In United States v. Vilar, defendant Alberto Vilar, convicted of fraud-related felonies along with codefendant Gary Alan Tanaka, moved to withdraw his direct criminal appeal so he could first pursue a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the district court, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel that left the record underdeveloped; alternatively, he sought a six-month extension to file his appellate brief. The government and Tanaka opposed the withdrawal motion, arguing it would delay proceedings, invert the standard order requiring exhaustion of direct appeals before collateral attacks, and waste resources. The Second Circuit denied the motion to withdraw, reasoning that simultaneous proceedings would not aid the direct appeal's record, could prejudice Tanaka and the government without benefit to Vilar, and that judicial economy favored proceeding with the direct appeal first. The court granted the six-month extension, finding it would not seriously prejudice the other parties.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Luisa Maldonado-Padilla, a native of Ecuador who entered the U.S. without documentation in 1994, was ordered removed in absentia after failing to appear for a hearing due to an outdated address on file, and later sought to reopen proceedings on notice and adjustment of status grounds. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the denial of reopening. Maldonado-Padilla filed a petition for review in the Second Circuit, which was the wrong venue because the underlying proceedings occurred in the Fifth Circuit. The court transferred the petition sua sponte to the Fifth Circuit under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2) and denied the motion for a temporary stay of removal pending transfer, applying the discretionary standards from Nken v. Holder and finding insufficient showing of likely success on the merits or other factors justifying a stay.

immigrationprocedure

The case involves the Republic of Ecuador and Ecuadorian citizens appealing the denial of motions to stay an arbitration initiated by Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company under a bilateral investment treaty. The underlying dispute stems from long-running claims by the citizens alleging environmental damage from Texaco's oil operations in Ecuador, which were dismissed from U.S. courts on forum non conveniens grounds and refiled in Ecuador. Ecuador argued that Chevron had waived or was estopped from arbitrating, while the citizens sought a stay on various estoppel grounds. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Ecuador's waiver and estoppel claims must be resolved by the arbitral panel itself and that the non-party citizens were not entitled to a stay based on equitable, collateral, or judicial estoppel, as there was no violation of prior court conditions or identity of issues. The court reasoned that Chevron's arbitration was consistent with its earlier representations and that any inconsistent use of an award could be addressed later in enforcement proceedings.

business & regulatoryenvironmentprocedure

This case involved a proposed class action by retirement funds alleging that MBIA committed securities fraud under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by improperly accounting for a 1998 reinsurance transaction as income rather than a loan in its SEC filings from 1998 to 2003. The district court dismissed the complaint as time-barred, finding the class was on inquiry notice of the alleged fraud by December 2002, more than two years before the April 2005 filing. The Second Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded for reconsideration of the statute of limitations analysis in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, which clarified accrual rules for such claims. The court also directed the district court to address the defendants' arguments regarding the statute of repose and the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b).

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. involved claims brought under the Alien Tort Statute by Nigerian plaintiffs against multinational oil companies for alleged aiding and abetting of human rights violations committed in Nigeria. A Second Circuit panel had previously held that corporations cannot be held civilly liable under the statute for violations of international law norms such as war crimes and crimes against humanity. The en banc court denied rehearing because an active poll produced no majority in favor of full court review. Dissenting judges argued that the panel decision created a circuit split and was likely incorrect on the issue of corporate liability under the statute, while concurring judges endorsed the panel's reasoning.

torts & liabilitycivil rights

In this case, Shemtov Michtavi, an incarcerated individual, sued the New York Daily News and Polish Daily News for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress under New York law after the papers reported that he planned to cooperate with prosecutors against an organized crime figure. The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and the Second Circuit affirmed. The court held that the statements were not defamatory as a matter of law because they would not expose Michtavi to shame or disgrace in the minds of right-thinking persons, who do not view cooperation with law enforcement negatively. The appeal focused solely on the cooperation report, as the claim regarding Michtavi's alleged role as a lieutenant was waived. Diversity jurisdiction applied, and the decision relied on precedents establishing that identifying someone as an informant is not defamatory.

torts & liability