Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  12475-12481 displayed

1  1781 1782 1783 1784 1785  3627

---

Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP

Bruce Lymburn Earns LEED Professional Accreditation
Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP Partner Bruce Lymburn recently earned the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Accredited Professional (AP) status. As one of the few attorneys in the nation to earn this distinction, Lymburn is now able to assist clients with green building design and construction, as well as with the LEED application and certification process.

“Bruce’s commitment to sustainable building practices and environmental law is unprecedented. Bruce is also general counsel for Clif Bar & Co., and as a LEED AP, he is poised to guide Clif Bar through the development of ‘Cliftopia’ – the company’s new headquarters in Alameda,” said Howard Lind, managing partner for Wendel Rosen. “Further, Wendel Rosen was the first Bay Area law firm to earn its green certification and it is only fitting that we should be home to one of the first LEED accredited attorneys in the nation.”

With more than 20 years of real estate and business law experience, Lymburn is a founding member and head of the firm’s green business practice group, as well as a member of the firm’s business, land use and real estate groups. As a real estate and land use lawyer, Lymburn has represented property owners, real estate developers, contractors and public agencies in hundreds of transactions. Lymburn was a member of the Board of Directors for Generation Earth, a nonprofit corporation that organized the United Nations Environment Day in 2005. He received his J.D. from the University of California, Boalt Hall School of Law (1982) and a B.A. in Earth Sciences and Environmental Studies from the University of California, Santa Cruz (1979).

Lymburn earned his accreditation by passing an examination that tested his understanding of green building practices and principles. The LEED AP exam was launched in 2001 to recognize, through accreditation, individuals’ understanding of green building practices and principles, as well as familiarity with LEED requirements, recourses and processes. A LEED AP is an individual who has taken and passed the exam and possesses the knowledge and skills necessary to participate in the design process, to support and encourage integrated design, and to streamline the application and certification process.

01-03-2007

---

Weltman, Weinberg & Reis, Company

Collections & Credit Risk Rates Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. Largest Collections Law Firm in the U.S.
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. (WWR) is pleased to announce that it has once again been rated as the largest collections law firm in the country, based on revenues, by Collections & Credit Risk magazine. Collections & Credit Risk is a SourceMedia publication covering the collection and debt-buying businesses in the commercial and consumer market. Every few years, the magazine publishes its industry rankings of the top collection agencies, law firms and debt buyers. WWR was first rated the largest collections law firm in the country back in 2003.

WWR was founded over 75 years ago and provides comprehensive collection and legal services to clients across a range of industries. The firm has undergone rapid growth in the past six years. Between 2000-2004, WWR opened four new offices in Chicago, Grove City (OH), Burlington (NJ) and Philadelphia. WWR staff has nearly doubled from 530 employees in 2000 to over 1000 employees in 2006. According to the Collections & Credit Risk ranking, in 2005, WWR reported a staff of 295 collectors and over $63 million in revenues.

Alan Weinberg, Managing Partner of WWR, said, “I believe we have been able to maintain our position as the largest collections firm in the country because we are willing to grow in direct response to our clients’ needs. Over the last few years, we’ve opened offices in different cities in order to be in closer proximity to our clients. Our core business of collections is as strong as ever, and we have made significant investments in our personnel and support systems to maintain our leadership position. In the past two years, we have also expanded our service offerings in order to match the needs of the marketplace. Recently, we’ve started to offer our clients assistance in specialized practice areas through our Corporate & Financial Services Group, handling everything from regulatory compliance to employment law to contract negotiation to secured transactions to banking law. We have also increased our representation of community banks, city, state & municipal governments and public utilities. We have strengthened the firm’s presence in our footprint states and have started to provide greater national coverage.

