Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  25257-25263 displayed

1  3606 3607 3608 3609 3610  3627

---

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC

Buchanan Ingersoll Shareholder Richard Morgan Spearheads Sporting Goods Drive
Miami, FL, January 10, 2006 -- Buchanan Ingersoll shareholder Richard A. Morgan is spearheading a sporting goods drive to benefit Food For The Poor (FFP), a large and well-established relief organization providing services throughout the Caribbean and Central America. The sporting goods drive will benefit underprivileged children in these areas. The goods will be sent overseas this month.
FFP raises funds and provides direct assistance, usually by purchasing specifically requested materials and distributing them through churches and charity organizations already operating in areas of need. Since its founding in 1982, FFP has distributed more than $2.3 billion in food, medical, educational, building and small business supplies to 16 countries in the Caribbean and Central America. It supports programs that teach residents how to raise livestock and develop small businesses, and it provides agricultural assistance to independent farmers.
Along with his work for FFP, Morgan is also involved with Switchboard Miami, a private, nonprofit, multi-service agency that provides the Miami-Dade community with comprehensive 24-hour telephone crisis counseling, suicide prevention, information and referral services. He also serves on the board of the Friends for Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, where he served as the co-chair for the annual fundraising event in 2005. Morgan also coaches various youth sports teams throughout the year.
About Morgan
Richard A. Morgan is a shareholder with the Miami office of Buchanan Ingersoll, and is a member of the firm's Litigation Group. His practice is focused on complex commercial litigation involving banking disputes, UCC issues, construction-defect disputes, intellectual property matters and Internet law. Morgan has litigated a variety of commercial contractual disputes including non-compete agreements, employment agreements and real property disputes.
Morgan also acts as counsel to a number of not-for-profit corporations for which he regularly provides corporate and business counsel as well as representation in connection with any litigation matters.
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

01-09-2006

---

Bryan Cave LLP

Toxic Tort Column Continues with Look at DuPont $16.5 Million Fine
In December of 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reached a $16.5 million settlement with DuPont, which it had accused of failing to report information about the health risks of a chemical used in making Teflon-brand coatings. New York Partners Philip Karmel and Peter Paden continue their New York Law Journal column on toxic torts with an examination of the DuPont settlement, the reach of the EPA’s new enforcement position and its potential impact on toxic torts litigation.
“The EPA’s enforcement policy, if ultimately sustained by the courts, is likely to cause a significant uptick in the number of ‘substantial risk’ reports industry submits to the EPA,” they wrote.
Karmel and Paden are members of the Environmental, Product Liability and Commercial Litigation Client Service Groups. Their practice includes environmental and commercial litigation, the defense of toxic tort actions and related insurance matters.
Click on the attachment below to read the full article. This article is reprinted with permission from the December 30, 2005, edition of the New York Law Journal. © 2005 ALM Properties, Inc. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited.

