Photo of Rina Kim

Rina Kim

Subscribe to Rina Kim's Posts

M. Rina Kim is a litigation associate, focusing on complex securities and commercial litigation issues surrounding financial statements, disclosures, materiality, and investigations. She has auditing and forensic knowledge in financial statements, books and records, and complex accounting standards, and helps clients transform sophisticated financial contentions into successful resolutions.

Rina is a certified public accountant in Virginia and Washington, D.C., a certified fraud examiner and certified management accountant and a chartered financial analyst candidate. She is also a 2021 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) Pathfinder. Rina maintains an active and diverse pro bono practice, with a focus on immigration law, special education rights, and racial justice and interests. She is native in Korean and proficient in Spanish.

Prior to joining Proskauer, Rina was a manager at KPMG Forensic Services, where she worked on several financial statement audits, fraud and compliance risk assessments, internal whistleblower investigation, anti-bribery and FCPA investigations, and project management of process improvement and implementation surrounding commercial mortgage lending practices and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act compliance.

Rina is president of the Korean American Bar Association of Washington, D.C. where she has been an officer since 2012. She spearheads infrastructural framework to form a coalition of 13 KABAs to address issues on a national scale, such as refuting misleading narrative on Korean history, supporting diverse law student interests, and fighting for racial justice. She was the host committee coordinator and bilingual mistress of ceremony of the 2016 Conference of International Association of Korean Lawyers. Rina was the editor-in-chief of The George Washington International Law Review and president of The George Washington Graduate Korean Students Association. She served as a law clerk at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Enforcement and at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, Fraud Section.

Contact:Read more about Rina Kim

The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion last month in FTC v. On Point Capital Partners LLC, et al., clarifies the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s ruling in AMG Capital Management regarding the prohibition of equitable monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTCA”).

Section 13(b) of the FTCA authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to obtain a preliminary injunction and, in proper cases, a permanent injunction in federal court against any person, partnership, or corporation that the Commission believes is violating, or is about to violate, any provision of law enforced by the Commission.

On July 24, 2020, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued splintered precedential opinions surrounding the interplay of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and required joinder of parties under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a patent-in-suit infringement case in Gensetix, Inc. v. Baylor College of Medicine, et al.

Last month, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales granted permission for Eurasian Natural Resources Corp. Ltd. (“ENRC”) to appeal the May 2017 decision by the High Court[1] relating to a dispute over the legal professional privilege with the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”).[2] The Court of Appeal will likely hear the case next year.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger that even a district court’s exercise of broad discretion to impose a civil sanction for a litigant’s bad faith conduct has to be limited by a causal link.

The parties in Goodyear had reached a settlement of the underlying product liability case after several years of contentious discovery. After the settlement, however, plaintiffs, the Haegers, learned (and Goodyear, the defendant, conceded) that Goodyear had withheld certain information that the Haegers had requested early and often during the discovery stage. Accordingly, the Haegers asked the District Court to impose sanctions on Goodyear for discovery fraud. Because the parties had already settled, the only sanction available was to award the Haegers attorney’s fees and costs expended in the litigation. 

On November 17, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit published a precedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus to overturn a district court’s determination. In In re: Rearden LLC, Rearden MOVA LLC, MO2, LLC, MOVA, LLC, the defendants in the underlying case had petitioned for a writ of mandamus to challenge the district court’s order compelling them to produce allegedly privileged documents.

The question of federal court jurisdiction over arbitration proceedings has historically led to different conclusions. A few years ago, the  United States Supreme Court clarified in Vaden v. Discover Bank that Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) authorizes a federal court to “look through” to the underlying controversy to determine if there is federal court jurisdiction to adjudicate a motion compelling arbitration. Until recently, however, the “look through” approach had not been adopted by the Second Circuit for determining whether a federal court has jurisdiction to hear a motion to vacate an arbitration award.