Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  24291-24297 displayed

1  3471 3472 3473 3474 3475  3627

---

Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, LLP

Simpson Thacher Represents Blackstone in Largest Real Estate Buyout
The Firm represents The Blackstone Group in its $5.6 billion acquisition of CarrAmerica Realty Corporation, a publicly traded real estate investment trust. CarrAmerica owns, develops and operates office properties in 12 markets throughout the United States. CarrAmerica and its affiliates own, directly or through joint ventures, interests in a portfolio of 285 operating office properties, totaling 26.3 million square feet.

This transaction is the largest buyout of a public real estate company. Including this deal, the Firm has represented Blackstone in seven acquisitions of public real estate companies during the past two years, including Blackstone’s buyouts of MeriStar (announced less than two weeks ago), La Quinta, Wyndham, Boca Resorts, Prime Hospitality and Extended Stay America. These transactions have an aggregate value of more than $21 billion, with six of them exceeding $1 billion.

The transaction will be financed with $4.2 billion of mortgage and mezzanine financing. The proceeds of the financing, together with equity from Blackstone, will be used to pay the cash merger consideration and refinance existing indebtedness.

Qualified limited partners in CarrAmerica’s two “DownREIT” partnerships will be given the option to elect to receive preferred units in the surviving partnerships in lieu of the same cash merger consideration that will be paid to CarrAmerica’s common stockholders.

The Simpson Thacher team working on the transaction includes: Brian Stadler, Andrew Smith, Jason Cohen, Andra Behrouz and David King (M&A); Greg Ressa, Erik Quarfordt and Andrew Silverman (Real Estate); Andrew Keller and Marisa Stavenas (Capital Markets); John Hart, Tom Gray and Anne Goldstein (Tax); Andrea Wahlquist and Andrew O’Brien (Employee Benefits); and Adeeb Fadil and Timothy Mulvihill (Environmental).

03-07-2006

---

Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.

Fulbright Sets Another Record in Texas Rising Stars
The 2006 Texas Rising Stars, the list of outstanding young attorneys in the state published by Texas Monthly this year includes 58 Fulbright attorneys, another record-setting year for the firm. Texas Rising Stars are selected from those nominated by the Texas Super Lawyers who are asked to nominate ""the best up-and-coming attorneys they have personally observed in action.""

Attorneys nominated must be age 40 or younger or those who have practiced for 10 years or less. This elite group represents just 2.5 percent of the attorneys in Texas and it includes a broad range of practice areas, firm sizes and geographic locations.


See the complete list below of Fulbright’s Texas Rising Stars for 2006.

Graig J. Alvarez Houston Litigation

Darryl W. Anderson Houston Antitrust, Marketing & Trade Regulation; Litigation

David A. Baay Houston Health Care

Kimberly D. Bailey Houston Labor & Employment Law

Alaina King Benford Houston Litigation

Bryce Benson Dallas Litigation

Jody C. Bishop Dallas Intellectual Property

Johnathan C. Bolton Houston Bankruptcy, Reorganization & Creditors Rights

Lance R. Bremer Houston Litigation

Sean P. Brennan Dallas Business Litigation

Gino Catena Houston Intellectual Property

Jay M. Chadha Houston Tax (Employee Benefits & Trust & Estates)

Rachel Clingman Houston Litigation

David S. Cook Houston Trusts & Estates

Heather M. Corken Houston Environmental Law

Carter Crow Houston Litigation

Aimee P. Fagan Dallas Business Litigation

Jason K. Fagelman Dallas Litigation

Heather K. Fleniken Houston Litigation

Denise W. Glass Dallas Health Care

James R. Griffin Dallas Corporation, Banking & Business

Julie Hardin Houston Litigation

C. Erik Hawes Houston Litigation; Intellectual Property

Sherrard Hayes Austin Labor & Employment Law

Warren S. Huang Houston Appellate

Kelli C. Jones Houston Litigation

David B. Jordan Houston Labor & Employment Law

John F. Kapacinskas Houston Health Care

Christopher Lallo Houston Tax (Employee Benefits & Trust & Estates)

