Welcome to Attorneys Pittsburgh
Are you searching for Pittsburgh Lawyers, Attorneys?
You've found the right website! Attorneys Pittsburgh .com lists Pittsburgh lawyers in two ways. You can find an Attorney in your immediate local area by browsing the Attorneys by location pages. Or, find an attorney or law firm that practices in a special area of the PA law by browsing the Attorneys by practice area pages.
You'll find Pittsburgh attorneys practicing in all areas including bankruptcy, DUI, personal injury, worker’s compensation, real estate, criminal defense, domestic matters, labor and municipal law, corporate law, medical malpractice law, estate law, will & probate law, immigration law, copyright law, trademark law, wrongful death, divorce, child custody, auto accidents, .
Even if you are not sure if your case fits into one of these legal categories you can contact Pittsburgh Lawyers listed on this site. Most Pittsburgh Layers offer a free initial consultation without a retainer in order to understand the particulars about your specific case. Based upon the discussions during this consultation the attorney will advise you as to whether your case has merit and the potential costs and consequences with moving forward with your case. A lawyer will also present a cost estimate and a retainer amount that must be paid up front in order to have them represent you.
Please feel free to browse this website. Whether you're just investigating an area of the Pennsylvania law or your in need of a Pittsburgh lawyer now.
DISCLAIMER: The materials contained on this web site are provided for information only and do not constitute legal advice. Contact with this web site does not establish an attorney-client relationship.
Legal Headlines from Jaffe Legal News
Web 2.0 White Paper Offers Guidance for Law Firms Looking to Get Ahead of Social Media Curve
WASHINGTON – Jaffe Associates, the leading public relations firm serving the legal industry in North America and Europe, has published a white paper to provide guidance to law firms seeking to understand what Web 2.0 means for their public relations and networking efforts.
“Whether it’s LinkedIn or Legal OnRamp, Twitter or del.icio.us, Web 2.0 is very quickly transforming the way law firms market themselves and their attorneys,” said Jay M. Jaffe, President and CEO. “We know it will be useful for our clients, our friends, as well as ourselves, to get totally up to date on these major changes in the way we all work. ”
Titled “Web 2.0 and PR 2.0—The Way Jaffe Looks At The Present,” the Jaffe white paper cuts through the hype about social media and provides, in practical terms, a grounding for attorneys and law firm marketers that will put them ahead of the curve regarding these new tools. It provides the information they need, right now, to begin implementing Web 2.0 tools in their public relations efforts. Topics covered include:
-What Web 2.0 means, in practical terms, for the legal industry
-How Web 2.0 makes networking for lawyers easier for everyone, regardless of geography or time pressures
-How to leverage legal content using Web 2.0
-Rules for using Web 2.0 effectively
Jaffe says the key to making the most of the PR, marketing, and networking opportunities made possible by Web 2.0 is taking the time now to focus on what these tools do, the audiences they reach, and how they can be adapted for the law firm market. The changes will also require a change in the mindset of a naturally risk-averse market.
“Many attorneys and legal marketers feel they are too busy just keeping up with email, never mind managing social networking site profiles, reading Twitter posts, or ensuring a practice area blog is active with content and responses to comments,” says Jaffe. “Yet it’s those firms that pay attention now that will reap the benefits later. And, they will be ahead of the pack when their competitors realize these changes not only aren’t going away, they are happening at an ever-increasing pace. Wait too long and you may never catch up.”
Adds Liz Lindley, Director of Jaffe’s Public Relations and WritersForLawyers groups, “Lawyers are just now getting accustomed to the idea of transparency and two-way dialogue which is the philosophical cornerstone of the 2.0 world. Jaffe’s white paper gives them information to ease their minds and take a closer look at how they can comfortably use these amazing technologies, just as Corporate America has been doing for some time now.”
The full Jaffe Web 2.0 white paper is available at http://jaffeassociates.com/pages/articles/view.php?article_id=296
Jaffe has also launched a blog (http://jaffeassociates.com/blog/) and wiki (http://jaffeassociates.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page) for attorneys and legal marketers to find out more about using Web 2.0 in their marketing efforts, and to interact and add their own comments, thoughts and observations.
