The Supreme Court appeared divided Monday in two cases in which businesses are trying to make it harder for customers or investors to band together to sue them.
The justices heard arguments in appeals from biotech company Amgen Inc. and cable provider Comcast Corp. that seek to shut down class-action lawsuits against the businesses.
Amgen is fighting securities fraud claims that misstatements about two of its drugs used to treat anemia artificially inflated its stock price. Comcast is facing a lawsuit from customers who say the company's monopoly in parts of the Philadelphia area allowed it to raise prices unfairly.
Last year, the Supreme Court raised the bar for some class-action suits when it sided with Wal-Mart against up to 1.6 million of its female employees who complained of sex discrimination. In the Wal-Mart case, the court said there were too many women in too many jobs at the nation's largest private employer to wrap into one lawsuit.
Class actions increase pressure on businesses to settle suits because of the cost of defending them and the potential for very large judgments.
Connecticut pension funds that sued Amgen said lower courts correctly ruled that the case could move forward as a class action. The issue at the Supreme Court is whether the pension funds have to show at an early stage of the lawsuit that Amgen's claims about the safety and effectiveness of the drugs Aranesp and Epogen affected the stock price.
Several justices indicated they had no problem with the idea that, unlike in the Wal-Mart case, all the Amgen investors were in the same boat and could clear an early hurdle that tripped up the Wal-Mart employees.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Experienced Southern California Trust Administration Attorneys
Administering trustees often lack the time, resources or knowledge to personally administer a trust, and therefore may call upon legal assistance. The attorneys at Pettler & Miller have extensive experience drafting and administering trusts. They will create a properly drafted and funded trust, and ease your family’s burden when it becomes necessary to administer the directions contained in it.
Trust Administration During Incapacity
You have a trust but are unable to administer it due to incapacity. A successor trustee must be put in place to act in your behalf. Beneficiaries must be contacted and kept informed; trust assets must be gathered and invested; debts must be paid; tax returns must be filed and taxes paid; assets and/or income must be distributed for your benefit in conformity with the provisions of your trust. A host of other tasks must be accomplished.
We can help you to make order out of the affairs of the Trust and set up things so that it is properly administered.
Trust Administration After Death
After a death of one or both of the people who have established a trust, a successor trustee needs to be put in place administer it. There are various notifications and formalities which are necessary for the successor to perform his or her duties. Property titles need to be checked to ensure that they are in proper form. In some cases, assets must be allocated among sub-trusts, tax elections need to be made, and changes to the trust instrument and/or other documents may be needed. We can advise the successor trustee about all of these matters and assist in him or her taking the actions required.
Please contact our Torrance office for consultation with an attorney regarding your legal matter.Trust administration takes time and delaying any longer will do no good. For more information on how we can help, visit us at http://www.pettlermillerlaw.com/practice-areas/trust-administration or call our law office to schedule a consultation.
Trust Administration During Incapacity
You have a trust but are unable to administer it due to incapacity. A successor trustee must be put in place to act in your behalf. Beneficiaries must be contacted and kept informed; trust assets must be gathered and invested; debts must be paid; tax returns must be filed and taxes paid; assets and/or income must be distributed for your benefit in conformity with the provisions of your trust. A host of other tasks must be accomplished.
We can help you to make order out of the affairs of the Trust and set up things so that it is properly administered.
Trust Administration After Death
After a death of one or both of the people who have established a trust, a successor trustee needs to be put in place administer it. There are various notifications and formalities which are necessary for the successor to perform his or her duties. Property titles need to be checked to ensure that they are in proper form. In some cases, assets must be allocated among sub-trusts, tax elections need to be made, and changes to the trust instrument and/or other documents may be needed. We can advise the successor trustee about all of these matters and assist in him or her taking the actions required.
Please contact our Torrance office for consultation with an attorney regarding your legal matter.Trust administration takes time and delaying any longer will do no good. For more information on how we can help, visit us at http://www.pettlermillerlaw.com/practice-areas/trust-administration or call our law office to schedule a consultation.
