Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  25229-25235 displayed

1  3601 3602 3603 3604 3605  3627

---

Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, L.L.P.

Cleary Gottlieb Ranks High in Year-End 2005 M&A Tables
Cleary Gottlieb's M&A practice scored high in the newly released Mergermarket, Bloomberg, Thomson Financial and Dealogic league tables. Highlights include number one rankings for global financial industry transactions based on deal value (Bloomberg) and for Italian M&A based on deal value (Mergermarket). Cleary also ranked fifth in worldwide M&A based on deal value (Thomson Financial). With $405 billion in announced global deal volume, Cleary placed third on Dealogic's ranking of firms as counsel to either principals or financial advisers and fifth in total European deal value when deals involving counsel to the principal only were considered separately.

Legal Week analyzed the data in the various league tables based on work done for principals and advisers in transactions and ranked Cleary the number one lead adviser on European M&A for all U.S.-based firms.

When considering only the U.S.-based firms on these league tables, Cleary posted impressive results in many additional areas. Among U.S.-based firms, Cleary placed first in Benelux M&A (announced deals, Mergermarket and Thomson Financial), second in German M&A (completed deals, Thomson Financial), second in Asian M&A (announced deals, excluding Japan, Thomson Financial), second in French M&A (announced deals, Mergermarket), and third in Spanish M&A (announced deals, Thomson Financial and Mergermarket). Cleary also won the number three spot among U.S.-based firms for total value of global private equity M&A (Bloomberg), and for cross-border global M&A (announced deals, as reported by Bloomberg).

Commenting on the firm's sixth place finish on Thomson Financial's league table for U.S.-based M&A, Legal Week said, "the most dramatic improvement came from Cleary, which saw a 270.6% increase in U.S. deal value in 2005 to complement a break-through year for its corporate practice in Europe."

Further showcasing the strength of the firm's global practice, Enrique González Díaz ranked among the top ten individual legal advisors for Europe in 2005, according to Mergermarket.

01-10-2006

---

Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, L.L.P.

Cleary Gottlieb Ranks High in Year-End 2005 M&A Tables
Cleary Gottlieb's M&A practice scored high in the newly released Mergermarket, Bloomberg, Thomson Financial and Dealogic league tables. Highlights include number one rankings for global financial industry transactions based on deal value (Bloomberg) and for Italian M&A based on deal value (Mergermarket). Cleary also ranked fifth in worldwide M&A based on deal value (Thomson Financial). With $405 billion in announced global deal volume, Cleary placed third on Dealogic's ranking of firms as counsel to either principals or financial advisers and fifth in total European deal value when deals involving counsel to the principal only were considered separately.

Legal Week analyzed the data in the various league tables based on work done for principals and advisers in transactions and ranked Cleary the number one lead adviser on European M&A for all U.S.-based firms.

When considering only the U.S.-based firms on these league tables, Cleary posted impressive results in many additional areas. Among U.S.-based firms, Cleary placed first in Benelux M&A (announced deals, Mergermarket and Thomson Financial), second in German M&A (completed deals, Thomson Financial), second in Asian M&A (announced deals, excluding Japan, Thomson Financial), second in French M&A (announced deals, Mergermarket), and third in Spanish M&A (announced deals, Thomson Financial and Mergermarket). Cleary also won the number three spot among U.S.-based firms for total value of global private equity M&A (Bloomberg), and for cross-border global M&A (announced deals, as reported by Bloomberg).

Commenting on the firm's sixth place finish on Thomson Financial's league table for U.S.-based M&A, Legal Week said, "the most dramatic improvement came from Cleary, which saw a 270.6% increase in U.S. deal value in 2005 to complement a break-through year for its corporate practice in Europe."

Further showcasing the strength of the firm's global practice, Enrique González Díaz ranked among the top ten individual legal advisors for Europe in 2005, according to Mergermarket.

01-10-2006

---

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC

Buchanan Ingersoll Shareholder Mark Neuberger Receives American Diabetes Association Valor Award
Miami, FL, January 10, 2006 -- Buchanan Ingersoll shareholder Mark J. Neuberger was selected among the 2006 honorees of the American Diabetes Association's Valor Award. Neuberger was selected based on his efforts for the betterment of the South Florida community. The honorees will be presented with the award on January 24, 2006, at the Ritz Carlton Coconut Grove.

The American Diabetes Association is the nation's premier voluntary health organization supporting diabetes research, information and advocacy. Founded in 1940, the association has offices in every region of the country, providing services to hundreds of communities. The association's commitment to research is reflected through its scientific meetings; education and provider recognition programs; and its Research Foundation and Nationwide Research Program, which fund breakthrough studies looking into the cure, prevention and treatment of diabetes and its complications.