David J. Levy Houston Litigation; Intellectual Property

Edward C. Lewis Houston Environmental Law

Jennifer N. Nelson Dallas Corporation, Banking & Business

Thomas A. Nesbitt Austin Labor & Employment Law

Barclay R. Nicholson Houston Litigation

Shawn R. O’Brien Houston Tax (Employee Benefits & Trust & Estates)

Kevin O’Gorman Houston Business Litigation

Jeffrey D. Palmer Houston Litigation

Emilie K. Paterson San Antonio Litigation; Health Care

Robert Phillpott Jr. Houston Tax (Employee Benefits & Trust & Estates)

Mark A. Platt Dallas Bankruptcy, Reorganization & Creditors Rights

Andrew P. Price Houston Litigation

Carlos Rainer Jr. Houston Litigation

Rick L. Rambo Houston Litigation; Intellectual Property

Randall Richardson Houston Health Care; Health Litigation

O. Rey Rodriguez Dallas Appellate

Charles Jason Rother Houston Litigation

Carrie Platt Ryan Houston Corporation, Banking & Business

Bryn A. Sappington Dallas Corporation, Banking & Business

Kristen Savant Dallas Public Law

John N. Schwartz Dallas Bankruptcy, Reorganization & Creditors Rights

Nina Bianchi Skinner Houston Corporation, Banking & Business

Laura Ann Smith Houston Corporation, Banking & Business

Peter A. Stokes Austin Securities Litigation & Enforcement

Davor Vukadin Houston Corporation, Banking & Business

Charles B. Walker Houston Intellectual Property

Christopher Watt Houston Litigation

Seth D. Wexler Houston Corporation, Banking & Business

Richard S. Zembek Houston Intellectual Property

Jennifer L. Zucker Houston Family Law

03-07-2006

---

Hunton & Williams, LLP

Reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002
The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of
2002 (PSIA), which authorizes the federal
pipeline safety programs, is due to expire
this year. Congress will begin the reauthorization
process on March 16, 2006, at
10:00 am before the House Subcommittee
on Highways, Transit, and Pipelines,
which is within the House Transportation
& Infrastructure Committee chaired by
Rep. Don Young (R-AK). The chairman of
the Subcommittee is Rep. Thomas Petri
(R-WI). The meeting will take place in
room 2167 of the Rayburn House Office
Building in Washington D.C. and is open
to the public.
This first oversight hearing will review
the progress of pipeline safety since the
passage of the PSIA. The witness panel
for the meeting will include representatives
from the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
the Department of Transportation
Inspector General, the Government
Accountability Office, and the National
Transportation Safety Board. The
Association of Oil Pipe Lines and the
American Petroleum Institute will present
Mike Mears of Magellan Midstream
Partners to testify on behalf of the liquid
pipeline industry. The Interstate National
Gas Association of America and the
American Gas Association will also
provide testimony for the natural gas
transmission and distribution industries.
Additional witnesses may include the
Pipeline Safety Trust, the Danielle Smalley
Foundation, Lois Epstein of Cook Inlet
Keeper, the Council on Environmental
Quality and the National Association
of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
PHMSA has made reauthorization of the
Pipeline Safety Act a high priority and will
likely seek to show Congress the progress
it has made in its safety programs. See
Hunton & Williams News Alert, GAO
Assesses OPS Enforcement Program,
July 2004 http://www.hunton.com/files/
tbl_s47Details/FileUpload265/788/
GAO_Alert.pdf.
Oil industry representatives are hopeful
that Congress will recognize the decreasing
trend in pipeline incidents, injuries,
and fatalities and conclude that there is no
need for major changes to federal pipeline
safety programs. Pipeline safety advocates
and industry groups are hoping
for a quick and easy reauthorization of
federal pipeline safety programs, but
some of the issues that will likely be
addressed may complicate the process.
The topics for consideration may
include:
‡ pipeline security and infrastructure
expansion issues;
‡ government authority to act in times
of emergencies, such as natural
disasters and terrorist attacks;
‡ coordination of permits for pipeline
repairs, which may include a review
of PHMSA’s efforts to improve
communication and cooperation
between pipeline operators and
regulatory agencies;
‡ the statutory mandate that gas
transmission pipeline operators
re-inspect pipelines every seven
years;
‡ review of OPS enforcement activity
to address concerns from pipeline
safety advocates that OPS is
not using its penalty authority as
a deterrent to prevent pipeline
accidents from occurring;
‡ expanding high-consequence
areas (HCA) to include historical
and cultural areas, public lands,
and fishable waters, which would
require pipeline operators to more
frequently test pipelines that travel
through these areas;
‡ providing more public information
on siting and maintenance of
pipelines in communities;
‡ new regulations on gathering lines;
and
‡ establishing a deadline for
instituting an integrity management
program for gas distribution
pipelines.
Hunton & Williams’ attorneys have
extensive knowledge and experience
with the oil and gas pipeline industry.
We are following the reauthorization
proceedings closely and will maintain
status reports on our website at http://
www.pipelinelaw.com/ with updated
information as the reauthorization
process continues. We are available
to answer your questions and concerns
about the federal pipeline safety
programs and their reauthorization by
Congress.