Monday, August 6, 2012
Ind. court upholds life sentence for teen killer
The Indiana Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a sentence of life without parole for a teenager who said he wanted to be like the fictional television serial killer Dexter a few weeks before strangling his 10-year-old brother.
Andrew Conley was 17 in November 2009 when he killed his brother, Conner, while wrestling in their home near Rising Sun and dumped the boy's body in a park. He unexpectedly pleaded guilty in September 2010, averting a murder trial.
In the 3-2 ruling, the justices said Conley acted "as if nothing was out of the ordinary" after the killing. According to testimony during the five-day sentencing hearing, Conley joked with his mother and watched football the day after he killed Conner.
Conley told police he fantasized about killing people since he was in eighth grade. A few weeks before the killing, Conley told his girlfriend that he wanted to be just like the TV serial killer as they walked on the trail where he later disposed of his brother's body.
Three different psychological experts who interviewed Conley all said he was seriously mentally ill, but his appellate lawyer, Leanna Weissmann, said the judge gave too much credence to a psychologist's testimony that the teen could be a psychopath.
Andrew Conley was 17 in November 2009 when he killed his brother, Conner, while wrestling in their home near Rising Sun and dumped the boy's body in a park. He unexpectedly pleaded guilty in September 2010, averting a murder trial.
In the 3-2 ruling, the justices said Conley acted "as if nothing was out of the ordinary" after the killing. According to testimony during the five-day sentencing hearing, Conley joked with his mother and watched football the day after he killed Conner.
Conley told police he fantasized about killing people since he was in eighth grade. A few weeks before the killing, Conley told his girlfriend that he wanted to be just like the TV serial killer as they walked on the trail where he later disposed of his brother's body.
Three different psychological experts who interviewed Conley all said he was seriously mentally ill, but his appellate lawyer, Leanna Weissmann, said the judge gave too much credence to a psychologist's testimony that the teen could be a psychopath.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Eugene Criminal Defense Lawyer - Coit & Associates, P.C.
Coit & Associates, P.C., with offices in Eugene and Portland, have criminal defense lawyers acknowledged for providing the highest quality representation in the greater Eugene and Portland metropolitan locations. No matter the size or seriousness of your case, a lawyer at Coit & Associates, P.C. will aggressively tackle the case and understand its importance to you and your family. The attorneys at Coit & Associates, P.C. not only have the experience to represent you but will not back down from anyone. Their goal is to provide their clients with efficient, aggressive, and affordable criminal defense that is effective. Their attorneys care for the defendents charged with or suspected of committing crimes and will fight for you.
Call their office at (541) 685-1288 to schedule an appointment or visit us on http://www.criminaldefenseoregon.com for more information.
Call their office at (541) 685-1288 to schedule an appointment or visit us on http://www.criminaldefenseoregon.com for more information.
Florida Construction Law Attorney - Heitman Law Firm, PL.
Our law firm follows the same rules handling your case that you use on the jobsite to build your projects. Our work is Plumb Square and Level. When we say plumb, we mean that we are straight up with you. We evaluate your case and tell you where you stand legally, allowing you to make sound business decisions. Square means that we don’t cut corners in protecting our Client’s legal rights whether in drafting your contracts or handling your construction disputes.
By quality, we mean degree of excellence. Heitman Law Firm practices construction law. Mr. Heitman is an expert in construction law, board certified by the Florida Bar. He is a member of an elite group of board certified construction attorneys. In addition, Mr. Heitman is a Florida Licensed Professional Engineer, with years of experience building real world construction projects. As such, the Firm is extremely well qualified to render its clients high quality legal representation.
Heitman Law Firm has the background, training, and experience to handle every aspect of a construction project. With years of experience, Mr. Heitman has successfully drafted and negotiated multi-million dollar construction contracts and is committed to resolving construction claims on behalf of his clients. Visit www.palmbeachconstructionlaw.org for more information.
By quality, we mean degree of excellence. Heitman Law Firm practices construction law. Mr. Heitman is an expert in construction law, board certified by the Florida Bar. He is a member of an elite group of board certified construction attorneys. In addition, Mr. Heitman is a Florida Licensed Professional Engineer, with years of experience building real world construction projects. As such, the Firm is extremely well qualified to render its clients high quality legal representation.