01-10-2006

---

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC

Buchanan Ingersoll Shareholder Mark Neuberger Receives American Diabetes Association Valor Award
Miami, FL, January 10, 2006 -- Buchanan Ingersoll shareholder Mark J. Neuberger was selected among the 2006 honorees of the American Diabetes Association's Valor Award. Neuberger was selected based on his efforts for the betterment of the South Florida community. The honorees will be presented with the award on January 24, 2006, at the Ritz Carlton Coconut Grove.
The American Diabetes Association is the nation's premier voluntary health organization supporting diabetes research, information and advocacy. Founded in 1940, the association has offices in every region of the country, providing services to hundreds of communities. The association's commitment to research is reflected through its scientific meetings; education and provider recognition programs; and its Research Foundation and Nationwide Research Program, which fund breakthrough studies looking into the cure, prevention and treatment of diabetes and its complications.
About Neuberger
Mark J. Neuberger heads the firm's South Florida Labor and Employment Law Group. He also serves as a member of Buchanan Ingersoll's Board of Directors. His practice primarily involves the representation of management in many areas of labor and employment law. His previous work experience in the corporate human resources field has provided him with an understanding of the day-to-day problems which arise in organizations. As a result, a large portion of his practice is devoted to providing general labor and employment guidance to clients, including those organizations which do not have structured human resource functions. Among his community service endeavors, Neuberger serves as pro bono general counsel to the Coconut Grove Arts Festival, serves on the Board of Directors of Junior Achievement and has been active in fundraising for The University of Miami's Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center.
About the Firm
Buchanan Ingersoll PC is one of the largest law firms in the nation, and has nearly 415 attorneys and government relations professionals practicing throughout the United States, with offices in Miami, Aventura, Tampa, Washington, D.C., Alexandria, New York, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Wilmington, Princeton, Cleveland, San Diego and Silicon Valley.
The firm has undergone a series of acquisitions and additions during the past 12 months, including: lobbying boutique Hill Solutions; a group of seven litigators from Saul Ewing; the 55 attorneys and patent professionals of Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis; a team of IP and business litigators in San Diego; a group of three government relations professionals in Washington, D.C.; a group of seven high-profile tax and immigration lawyers in Miami; and the litigation boutique of Slotnick, Shapiro & Crocker in New York.
Buchanan Ingersoll's attorneys have experience in industries that include entertainment and media, pharmaceuticals and biomedicine, nanotechnology, financial institutions, construction, franchise and real estate. Within these and other industries, Buchanan Ingersoll attorneys focus on more than 65 practice areas including Corporate Finance, Litigation, Intellectual Property, Tax, Government Relations and Health Care. The firm serves national and international clients that include Fortune 500 corporations, start-ups, technology companies and financial institutions

01-10-2006

---

Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P.

The Importer's Sword: The Impact of Koyo Corporation of U.S.A. v. United States on Deemed Liquidation
When the liquidation of an entry of merchandise into the United States is suspended by court order or statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d) directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("Customs") to "liquidate the entry... within 6 months after receiving notice of the removal (of the suspension) from the Department of Commerce, other agency, or a court with jurisdiction over the entry." A typical scenario where section 1504(d) is applicable occurs when an entry is subject to an antidumping or countervailing duty order. When an entry that is subject to an antidumping or countervailing duty order is made, a deposit is collected by Customs for the antidumping and/or countervailing duties on the merchandise. This deposit is an estimate only.

Liquidation of this entry is suspended, subject to an administrative review of the entry (and other entries of the same merchandise) by the Department of Commerce ("Commerce"). Because antidumping and countervailing duty orders are generally product- and country-specific (e.g. there is an antidumping duty order on imports of honey from China), a single administrative review will typically cover all entries of that product coming from a specific country made during the previous year. Commerce's administrative review process accomplishes two things. First, it alters the deposit rate for all entries of the product that will be imported after the administrative review is completed. Second, it fixes the final assessment rate of antidumping or countervailing duties owed on all entries of the product made during the previous year. The final assessment rate for a particular entry can (and often does) vary considerably from the deposit rate imposed by Customs when the entry was made. If the final assessment rate is higher than the deposit rate, additional duties are owed, and when the entry is liquidated, Customs issues a bill to the importer. If the final assessment rate is lower than the deposit rate, Customs issues a refund for the difference.

Commerce publishes the results of an administrative review in the Federal Register. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held in International Trading Co. v. United States, 281 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2002), that this publication provides public notice of the lifting of the suspension on liquidation for purposes of section 1504(d). Thus, liquidation of the entry must occur within six months of the date of publication in the Federal Register. If the entry is not liquidated within six months of this notice, the entry is considered "deemed liquidated," which means that Customs must liquidate the entry at the antidumping and/or countervailing deposit rates collected upon entry, rather than using the final assessment rates established by the administrative review.

After the results of the administrative review are published, Commerce issues liquidation instructions to Customs by email. These instructions, which contain importer-specific assessment rates and are not available to the public as the importer-specific assessment rates are considered proprietary information, are typically not issued by Commerce until weeks or months after the public notice is published in the Federal Register. Customs typically refuses to liquidate an entry in the interim between publication in the Federal Register and the issuance of liquidation instructions; the agency has always insisted that it cannot properly liquidate an entry until Commerce issues the liquidation instructions that contain the importer-specific assessment rates. Because of this, entries are frequently "deemed liquidated" because Customs does not liquidate them within six months of the date of publication in the Federal Register.

