Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  4341-4347 displayed

1  621 622 623 624 625  3627

---

Parker & McCay, Attorneys At Law

Oren Klein Appointed to the Southern New Jersey Board of the Jewish National Fund
Parker McCay attorney Oren Klein was recently appointed to the Southern New Jersey Board of the Jewish National Fund. Mr. Klein will serve on the Board for the 2007-2008 term.

The Jewish National Fund is a non-profit organization founded in 1901 which specializes in the development of Israeli land and infrastructure. The organization develops partnerships with government and professional organizations to further cooperative relationships, conduct research, share technical expertise and obtain educational exchanges. As a board member, Mr. Klein will participate in directing these activities for the Southern New Jersey group and ensuring that the group fulfills its purpose.

Mr. Klein focuses his practice on representing the rights of creditors in both state court and federal bankruptcy proceedings with a focus on representing the interests of residential and commercial lenders in state court foreclosure matters and associated bankruptcy proceedings. He is a member of the Burlington County, Camden County, New Jersey State and American bar associations and is a member of the Bankruptcy Inn of Court.

06-19-2007

---

Lane Powell PC

Hamlin Recognized for Contributions to Oregon Association of Defense Counsel
Bruce Hamlin was recognized for his "Outstanding Contributions as Director" of the Oregon Association of Defense Counsel at the 2007 Annual Convention. Hamlin served on the Board of Directors from 2004 through 2006.

06-19-2007

---

Lane Powell PC

Nordstrom, Nike and Others Name Lane Powell a Go-To Law Firm®
In a recent survey conducted by Corporate Counsel magazine for its annual “Who Represents America’s Biggest Companies?” issue, General Counsels of Fortune 500 companies were asked to name their “go-to” law firms in a variety of practice areas. In the 2006 survey, Lane Powell was named by its client Nordstrom, Inc. as a Go-To Law Firm® for Corporate Transaction, Labor and Employment, and Litigation. In addition, the Firm was also named as a Go-To Law Firm® by Nike for Labor and Employment.

Lane Powell is one of only 648 law firms nationwide (that’s fewer than .5% of all firms in the U.S. and abroad) to be recognized with this esteemed honor.

In a 2007 survey for a reference guide distributed to in-house counsel at the nation’s leading financial services companies, Lane Powell was chosen by the following clients with respect to these practice areas:

* Prudential Financial, Inc. - Securities
* St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. - Labor and Employment
* The Navigators Group, Inc. - Litigation

Nominees for the 2007 guide were chosen from a nationwide survey, conducted by Corporate Counsel magazine, of General Counsels from leading financial services companies, in addition to in-depth research and analysis of various public filings and resources. Due to the rigorous selection process, making the final cut is considered a significant achievement.

06-19-2007

---

Ford & Harrison LLP

12 Ford & Harrison Florida Attorneys Named 2007 “Super Lawyers
John-Edward Alley, James Brown, Peter Corbin, Robert Hall, Jr., Tracey Jaensch, Edmund McKenna, Allen McKenna, William Radford, Elizabeth Rodriguez, Samuel Terilli, Jr., Kay Wolf

ATLANTA- Ford & Harrison LLP, a national labor and employment law firm, is pleased to announce that 12 of the firm’s Florida based attorneys have been named “Super Lawyers” by Law & Politics Magazine.

The following attorneys were recognized: John-Edward Alley (Tampa), James G. Brown (Orlando), Peter R. Corbin (Jacksonville), Thomas C. Garwood (Orlando), Robert D. Hall, Jr. (Tampa), Tracey K. Jaensch (Tampa), Allen J. McKenna (Orlando), Edmund J. McKenna (Tampa), William R. Radford (Miami), Elizabeth M. Rodriguez (Miami), Samuel A. Terilli, Jr. (Miami) and Kay L. Wolf (Orlando).

In addition to being named as Florida “Super Lawyers,” John–Edward Alley and Thomas C. Garwood, Jr., were also listed among the top 100 lawyers in Florida and Kay L. Wolf was named as one of the top 50 female attorneys in the State.

Attorneys are selected for this honor exclusively through peer voting. The rigorous process is designed to identify lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Only 5 percent of attorneys in the state of Florida are named “Super Lawyers.”

06-19-2007

---

The Law Firm Of Baker & Daniels LLP

Experienced FDA Lawyer Joins Baker & Daniels
James T. O'Reilly, former associate general counsel with Procter & Gamble Co., has joined Baker & Daniels LLP as counsel. As a member of the firm's life sciences practice group, he will focus on FDA, biotech, EPA, OSHA and other regulatory issues. The depth of O'Reilly's nationwide and international expertise will assist clients with inspections, compliance, product approval and liability risk issues.

At Procter & Gamble from 1974-98, O'Reilly was the company's principal regulatory counsel, working closely with internal clients and industry coalitions on EPA, FDA, regulatory agency and Congressional matters. Since 1980, he also has been on the faculty at the University of Cincinnati College of Law, teaching food and drug law, administrative law, products liability, criminal law, labor law, public sector law and systems of regulation courses.

Since 2004, O'Reilly has been an arbitrator for commercial cases with the National Arbitration Forum. Periodically, he has served as a consultant for the Congressional Office of Compliance on labor issues; Administrative Conference of U.S., Freedom of Information Act & AIDS drugs; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Internet defamation; and Federal Trade Commission on procedures.

As an arbitrator with the Ohio State Employment Relations Board from 1984-97, O'Reilly resolved more than 70 cases involving complex contract disputes between colleges, cities, school boards, sheriffs, public employee unions and others, deciding some cases with binding final orders. He was a candidate for the Ohio Court of Appeals in the 2006 election.

O'Reilly has authored a number of books, which have included FDA and other federal regulations, disclosures and warnings. He has testified before Congress on Access to Data, Regulatory Reform Act, Chemical Safety and Freedom of Information Act.