About Jaffe Associates ( www.jaffeassociates.com)Jaffe Associates is the leading public relations firm serving the legal industry in North America and Europe, offering media relations, crisis communications, strategic consulting, and creative support. Established 30 years ago, Jaffe operates as a fully virtual company with a staff of experienced law firm marketers located nationwide. Our goal is to Make It Happen for our clients: to drive business to their own businesses through a combination of Classic Public Relations and Public Relations and Web 2.0.News Contact: Liz Lindley
Email: lindleyl@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 201-767-2690
In a closely-watched appeal raising the issue of corporate scienter, the Second Circuit today ordered the dismissal of a class action suit against Dynex and Merit.
The central issue in Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund vs. Dynex Capital Inc. involved corporate scienter, or whether the defendant companies could be found to have committed securities fraud even if their individual employees did not.
“The Second Circuit held that while it was possible as a matter of legal theory for a plaintiff to plead fraudulent intent as to a company without pleading it as to an individual, the standard for doing so is very high, and in the vast majority of cases claims against a company can proceed only if scienter is pleaded as to an individual,” said Edward J. Fuhr, a partner with Hunton & Williams LLP (Richmond, Va.) and lead litigation counsel to Dynex. “The Court also noted that to prove corporate scienter, plaintiffs must ultimately prove an individual acted with scienter.”
The stakes were high in the Dynex case, with amicus briefs having been filed by the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. The outcome will have broad implications for corporate America.
“With this decision, the Second Circuit joins the majority of Circuits that have rejected efforts by the plaintiffs’ securities class action bar to expand the reach of the federal securities laws to companies against whom no credible allegations of fraud can be made,” said Fuhr.
Fuhr is available to discuss the Dynex ruling and its implications. A copy of the Second Circuit’s opinion is also available.
News Contact: Kevin Aschenbrenner
Email: aschk@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 250-294-8431
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation announced today “Operation Malicious Mortgage,” as a strong commitment and enforcement response against mortgage fraud, and recently arrested hundreds of individuals around the country as a show of force. Federal authorities also issued separate indictments against two former Bear Stearns managers.
Perspectives:
a. Mortgage Lenders Most Often the Victims of Fraud
“Federal and state prosecutors have long been a friend of the lending industry in the prosecution of mortgage fraud. While it is encouraging that the DOJ now recognizes that mortgage fraud can affect the nationwide economy and every consumer, to characterize ‘lending fraud’ as that committed by mortgage industry professionals without further definition paints a false picture,” says Linda S. Finley, a shareholder in Baker Donelson’s Atlanta office who focuses on mortgage fraud, and co-chair of the firm’s Mortgage Industry Service Team. “The mortgage flip schemes defined by DOJ fail to recognize that most often the mortgage lender is victimized by brokers, property sellers, so-called real estate investors, appraisers and the borrowing consumer, each of whom who reap the benefit of mortgage fraud dollars. The mortgage lending industry has for years been in the forefront of investigation and prosecution of fraudsters, often working hand in hand with law enforcement and state and federal prosecutors. A general definition of mortgage fraud is difficult - there are such a variety of scams and too many participants to generalize; but to paint mortgage lenders as fraud participants when they lose hundreds of millions of dollars each year on account of shady borrowers and other scam artists is just wrong.” Finley has tried more than 300 jury trials to verdict and concentrates her practice in business litigation involving the mortgage lending and servicing industries and litigation regarding real estate issues. She is available for interviews.
News Contact: Vivian Hood
Email: hoodv@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 904-220-1915
b. Indictments Like Throwing Gasoline on Already-Raging Fire
“These indictments will be like throwing 1,000 gallons of gasoline on the already raging fire that is sweeping through Wall Street,” says Scott A. Meyers, head of the Litigation Practice at Levenfeld Pearlstein LLC (Chicago), who focuses his practice on securities matters. “At issue here are all of the current hot topics: hedge funds, credit crisis, mortgage markets, sub prime, Bear Stearns, portfolio valuation, risk controls, and investor disclosure. With all of these issues now wrapped together with allegations of securities fraud and criminal misconduct, this is going to be a feeding frenzy for the plaintiffs' bar and I expect to see significant follow-on civil litigation, as well as increased regulatory scrutiny in this space.” Meyers is available for interviews.
