Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  24928-24934 displayed

1  3561 3562 3563 3564 3565  3627

---

Sideman & Bancroft, LLP

Sideman & Bancroft LLP Partner Gilda Turitz to Discuss Legal Ethics at a San Francisco Bar Association Meeting
Gilda Turitz, who co-chairs the Civil Litigation Practice Group at Sideman & Bancroft LLP, will talk about ethical issues that arise pre-trial and during trial proceedings in a panel discussion entitled "The Lying Client and the Missing Document," sponsored by the San Francisco Bar Association on Wednesday, January 25, 2006.

She joins the Honorable Marla Miller of the San Francisco Superior Court; Merri A. Baldwin, of counsel at Chapman, Popik & White LLP; and Nanci Clarence, founding partner of Clarence & Dyer, on the panel.

The discussion will focus on how to deal with such issues as ethical limitations on witness preparation; client perjury, improperly destroyed documents; improper contact with represented parties, and improper ex parte contacts.

Gilda Turitz’s diverse practice includes complex civil and business litigation in Federal and State courts. She represents clients in securities arbitrations before the National Association of Securities Dealers and in investigations and enforcement actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Ms. Turitz is well versed in alternate dispute resolution mechanisms and serves as an arbitrator, mediator and early neutral evaluator.

She is the recipient of the American Bar Association’s "Golden Hammer Award" in recognition of her efforts to shatter the glass ceiling and was named a "Best Attorney in the Bay Area" by Bay Area Magazine in October 2005 and a Northern California "Super Lawyer" in 2004 and 2005.

The BASF program and lunch will take place at the Sir Francis Drake Hotel beginning at 11:30 a.m. Information and reservations can be accessed at www.sfbar.org/calendar.

01-19-2006

---

Sideman & Bancroft, LLP

Family Law Attorney Diana Richmond to Speak on Family Law Developments and Strategies at a San Francisco Bar Association Seminar
Family Law Attorney Diana Richmond will participate in a discussion on the impact of major family law decisions and legislation in 2005 at a San Francisco Bar Association all-day seminar on Family Law Developments and Strategies on January 21, 2006.
She will be joined by the Honorable Marjorie A. Slabach, Commissioner of the San Francisco Superior Court; San Francisco attorneys Bernard N. Wolf and Kathryn Kirkland; and Stephen James Wagner of Sacramento.
The issue of parentage in custody cases involving domestic partners will be among the many topics on which the panel will focus. Ms. Richmond represented a lesbian mother in a landmark custody case (K.M. v E.G) that went before the California State Supreme Court in 2005.
A Certified Family Law Specialist for more than 20 years, Ms. Richmond is an experienced family law advocate at both the trial and appellate levels and often works as a mediator, settlement conference facilitator or private adjudicator for family law and related controversies.
Ms. Richmond has been recognized for more than 20 years as one of the "Best Lawyers of America". In 2005, she was named as one of the "Top Ten Lawyers in Northern California" and a Northern California "Super Lawyer" in a survey of more than 46,000 attorneys in 60 areas of practice, conducted by Law & Politics. In 2003, Ms. Richmond was singled out as one of the "Top 25 Attorneys in the Bay Area" by the San Francisco Chronicle and as one of the top two family lawyers in the Bay Area by The Recorder.
Information about the SFBar Association seminar can be obtained at www.sfbar.org/calendar.
Sideman & Bancroft Contact:

01-19-2006

---

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Peter Korda and Dan Evans Published in the New York Law Journal
On January 17, 2006, a special report from The Real Estate Board of New York and the New York Law Journal published an article (“Covering the Risks of Terrorism”) by Peter Korda and Dan Evans which notes the changes in insurance coverage since the events of September 11, 2001. “The very nature of the effects of a terrorist attack and the potential magnitude of the damage resulting therefrom,” Peter and Dan wrote, “have kept the insurability of terrorism events among the key terrorism-related issues confronted by property owners and commercial lenders today.”

Insurance and reinsurance companies suffered severe financial losses after September 11, 2001, and responded by reducing or sometimes eliminating their terrorism coverage and by raising the prices on their policies. The cost increase produced a ripple effect through real estate related financial markets, which the federal government attempted to stablize with the enactment of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) in late 2002. TRIA voided terrorism exclusion from certain types of insurance and provided a financial “backstop” to terrorism insurance losses. Intended as a temporary measure, TRIA was slated to expire on December 31, 2005 but was extended by Congress by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2005 (the TRIA Extension Act) to mitigate the economic damage which could result from a sudden withdrawal of federal protection. The TRIA Extension Act extends protection through December 31, 2007 and makes certain changes in the law which lessen the federal role in terrorism insurance and require insurance companies to shoulder an increasing burden of the total cost of any future attack.

