Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  21505-21511 displayed

1  3071 3072 3073 3074 3075  3627

---

Hall & Evans, L.L.C.

13th ANNUAL RAILROAD LIABILITY SEMINAR -- Andrew Carafelli
On July 19th, 2006 Andrew Carafelli gave a presentation to the 13th Annual Railroad Liability Seminar, focusing on employment issues with respect to pre-employment inquiries, discrimination claims and retention policies. Mr. Carafelli also addressed new liability issues such as "negligent assignment " claims, now being faced by several railroads.

07-19-2006

---

Richardson & Patel, LLP

R&P Obtains Plaintiff Verdict in Quiet Title Action
On July 19, 2006, senior R&P litigation associate Albert Liou, who served as lead trial counsel, obtained a plaintiff verdict after a 3 day trial in a quiet title action brought by an elderly couple who unknowingly lost title to their family home to a good friend. R&P won on claims to cancel and rescind the deed, based on lack of capacity and no valid delivery.

07-19-2006

---

Labaton, Sucharow & Rudoff, L.L.P.

Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Zale Corporation
Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP filed a class action lawsuit on July 19, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Zale Corporation (“Zale” or the “Company”) (NYSE: ZLC) between February 18, 2005 and May 5, 2006, inclusive, (the “Class Period”). The lawsuit was filed against Zale and Mary L. Forte, Mark R. Lenz, Cynthia T. Gordon and Sue E. Gove (“Defendants”).

If you are a member of this class you can view a copy of the complaint and join this class action online at http://www.labaton.com/get/?case=zale.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the impact of artificially inflating the market price of Zale securities. Unbeknownst to investors, the representations in the Company’s reported results of operations materially overstated Zale’s net cash flows and free operating cash flows, which are important measures of the Company’s cash generating abilities. In addition, the Company improperly accounted for extended service agreements, leases and accrued payroll.

On April 10, 2006, before the open of regular trading, the truth began to emerge as Zale announced that the SEC had initiated a broad investigation into many aspects of the Company’s accounting, operations and disclosure practices, including Zale’s accounting for extended service agreements, leases and accrued payroll, executive compensation and severance, earnings guidance, stock trading and the timing of vendor payments. In reaction to this announcement, the price of Zale stock fell from $27.80 per share on April 7, 2006 to $25.16 per share on April 10, 2006, the following trading day for a one-day loss of 11.5% on unusually heavy volume. Then on Friday, May 5, 2006, after the market closed, Zale announced that it had replaced its Chief Financial Officer, Defendant Lenz, after discovering that the Company improperly inflated its reported net cash flows and free cash flows. In response to the announcement, the price of Zale stock dropped by $0.44 per share to close at $24.18 per share on May 8, 2006, and by another $0.40 per share between May 8, 2006 and May 9, 2006, as the market continued to digest the information.

Plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP. Labaton Sucharow is one of the country’s premier national law firms that represent individual and institutional investors in class action, complex securities and corporate governance litigation. The firm has been a champion of investor rights for over 40 years and has been recognized for its reputation for excellence by the courts.

If you bought Zale securities between February 18, 2005 and May 5, 2006, inclusive, you may qualify to serve as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff papers must be filed with the court no later than sixty days from today. If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have any questions about the lawsuit, please contact one of our representatives or Christopher Keller, Esq. at 800-321-0476.

07-19-2006

---

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP

Gibson Dunn Adds English Labor and Employment Law Capability in London
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP is pleased to announce that James A. Cox will join the firm's London office as a partner. Formerly a partner at UK law firm Ashurst, Cox focuses his practice on English labor and employment law.

""We are pleased to welcome James to the firm,"" said Ken Doran, Managing Partner of Gibson Dunn. ""His addition allows us to offer English employment law capability, another new practice area for the London office, which added local litigation capability last year when Philip Rocher joined the firm from Clifford Chance.""

Doran added, ""The firm is fully committed to building its international platform. In the last 12 months, the firm's London headcount has grown by 58 percent to 45 lawyers.""

""James is a highly skilled lawyer and is well-regarded in the business community, particularly among the private equity houses in London. He will be an excellent addition to the office,"" said Andrew Thomas, Co-Partner in Charge of the London office. ""His addition brings employment law capability in-house to the firm and provides valuable support on the sophisticated cross-border transactional work that we handle.""

""I am looking forward to this new opportunity at Gibson Dunn,"" said Cox. ""The chance to build an employment practice at a major international law firm was one I could not pass up.

07-19-2006

---

Franklin, Weinrib, Rudell & Vassallo, P.C.

Seven Partners Named "Super Lawyers" Magazine lists "top attorneys in Manhattan" as chosen by their peers and through independent research
Partners Elliot Brown, Nick Gordon, Neil Rosini, Michael Rudell, Rose Schwartz and Ken Weinrib were honored as leaders in the entertainment law field, and John Vassallo as a leader in the family law field, in the inaugural issue of New York Super Lawyers/Manhattan Edition, published this month. According to the magazine, selection was based on an independent survey of 59,000 Manhattan lawyers who were asked to submit nominations. Following independent research, candidates then were divided into more than 55 practice areas and evaluated by a "blue ribbon panel of preeminent peers" in each area, with only 5% of Manhattan attorneys finally selected. The full listing of "Super Lawyers" is available at www.superlawyers.com.

07-19-2006

---

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

California Court Severely Limits Some Consumer Class Actions
For years, Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq., known as the Unfair Competition Law (""UCL""), and 17500 et seq., known as the False Advertising Law (""FAL"") were the darlings of the plaintiffs' bar because they allowed certain relief against businesses based solely on a showing that a particular business practice was ""likely"" to deceive consumers. No proof of actual deception, causation or injury was required. Moreover, any person, whether or not a victim of the challenged conduct, had ""standing"" to bring an action seeking relief on behalf of the ""general public"" and could do so without the certification of a class action and without even meeting the requirements normally required for the maintenance of a class action.

