Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  24508-24514 displayed

1  3501 3502 3503 3504 3505  3627

---

O'Melveny & Myers, LLP

The Elephant in the Room: Litigating the Fix After Arch Coal and Dairy Farmers
O'Melveny counsel Darren Tucker recently authored the article "The Elephant in the Room: Litigating the Fix After Arch Coal and Dairy Farmers." This was the lead story in the January issue of the ABA's Antitrust Source journal. Parties to proposed mergers are seeking with increasing frequency to eliminate competitive concerns by unilaterally restructuring their transactions or selling overlapping assets to third parties. These efforts do not always eliminate the concerns of the enforcement agencies, which have challenged a number of acquisitions involving these self-help, or fix-it-first, remedies. The article reviews the state of the law of self-help remedies and offers suggestions to merging parties' considering this approach in light of recent developments.

02-02-2006

---

Morrison & Foerster, LLP

Corporate Partner Cori Allen Rejoins Morrison & Foerster’s Palo Alto Office
Morrison & Foerster LLP announced today that Cori Allen has rejoined its Corporate Group in the Palo Alto office as a partner. Mr. Allen was previously a partner at Morrison & Foerster, where he practiced from 1994-2000. He comes to the firm from BEA Systems, Inc., where he served as the Vice President of Legal Affairs.

“Cori brings with him a unique combination of legal skills and hands-on experience that will further enhance our capabilities in Silicon Valley and firmwide,” said Robert S. Townsend, Co-Chair of Morrison & Foerster’s Corporate Group. “His experience as an executive at one of the most dynamic companies in Silicon Valley will further enhance the firm’s ability to understand the issues confronting our corporate clients and offer real-world solutions to their problems. We are pleased to welcome him back to the team.”

Mr. Allen’s responsibilities at BEA included all mergers and acquisitions, Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, SEC public reporting, technology transactions, and venture capital investments. His practice focuses on securities matters, M&A, venture capital investments, general corporate counseling for publicly and privately held companies and technology licensing.

“Cori is a top-notch corporate and transactional lawyer, and his experience as in-house counsel, dealing directly with the business realities facing executives today, is invaluable,” said Keith C. Wetmore, Chair of Morrison & Foerster. “We are delighted to have him back at the firm.”

“Morrison & Foerster is a firm with exceptional quality, depth, and breadth of practice,” commented Mr. Allen. “I am very excited about working with my colleagues at Morrison & Foerster, both old and new, and look forward to growing my practice in the Palo Alto office.”

Mr. Allen was a Fulbright Scholar studying the Korean securities market in Seoul, Korea, in 1992 and 1993. He received his J.D., magna cum laude and Order of the Coif, from Cornell University in 1992 and his Bachelor’s degree from Princeton University in 1988.

02-02-2006

---

McDermott Will & Emery

PARTNER APPOINTED TO SECURITIES LITIGATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Emery partner Eugene Goldman has been appointed to the Securities Litigation Advisory Committee of the National Chamber Litigation Center (NCLC), the public policy law firm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The NCLC is a membership organization that advocates fair treatment of business in the courts and before regulatory agencies. The Securities Litigation Advisory Committee, the newest of four case selection committees whose advice NCLC seeks before initiating litigation, will provide greater depth of expertise as NCLC expands its caseload in this growing area of the law. Last year, NCLC filed amicus curiae briefs in five securities-related cases, in addition to challenging the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) mutual fund rulemaking.

"Gene Goldman is a top-notch litigator," says NCLC’s Senior Vice President Robin Conrad. “We are delighted to have the benefit of his background and expertise as we build our litigation docket in this hot-button area of the law."

Mr. Goldman, a partner in McDermott's Trial Department, is co-chair of the Firm's SEC Defense Group. He represents clients before the SEC, the NASD Regulation and the New York Stock Exchange in financial fraud, false disclosure, insider trading and other securities enforcement proceedings. Mr. Goldman also represents clients in shareholder litigation and internal investigations. He regularly counsels clients on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, with emphasis on auditor independence issues and tax and other non-audit services. Mr. Goldman previously served as senior counsel in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. He directed prosecutions in a wide variety of areas, including insider trading, undisclosed self-dealing, the sale of unregistered securities, undisclosed underwriters compensation and questionable foreign payments.

McDermott Will & Emery's SEC Defense Group is comprised of attorneys with significant experience defending clients in SEC enforcement proceedings. Several of our attorneys, including Mr. Goldman, have the valuable perspective of prior service in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. Our SEC Defense Group represents, among others, broker-dealers, investment advisers, issuers and officers and directors of such entities in various proceedings, including formal and informal investigations, federal injunction actions and administrative proceedings.

02-02-2006

---

Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, L.L.P.

Craig Authors "An Associate's Guide to Life on the Road"
Jones Walker associate Michelle Craig recently authored the article, "An Associate's Guide to Life on the Road," published in the Young Lawyer newsletter. Craig, who is a third-year associate in the Litigation Section, and resident in the Firm's Houston office, had good advice for young lawyers, " Keep a pre-packed overnight bag, pack lightly and keep a briefcase strictly for travel purposes." She had several other tips in the article to help prevent burnout. "Make choices that will help you stay healthy, keep track of expenses, and once you arrive, check out your surroundings carefully" She also advised to wrap up projects before leaving town and make sure your assistant can reach you.

02-02-2006

---

Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.