Heitman Law Firm has the background, training, and experience to handle every aspect of a construction project. With years of experience, Mr. Heitman has successfully drafted and negotiated multi-million dollar construction contracts and is committed to resolving construction claims on behalf of his clients. Visit www.palmbeachconstructionlaw.org for more information.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Feds and Florida headed to court over voter purge
The administration of Florida Gov. Rick Scott is headed to a legal showdown with two different federal agencies over a contentious voter purge.
Florida filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Washington D.C., demanding that the state be given the right to check the names of its registered voters against an immigration database maintained by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The lawsuit came the same day that the U.S. Department of Justice announced its plan to ask a federal court to block the state from pushing ahead with removing potential non-U.S. citizens from the voter rolls. Authorities contend that the state's effort violates federal voting laws.
"Please immediately cease this unlawful conduct," wrote Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez to Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner.
But Scott himself went on national television to defend the purge and the need to sue the federal government.
Florida filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Washington D.C., demanding that the state be given the right to check the names of its registered voters against an immigration database maintained by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The lawsuit came the same day that the U.S. Department of Justice announced its plan to ask a federal court to block the state from pushing ahead with removing potential non-U.S. citizens from the voter rolls. Authorities contend that the state's effort violates federal voting laws.
"Please immediately cease this unlawful conduct," wrote Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez to Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner.
But Scott himself went on national television to defend the purge and the need to sue the federal government.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
High court limits suits under torture victim law
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that organizations may not be sued for claims they aided in torture or killings abroad under a law aimed at helping torture victims.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the court's opinion dismissing the lawsuit filed by the family of an American who died in the custody of Palestinian intelligence officers in Jericho in 1995. The family wanted to sue the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization under the Torture Victim Protection Act.
Sotomayor said the 1992 law's use of the word "individual" is persuasive evidence that only people may be sued over claims they took part in torture.
The court has already said that a second case over another, older law that has been used by torture victims won't be decided until next year.
The sons and widow of Azzam Rahim filed their lawsuit after Rahim's death while on a visit to the West Bank. The Palestinian-born Rahim was a naturalized U.S. citizen who was beaten and died in the custody of the Palestinian authorities. Three officers were jailed for their role in the case, according to a State Department report.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the court's opinion dismissing the lawsuit filed by the family of an American who died in the custody of Palestinian intelligence officers in Jericho in 1995. The family wanted to sue the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization under the Torture Victim Protection Act.
Sotomayor said the 1992 law's use of the word "individual" is persuasive evidence that only people may be sued over claims they took part in torture.
The court has already said that a second case over another, older law that has been used by torture victims won't be decided until next year.
The sons and widow of Azzam Rahim filed their lawsuit after Rahim's death while on a visit to the West Bank. The Palestinian-born Rahim was a naturalized U.S. citizen who was beaten and died in the custody of the Palestinian authorities. Three officers were jailed for their role in the case, according to a State Department report.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Boston appeals court hears gay-marriage law case
A lawyer for gay married couples argued Wednesday that a law that denies them a host of federal benefits given to heterosexual couples amounts to "across-the-board disrespect" and should be struck down as unconstitutional.
The 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, is being challenged in two cases before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The law also prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.
In arguments to the court, Paul Clement, a lawyer for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, defended the law, saying Congress had a rational basis for passing the law known as DOMA in 1996, when it appeared Hawaii would become the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize such marriages.
Clement said Congress wanted to preserve a traditional and uniform definition of marriage. He also argued that Congress has the power to define the terms used in federal statutes to distribute federal benefits.
The 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, is being challenged in two cases before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The law also prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.
In arguments to the court, Paul Clement, a lawyer for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, defended the law, saying Congress had a rational basis for passing the law known as DOMA in 1996, when it appeared Hawaii would become the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize such marriages.