News Contact: Jason Milch
Email: milchj@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 312-846-9647
Christine Todd Whitman to serve as chair; Hunton & Williams lawyer as director
WASHINGTON – A consortium of water leaders today announced the formation of The Water Policy Institute. Chaired by former EPA Administrator and New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, the Institute will address water-related issues and provide information to the public through its website. Kathy Robb, a partner in the Resources, Regulatory and Environmental Law practice at the law firm Hunton & Williams LLP, is the founder of the Institute and will serve as its director.
The members of the Institute are water leaders representing water districts, multi-national companies, and energy companies who will discuss and review current challenges affecting both global and local water issues including supply, quality, use, wildlife and agricultural concerns, and climate change. Members, including BP, Central Arizona Project, and GE Water, will develop white papers on current issues and provide thought leadership on legal and regulatory issues involving water, and collaborate to propose sustainable solutions. The Institute’s Advisory Panel is comprised of leading water experts, among them scientists, academics, former government officials, NGO professionals and other prominent water leaders.
“I believe water is one of the most pressing environmental issue facing our world today. Water issues have escalated in our country and worldwide, with record droughts, threats to water quality, and cross-border disputes over water. The Institute provides a one-of-a-kind forum for water leaders to consider the problems and develop new ideas and potential solutions,” said Christie Whitman, who is currently president of The Whitman Strategy Group, a consulting firm that specializes in energy and environmental issues. “Water issues impact all of us, from companies that deliver and manage water and industries that require a reliable supply of quality water to operate, to individual consumers and those who work to protect our environment. The Water Policy Institute brings together various viewpoints in a quest for sustainable, workable solutions,” said Whitman.
“Over the years, I have seen a number of changes in the issues surrounding water and its use, including new regulations and significant litigation between states and disputes between countries regarding water use, supply, allocation and quality. These and so many other water-related issues touch upon our individual lives as well as the operations of manufacturers, developers, suppliers, financial institutions, water districts and nearly every industry, worldwide,” said Robb. “Water is uniquely global and local. If you are going to address water issues, you have to start at the local level where people get their water but at the same time you must look at the global impact. Members of the Institute, who cross industries and geographic boundaries, will provide thought leadership on these legal and regulatory issues and policies.”
The Institute’s Advisory Panel members are: Leslie Carothers, President, Environmental Law Institute; Gabriel Eckstein, Professor, Texas Tech School of Law; Paul Faeth, Executive Director, Global Water Challenge; David Freestone, Senior Adviser, World Bank; Craig Manson, Professor, McGeorge School of Law; Tracy Mehan, Principal, The Cadmus Group; Mark Van Putten, President, ConservationStrategy LLC; and Robert Stavins, Professor, Harvard University.
“There are many critical issues surrounding water availability and use. I’m pleased to be part of this group which will provide a important forum for candid discussion and real-world solutions,” said Robert N. Stavins, a member of the Institute’s Advisory Panel and Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, where he directs the Harvard Environmental Economics Program. “This is an important time for public policy affecting water supply, water demand, and water quality. The Institute provides a key venue for industry leaders, NGO representatives, and others to participate in informed discussions, vital to arriving at workable and sustainable answers.”
The Institute is accessible to the public at www.waterpolicyinstitute.com, which provides information about water issues; a calendar of key water meetings and conferences; news, articles, legislative materials and speeches; and links to regulatory sites.
The Water Policy Institute, formed in May 2008, is a non-partisan, member-driven organization of water leaders, including scientists, academics, water users, industries, water suppliers, government entities and non-governmental organizations. Its purpose is to collaboratively develop innovative, sustainable solutions for water supply and quality issues, and to provide leadership on legal, regulatory and policy issues involving water locally, nationally, and internationally. Christine Todd Whitman is Chair of the Institute; Kathy Robb of the law firm Hunton & Williams is Director of the Institute. Please visit www.waterpolicyinstitute.com for more information.
About Hunton & Williams LLPHunton & Williams provides legal services to a broad array of entities, including corporations, financial institutions, governments and individuals. Since our establishment more than a century ago, Hunton & Williams has grown to more than 1,000 attorneys serving clients in 100 countries from 18 offices around the world. While our practice has a strong industry focus on energy, financial services and life sciences, the depth and breadth of our experience extends to more than 100 separate practice areas, including bankruptcy and creditors rights, commercial litigation, corporate transactions and securities law, intellectual property, international and government relations, regulatory law, products liability, and privacy and information management. For additional information visit our website at www.hunton.com.