“The end result of this reallocation of risk from the federal government to the insurance industry is that insurance rates may well rise as insurance companies undertake increasing amounts of risk,” Peter and Dan explain. “As the industry is further sensitized to aggregate exposures, the brunt of these increased insurance costs will most likely be felt by property owners in large metropolitan areas or with exposure to high-risk sectors of the economy (e.g., energy and food distribution). To be sure, these costs are far less than the costs that such insureds would otherwise have borne had Congress failed to extend TRIA, but the costs will increase nevertheless.”

“Ultimately, the severity of the impact on the insurance industry and real estate capital markets would depend upon any subsequent legislation designed to limit the effects of any reduction of the TRIA protections in the TRIA Extension Act. At present, industry representatives will continue to work with members of Congress to limit disruptions in the insurance and real estate financial markets by a sudden lack of terrorism insurance coverage. . . . The only certainty is that industry participants will watch closely as the dialogue continues in the months ahead.”

01-19-2006

---

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Peter Korda and Dan Evans Published in the New York Law Journal
On January 17, 2006, a special report from The Real Estate Board of New York and the New York Law Journal published an article (“Covering the Risks of Terrorism”) by Peter Korda and Dan Evans which notes the changes in insurance coverage since the events of September 11, 2001. “The very nature of the effects of a terrorist attack and the potential magnitude of the damage resulting therefrom,” Peter and Dan wrote, “have kept the insurability of terrorism events among the key terrorism-related issues confronted by property owners and commercial lenders today.”

Insurance and reinsurance companies suffered severe financial losses after September 11, 2001, and responded by reducing or sometimes eliminating their terrorism coverage and by raising the prices on their policies. The cost increase produced a ripple effect through real estate related financial markets, which the federal government attempted to stablize with the enactment of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) in late 2002. TRIA voided terrorism exclusion from certain types of insurance and provided a financial “backstop” to terrorism insurance losses. Intended as a temporary measure, TRIA was slated to expire on December 31, 2005 but was extended by Congress by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2005 (the TRIA Extension Act) to mitigate the economic damage which could result from a sudden withdrawal of federal protection. The TRIA Extension Act extends protection through December 31, 2007 and makes certain changes in the law which lessen the federal role in terrorism insurance and require insurance companies to shoulder an increasing burden of the total cost of any future attack.

“The end result of this reallocation of risk from the federal government to the insurance industry is that insurance rates may well rise as insurance companies undertake increasing amounts of risk,” Peter and Dan explain. “As the industry is further sensitized to aggregate exposures, the brunt of these increased insurance costs will most likely be felt by property owners in large metropolitan areas or with exposure to high-risk sectors of the economy (e.g., energy and food distribution). To be sure, these costs are far less than the costs that such insureds would otherwise have borne had Congress failed to extend TRIA, but the costs will increase nevertheless.”

“Ultimately, the severity of the impact on the insurance industry and real estate capital markets would depend upon any subsequent legislation designed to limit the effects of any reduction of the TRIA protections in the TRIA Extension Act. At present, industry representatives will continue to work with members of Congress to limit disruptions in the insurance and real estate financial markets by a sudden lack of terrorism insurance coverage. . . . The only certainty is that industry participants will watch closely as the dialogue continues in the months ahead.”

01-19-2006

---

Schnader Attorney At Law

Britton Quoted Repeatedly on Mirant Decision
On January 19, 2006, John Britton interviewed with WAMU-FM/NPR in Washington, D.C. regarding the judge's ruling on Mirant v. the City of Alexandria.

John has been quoted in the media extensively about the case in recent months:

On January 12, 2006, John was quoted in the Alexandria Gazette Packet article “Feds Order Mirant Start Up.” The article revisits the question of the air quality in Alexandria, Virginia as Mirant’s troubled Potomac River Generating Station fired up at least three of its five coal-fired boilers in response to an order from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The plant, located in Alexandria, has a history of environmental violations and was briefly closed in August 2005 because the danger it presented to the public health. However, last month the DOE issued an order that requires Mirant to maintain all of the plant’s five boilers at peak readiness in order to ensure a constant supply of electricity to the City of Washington, DC. According to the article, Mirant has 10 days to submit a plan to DOE detailing the steps it will take to ensure compliance and time necessary to start up the plant’s generating units in the event of a planned or unplanned outage. John reminded DOE Secretary Samuel W. Bodman that they had not responded to the City of Alexandria’s request for a full and open process for public review and comment on Mirant’s proposed plan. “Alexandria will pursue all available legal remedies to hold all pertinent parties accountable for violations of law and the consequent harm and injury to the residents of Alexandria,” John said.