Clement said Congress wanted to preserve a traditional and uniform definition of marriage. He also argued that Congress has the power to define the terms used in federal statutes to distribute federal benefits.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Proof of a Negative Not Required for Summary Judgment
The Indiana Court of Appeals has issued a decision that may have a large
impact on summary judgment practice in Indiana. In Commr. of the
Indiana Dept. of Ins. v. Black, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), the
Court essentially held that Indiana will apply the standard set forth
in Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), at least in some
circumstances.
more..
less..
Tim Black alleged that Dr. Harris and others rendered negligent care to his wife after she complained of chest pain. The negligence allegedly resulted in severe cardiac arrest and resulted in the need for a heart transplant. The medical review panel unanimously concluded that Dr. Harris failed to comply with the applicable standard of care.
After the panel decision, Black filed a petition seeking payment of $1 million from the Patient's Compensation Fund and asserted that he had settled with Dr. Harris for $250,000, thereby satisfying the qualifying amount to get to the fund. The Commissioner sought discovery of the settlement agreement but Black refused to produce it, saying it was confidential. Black did produce a copy of an unauthenticated check in the amount $250,000 from the Medical Assurance Co., made payable to Black and his counsel. Black also produced some correspondence between counsel that discussed a prospective settlement.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss the petition claiming that he needed the settlement agreement in order to make payment. It was not clear from the check whether the payment was for settlement with Dr. Harris or other defendants. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and after conducting a hearing on damages, ordered the Commissioner to pay Black $1 million. The Commissioner appealed.
In considering the motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals observed that matters outside the pleadings were submitted in support of the motion to dismiss and were relied on by the trial court. In light of this fact, the Court of Appeals, pursuant to T.R. 12(B), treated the motion as one for summary judgment. In a footnote, the court recognized that T.R. 12(B) requires that "all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such motion by Rule 56." Although no such "opportunity" was given, the court found there was "no prejudice" and proceeded to consider the appeal as a summary judgment case.
The court noted that the Commissioner's position on the motion required him to prove a negative—-that there was no settlement with Harris for $250,000. In Jarboe v. Landmark Cmty. Newspapers of Indiana, Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 1994), the Indiana Supreme Court rejected the view that a party seeking summary judgment could simply point to the opponent’s burden of proof at trial and prevail unless the non-movant produced evidence supporting its claim or defense. This ruling has for many years been perceived as being at odds with Celotex, in which the U.S. Supreme Court reached a different conclusion under the federal rules. In 2000, Justice Boehm, in dissenting from a denial of transfer in Lenhart Tool & Die, Inc. v. Lumpe, 722 N.E.2d 824 (Ind. 2000), expressed the view that a party who puts forward evidence that a non-movant will be unable to present evidence to prove an essential element of its claim or defense, should be entitled to summary judgment if the non-movant fails to present such evidence. In Black, the Court of Appeals held: "Today, we accept Justice Boehm's views on this subject expressed in his dissent."
Having adopted this new standard, however, the Court of Appeals found that in this case, based on the unauthenticated check and the settlement correspondence, there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether a $250,000 settlement on Black’s claim against Harris had been accomplished. So, the Commissioner was not entitled to summary judgment. Black was also not entitled to a judgment on his claim since it was not clear that the required settlement with Harris for $250,000 had been consummated.
The Court held that the Commissioner is entitled to discovery of the settlement agreement and that the confidentiality term in the settlement agreement would not trump the Commissioner's right to such discovery. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/Proof-of-a-Negative-Not-Required-for-Summary-Judgment
more..
less..
Tim Black alleged that Dr. Harris and others rendered negligent care to his wife after she complained of chest pain. The negligence allegedly resulted in severe cardiac arrest and resulted in the need for a heart transplant. The medical review panel unanimously concluded that Dr. Harris failed to comply with the applicable standard of care.
After the panel decision, Black filed a petition seeking payment of $1 million from the Patient's Compensation Fund and asserted that he had settled with Dr. Harris for $250,000, thereby satisfying the qualifying amount to get to the fund. The Commissioner sought discovery of the settlement agreement but Black refused to produce it, saying it was confidential. Black did produce a copy of an unauthenticated check in the amount $250,000 from the Medical Assurance Co., made payable to Black and his counsel. Black also produced some correspondence between counsel that discussed a prospective settlement.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss the petition claiming that he needed the settlement agreement in order to make payment. It was not clear from the check whether the payment was for settlement with Dr. Harris or other defendants. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and after conducting a hearing on damages, ordered the Commissioner to pay Black $1 million. The Commissioner appealed.