News Contact: Kevin Aschenbrenner
Email: aschk@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 250-294-8431
MINNEAPOLIS (April 2008) - A jury in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division., has awarded $66,029,750 to Grantley Patent Holdings, Ltd. in a patent infringement trial. On April 22, the jury found that Clear Channel Communications, Inc. infringed Grantley's intellectual property regarding integrated inventory management systems for multiple radio stations. After a seven-daytrial, the jury found that the infringement was willful, which may allow for damages to be trebled.
In an earlier motion relating to this case, the Court granted Grantley's motion for summary judgment of no inequitable conduct on March 31, 2008, and noted that Clear Channel's allegations of inequitable conduct were supported by "paltry" evidence.
Grantley is the patent holding sister company of Maxagrid International, Ltd., a leading producer of yield management software for radio stations.
Trial counsel for Grantley were Ronald J. Schutz, chair of the Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., and Emmett J. McMahon, a partner at the firm whose practice focuses on intellectual property litigation. Grantley was also represented at trial by Larry Germer of Germer Gertz, L.L.P., located in Beaumont, Texas.
"We are very pleased that the jury understood the complex issues in the case and found that Clear Channel had infringed Grantley's patents," said Mr. Schutz.
The case is Grantley v. Clear Channel Communications, et al.
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. (www.rkmc.com) represents Fortune 500 corporations, emerging companies, entrepreneurs and individuals as both plaintiffs and defendants. The firm is frequently engaged in high-stakes, complex litigation with significant bottom-line implications for their clients, and the business lawyers handle complex transactions in a variety of market segments. The Robins, Kaplan, Miller& Ciresi Foundation for Children makes sizeable financial contributions toward narrowing education and health gaps. The firm has over 250 lawyers located in Atlanta, Boston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Naples (FL).
News Contact: Vivian Hood
Email: hoodv@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 904-220-1915
Sets National Goal to Halt Growth in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2025
In a Rose Garden speech April 16, President George W. Bush for the first time called for stopping the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions no later than 2025.
“The new 2025 goal continues the Administration’s long-term strategy of slowing, stopping, then reversing the U.S. emission of GHGs, and represents the next step from the President’s 2002 announced goal to reduce America’s GHG ‘intensity’ by 18 percent through 2012,” said Joseph C. Stanko, Jr., who chairs the Government Relations Practice Group at Hunton & Williams LLP (Washington). “The President also stated that any approach to GHG emissions reductions must strengthen energy security and grow the U.S. economy, and not stifle development in the developing world.”
The President also mentioned Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s intent to bring the Lieberman-Warner legislation to the Senate floor in early June. He stated that there is a right and a wrong way to go about passing national legislation, and that the major bills under discussion represent the wrong way because they increase the price of gasoline, home heating fuel, and energy, as well as raise taxes, duplicate mandates and demand sudden and drastic emissions cuts that are unachievable. In the President’s view, the “right way” is to ensure that all major economies take action, but not in a way that starts trade wars or protectionist barriers.
“Given the President’s veto power, his statements regarding the current Lieberman-Warner legislation put a sharp focus on the topics that must be resolved in order for the bill to have any chance of passage,” said Stanko. “It is clear that much progress remains to be made on issues such as cost-containment mechanisms, technology incentives, the role of nuclear power, potentially duplicative state/federal authority, full international participation, and other matters.”
Stanko noted companies and other stakeholders should carefully monitor the Senate’s ongoing negotiations, especially for individual issues that might be resolved this year, even if an overall agreement remains out of reach.
In terms of international climate change negotiations, the President noted that the next session of the Major Economies Meeting (MEM) begins this week in Paris. He said the MEM discussions are an attempt to get beyond the impasse created by the Kyoto Protocol’s distinction between developing versus developed nations.
“The MEM process makes no distinction regarding development status; rather it seeks binding commitments from the 17 largest GHG emitters to an emissions reduction plan,” said Stanko. “It will be a difficult task, but if the MEM framework is agreed to by its members, it could gain traction within the United Nations process and be put into play as a successor to the existing Kyoto Protocol.”