Chait Receives VLP Award
Cristina M. Chait, a partner with Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C, will be recognized for her volunteer efforts at the "For Love of Justice" luncheon ceremony presented by the Volunteer Lawyers Program on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 at the Hyatt Regency in Phoenix, Arizona.
Chait will receive the Clinic Services Attorney award from the Children's Law Center for her work arranging guardianships for underprivileged families in English and Spanish

02-02-2006

---

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer

New managing partner for Amsterdam
Steven Perrick has been appointed managing partner of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer's Amsterdam office. The appointment was effective as of 1 February 2006. Steven takes over the role from Hans Galavazi, who has held the position since January 2001. Hans will return full time to his tax practice, but continues to be involved in preparations for the relocation of Freshfields' office to the Zuid-As in Amsterdam.

Steven Perrick, who will continue to be active in his corporate practice, accepts this additional role with great enthusiasm: 'Freshfields' Amsterdam office has been very successful and continues to grow, with a great team of motivated and talented lawyers involved in high-profile and innovative work. I'm looking forward in my new role to contributing to that growth, and to building on our reputation with Dutch and international clients for outstanding legal advice and a commercial approach to the sectors they operate in.'

Profile

Steven Perrick is considered to be one of the leading corporate lawyers in the Netherlands. He is a lawyer and notary, with a broad experience in corporate and securities law. Steven advises a number of large Dutch and international corporations (amongst others in the energy sector) and focuses on mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, restructuring, capital markets, energy law and general corporate advice including corporate governance.

Steven has published numerous articles and books. He is on the editorial board of the prestigious ASSER series on civil and company law and is currently working on a number of volumes. From 1988-2002 he was a professor of securities law at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam. From 1998-2003 he was non-executive director of Reed Elsevier.

He has been a partner with Freshfields since the opening of the Amsterdam office in 1999.

Notes for editors

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer is a leading international law firm providing a comprehensive worldwide service to national and multinational corporations, financial institutions and governments.

In Amsterdam Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer focuses on corporate and securities law, banking & finance, (international) tax, antitrust, competition and trade law, IP/IT, international arbitration and litigation. Starting as a greenfield operation in 1999, it has since grown rapidly in response to client demand. There currently are more than 85 lawyers, including 16 partners, operating at the heart of the Dutch economy.

02-02-2006

---

Foley Hoag LLP

The U.S. Department of Labor Issues New Regulations for the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
As many of you know, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of
1994 (“USERRA”) prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating against any person
who is a member of, applies to be a member of, or has performed in a uniformed service. It also
provides, among other things, that members of the armed services are entitled to return to their
civilian employment after a period of military service with the same pay, status and benefits that
they would have received had they not left their job for military service. The law applies to
virtually all private employers, regardless of size.
Employers need to be aware that the U.S. Department of Labor recently issued two sets of
regulations regarding employers’ obligations under USERRA. Both sets of regulations became
effective on January 18, 2006.
One set of regulations explains the substantive rights and obligations under USERRA. The
following is a general summary of some of the most important regulations in that set:
?? An employee is required to give advance notice to the employer, to the extent practicable,
regarding leave for military service. However, an employee is not required to ask for or
receive permission from the employer.
?? Under USERRA, an employee on leave for military service is entitled to elect continued
health coverage during such leave. The regulations provide that if the employee is on
military duty for less than 31 days, the employee cannot be charged more than the normal
employee share for health plan coverage. If the employee is on duty for 31 days or more,
the health plan may require the employee to pay up to 102% of the full premium under the
plan. The regulations do not specify how an employee may elect continued health
coverage. Instead, they provide that a health plan may establish reasonable rules
addressing that issue and that the rules may be consistent with those required by COBRA.
If the employee does not elect continuation coverage and, as a result, health care coverage
for the employee or a dependent is terminated due to the employee’s military service, the
coverage must be reinstated upon the employee’s reemployment without the imposition of
any waiting period.
?? Absent unusual circumstances, the regulations require an employer to reinstate an
employee returning from military service within 2 weeks of the employee’s request for
reinstatement. This obligation extends to a successor employer, if there is a substantial
continuity of operations.
?? Under USERRA, an employee’s right to reinstatement is subject to a five-year service
limit. However, the regulations provide for a number of exceptions to this limitation. In
addition, the five-year service limit does not apply when an employee remains or returns to
military service to mitigate economic losses caused by an employer’s refusal of reemployment.
?? Once reinstated after military service, employees may not be discharged except for cause.
The length of this restriction depends upon the duration of the employee’s leave for
military service. For example, if the military service was for more than 181 days, the
employee may not be discharged without cause for one year. The regulations explain that,
in the case of a dispute about whether an employee was terminated for cause, the employer
bears the burden of establishing (1) that it was reasonable for it to discharge the employee
for the conduct and (2) that the employee was on notice that the conduct would constitute a
terminable offense. The regulations also provide that “cause” includes layoff or job
elimination, and that the employer bears the burden of establishing that the employee
would have been laid off or had his or her job eliminated, regardless of his or her military
service.
?? Because USERRA provides that employees who return to civilian employment after leave
for military service are entitled to pay, seniority and benefits, as if they had never left, the
regulations provide very detailed rules regarding the determination of employees’ pay and
pension benefits after returning from military service. For example, as to pay, an employer
must take into account any pay increases, differentials, step increases, merit increases or
any other periodic increase the employee would have attained with reasonable certainty,
had he or she remained continuously employed.
?? In a case of discrimination or retaliation under the statute, the employee bears the burden of
proving that his or her conduct or status was protected by USERRA and that the protected
status or conduct was a reason for the employer’s adverse action. Under the regulations,
the burden then shifts to the employer to establish that it would have taken the same action,
absent the USERRA-protected status or conduct. According to the regulations, there is no
statute of limitations under the statute, and some courts have applied a four-year statute of
limitations. Note too, that individual supervisors and managers may be personally liable

02-02-2006

---

25383 matches |  24508-24514 displayed

1  3501 3502 3503 3504 3505  3627