Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  13707-13713 displayed

1  1956 1957 1958 1959 1960  3627

---

Fasken, Martineau & Du Moulin, L.L.P.

Aubrey Kauffman and Stuart Brotman join Insolvency and Restructuring practice group
Wally Palmer, Managing Partner of the Toronto office of Fasken Martineau, is pleased to welcome new partners Aubrey E. Kauffman and Stuart Brotman.

In his distinguished career, Aubrey has represented diverse interests in insolvency proceedings, including financial institutions, provincial governments, landlords, trustees, receivers, monitors, debt holders and debtor companies. He is a member of the prestigious Insolvency Institute of Canada and former Chairman of the Ontario Bar Association's Insolvency Section. Aubrey appears in the Best Lawyers in Canada 2006 Edition under the Insolvency and Financial Restructuring Section.

Stuart brings extensive experience in all manner of insolvency proceedings involving both public and private companies. He has represented a broad range of stakeholders including debtors, financial institutions, investment funds, suppliers, landlords, monitors, receivers and trustees in bankruptcy. Stuart also represents clients in corporate reorganizations and disputes relating to mergers and acquisition transactions.

"Aubrey and Stuart have worked together as a team for a number of years, both in executing mandates for clients and in their business development activities. They have strong relationships with traditional financial institution clients, trustees & receivers and non-traditional stakeholders involved in restructurings. We are pleased to have them join Fasken Martineau," noted Wally Palmer.

12-08-2006

---

Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr, L.L.P.

Craig Enoch Appointed to Judicial Districts Board by Gov. Perry
Gov. Rick Perry has announced the appointment of Craig Enoch, chair of the appellate practice group at Winstead Sechrest & Minick P.C., to the Judicial Districts Board for a term to expire Dec. 31, 2006. The Judicial Districts Board is responsible for investigating from time to time the necessity of and appropriate locations for new judicial districts and advising the legislature of its findings.

The appointment comes at the special request of the Governor because the judicial districts board must meet before the legislative session to recommend any redistricting that's needed, which has to occur this month, and the Governor's appointee, Joe Wolfe, passed away before the end of his term.

Enoch is a former justice of the Texas Supreme Court and previously served as a district and appeals court judge. He is a member of the Appellate Judges Education Institute, the American Law Institute, the Institute for Judicial Administration and the American Judicature Society. Enoch is also a member of the American, Texas and Dallas Bar foundations and serves as chair of the public affairs committee for the State Bar of Texas.

Enoch was a member of the United States Air Force Reserve before being honorably discharged.

He received his bachelor’s and law degrees from Southern Methodist University and a master of law from the University of Virginia School of Law.

12-08-2006

---

Williams, Kastner & Gibbs, P.L.L.C.

Four WK&G Attorneys Named as 2007 Rising Stars
Four Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC attorneys have been named 2007 Rising Stars by Washington Law & Politics magazine. Rising Stars are lawyers, who are under the age of 40 or have been practicing law for 10 years or less, who have been noted for excellence in the practice of law. Rising Stars are nominated and selected by Washington Law & Politics' Super Lawyers®, Washington's top lawyers as decided by their peers.

Gabe Galanda, an Associate in the Seattle office, focuses his practice on complex, multi-party Indian law and gaming litigation, representing Indian tribes. He also assists tribal governments and Alaska Native corporations with economic development and diversification initiatives, and works with corporate entities that do business in Indian country. He has now been recognized as a Rising Star in five of the last six years. Washington Law & Politics also named him as one of four Washington State Leading Edge Litigators in 2003.

Claire Hur, an Associate in the Seattle office, focuses her practice on business and commercial transactions, including corporate formation, financing transactions, commercial real estate matters, as well as general commercial litigation. She also assists gaming clients with licensing and regulatory matters. In addition, Claire advises tribal clients on various business-related matters. She was also recognized as a Rising Star in 2005.

Christopher Marks, a Member in the Seattle Office, focuses his practice on complex, multi-party civil litigation. He represents clients in both commercial and tort-related matters and serves as national trial counsel defending toxic tort claims. Christopher has been recognized as a Rising Star each year since 2001.

Lisa Wiese, Of Counsel in the Seattle Office, focuses her practice on product liability, environmental tort, health care malpractice, and personal liability defense. She has substantial litigation experience, including pre-litigation risk evaluation, motions practice, pleadings, written discovery, alternative dispute resolution, and settlement negotiations.