When the antidumping or countervailing duty deposit rate for a particular entry is lower than the final assessment rate for that entry, and the entry is deemed liquidated after six months, it is a windfall for the importer. When Customs eventually attempts to actively liquidate the entry at the final assessment rate contained in the liquidation instructions, section 1504(d) provides that the importer can assert the deemed liquidation and Customs will be unable to force the importer to pay any additional duty for the entry. However, when the deposit rate is higher than the final assessment rate, and the entry is presumably deemed liquidated under section 1504(d), the importer is not entitled to the refund that would have been paid had the entry liquidated within six months of the date of publication. Thus, if the deposit rate is higher than the final assessment rate, it is arguable that section 1504(d) allows Customs to do absolutely nothing for the six months following publication of the notice in the Federal Register and then refuse to issue any refund on the ground that the entry was deemed liquidated.

This is the exact fact pattern examined by the Court of International Trade ("CIT") in Koyo Corporation of U.S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 05-152 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005), decided very recently by the CIT, on December 1, 2005. In Koyo, entries of roller and ball bearings were made in 1990 and 1991 that were subject to an antidumping duty order. The antidumping deposit rates assessed against these entries were very high, between 48 and 74 percent ad valorem. Liquidation of these entries was suspended due to the administrative review process, and litigation ensued as a result of that process. When the litigation was finished, Commerce published notice of the completion in the Federal Register; this publication, much like publication of the final results of an administrative review, provided notice that the suspension on liquidation had been lifted. Pursuant to section 1504(d), once this notice was published, Customs had six months to liquidate the entries.

In Koyo, the final antidumping duty assessment rate, as determined in the litigation, was much lower than the initial antidumping duty deposit rates. As a result, Customs owed the importers large refunds. However, Customs did not liquidate the entries within six months. Customs, in the words of the CIT, "did nothing." A year after the completion of the litigation, and well past the six month deadline to liquidate, one of the importers contacted Customs to inquire why its entries had not yet liquidated. Customs immediately asserted that all of these entries had been deemed liquidated, and refused to issue the proper refunds to the importers. When the importers challenged Customs' determination at the CIT, Customs argued that the words of section 1504(d) were clear, and that the conditions necessary for deemed liquidation were met. As such, Customs argued that it was "immaterial if the government benefits from its own neglect" because the antidumping deposit rate was higher than the final assessment rate; Customs argued that because liquidation did not occur within six months, section 1504(d) allowed the agency to retain the excess money collected on the deposits.

The CIT disagreed, finding that section 1504(d) was enacted by Congress "to prevent harm to a particular class of persons, i.e., importers..." Section 1504(d) does not "allow Customs to... thumb its nose at Commerce and the courts. Customs cannot ignore Federal Register notices or throw liquidation instructions in a drawer and wait for six months to elapse... so that it thereby collects duties to which it is not entitled."

The CIT's decision in Koyo is momentous in that it potentially turns section 1504(d) into a sword that only the importer may use. Before Koyo, the CIT had allowed Customs to retain excess deposit amounts if the entries had been deemed liquidated and the deposit rate was higher than the final assessment rate. See, e.g., Rheem Metalurgica, S.A. v. United States, 951 F. Supp. 241 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996). The CIT's decision in Koyo means that where the deposit rate is higher than the final assessment rate, the entry cannot be deemed liquidated, because were the entry to be deemed liquidated, Customs would be "collect[ing] duties to which it is not entitled." Thus, section 1504(d) can only apply to entries where the deposit rate is lower than the final assessment rate. With the CIT's decision in Koyo, the application of section 1504(d) in the future should arguably benefit the importer alone, and can only serve as a reprimand for Customs when it neglects its statutory duty by failing to liquidate within the time limits set for it by Congress.


01-10-2006

---

Abel Band, Chtd.

Attorney Richard S. Loudermilke to Present on Collections
Attorney Richard S. Loudermilk, an Associate in the Firm's Litigation & Dispute Resolution Practice Group, will be one of the instructors at a Lorman Education Services seminar on Feb. 28 at the Sarasota Cay Club. The topic is "The Magic of Successful Collection Work in Florida."

01-10-2006

---

Williams Mullen, P.C.

Andrew J. Mulcunry Joins Williams Mullen
RICHMOND, VA - Andrew Mulcunry has joined William Mullen's Labor & Employment Section. His practice is focused on general matters of labor and employment law. Mr. Mulcunry's office is located in the firm's Richmond, Va. office.

Mr. Mulcunry earned his bachelor of arts degree from the Virginia Military Institute in 1994. He earned his juris doctor degree from the University of Alabama School of Law, cum laude, in 2001.

Williams Mullen provides comprehensive legal services to regional, national and international clients. With 250 attorneys and offices in Virginia, Washington, D.C. and London, we deliver innovative solutions to support our clients’ diverse business activities. Close working relationships with clients have been the foundation of Williams Mullen’s progressive approach to law practice since the firm was founded more than 90 years ago.

01-09-2006

---

25383 matches |  25229-25235 displayed

1  3601 3602 3603 3604 3605  3627