01-09-2006

---

Bingham McCutchen, LLP

Bingham Mccutchen One Of Fortune’s “100 Best Places To Work” For Second Consecutive Year
BOSTON (January 9, 2006) – For the second year in a row, Bingham McCutchen has been named by FORTUNE magazine as one of the “100 Best Companies to Work For,” one of six law firms nationally to make the list.
The “100 Best” list, which will appear in FORTUNE’s Jan. 23 issue that hits newsstands on Jan. 16, ranks companies based on responses to anonymous surveys distributed randomly to employees by the Great Place to Work Institute in San Francisco. Bingham McCutchen ranked No. 82 on the list of 100 companies, and No. 25 on the small-company list. Small companies are classified as those with 1,000 to 2,500 employees. Bingham has approximately 2,000 employees worldwide, including 850 attorneys, in 11 offices.
“We are delighted to be recognized as not only a leading national law firm, but a leading U.S. company,” said Jay S. Zimmerman, Chairman of Bingham McCutchen. “This is a tremendous achievement that speaks to the invaluable contributions that our attorneys and staff regularly make to the firm and our culture. It also underscores our core values of respect for one another and commitment to our clients, to our firm and to our community.”
As FORTUNE noted, “You won't go unnoticed at this national law firm. The company fetes the nonlawyer population with staff-appreciation week and gives gift baskets for new babies (70 last year) and weddings (60 last year).”
In addition, Bingham ranked No. 17 - highest among all law firms on the list - for percentage of women employees, with 68 percent. The firm also ranked No. 3 among all “100 Best Companies” in average pay.
FORTUNE’s recognition of Bingham is the latest acknowledgement of the firm’s exemplary work environment. In September, 2005, Bingham was ranked No. 1 in the large company category in the San Francisco Chronicle’s “Employers of Excellence” survey of Bay Area companies. In June, 2005, Bingham placed No. 3 on the Boston Business Journal’s list of the “Best Places to Work in Massachusetts.”
ADMDOCS/182818.1
"Extraordinary by definition, America's 100 Best Companies to Work For have pushed their employee-pleasing ways further than ever in the past year, blazing a trail for all organizations wanting to thrive in today's economic world,” FORTUNE senior editor at-large, Geoffrey Colvin, stated in a press release.
ADMDOCS/182818.1
"The 100 Best Companies to Work For" list is compiled for FORTUNE by Robert Levering and Milton Moskowitz of the Great Place to Work Institute in San Francisco, based on two criteria: an evaluation of the policies and culture of each company, and the opinions of the company's employees. The latter is given more weight; two-thirds of the total score comes from employee responses to a 57-question survey which goes to a minimum of 400 randomly selected employees from each company. More than 100,000 employees from 466 companies participated in the survey this year, up from 356 candidate companies last year. The survey asks about things such as attitudes toward management, job satisfaction, and camaraderie within the organization. The remaining one-third of the score is based on an evaluation of each company's demographic makeup, pay and benefits programs, and culture. Companies are scored in four areas: credibility (communication to employees), respect (opportunities and benefits), fairness (compensation, diversity), and pride/camaraderie (philanthropy, celebrations).
With 11 offices worldwide, Bingham McCutchen (www.bingham.com) serves clients involved in complex financial transactions, a full range of corporate and technology matters and high-stakes litigation.

01-09-2006

---

Bass Berry & Sims PLC

Bass, Berry & Sims Announces New Members
Nashville, Tenn.—Bass, Berry & Sims PLC is pleased to announce that Matthew M. Curley, Anna M. Grizzle, D. Scott Holley, Britt K. Latham, Andrea Taylor McKellar and H. Warren Sanger have been promoted to membership in the firm.
Matthew M. Curley is a member in the firm's Litigation Practice Area. He received his law degree from Vanderbilt University School of Law. Mr. Curley practices in the Nashville Downtown office.
Anna M. Grizzle is a member in the firm's Litigation Practice Area, specializing in healthcare litigation matters. She received her law degree, magna cum laude, from the University of Alabama School of Law. Ms. Grizzle practices in the Nashville Downtown office.
D. Scott Holley is a member in the firm's Corporate and Securities Practice Area. He received his law degree, with highest honors, from the University of Tennessee College of law. Mr. Holley practices in the Nashville Downtown office.
Britt K. Latham is a member in the firm's Litigation Practice Area. He received his law degree, with honors, from Duke University School of Law. Mr. Latham practices in the Nashville Downtown office.
Andrea Taylor McKellar is a member of the firm's Litigation Practice Area. She received her law degree from Vanderbilt University School of Law. Ms. McKellar practices in the Nashville Downtown office.
H. Warren Sanger is a member of the firm's Corporate and Securities, Commercial Transactions and Real Estate and Public Finance Practice Areas. He received his law degree, with honors, from the University of Tennessee College of Law. Mr. Sanger practices in the Knoxville office.
About Bass, Berry & Sims
Bass, Berry & Sims is a law firm of 190 attorneys in four Tennessee offices: Nashville Downtown and Music Row, Knoxville and Memphis. Since its inception in 1922, the firm has been involved with many of the major business transactions and significant litigation matters in the Southeastern region. The firm's clients include a broad range of Fortune 500 companies as well as local and regional businesses.