06-19-2007

---

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.

Adrian Thompson Appointed to Task Force on Commercial Dockets
Adrian Thompson, a partner in Taft's Cleveland office, has been appointed to the Supreme Court of Ohio's Task Force on Commercial Dockets.

The Task Force has been charged with determining the best method of establishing commercial civil litigation dockets which, in turn, should foster a more attractive legal environment for businesses considering whether to locate or remain in Ohio.

06-19-2007

---

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP

Supreme Court Decides IPO Antitrust Case
The Supreme Court gave Wall Street a wide exception to antitrust laws, throwing out an investor lawsuit against broker syndicates that allegedly colluded to drive up initial public offering prices during the so-called Internet bubble of the 1990s.

The ruling marks another milestone in the court's recent movement to free markets from the cost and complications of plaintiff lawsuits. The justices have aggressively interpreted congressional acts that limit shareholder lawsuits and, in recent years, have upended longstanding antitrust rules and narrowed the application of the landmark Sherman Antitrust Act.

• The Ruling: The Supreme Court threw out a lawsuit against major Wall Street firms, giving brokerages a broad exemption to antitrust laws.

• The Background: In the wake of the 1990s tech bubble, many investors alleged collusion by investment banks and sought treble damages through antitrust complaints.

• The Significance: The ruling continues a recent high-court pattern of limiting the scope of antitrust laws.

In a 7-1 decision yesterday, the court said the securities markets were a different animal than ordinary commerce and that practices that might seem to violate antitrust laws in other sectors were essential to Wall Street.

The court said the job of policing combinations among brokers rests with the Securities and Exchange Commission, whose regulators possess the expertise to distinguish permissible arrangements from illegal conspiracies.

The decision effectively shields the biggest names on Wall Street -- including Credit Suisse Group's Credit Suisse Securities, Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Morgan Stanley -- from a lawsuit that, in the words of a lower court, alleged "an epic Wall Street conspiracy" during the dot-com frenzy of the late 1990s.

While it doesn't protect those firms from shareholder suits brought under the securities laws, it does inoculate them from the 1914 Clayton Act's potent remedy: treble damages.

Data are hard to come by, but legal experts say challenges to Wall Street on antitrust grounds are rare and that the few that have come up haven't succeeded. But this case provides more certainty that antitrust challenges in the future will be more difficult for plaintiffs to bring.

Yesterday's ruling follows decisions this term that found no antitrust violation in a predatory-bidding case and tightened standards for plaintiffs filing antitrust suits.

The case related to several practices in the freewheeling market for IPOs in the 1990s. The practices all gave preferential treatment to favored investors in doling out shares in hot IPOs that often soared in price. In "laddering," Wall Street underwriters agreed to offer stock to investors at an artificially low offering price. Those investors promised to buy more stock later at higher prices, thus inflating the value of the shares after the IPO. Regulators outlawed that and other practices in 2003 after widespread scrutiny.

While bankers and brokers made millions of dollars through IPOs in dot-com ventures, many investors were not so fortunate, and in two class-action lawsuits accused 16 major investment banks and institutional investors of conspiring to inflate aftermarket stock prices for companies including Amazon.com Inc., eBay Inc. and Priceline.com Inc.

The lawsuits alleged that underwriters and institutional investors, who had first crack at the IPOs, made agreements for excessive commissions, and provided misleading analyst recommendations and "tie-in" requirements to increase prices on the securities' aftermarket, where most individual investors buy stocks.

Defendants argued that Congress implicitly exempted Wall Street from the Sherman Act by adopting securities laws overseen by the SEC. That regulatory system, they argued, differed from antitrust laws because, beyond fostering competition to benefit consumers, they also contemplate "efficiency," "capital formation" and "protection of investors."

With the huge sums, complex transactions and tremendous risks involved in the securities markets, the industry argued that it must rely on the use of syndicates, price agreements and other practices that could be illegal in other fields.

The SEC had sided with the firms it regulates, but the Justice Department advanced a compromise position, urging the justices to allow trial courts to determine if the challenged conduct was "inextricably intertwined" with securities regulation, or fell outside it and should be subject to antitrust suits.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer, preferred to draw the bright line favored by the banks and the SEC. "Financial experts, including the securities regulators, consider the general kind of joint underwriting activity at issue in this case, including road shows and book-building efforts essential to the successful marking of an IPO," Justice Breyer wrote.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the securities laws were intended to supplement, rather than replace, other remedies such as antitrust laws. Justice Anthony Kennedy didn't participate in the case and, as typical when justices disqualify themselves, offered no explanation why.

Some of the challenged practices can be manipulated to abuse the market, Justice Breyer wrote, but "only a fine, complex, detailed line separates" permissible activity from the forbidden. Allowing individual plaintiffs to sue "in dozens of different courts with different nonexpert judges and different nonexpert juries" would introduce uncertainty to the financial markets, he wrote. That risk could discourage underwriters from "a wide range of joint conduct that the securities law permits or encourages" but might nonetheless "lead to an antitrust lawsuit and the risk of treble damages."

In fact, much of the conduct at issue in the case is forbidden by the SEC, which, since the hot IPO market of the late 1990s, has brought several enforcement actions against firms in connection with manipulating stock prices in the aftermarket.

Beginning in 2003, the commission filed three complaints against Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. alleging that each of the underwriters attempted to force customers who received shares of IPOs to place additional orders once the stocks started trading. In 2005, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs each agreed to pay a $40 million penalty to settle the allegations, without admitting or denying wrongdoing, while J.P. Morgan paid $25 million in 2003 to settle its case.

06-19-2007

---

25383 matches |  4341-4347 displayed

1  621 622 623 624 625  3627