining recent trends in False Claims Act litigation, potential fraud risks for life sciences companies, and the new frontier of enforcement.
To learn more, please click here.
Publication
Not Over Yet?: Drug Manufacturers Eye Potential Circuit Split on Federal Drug Pricing Program
The Inflation Reduction Act’s Drug Price Negotiation Program has been the subject of litigation since Congress passed it in 2022 in an effort to curb the cost to Medicare of brand-name pharmaceutical drugs. These challenges—initiated in federal court by major pharmaceutical manufacturers—have largely been unsuccessful, rejected in both federal district and appeals courts in the Second and Third Circuits, with writs of certiorari uniformly denied by the U.S. Supreme Court.
But all hope is not yet lost for pharmaceutical manufacturers’ opposition to the DPNP. A few challenges remain pending in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia and Fifth Circuits, with the latter signaling potential receptiveness to the manufacturers’ positions at oral argument.
To continue reading Amy Vegari and...
Blog Post
Supreme Court Reaffirms Disgorgement in Sripetch, But Jury Question Looms
In our January 2026 post, Supreme Court to Clarify the SEC’s Disgorgement Powers, we previewed the Supreme Court’s decision to take up Sripetch v. Securities & Exchange Commission,[1] a case in which defendants sought to pare back the SEC’s authority to seek disgorgement.
The case resolves a circuit split that arose in the wake of Liu v. SEC.[2] In Liu, the Court sought to clarify the SEC’s ability to impose the penalty of disgorgement, ruling that disgorgement was available as equitable relief, but to avoid transforming an equitable remedy into a punitive one, “the remedy [is restricted] to an individual wrongdoer’s net profits to be awarded for victims.”
In response to Liu’s requirement that disgorgement be “awarded for victims,” the Second Circuit...
Firm News
Firm Obtains Dismissal of Patent Infringement Lawsuit on Behalf of American Express
On July 6, 2026, the firm achieved the dismissal with prejudice of a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Loyal-T Systems LLC ("Loyal-T") against American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc. ("Amex") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The lawsuit was initially filed by Loyal-T in May 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, accusing Amex of infringing two related patents claiming methods of administering loyalty point programs. The accused system included features allegedly practiced in Amex's Membership Rewards loyalty point program and Amex’s Plenti Rewards program. The firm filed a motion to dismiss or transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New...
Publication
Retention of Bankruptcy Professionals: Court Concludes that a Debtor’s First Cousin Is Not a “Relative” and Thus Not an “Insider”
A professional seeking to represent a debtor under Bankruptcy Code section 327(a) must not hold an interest adverse to the bankruptcy estate and must be disinterested.
A debtor’s insiders often cannot satisfy these tests. The Bankruptcy Code defines “insider” to include a “relative” of the debtor. And a “relative” is someone related to the debtor “within the third degree as determined by the common law."
What does this latter phrase mean and how is it applied?
To continue reading Daniel A. Lowenthal's article in The Bankruptcy Strategist, please click here.
Firm News
Firm Tops The American Lawyer's 2026 Pro Bono Scorecard with Number 1 Ranking
Patterson Belknap has been recognized with a number 1 ranking in The American Lawyer's 2026 Pro Bono Scorecard. These rankings assess pro bono efforts among Am Law 200 firms and are based on the average number of pro bono hours per lawyer and the percentage of lawyers performing 20 or more pro bono hours in 2025.
The Scorecard highlights the firm's “intense focus” on pro bono work, with an average of 185.7 hours per lawyer and 85.1% of firm lawyers doing more than 20 hours of pro bono. The article includes commentary from Pro Bono Chair, Michael F. Buchanan, on the firm’s commitment to both impact litigation and pro bono work that has an impact on people's lives, such as access to health care,...
Publication
IRS Clarifies Application of the Non-Profit $1 Million Tax Post-OBBBA
The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) released Notice 2026-36 (Notice of Intent to Issue Regulations under Section 4960), (the “Notice”) relating to the tax on executive compensation under Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) Section 4960, as modified by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (the “OBBBA”). The Notice clarifies the IRS’s interpretation of the changes the OBBBA made to Section 4960.
Background
Prior to the passage of the OBBBA, Section 4960 of the Code imposed a 21% excise tax on remuneration paid to “covered employees,” which included the top five (5) highest compensated employees of a tax exempt organization (with a “once-in-always-in” rule that swept in any individuals who were previously in the “top five” for tax years beginning after December 31, 2016)....
Blog Post
Regulation E-Delivery: SEC Proposes to Make Electronic Communication the Default
On July 16, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a proposed rule to broaden many financial market participants’ use of electronic communications with investors and others who receive information pursuant to federal securities laws.[1]
Referred to as “Reg E-Delivery,” the new rule aims to help issuers and others who disseminate SEC-required information transition away from delivering paper documents, a communication method the Agency pointed out imposes “unnecessary costs and expenses” while “no longer reflect[ing] the preference of most investors.”[2]
Commenting on the proposed rule, Chair Atkins stated:
The world has changed dramatically since many of our rules were first adopted. But, all too often, our regulatory framework has remained static. … In an age of artificial intelligence and blockchain technology, a...
Blog Post
Bankruptcy Court Decides Issue of First Impression Concerning Code Section 365(h)
When a debtor that is a landlord rejects a real property lease in bankruptcy, the tenant has a choice. Either the tenant can treat the lease as terminated or retain its rights under the lease. These rights include the use, possession, quiet enjoyment, subletting, and hypothecation of the property.
In a recent case, the parties and the court grappled with this question: when does the tenant need to make that decision? When the lease is rejected, or by some other date? Interestingly, neither the court nor the parties found case law on this issue. It was one of first impression. In re All Star Props., LLC, No. 25-41314, 2026 Bankr. LEXIS 1461 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. June 15, 2026).
The debtor owns...