01-09-2006

---

Ashurst LLP

Ashurst appoints new partners in Frankfurt, London and Milan
Ashurst, the international law firm, announces today the appointment of five new partners to its restructuring and insolvency, energy, transport and infrastructure (ETI), and international finance practices. David von Saucken and Matt McDonald join the firm's London office in the restructuring and insolvency group as partners, Ingo Scholz joins the restructuring and insolvency group in Frankfurt as a partner. ETI partner Franco Vigliano joins the firm's Milan office, together with international finance partner John France.
London/Frankfurt
David von Saucken, Matt McDonald and Ingo Scholz were previously partners at Haarmann Hemmelrath, advising on non-performing loan portfolio acquisitions and restructuring activities in Germany. The team are based in London and Frankfurt, where they have recently advised clients including JPMorgan, CSFB, Goldman Sachs and Lone Star. Ingo Scholz will join Ashurst Frankfurt. Six associates will also be joining the restructuring and insolvency practice in London and Frankfurt.
Milan
Franco Vigliano and John France were formerly at Allen & Overy in Milan where they specialised in project finance. Both join Ashurst's Milan office with the strategic aim of broadening the practice's international presence and continuing to develop the firm's business in Milan. They will also be joined by three associates.
Commenting on the appointments, Geoffrey Green, senior partner at Ashurst, said:
"We are delighted to welcome the new partners. Each is a first-rate lawyer and their arrival will boost our thriving European restructuring and insolvency and projects practices. Collectively, these appointments re-affirm our commitment to expanding our international business, attracting the best talent and continuing to grow the firm as a whole."


01-09-2006

---

Sands Anderson Marks & MillerA Professional Corporation

Pittsylvania Board of Supervisors Get $250,000 Check From Sands Anderson
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA (January 9, 2006)…James E. Cornwell, managing attorney for the Radford office of Sands Anderson Marks & Miller, presented the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors with $250,000 in recovered delinquent real estate taxes at January 3rd's Board meeting in Chatham, reports firm President C. Thomas Ebel.

“We are delighted that, over the last six months, our attorneys and staff have succeeded in reducing the outstanding delinquent tax balances on Pittsylvania real estate a quarter of a million dollars through aggressive action,” said Cornwell. Since July, Cornwell's office has coordinated the legal work required to pursue delinquent taxpayers.

Eight attorneys work in the Radford location, making it the New River Valley's largest law firm office. Clients of the firm include counties, cities, government agencies and municipal authorities thought the state, large international insurance companies and regional carriers, hospitals, nursing homes and health care professionals, local companies, business executives and other individuals.

Founded more than 150 years ago, Sands Anderson has 71 lawyers with offices in Richmond, Radford, Fredericksburg and McLean, Virginia, and the Research Triangle of North Carolina. This spring, it was ranked the 11th largest Virginia firm by Virginia Lawyers Weekly. Sands Anderson provides a full range of legal services to corporations and businesses, healthcare providers, financial institutions, state and local governments, the insurance industry and individuals. Sands Anderson can change your outlook on legal services. For more information, visit www.SandsAnderson.com.