In considering the motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals observed that matters outside the pleadings were submitted in support of the motion to dismiss and were relied on by the trial court. In light of this fact, the Court of Appeals, pursuant to T.R. 12(B), treated the motion as one for summary judgment. In a footnote, the court recognized that T.R. 12(B) requires that "all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such motion by Rule 56." Although no such "opportunity" was given, the court found there was "no prejudice" and proceeded to consider the appeal as a summary judgment case.
The court noted that the Commissioner's position on the motion required him to prove a negative—-that there was no settlement with Harris for $250,000. In Jarboe v. Landmark Cmty. Newspapers of Indiana, Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 1994), the Indiana Supreme Court rejected the view that a party seeking summary judgment could simply point to the opponent’s burden of proof at trial and prevail unless the non-movant produced evidence supporting its claim or defense. This ruling has for many years been perceived as being at odds with Celotex, in which the U.S. Supreme Court reached a different conclusion under the federal rules. In 2000, Justice Boehm, in dissenting from a denial of transfer in Lenhart Tool & Die, Inc. v. Lumpe, 722 N.E.2d 824 (Ind. 2000), expressed the view that a party who puts forward evidence that a non-movant will be unable to present evidence to prove an essential element of its claim or defense, should be entitled to summary judgment if the non-movant fails to present such evidence. In Black, the Court of Appeals held: "Today, we accept Justice Boehm's views on this subject expressed in his dissent."
Having adopted this new standard, however, the Court of Appeals found that in this case, based on the unauthenticated check and the settlement correspondence, there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether a $250,000 settlement on Black’s claim against Harris had been accomplished. So, the Commissioner was not entitled to summary judgment. Black was also not entitled to a judgment on his claim since it was not clear that the required settlement with Harris for $250,000 had been consummated.
The Court held that the Commissioner is entitled to discovery of the settlement agreement and that the confidentiality term in the settlement agreement would not trump the Commissioner's right to such discovery. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/Proof-of-a-Negative-Not-Required-for-Summary-Judgment
Ex-head of Nigerian state admits financial crime
A former governor of Nigeria's oil-rich Delta state pleaded guilty in a
British court Monday to charges of money-laundering, conspiring to
defraud and obtaining a money transfer by fraud, officials said.
James Ibori, 49, entered his plea at Southwark Crown Court. He is to be sentenced on April 16.
Paul Whatmore of the Metropolitan Police Proceeds of Corruption Unit said Ibori's guilty pleas capped an inquiry which began in association with Nigerian anti-corruption investigators in 2005. Ibori was immune from prosecution in Nigeria between 1999 and 2007 when he was serving as governor of Bayelsa state, police said.
"We will now be actively seeking the confiscation of all of his stolen assets so they can be repatriated for the benefit of the people of Delta state," Whatmore said.
James Ibori, 49, entered his plea at Southwark Crown Court. He is to be sentenced on April 16.
Paul Whatmore of the Metropolitan Police Proceeds of Corruption Unit said Ibori's guilty pleas capped an inquiry which began in association with Nigerian anti-corruption investigators in 2005. Ibori was immune from prosecution in Nigeria between 1999 and 2007 when he was serving as governor of Bayelsa state, police said.
"We will now be actively seeking the confiscation of all of his stolen assets so they can be repatriated for the benefit of the people of Delta state," Whatmore said.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Brandy A. Hood, Esq. Joins Tully Rinckey PLLC
Exciting news reports have been circulating the talks of a Washington, D.C. and New York law firm announcing their addition to their firm. Read more for details and information on her biography and how she got started in the legal industry! We wish Ms. Hood the best of luck with Tully Rinckey PLLC.
Washington, D.C. & Albany, NY – Tully Rinckey PLLC is pleased to announce the addition of attorney Brandy Hood as an associate in its Washington, D.C. law office. Ms. Hood joins the firm’s federal sector labor and employment law practice.