Stanko is available to discuss the President’s plan for reducing growth in GHG emissions by 2025, and its implications for current legislation, international negotiations, as well as industry stakeholders.
News Contact: Kevin Aschenbrenner
Email: aschk@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 250-294-8431
Axion Wins Unprecedented Decision in Battle with U.S. Department of Justice
BIRMINGHAM, AL - In a precedent-setting legal ruling against the U.S. Department of Justice, an Alabama defense contractor who was acquitted of violating the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and other charges in a six count indictment following a seven day trial in 2007 will now be awarded legal expenses incurred while defending his federal prosecution.
Birmingham U.S. District Court Judge Inge Johnson has ruled that Axion Corporation and owner Alex Latifi are entitled to government reimbursement for legal fees and costs incurred as a result of the government’s three year criminal investigation and civil forfeiture action against them. The Justice Department, Army, FBI and Customs Service began investigating Latifi and Axion in 2003 when Axion employed about 60 people and had annual revenues of about $4 million. In the course of the investigation, the government froze $2.5 million of Latifi’s business and personal assets, seeking to seize it as ill-gotten gains. The forfeiture action and criminal indictment, brought by federal prosecutors and led by Birmingham U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, alleged Latifi broke the law by illegally exporting sensitive military technology involving aircraft parts for the Army’s Black Hawk helicopter to China. Following Latifi and Axion Corporation’s October 2007 acquittal on all counts in the corresponding criminal action, the government moved to dismiss the civil forfeiture action against them as well, but fought Axion and Latifi’s request for attorneys’ fees.
In her order, Judge Johnson said the fees, which Latifi’s attorneys have indicated could be in excess of half a million dollars, were being awarded to Axion and Latifi under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), a 2000 law designed “to give owners innocent of any wrongdoing the means to recover their property and make themselves whole after wrongful government seizures.” The order follows the government’s recent decision to withdraw its request for a ruling from the court that the asset seizure had reasonable cause. The withdrawal foreclosed Latifi’s efforts to depose U.S. Attorney Alice Martin and to examine the Justice Department’s prosecutive memos and investigative methods in the case. Johnson’s decision to award fees according to CAFRA is groundbreaking, and is likely the first of its kind in Alabama or the Eleventh Circuit. Latifi and Axion made a similar request for fees under the Hyde Amendment in the criminal action as well, which is currently pending before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
“It’s a revolutionary ruling and case,” said Henry Frohsin, the Birmingham, Alabama defense attorney with Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz who represented Latifi, along with colleagues Jim Barger, Catherine Long, Elliott Walthall, and Doreen Edelman. “We believe Axion is the only company ever to win such a ruling in an arms export control case. We could not be more pleased for Alex Latifi and his company but the battle is far from over. His family-owned $50 million dollar defense contracting company has basically been decimated. Alex is now fighting to get his company and his reputation back, and the government remains a fierce opponent.”
In 2007, there were more than 100 Arms Export Control Act criminal prosecutions by the Department of Justice. Axion is the only case that the Department lost, as most AECA charges result in guilty pleas. The Baker Donelson attorneys believe this case will change the way the DOJ does business. “The Axion case is a clear signal to the DOJ and to future defendants that a guilty plea is not always the answer to an AECA charge,” said Jim Barger. “The Axion case may ultimately have the positive effect of encouraging the government to focus on developing meritorious cases, rather than pursuing weak or marginal cases of dubious merit.”
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC is one of the 100 largest law firms in the country. Through strategic acquisitions and mergers over the past century, the Firm has grown to include more than 540 attorneys, and public policy and international advisors. Baker Donelson represents clients across the U.S. and abroad from offices in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Washington, D.C., and a representative office in Beijing, China.
News Contact: Tom Stanton
Email: stantont@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 312-265-0306
Ruling denies an expanded review of arbitration awards by the courts
A 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court today limits the role of federal courts in reviewing arbitration awards.
The Supreme Court examined Hall Street, Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. to determine whether to expand the circumstances in which appeals of arbitration rulings would be allowed. The Federal Arbitration Act dictates that arbitration awards can only be vacated in limited cases involving matters such as fraud, corruption, partiality or when arbitrators exceed their powers.