01-03-2007

---

Vedder Price Kaufman Kammholz

Vedder Price Victorious Before the Illinois Supreme Court
In a victory for Vedder Price clients St. John Heart Clinic, S.C. of Chicago and its founder, Dr. John Monteverde, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the enforceability of physician restrictive covenants. Upholding the First District Appellate Court’s reversal of the denial of a motion for preliminary injunction in the matter of Jyoti Mohanty, M.D. and Raghu Ramadurai, M.D. v. St. John Heart Clinic, S.C. and John Monteverde, M.D., No. 101251, the Illinois Supreme Court’s opinion of December 21, 2006 was its first examination of the enforceability of physician restrictive covenants in more than forty years. During that time, changes in the medical practice environment, the Illinois Supreme Court’s prohibition on similar covenants among lawyers, and the opinions of lower Illinois courts, as well as their treatment in other jurisdictions, had led some to question the continued viability of physician restrictive covenants in Illinois.

Drs. Mohanty and Ramadurai, both employees of St. John Heart Clinic, resigned and brought actions for declaratory judgment seeking to void restrictive covenants within their employment contracts. After temporary restraining orders where entered against the physicians, the Circuit Court denied St. John’s motion for a preliminary injunction on the ground that a restriction against the practice of medicine was overbroad where the physicians in question were primarily engaged in the practice of cardiology. The Appellate Court reversed, holding the covenants reasonable in scope and enforceable. Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, S.C., 358 Ill.App.3d 902, 832 N.E.2d 940 (1st Dist. 2005). The former employees appealed.

Drs. Mohanty and Ramadurai offered three grounds for reversal of the Appellate Court’s instruction that a preliminary injunction be entered against them: (1) all restrictive covenants in physician employment contracts should be held void as against public policy; (2) the employer’s alleged prior breach of contract relieved them from their obligations under their contracts; and (3) the covenants were overbroad in scope.

In support of their argument that all physician restrictive covenants should be deemed void as against public policy, Drs. Mohanty and Ramadurai relied upon two grounds. First, they argued that Dowd & Dowd v. Gleason, 181 Ill. 2d 460 (1998), wherein the Court invalidated restrictive covenants among attorneys should be applied to physicians. Second, they argued that the Court should adopt the American Medical Association’s (AMA) published position against physician restrictive covenants. The Supreme Court rejected both arguments finding that whereas the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct provided the Court in Dowd a clear expression of Illinois’ public policy upon which to invalidate attorney restrictive covenants, the AMA’s non-binding advisory opinion, which provides that physician covenants should be reasonable in scope, was neither a binding expression of public policy nor substantially different from the reasonableness inquiry traditionally utilized by Illinois courts in examining restrictive covenants. The Court concluded that any change in Illinois law to prohibit physician restrictive covenants must emanate from the legislature, rather than the courts.

The Court also rejected appellants’ claim that a prior breach of contract by their employer negated their own obligations to perform. Relying principally on the record evidence provided by St. John’s Medicare billing expert, the Court concluded that no material breach of contract by St. John was established, and thus the employees’ obligations under the contract remained in full force and effect.

Lastly, the Court rejected appellants’ contention that the covenants were overbroad. Observing that the temporal and geographic limitations imposed on the former employees fell well within the range of established precedent, the Court held that the physicians’ primary specialty, cardiology, was “inextricably intertwined with the practice of medicine.” A restriction against the practice of medicine, therefore, was not greater than necessary to protect the St. John’s interests.

Although opinion is divided within the medical community over the fairness and value of physician restrictive covenants, the Court’s lengthy opinion is of significant value in that it provides clarity and certainty to medical providers in their future business and contractual dealings.

01-03-2007

---

Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan LLP

Six Smith Anderson Lawyers Elected as Fellows of the American Bar Foundation
Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP (Smith Anderson) is pleased to announce that the following partners were elected to become Fellows of the American Bar Foundation:

* Rosemary G. Kenyon (Employment)
* Byron B. Kirkland (Corporate)
* Kimberly J. Korando (Employment)
* Michael W. Mitchell (Litigation)
* Susan Milner Parrott (Employment)
* Gerald F. Roach (Corporate)

The Fellows of the American Bar Foundation is an honorary association of attorneys, judges and law professors whose professional, public and private careers have demonstrated outstanding dedication to the welfare of their communities and to the highest principles of the legal profession. Established in 1952, the American Bar Foundation is an independent, nonprofit organization committed to the advancement of justice through research on law, legal institutions and legal processes. Fellows are elected by the Board of the American Bar Foundation upon the nomination of other Fellows. Membership in the Fellows is selective, and is limited to only one-third of one-percent of lawyers licensed in each state. Members include prominent judges, a Nobel Prize winner, a well-known author and others notable by their achievements.