03-07-2006

---

Hunton & Williams, LLP

No Recovery For September 11 Shutdown Under Civil Authority Provision, Says Virginia Supreme Court
In the first high-court decision in the nation
concerning civil authority coverage for the
9/11 terrorist attack, the Virginia Supreme
Court reversed a trial court and entered
final judgment in favor of PMA Capital
Insurance Company (“PMA”), holding
that there could be no recovery for loss
sustained as a result of the grounding
of planes and closure of Washington
National Airport. PMA Capital Ins. Co. v.
US Airways, Inc., et al., No. 051179 (Va. S.
Ct. March 3, 2006). The Virginia Supreme
Court held that the trial court “essentially
re-wrote the Policy” by failing to honor
the words of the insurance contract and,
thus, erred in finding that policyholder US
Airways, Inc. could recover its claimed
losses under the insurance contract.
Specifically, the Supreme Court found it
was error for the trial court to not offset
US Airways’ claimed insurance loss
with amounts previously received by the
airline pursuant to the government’s post-
September 11 airline bail-out legislation,
the Air Transportation Safety and System
Stabilization Act (“Stabilization Act”).
Background
On September 11, 2001, following
the attack on the World Trade Center
and Pentagon, the Federal Aviation
Administration (“FAA”) closed the national
airspace, prohibiting any non-military
aircraft from flying. The Metropolitan
Washington Airports Authority also
evacuated Washington National Airport
(“National Airport”), after learning that
United Flight 93 was headed toward
Washington. The FAA ground stop
continued until September 13, 2001, and
the National Airport closure continued until
October 4, 2001. The shut down cost US
Airways millions of dollars in lost revenue,
some of which US Airways sought to
recover under the civil authority section of
its commercial property insurance policy.
PMA denied US Airways’ claim based on
several provisions in the contract, including
the trigger of coverage provisions of
the civil authority coverage extension and
the contract’s Salvages and Recoveries
provision. US Airways filed a declaratory
judgment action in the Circuit Court for
Arlington County, Virginia. On crossmotions
for summary judgment, the trial
court ruled in favor of US Airways that
proceeds US Airways received pursuant to
the Stabilization Act should not reduce any
recovery US Airways might receive under
the insurance contract. The trial court
later bifurcated the damages portion of
the trial, and, following a bench trial of the
coverage issues, ruled that US Airways’
claim triggered coverage under the insurance
contract. The parties then stipulated
Contacts
McLean Office
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 1700
McLean, VA 22102
Walter J. Andrews
(703) 714-7642
wandrews@hunton.com
Lon A. Berk
(703) 714-7555
lberk@hunton.com
Edward J. Grass
(703) 714-7649
egrass@hunton.com
Paul E. Janaskie
(703) 714-7538
pjanaskie@hunton.com
Robert R. Lawrence
(703) 714-7561
rlawrence@hunton.com
Washington DC Office
1900 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Neil K. Gilman
(202) 955-1674
ngilman@hunton.com
John W. Woods
(202) 955-1513
jwoods@hunton.com
Atlanta Office
Bank of America Plaza, Suite 4100
600 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30308
Lawrence J. Bracken II
(404) 888-4035
lbracken@hunton.com
New York Office
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Robert J. Morrow
(212) 309-1275
rmorrow@hunton.com
Sarhana Livingston of the firm’s
McLean office drafted this Alert.
to the amount of any damages and PMA
appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court.
The Virginia Supreme Court’s
Decision
The Virginia Supreme Court reversed
the trial court’s decision and entered
final judgment in favor of PMA, finding
that the insurance contract required