“If the Supreme Court had ruled that arbitration awards could be appealed like court’s orders, it would have sent a negative jolt through the entire arbitration process,” says H. Roderic Heard, a partner at Wildman Harrold (Chicago) who has lectured and taught at several law schools on alternative dispute resolution.
“Arbitration is a preferred method of dispute resolution for many companies because it is speedy, economical, and final. Allowing the appeal of arbitration rulings would bog down the entire process, destroying the finality that exists with arbitration awards currently and rendering arbitration as a legal option much less attractive to the business community. The court’s decision that arbitration awards cannot be appealed is, on balance, a win for the arbitration process.”
Heard is available for interviews to discuss the ruling by the Supreme Court and the potential ramifications.
News Contact: Tom Stanton
Email: stantont@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 312-265-0306
UK newspapers apologize for “utter falsity” of dozens of stories following girl’s disappearance
The Express newspaper group in the UK will pay a reported £550,000 (USD $1,089,568.97) in damages to the Find Madeline Fund in the settlement of a libel case (taken by the parents of Madeline McCann) over reports of the girl’s disappearance. They will also have to pay the McCanns' legal costs, which will be substantial.
The lawsuit focused on approximately 100 articles published over a number of months in the newspapers, which carried the general theme that the McCanns were responsible for their daughter Madeleine’s death, that there were strong or reasonable grounds for suspecting this, and that they had disposed of her body and covered their actions.
“It is difficult to conceive of a more serious allegation than to be accused of being responsible for the death of one’s own daughter,” said the McCanns in a statement in open court on Tuesday.
In acknowledgement that the stories were untrue, four Express newspapers will publish front-page apologies to the parents. On Wednesday, the Daily Express and Daily Star both carried front-page apologies under the headline, "Kate and Gerry McCann: Sorry".
“This is unprecedented,” said Niri Shan, a media lawyer with international law firm Taylor Wessing (London). “This is a huge amount of money in the context of settlement awards in the UK. Moreover, the last front page apology in a libel action I can remember resulted after the Sun published a story about Elton John's sex life in the 1980s.”
Shan said this case sends a clear warning of the seriousness of libel actions to other newspapers and media outlets worldwide.
“As a result of this settlement, other newspapers will rightfully be concerned about whether action will be taken against them for similar stories published. Publishers will no doubt be trawling their archives to double-check copy today, following this case,” he said.
Shan is available to comment on this topic and its potential effect on similar libel actions in other jurisdictions.
News Contact: Pamela Ulijasz
Email: ulijaszp@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 608-245-9223
Free mobile access to Delaware statutes on BlackBerry(R) smartphones
Lawyers and businesspeople can now access the full text of Delaware corporate and business statutes directly from their BlackBerry smartphones.
Delaware law firm Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP just launched eDelaware (TM), a free mobile, wireless service that provides instant access to the full text of key Delaware statutes, along with case law summaries, through a BlackBerry smartphone device. It is the first mobile software developed by a law firm that allows for access to important statutes and case law summaries on a Blackberry smartphone.
But eDelaware isn’t just for lawyers in Delaware.
“Because Delaware is a jurisdiction of choice for the incorporation and formation of business entities, we thought many attorneys would find it useful to be able to pull out their BlackBerry smartphone, to check a statute when they are on the road or in a meeting,” said Scott E. Waxman, a partner at Potter Anderson and the mind behind eDelaware. “This is a sophisticated and essential tool for anyone who must stay connected and up-to-date on the most recent legal developments in Delaware business law while on the go.”
The key advantage to eDelaware is that it stores the information on the user's Blackberry smartphone, making it accessible even when no wireless connection is available. Then, as long as the user's Blackberry smartphone is within range of wireless coverage, amendments to statutes and new case law summaries are downloaded with no intervention by the user and without disrupting other functions on the device.
More information is available at www.potteranderson.com/edelaware.html and Waxman is available for interviews or to write articles about the new software.
News Contact: Cari Brunelle
Email: brunellec@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 302-656-6096
Minneapolis, MN (January 2008) – The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled on pending motions in favor of plaintiffs Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, Federated Mutual Insurance Company, and Health Care Service Corporation in their antitrust suit against Mylan Laboratories, and awarded trebled damages totaling approximately $64.9 million. The Court awarded firm clients Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts $58,482,347; Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota $5,265,114; and Federated Mutual Insurance Company $1,232,634.