01-09-2006

---

Arent Fox LLP

Wave of Digitization Initiatives Poses Copyright Infringement Issues
The Library of Congress, Google and Yahoo! have announced plans to digitize printed materials in libraries, and Amazon.com intends to launch a program that will allow readers to buy books and chapters of books online. All of these initiatives raise an interesting question: does the digitization of these works constitute copyright infringement? The answer to this question depends on several factors, including whether permission to digitize was obtained from the copyright owner, whether the copier’s act falls under any exemption in the Copyright Act, whether it would be considered as a “fair use” as defined by the Copyright Act or whether the work is in the public domain.
FULL ARTICLE
A recent issue has arisen in the copyright field involving the digitization of printed works. The Library of Congress, Google Inc., Yahoo!, and Amazon.com are at the forefront of the movement, as all have begun digitizing works that are typically found in libraries. The Library of Congress intends to launch the World Digital Library, which will consist of an online collection of rare books, manuscripts, maps, posters, stamps, and other materials.
At the same time, Google Inc. is in the process of digitizing millions of books from university and public libraries, while Yahoo! has announced a similar plan in conjunction with Microsoft called the Open Content Alliance. Finally, Amazon.com intends to launch the Amazon Pages program, which will allow readers to buy both books and chapters of books online.
All of these initiatives give rise to an interesting question – does the digitization of these works constitute copyright infringement? The answer to this question depends on several factors, including whether permission to digitize was obtained from the copyright owner, whether the copier’s act falls under any exemption in the Copyright Act, whether it would be considered as a “fair use” as defined by the Copyright Act, or whether the work is in the public domain.
The cleanest way to avoid copyright liability is to obtain permission from the owner of the copyright. This can occur by sending the publisher a letter, or via agreement. This appears to be what Amazon.com has done in conjunction with its Amazon Pages program, as it is allowing the publishers and/or authors to set the fee for the cost to view the book or chapter.
Another way to avoid the issue is to only digitize works that are in the public domain. Items that are in the public domain are no longer subject to copyright protection. For example, many of the works that the Library of Congress intends to digitize are hundreds of years old and are no longer copyrightable.
Similarly, the Open Content Alliance launched by Yahoo! and Microsoft will contain books that are already in the public domain that they have received from libraries and archives.
A third way to avoid liability for copyright infringement is to fall within one of the exemptions provided by the Copyright Act. Essentially, these exemptions allow a party to use another party’s copyrighted material if the use satisfies certain conditions.
In this instance, the most pertinent exemption covers reproduction made by libraries for archival purposes. However, the exemption only allows the library to make a limited number of copies of the work for preservation or replacement purposes.
Thus, it does not appear that the digitization of the works for online display or distribution will satisfy the requirements of this exemption. The other exemptions provided by the Copyright Act do not appear to be relevant to the digitization of library works, as they generally cover the performance or display of a copyrighted work, not the reproduction or distribution.
The riskier, yet perhaps most rewarding manner in which to avoid liability is to argue that the digitization of the work constitutes a “fair use.” This is the path followed by Google Inc. in its digitization of works held by university and public libraries. Google has claimed that its duplication and reproduction of these items constitutes a “fair use,” because it is for the purposes of research and scholarship, which are in the public’s best interest.
“Fair use” is a defense to an allegation of infringement under the U.S. Copyright Act that permits the limited use of a copyrighted work without the copyright owner’s permission for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.
There are four factors that the court considers when determining whether the use is a “fair use”: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The risk involved with making the “fair use” argument is that each of these factors is analyzed on a case-by-case basis and the courts have not consistently applied a set of standards to the analysis of each factor. Thus, it is virtually impossible to have a bright line test governing when the copying, distribution, or display of a particular work would qualify as a “fair use,” and much is left to the interpretation of the specific court reviewing the matter.
In spite of this, many parties still rely upon the “fair use” argument when defending their reproduction, distribution, and display of another party’s copyrighted work.
In the matter involving Google, the controversy is one that may not be settled quickly, as it appears to speak to the essence of the “fair use” argument – the purpose of the use. Google argues that its intent is to allow the free exchange of ideas for research and scholarship, while the copyright owners argue that Google is a corporate entity that will profit off the digitization of their works.
Thus, the question is whether a corporate entity, such as Google, can legitimately digitize a work for research and scholarship purposes even if it may profit off the digitization of the work.
Furthermore, Google is also arguing that it is merely acting as a digital card catalog. As a result of its actions, several parties have filed suit against Google claiming that its actions constitute copyright infringement. See, The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 05 CV 8881 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 19, 2005); see also, The Authors Guild v. Google Inc., No. 05 CV 8163 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 20, 2005).
The issue is not one that is likely to be solved any time in the near future. Just as with the dispute involving the digitization of music and films, this is likely a controversy that will see many “solutions” prior to finding a concrete resolution between both parties.
For more information, please contact Anthony Lupo or Sarah Bruno.

01-09-2006

---

25383 matches |  25257-25263 displayed

1  3606 3607 3608 3609 3610  3627