Proposition 64

In response to various abuses, California voters passed Proposition 64 in November of 2004. By that ballot initiative, the statutes, insofar as they apply to private individuals, but not to the attorney general or other law enforcement officials, were amended to limit standing to ""any person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of"" a statutory violation. Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17204, 17535. Proposition 64 also required representative actions to comply with the requirements of the class action statute: ""Any person may pursue representative claims or relief on behalf of others only if the claimant meets the standing requirements of [the respective statute] and complies with Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure [the class action statute]...."" Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17203, 17535.

Commentators have speculated whether the statutory language limiting standing to persons ""who have suffered injury in fact"" and lost money or property ""as a result of"" the violation would be read so as to require proof of actual ""reliance"" and resulting ""causation"" as has traditionally been required in common law fraud actions.

Not only would such a requirement be a dramatic departure from pre-Proposition 64 case law; it would make class action prosecution of most consumer claims under the statutes difficult, if not impossible. That is because the requirement that each class member prove that he or she relied upon the offending practice or statement, and then acted upon it to his or her detriment, would mean as a practical matter that the individualized proof issues in the lawsuit would overwhelm the common issues, making class certification inappropriate under Code of Civil Procedure section 382.

Pfizer Court Applies Class-Wide Standing Requirements

In Pfizer, Inc. v. Superior Court (filed July 11, 2006), the Second District Court of Appeal granted a peremptory writ and ordered decertification of a consumer class action brought under the UCL and FAL based on this very reasoning. The court held that the standing requirements of Proposition 64 apply not only to the named class representative seeking to bring the class action, but to every member of the proposed class itself.

Thus, a plaintiff who himself or herself meets the ""actual injury"" requirement cannot represent a class of others who were merely ""likely"" to be deceived. The court noted that a class representative's claims must be ""typical"" of those of other class members. It then reasoned that if only the class representative suffered actual injury, then by definition the class representative's claims would be atypical of the claims of other proposed class members who were merely likely to be deceived.

Although the Pfizer court said its ruling was ""without prejudice to [plaintiff] bringing a new motion for class certification"" consistent with the principles of the ruling, the opening left by the court may be more theoretical than real. By holding that the ""likely to deceive"" standard no longer applies in UCL and FAL actions, the court has eliminated the primary distinction between proving a UCL or FAL violation and proving a common law fraud claim. Common law fraud claims are often unsuitable for class treatment because proving reliance and causation as to each class member means that numerous individualized proof proceedings will be required. Thus while the language of Proposition 64 contemplates that a representative UCL or FAL claim may be appropriate if the class action requirements of Code of Civil Procedure 382 are met, the Pfizer court's ruling, if followed by other courts of appeal or ultimately by the Supreme Court, means that those requirements may seldom, if ever, be met.

Companies sued in UCL and FAL class actions now have an appellate decision they can rely upon in seeking early dismissal of those claims, whether by demurrer or by opposition to a class certification motion.

07-19-2006

---

Thelen, Reid, Brown, Raysman & Steiner, LLP

Congress Allows High-Income Taxpayers to Convert Traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs
"The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, signed by President Bush on May 17, 2006, allows taxpayers to convert regular IRA balances to Roth IRAs without regard to income limits beginning in 2010. Moreover, the income created by a 2010 conversion can be taxed in equal installments in 2011 and 2012. Many high income taxpayers may want to take action now to maximize the tax benefit.

Regular IRAs v. Roth IRAs. Contributions to regular IRAs generally are deductible; income accrues tax-free; and withdrawals are fully taxable. Contributions to Roth IRAs are not tax-deductible; income accrues tax-free; and qualifying withdrawals are exempt from tax.

At age 70½, no further contributions may be made, and withdrawals must begin from regular IRAs. Contributions may be made to Roth IRAs at any age, and no withdrawals are required before death. Roth IRAs save on estate taxes because the income tax has been prepaid.

Under current law:

Taxpayers may make tax-deductible contributions to a traditional IRA unless they or their spouse are eligible for an employer-sponsored retirement plan and their incomes exceed certain thresholds.


High-income taxpayers who are not eligible to make deductible contributions may make nondeductible contributions to traditional IRAs.


Taxpayers may make contributions to Roth IRAs if their incomes are below somewhat higher thresholds without regard to participation in employer-sponsored retirement plans.


Taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes under $100,000 may convert balances in traditional IRAs into Roth IRAs. These conversions are subject to income tax, but future income may be tax-free.

What the Act Does. Beginning in 2010, the Act allows high-income taxpayers to take advantage of Roth IRAs by converting regular IRAs into Roth IRAs. The Act also, in effect, allows Roth IRA contributions without regard to income limits. High income taxpayers can contribute to a nondeductible regular IRA each year and then immediately convert it to a Roth IRA.

What To Do Now. Although high-income taxpayers cannot convert regular IRAs to Roth IRAs until 2010, no conversion can take place unless the taxpayer has an IRA. High-income taxpayers might consider building up regular IRAs by:

Making non-deductible contributions to IRAs each year beginning now; and.


When switching jobs, moving their 401(k) account balances to IRAs instead of their new employer's plan.


Moreover, high-income taxpayers who participate in 401(k) plans that allow in-service withdrawals (from rollover accounts or because the taxpayer has attained age 59½) may want to roll their 401(k) balances into traditional IRAs in preparation for conversion

07-19-2006

---

25383 matches |  21505-21511 displayed

1  3071 3072 3073 3074 3075  3627