On October 20, John was quoted in an article in the Alexandria Gazette Packet, “FERC's Authority to Restart Mirant Challenged -- Who has what authority enters Mirant dispute.” The article states that Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality has legally questioned the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to grant Mirant the right to restart their Potomac River Generating Station in Alexandria. “This action puts two government agencies up against one another," said John.

On October 13, 2005, John commented in The Connection Newspapers’ article “Feds, City Ling Up Against Mirant.” The article discusses a lawsuit filed by the City of Alexandria in Circuit Court. The lawsuit requested that the Court grant an injunction requiring Mirant to "abate, raze or remove the public and private nuisance that it has created and continues to create [and] remediate the effects of the intrusion of noxious, harmful and toxic substances that it has caused." "This doesn't rely on federal standards. It's based on what the plant is putting out and that that is considered a nuisance," John said.

John was quoted on Mirant in a September 29, 2005 Alexandria Gazette Packet article, “Pressure on Mirant Builds.” The article discusses Mirant’s Potomac River Generating Station, which had been shut down after the discovery of significant air pollution violations. Following Mirant's decision to restart Unit 1 of the plant, the City of Alexandria – represented by Schnader – filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to amend their complaint in the action of the consent decree. "This motion sought to add things to our complaint in compliance with the Clean Air Act, which calls for 60 days’ notice," John said.

On July 28, 2005, he was quoted in the Alexandria Gazette Packet article “Court Backs City on Mirant Decision.” The article discusses how a judgment from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted Alexandria the right to become part of the Mirant Consent Decree Process pertaining to Mirant’s operation of the Potomac River Generating Station at the north end of Old Town, Va. “We are very satisfied with the judge’s order. It was very favorable to the city,” John said.

01-19-2006

---

Proskauer & Rose, LLP

BENJAMIN CATALANO JOINS PROSKAUER ROSE AS PARTNER IN BROKER-DEALER & INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
January 19, 2006 - (New York, NY) - Proskauer Rose LLP, an international law firm with more than 700 lawyers in the United States and Europe, announced that Benjamin J. Catalano, a seasoned lawyer with extensive broker-dealer, financial institution and exchange regulation experience, has joined the firm's Broker-Dealer and Investment Management Group as a partner. He will be based in Proskauer's New York office.

Mr. Catalano has extensive experience advising broker-dealers, investment advisers, hedge funds, banks, and exchange markets in all aspects of compliance with federal and state securities laws, as well as the rules of the New York Stock Exchange, NASD and other self-regulatory organizations. In addition, he has represented broker-dealers and financial institutions in complex securities litigation, arbitration, Securities and Exchange Commission and self-regulatory enforcement matters, and regulatory investigations and examinations. He is also a Wall Street veteran, having worked in senior positions in the compliance departments of PaineWebber, Inc. and Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc.

"Benjamin's breadth of experience in advising clients on compliance and regulatory issues as well as representing them in government investigations and enforcement matters made him a natural addition to what is already an accomplished practice," said Allen I. Fagin, Chairman of Proskauer Rose.

Prior to joining Proskauer Rose, Mr. Catalano was a partner at Dorsey & Whitney LLP. He is a graduate of Boston College and holds a J.D. from St. John's University School of Law.

"Benjamin's professional experience working on important compliance matters from all perspectives will serve as an invaluable resource to allow us to continue to anticipate and solve our client's most complex issues and grow the practice," agreed Kathy H. Rocklen and Stephen L. Ratner, co-heads of Proskauer's Broker-Dealer and Investment Management Group.

Proskauer's Broker-Dealer and Investment Management Group represents a broad spectrum of financial institutions, including full service and boutique brokerage firms, domestic and foreign investment banks, investment advisers, investment companies, business development companies, hedge funds, private investment funds, and banks. The group provides counsel on securities regulatory matters, corporate and investment company governance, capital markets transactions, internal investigations, regulatory investigations, civil enforcement proceedings, criminal prosecutions, arbitrations, and complex litigations.

01-19-2006

---

Day Pitney, LLP

Partner Michael J. Dunne to Speak on Outsourcing and IP Considerations
Michael J. Dunne, partner in Pitney Hardin's Intellectual Property Practice Group, will be a featured speaker at New Jersey Institute For Continuing Legal Education, "Intellectual Property Law Summit." The seminar is intended to explore practical strategies and best practices for managing legal risks involved in dealing with intellectual property.

Speakers will update your knowledge of recent case law developments, and will have in-depth workshops that focus on more advanced aspects of patents, trademarks, copyrights, and other intellectual property topics.

"Intellectual Property Law Summit" takes place Wednesday, March 29, 2005 from 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. at the New Jersey Law Center, New Brunswick, New Jersey. To register, or for additional information, please call 732.214.8500.

01-19-2006

---

25383 matches |  24928-24934 displayed

1  3561 3562 3563 3564 3565  3627