12-08-2006

---

Weltman, Weinberg & Reis, Company

Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. Expands Public Utilities Practice Group
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. (WWR), the nation’s largest* creditors’ rights law firm, is pleased to announce the formal expansion of its Public Utilities Practice Group (PUPG). The PUPG services include, but are not limited to, bankruptcy, litigation services, probate estate/claims recovery, and consumer/commercial collections, which includes complex collections and facility damage claims collections.

WWR provides comprehensive collection and legal solutions for public utilities through a value-added approach that integrates the filing of legal action with our recovery activity anywhere that a debtor, claim defendant or their assets may be located. Our approach involves the collection of unpaid utility service charges as well as damage recovery from third parties who negligently or recklessly damage underground or aboveground utility facilities. The PUPG partners with operations, finance and risk management personnel to offer analysis of current claims valuation methodology in order to ensure full value permitted by state law. PUPG also provides useful training for personnel who investigate claims and document liability and damages. Andrew Sonderman, William Molczan and Amanda Yurechko will head the expanded PUPG. With over 40 years of combined experience, the WWR utilities team represents the rights of public utilities in facility damage collection and litigation.

“Our services differ from traditional collection law firms because of our highly experienced staff and specially trained attorneys and paralegals who understand the requirement of One-Call statutes, common law liability and damage concepts”, said Andrew Sonderman, lead counsel for the PUPG. “WWR facility damage claims collection services are designed to maximize and accelerate public utility recoveries and leverage One-Call statute tools, with the value-added benefits of a comprehensive damage collection program audit and first-responder investigation training”, said Mr. Sonderman.

WWR has a strong history of representing local, regional and national utility companies. WWR is an associate member of the American Gas Association and understands the intricacies involved with the collection and legal representation of public utilities.

12-08-2006

---

Wade, Clark & Mulcahy, Attorneys At Law

WCM Granted Summary Judgment in New York County Property Damage Claim
Associate Tamara Mosby was granted summary judgment in a property damage case. In Sednaoui v. Cornerstone Management, the plaintiff, a property owner, suffered more than $600,000 in property damage as the result of a leaking roof. Our client, a general contractor, was targeted as a defendant because of plaintiff’s belief that his work – three years after the plaintiff first began to suffer from leak problems – exacerbated the damages.

At the close of discovery, we moved for summary judgment. We argued that since we did not cause the initial leak, any exacerbation claim would have to be proven by hard evidence that our client’s work deviated from accepted contracting norms. In opposition, plaintiff argued that there was a question of fact as to whether such a deviation existed.

12-08-2006

---

Wade, Clark & Mulcahy, Attorneys At Law

WCM Wins Summary Judgment in Middlesex County NJ Coverage Action
Senior Partner Paul Clark and associate Claudia Condruz won summary judgment in a Middlesex County insurance coverage action. In Big Hugs Inc. v. The Burlington Insurance Company, the plaintiff suffered a flood loss. It then made a first-party claim to its insurance carrier, our client.

After a round of back-and-forth discussions, the plaintiff agreed to settle its claim for $25,000 and executed a sworn proof of loss.

Subsequent to the execution of the release, Big Hugs realized that it had suffered other losses as a result of the flood that it had not placed before its insurer. Big Hugs commenced suit against its agent and insurer. Big Hugs argued that the Proof of Loss was not binding upon it and that it should be allowed to further document its loss.

At the conclusion of discovery, we moved for summary judgment. We argued that as a matter of contract law, the plaintiff’s execution of the Proof of Loss to resolve a disputed claim was a full and final resolution of the dispute. The trial court agreed with our analysis and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim against our client.

12-08-2006

---

Wade, Clark & Mulcahy, Attorneys At Law

WCM Wins Summary Judgment in Bergen County NJ Coverage Action
Partner Robert Cosgrove has won summary judgment in a Bergen County insurance coverage action. In Nautilus v. L&L Painting, the defendant was an additional insured under a policy that limited the scope of additional insured coverage to claims arising out of the named insured’s negligence. As a matter of law, our client understood this obligation to mean that its duty to defend the additional insured was triggered by the complaint, but that an indemnity duty could not arise until there was a finding of negligence against the named insured. Its assumption of the defense was therefore conducted pursuant to a reservation of rights as to its potential indemnity obligation.

The defendant contested and argued that our client’s indemnity obligation was as broad as its defense obligation. After issue was joined in the action, we moved for summary judgment.

After hearing oral argument, the trial court rejected L&L’s argument and granted out client summary judgment.

12-08-2006

---

25383 matches |  13707-13713 displayed

1  1956 1957 1958 1959 1960  3627