amounts recovered by US Airways
under the Stabilization Act be applied
to reduce the amount of US Airways’
claimed loss. US Airways received $310
million under the Stabilization Act, but
only claimed a loss of $58 million, and
only $25 million of that claimed loss
could be recovered under the terms of
the insurance contract, which contained
policy limits of $25 million. Accordingly,
if the Stabilization Act proceeds are
applied first to reduce US Airways’
claimed loss, the loss reduces to zero.
The contract’s Salvages and Recoveries
provision provides:
All salvages, recoveries, and
payments, excluding proceeds
from subrogation and underlying
insurance recovered or received
prior to a loss settlement under
this policy shall reduce the loss
accordingly.
According to the Virginia Supreme
Court, the Salvages and Recoveries
provision must be applied according
to its plain and unambiguous terms.
Further, each term used in the provision
must be afforded meaning, and no
two terms can be afforded the same
meaning. Contrary to these rules, the
trial court’s decision only addressed
and applied the term “payments” from
the Salvages and Recoveries provision,
but did not afford meaning to the term
“recoveries.” The trial court, using the
Black’s law dictionary definition of payment
(“the fulfillment of a promise, or
the performance of an agreement”), had
determined that the funds US Airways
received from the federal government
were not payments and therefore they
would not offset US Airways’ alleged
loss. The Supreme Court agreed with
PMA and held that the trial court’s failure
to also give meaning to the term recoveries
was error. The Court then gave
meaning to the term recoveries and concluded
that the monies received by US
Airways under the Stabilization Act were
indeed recoveries since those amounts
were a “restoration of something lost or
taken away.” This, the Court explained,
was consistent with the very purpose of
the Stabilization Act which, as explained
by the Court, was to “compensate air
carriers for . . . losses incurred . . . as a
result of the terrorist attacks . . ..”
Thus, having concluded that the trial
court failed to give meaning to all of the
words chosen by the contracting parties,
the Court concluded that “the trial court
essentially re-wrote the Policy and made
a new contract between PMA and US
Airways [and that][i]t was error to do so.”
The Court also concluded that because
US Airways had recovered $310 million
under the Stabilization Act, and because
that figure far exceeded the $58 million
in claimed losses and the $25 million
policy limit under the contract, US
Airways could not possibly recover
under the contract. Remand, therefore,
was unnecessary and final judgment
was entered.
Implications
The Virginia Supreme Court’s decision
in this case brings the final result in the
US Airways dispute in line with the decisions
from every other court that has
considered the availability of business
interruption coverage for economic loss
resulting from the grounding of aircraft
on September 11. Every other court
in the nation to address this issue has
found against coverage or recovery
despite any variations in pertinent policy
language. Applying this and the other
similar decisions to future disputes,
the unique importance of this decision
may be its application and logic regarding
other payments received by the
policyholder and how such payments
may apply, depending on the contract
language, to reduce the policyholder’s
recoverable loss. In the wake of recent
national disasters and the government
and private assistance that has been
provided to many entities that are also
policyholders, this is an issue for insurers
to consider carefully.
If you have questions about this Alert
or another insurance coverage matter,
please contact any of the attorneys
listed on this communication.