Ms. Hood will provide representation to federal employees in a wide range of employment and labor issues including discrimination, sexual harassment, equal pay, adverse action, and Title VII claims. She has previous experience in immigration, bankruptcy, civil litigation, and business transactions.
Prior to joining Tully Rinckey PLLC, Ms. Hood was a Judicial Extern for Honorable Lance Africk at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and a Judicial Intern for the Honorable Frederick H. Wicker at the Louisiana Fifth Circuit of Appeal.
Ms. Hood earned her Juris Doctorate at Tulane University Law School, graduating cum laude and earning the David L. Herman Award for her high professional standards in law. In addition to her law degree, Ms. Hood holds a B.A. degree from The George Washington University.
She is admitted to practice in New York and her District of Columbia admission is pending.
For more information about Brandy Hood’s addition to Tully Rinckey PLLC or the firm’s federal labor and employment law practice, please contact Jessica Brociek at 202-787-1900 or via email at jbrociek@tullylegal.com.
Washington, D.C. & Albany, NY – Tully Rinckey PLLC is pleased to announce the addition of attorney Brandy Hood as an associate in its Washington, D.C. law office. Ms. Hood joins the firm’s federal sector labor and employment law practice.
Ms. Hood will provide representation to federal employees in a wide range of employment and labor issues including discrimination, sexual harassment, equal pay, adverse action, and Title VII claims. She has previous experience in immigration, bankruptcy, civil litigation, and business transactions.
Prior to joining Tully Rinckey PLLC, Ms. Hood was a Judicial Extern for Honorable Lance Africk at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and a Judicial Intern for the Honorable Frederick H. Wicker at the Louisiana Fifth Circuit of Appeal.
Ms. Hood earned her Juris Doctorate at Tulane University Law School, graduating cum laude and earning the David L. Herman Award for her high professional standards in law. In addition to her law degree, Ms. Hood holds a B.A. degree from The George Washington University.
She is admitted to practice in New York and her District of Columbia admission is pending.
For more information about Brandy Hood’s addition to Tully Rinckey PLLC or the firm’s federal labor and employment law practice, please contact Jessica Brociek at 202-787-1900 or via email at jbrociek@tullylegal.com.
Former Clinton Counsel Lanny Davis Forms Own Law Firm
Lanny J. Davis, a high-profile Washington lawyer who was the special
counsel to President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, is leaving McDermott
Will & Emery to form his own law firm. The new firm, Lanny J. Davis
& Associates, will specialize in general litigation issues, media
crisis and public policy issues.
“I am excited by this opportunity to offer multidiscipline, solution-oriented legal-media-legislative strategies services to U.S. and international clients,” Mr. Davis said in a statement. “I especially look forward to working with not only McDermott attorneys and clients, but also with other attorneys and law firms on high-profile litigation and regulatory matters.”
Mr. Davis, who writes a weekly column in The Hill newspaper, is a well-known figure in the world of political punditry, appearing on news programs that cater to both the right and the left. Mr. Davis also writes columns for The Huffington Post and opinion pieces for The Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Davis will continue to contribute to the Legal Crisis Strategies blog that he and his former colleague at McDermott, Eileen M. O’Connor, began in 2009, together with other former colleagues at McDermott.
“I am excited by this opportunity to offer multidiscipline, solution-oriented legal-media-legislative strategies services to U.S. and international clients,” Mr. Davis said in a statement. “I especially look forward to working with not only McDermott attorneys and clients, but also with other attorneys and law firms on high-profile litigation and regulatory matters.”
Mr. Davis, who writes a weekly column in The Hill newspaper, is a well-known figure in the world of political punditry, appearing on news programs that cater to both the right and the left. Mr. Davis also writes columns for The Huffington Post and opinion pieces for The Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Davis will continue to contribute to the Legal Crisis Strategies blog that he and his former colleague at McDermott, Eileen M. O’Connor, began in 2009, together with other former colleagues at McDermott.
The Shuman Investigates Ormat Technologies Inc.