We congratulate our selected lawyers and take pride in their recognition, as well as their many contributions to the legal profession and to our community.

Other Smith Anderson lawyers previously elected as Fellows include James D. Blount, Jr., James K. Dorsett III, John L. Jernigan and Henry A. Mitchell, Jr. Mr. Mitchell currently serves as State Chair of the Fellows.

01-03-2007

---

Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan LLP

Merrill Mason and Mike Saber Selected as Judges for the Duke University "Start-Up Challenge"
For the second consecutive year, Smith Anderson partners Merrill Mason and Mike Saber were selected to judge the Duke "Start-Up Challenge."

The Duke Start-Up Challenge provides an opportunity for Duke University students to learn how to formulate a viable business concept. In this three-phase, six-month competition, teams develop plans that encompass all aspects of a business including concept, technology, marketing, management, market research, financials and execution. The top 5 finalists advance to the third and final phase. Judges selected for their business knowledge provide constructive feedback to the competitors throughout the entire competition and determine the teams that advance and eventually win. Over $100,000 is awarded in prize money.

This 8th annual event will culminate in an awards ceremony on April 14th. Upcoming competition events include:

* February 8th - A workshop on "How to Raise Money"
* Feburary 9th - Full business plans from competitors due
* March 26th - A workshop on "Disrupting the Marketplace"
* March 28th - Revised business plans from competitors due
* April 14th - Panel presentations, trade show and awards ceremony

Mr. Mason and Mr. Saber both practice corporate and securities law. Mr. Mason represents emerging and entrepreneurial companies and focuses his practice on venture capital; securities; mergers and acquisitions; intellectual property; and general corporate matters. Mr. Saber focuses his practice on the formation, financing and general representation of public and private growth and technology companies and closely held businesses. Combined, they have over 35 years experience practicing corporate law.

01-03-2007

---

Schnader Attorney At Law

Schnader Welcomes Three New Partners in San Francisco
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP is proud to welcome three new attorneys to the Firm’s San Francisco, California office: Gregory C. Nuti, Kevin W. Coleman and Christopher H. Hart. All three attorneys, who joined the Firm on January 2, 2007 as partners, were previously with McNutt & Litteneker, which specializes in insolvency work. All three have worked together as a team at McNutt & Litteneker for the past five years.

“We are really pleased to welcome Greg, Kevin, and Chris aboard,” said Leo Murphy, Managing Partner of Schnader San Francisco. “I think that their experience, talent, and skill are a tremendous addition to Schnader – particularly their background in finance and bankruptcy work – and, I think each of them will be a wonderful complement to our office’s transactional practice, as well as to the Firm’s Financial Services and Litigation practice groups respectively.”

The addition of Mr. Nuti, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Hart in San Francisco reflect Schnader’s on-going effort to pursue strategic, calculated growth, and build upon the Firm’s traditional strengths of complex litigation and commercial transactions, while also adding to the Firm’s expertise in critical areas of the law. The new attorneys in San Francisco, together with several new additions last fall – including five new attorneys in New York one new attorney in Pittsburgh – support the Firm’s interest in providing comprehensive services for its clients, adding key areas of expertise in each of its offices.

Mr. Nuti is a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley (B.A. 1986) and of Santa Clara University School of Law (J.D., magna cum laude, 1990). He represents creditors, debtors, trustees and Chapter 11 creditors committees involving all aspects of commercial bankruptcies, including the reorganization process and resulting litigation. Before joining McNutt & Litteneker, he was a partner at Severson & Werson, PC, in San Francisco, where he specialized in representing financial institutions, asset-based lenders, mortgage companies and mortgage servicers in litigation and distressed business situations. He has successfully litigated and administered diverse litigation stemming from large corporate bankruptcies, ranging from personal injury claims, to WARN Act class actions, to multi-million dollar complex commercial disputes. He also has experience negotiating and documenting lending transactions and enforcing commercial agreements, including franchise agreements. Along with Mr. Coleman, Mr. Nuti will be joining the Firm’s Business Services Department, in the Financial Services Group.