03-07-2006

---

Hogan & Hartson LLP

Northern Virginia Lawyer Discusses Why Every Company Needs to Think of Itself as an IP Company
NORTHERN VIRGINIA, March 7, 2006 — Hogan & Hartson L.L.P. partner Kenneth Hautman was selected by the speaker board of ReedLogic as a leader in the intellectual property practice area and was a keynote speaker for The Intellectual Property Leadership Conference: Top Partners on Winning Legal Strategies & Best Practices for Success. Kenneth presented on the topic, "Every company is an intellectual property company — Every company needs to think of itself as an intellectual property company and identify and monetize these valuable IP assets.

03-07-2006

---

Hogan & Hartson LLP

Hogan & Hartson Adds Tax Team to its Expanding Paris Office
PARIS, March 7, 2006 – The international law firm Hogan & Hartson L.L.P. announced today the further expansion of its Paris office with the addition of French tax partner, Hervé Bidaud.

Bidaud has been an international tax partner in France since 1988, first with Archibald Andersen and most recently with Fidal Société d’avocats, where he managed international tax matters for the French network. He has extensive experience advising French and international corporations on the fiscal aspects of inbound and outbound transactions, with a particular focus on worldwide tax planning, group restructurings, mergers and acquisitions, and joint ventures.

At Hogan & Hartson, Bidaud will focus his practice on French and international tax matters, with a particular emphasis on cross-border operations. He is joined by tax associate Edouard Lalos, and will continue to build the Paris tax team.

The addition of tax capabilities to the Paris office is another key step in Hogan & Hartson’s expansion in the French capital. Bidaud’s arrival follows a string of high-profile appointments during the last 12 months, including corporate partner Jean-Marc Franceschi, employment partners Dominique Mendy and Thierry Meillat, and competition partner Michel Debroux.

William J. Curtin, III, strategic development partner for the Paris office said, “Hervé’s substantial tax experience in domestic and cross-border mergers and acquisitions is an important addition to our growing presence in Paris. His diverse tax knowledge will add depth to the services we provide to our French and international clients. We are very excited to have Hervé with us.”

Commenting on his move, Hervé Bidaud said, “I am delighted to be a part of this firm’s strategic growth in Paris. Hogan & Hartson already has a leading tax practice in major commercial centers of the world. I am eager to be joining a firm that demonstrates unparalleled commitment to the collegial practice of law and to client services.”

Hervé Bidaud is a member of the bar Hauts de Seine. He has been a professor of tax law for many years at Ecole Superieure des Sciences Economiques et Commerciales (ESSEC) and the author of numerous books and chapters on international tax law and law firm management.

03-07-2006

---

Morrison & Foerster, LLP

MoFo China Closed US$128M Investment for Warburg Pincus
A cross-office MoFo China team lead by Tien-yo Chao and Xiaohu Ma in Hong Kong has closed a substantial investment by a Warburg Pincus fund in GOME Electrical Appliances Holdings Ltd., a leading Hong Kong Stock Exchange-listed electronics retailer in China. The transaction is structured as a subscription of five-year, 1.5% convertible bonds with a principal amount of US$125,000,000, issued at par, and (ii) warrants, issued for US$3M, to purchase new shares valued at US$25,000,000. If fully exercised, Warburg Pincus would become a 9.7% shareholder of GOME for a total investment of US$153M.

03-07-2006

---

25383 matches |  24291-24297 displayed

1  3471 3472 3473 3474 3475  3627