The Shuman Law Firm today announced that it is investigating
potential breaches of fiduciary duty by certain officers and directors
at Ormat Technologies Inc.
The investigation concerns whether the Company's directors and officers caused the Company to issue materially false and/or misleading financial statements. These statements eventually resulted in the Company restating its financial results.
On February 24, 2010, Ormat disclosed that the Board of Directors and Audit Committee of the Company, upon recommendation of management and after discussions with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, had concluded that the Company's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2008 required restatement and should no longer be relied upon. The Company restated its results because it improperly capitalized costs incurred in connection with the exploration and development of certain properties that it did not plan to develop. Upon this news, the price of Ormat stock declined more than 12.81% over the three days following the disclosure of this announcement.
If you currently own shares of Ormat and are interested in discussing your rights as an Ormat shareholder, or have information relating to this investigation, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn toll free at 866-974-8626 or email Mr. Shuman at kip@shumanlawfirm.com or Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com.
The investigation concerns whether the Company's directors and officers caused the Company to issue materially false and/or misleading financial statements. These statements eventually resulted in the Company restating its financial results.
On February 24, 2010, Ormat disclosed that the Board of Directors and Audit Committee of the Company, upon recommendation of management and after discussions with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, had concluded that the Company's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2008 required restatement and should no longer be relied upon. The Company restated its results because it improperly capitalized costs incurred in connection with the exploration and development of certain properties that it did not plan to develop. Upon this news, the price of Ormat stock declined more than 12.81% over the three days following the disclosure of this announcement.
If you currently own shares of Ormat and are interested in discussing your rights as an Ormat shareholder, or have information relating to this investigation, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn toll free at 866-974-8626 or email Mr. Shuman at kip@shumanlawfirm.com or Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com.
Leading law firm named for Goldman Sachs defence
Top Wall Street law firm Sullivan & Cromwell is to take the lead
in representing Goldman Sachs against the formal investigation brought
by the Financial Services Authority.
The investment bank had already retained Sullivan & Cromwell to defend it against fraud allegations brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission and today said the legal giant would at least for now be taking charge of the FSA case.
Goldman has a long-term relationship with Sullivan & Cromwell. Fabrice Tourre, the Goldman trader named as a defendant in the SEC's civil suit, is being represented by Allen & Overy.
The investment bank had already retained Sullivan & Cromwell to defend it against fraud allegations brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission and today said the legal giant would at least for now be taking charge of the FSA case.
Goldman has a long-term relationship with Sullivan & Cromwell. Fabrice Tourre, the Goldman trader named as a defendant in the SEC's civil suit, is being represented by Allen & Overy.
Milbank Is Latest U.S. Law Firm to Set Up in Brazil
Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy LLP, a New York law firm, is
opening an office in Sao Paulo, Brazil, joining other U.S. firms that
have set up shop during the past year in Latin America’s largest
economy.
Andrew B. Janszky of New York law firm Shearman & Sterling LLP, a New York-based law firm, will head Milbank’s new office in Sao Paulo, Milbank said in a statement.
Law firms including Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, DLA Piper LLP, and Mayer Brown LLP have also set up or expanded offices in Sao Paulo in the past six months, taking advantage of an economy that may grow almost 6 percent this year.
“Milbank has developed a very strong practice in infrastructure finance, capital markets and M&A throughout Brazil,” Milbank Chairman Mel Immergut said in the statement. “In Andrew, as the head of our proposed new office, we will have an attorney who has unusual strengths in all these areas.”
Andrew B. Janszky of New York law firm Shearman & Sterling LLP, a New York-based law firm, will head Milbank’s new office in Sao Paulo, Milbank said in a statement.
Law firms including Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, DLA Piper LLP, and Mayer Brown LLP have also set up or expanded offices in Sao Paulo in the past six months, taking advantage of an economy that may grow almost 6 percent this year.
“Milbank has developed a very strong practice in infrastructure finance, capital markets and M&A throughout Brazil,” Milbank Chairman Mel Immergut said in the statement. “In Andrew, as the head of our proposed new office, we will have an attorney who has unusual strengths in all these areas.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)