Mr. Coleman graduated from New York University (B.A. 1988) and from Boston College Law School (J.D., 1993). He served as a law clerk to the Honorable Mitchel R. Goldberg of the United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, from 1993-94, and as a law clerk to the Honorable Lynne Riddle of the United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, from 1994-95. Prior to joining McNutt & Litteneker, Mr. Coleman was associated with Rosenblum, Parish & Isaacs, PC, and Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLP. He has extensive experience in both litigation and transactional aspects of distressed business environments, primarily in the areas of telecommunication and technology company insolvencies. He will be joining the Firm’s Business Services Department, in the Financial Services Group.

Mr. Hart is a graduate of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (B.A. 1992) and McGeorge School of Law (J.D. 1996). He was associated with Severson & Werson, PC, before he joined McNutt & Litteneker. He has represented a variety of technology companies on intellectual property matters, as well as contract and licensing disputes. Additionally, he has represented financial institutions in consumer-related litigation, unfair business practices claims, and a variety of other matters including advising on compliance with state and federal disclosure and consumer protection laws, the Uniform Commercial Code, fair debt collection, fair lending and fair credit reporting statutes. Mr. Hart will be resident in the Litigation Department, joining the Business Litigation Group.

01-03-2007

---

Saul Ewing, LLP

FEDERAL JUDGE APPROVES STIPULATION TEMPORARILY PROHIBITING ENFORCEMENT OF PROPOSED SRBC REGULATIONS
A federal district court has approved, pending further order of court, a stipulation that prevents the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) from enforcing new regulations. On December 29, 2006, the stipulation and order were entered in a lawsuit filed by Saul Ewing Partner Michael A. Finio on behalf of Pennsy Supply, Inc. The suit seeks to permanently enjoin enforcement of the SRBC?s proposed new regulatory scheme.

Among other things, the proposed regulations are attempting to impose a fee on entities for the ?consumptive use? of water on their own private properties. In addition, water withdrawals and diversions will also be subject to far-reaching regulations, and the ability to rely on SRBC permits when businesses change hands will be put in jeopardy. The adverse economic impact of these regulations is estimated to be in the multiple millions of dollars, and will affect hundreds of businesses, communities and individuals in the Susquehanna River Basin, which geographically covers significant portions of Pennsylvania, New York and Maryland. Even users of public water sources are potentially impacted.

The lawsuit alleges that the regulations were not properly enacted, in terms of following procedures for notice, public hearings and input. It also alleges that the regulations contain constitutional defects and exceed the powers granted to the SRBC in the Susquehanna River Basin Compact, which is the law approved by Congress in the early 1970s after being signed jointly by the United States, Pennsylvania, Maryland and New York.

The lawsuit, originally filed on December 22, 2006, in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, is only the second lawsuit brought against the SRBC in its 36 year history. ?We believe the proposed regulations violate the law in a number of different ways,? Mr. Finio said. ?The SRBC issued these regulations without sufficient public input and the regulations themselves present serious and excessive obstacles to the legal and reasonable use of water resources owned by Pennsy and other businesses in the Basin.

On December 27, the parties met in the chambers of U.S. District Court Judge William Caldwell, where their discussions resulted in the stipulation that led to the December 29 order. The new regulations had been scheduled to take effect January 1, 2007, but their enforceability is now on hold, pending the outcome of a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for January 17, 2007. ?These regulations impact all water users in the Susquehanna River Basin,? Mr. Finio said. ?This is a significant piece of litigation because it attacks both the truncated process used to develop the regulations, and the fact that their content far exceeds the SRBC?s powers. Water users throughout the Basin ought to be very, very concerned about the outcome of this lawsuit.?

The SRBC is a governmental entity formed to regulate water users in the Susquehanna River Basin, which feeds into the Chesapeake Bay. The SRBC is charged with coordinating the efforts of three states and the federal government to manage the use of the water and related natural resources of the Susquehanna River.

01-03-2007

---

25383 matches |  12475-12481 displayed

1  1781 1782 1783 1784 1785  3627