In June 2005, a jury found that Mylan Laboratories, Inc., (MYL: NYSE) the largest generic drug manufacturer in the United States, violated state antitrust laws and awarded damages in excess of $12 million to the plaintiffs. Those health plans sought to recover millions of dollars in overpayments to Mylan and the other defendants in the suit for two popular anti-anxiety medications, lorazepam, the generic equivalent of Ativan, and clorazepate, the generic equivalent of Tranxene
Additionally, the jury had concluded that Mylan’s and its co-defendants’ actions were willful, raising the possibility that the verdict will be trebled under the controlling laws, and that defendants may also be liable for attorneys’ fees and costs. Mylan increased its drug prices 2,000 percent or more for lorazepam and clorazepate following exclusive agreements that prevented other generic competitors access to the raw material supplies they needed to compete in the marketplace.
“Our clients are extremely pleased at this long-awaited outcome. Trebled damages sends a strong message to Mylan that their violations were unacceptable,” said W. Scott Simmer of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., and attorney for the plaintiffs. Thomas J. Poulin of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. also represented the plaintiffs.
In November 1997, defendants negotiated long-term exclusive licensing agreements with defendant Cambrex Corporation and its subsidiary Profarmaco S.r.l., to supply the active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) required to manufacture lorazepam and clorazepate. Following the exclusive supply agreements and a series of related actions undertaken in early 1998, Mylan dramatically raised prices of finished generic lorazepam and clorazepate tablets by more than 2,000 percent, despite the lack of significant cost increases. As a result of these extraordinary price increases, many purchasers, including pharmacies, hospitals, insurers, managed care organizations, wholesalers, government agencies, and others, have paid substantially higher prices.
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. (www.rkmc.com) represents Fortune 500 corporations, emerging companies, entrepreneurs and individuals as both plaintiffs and defendants. The firm is frequently engaged in high-stakes, complex litigation with significant bottom-line implications for their clients, and the business lawyers handle complex transactions in a variety of market segments. The Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi Foundation for Children makes sizeable financial contributions toward narrowing education and health gaps. The firm has over 250 lawyers located in Atlanta, Boston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Naples (FL).
News Contact: Vivian Hood
Email: hoodv@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 904-220-1915
First case involving the intersection of the securities laws and subprime loans has serious implications
Can a corporation commit securities fraud even if its individual employees did not? That’s the question the Second Circuit will consider next week as oral arguments take place in Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund vs. Dynex Capital Inc. The stakes are high, with amicus briefs having been filed by the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.
“This case has serious implications for corporate America, as a decision for the plaintiff will make it easier for the plaintiffs’ bar to pursue frivolous securities class actions. This is the last thing the American economy needs,” says Edward J. Fuhr, a litigator with Hunton & Williams LLP and lead defense counsel to Dynex (DX). “This appeal will also be the first time a court rules on a case involving the intersection of the securities laws and mortgage lending practices, and that in itself will be important to watch,” he notes.
The original securities class action case involved allegations of securities fraud against Dynex and two of its executives in Dynex’s sale of asset-backed bonds collateralized by mobile home loans. The plaintiffs alleged that certain former employees failed to comply with mortgage underwriting requirements and that as a result the Company’s officers made statements that misled investors as to the likelihood of loan defaults. The district court dismissed the claims against the two individual executives but allowed the plaintiffs to proceed against Dynex, the corporate entity.
“It is nonsensical to state that having failed to plead that any particular Dynex employee intended to commit fraud, the company itself somehow intended to commit fraud,” says Fuhr, who will present oral argument for Dynex on Jan. 30. “It has long been settled that a corporation has no mind. Accordingly, while a corporation can be responsible for the tortious acts committed by an employee, the requisite state of mind must necessarily be that of the employee. Holding otherwise would have chilling ramifications.”
Fuhr is available to discuss the case, why the lower court’s finding of corporate scienter must be overturned, and the implications for corporate America and the disposition of future suits, including those involving securities tied to failed subprime mortgages.
News Contact: Kevin Aschenbrenner
Email: aschk@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 250-294-8431
In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States has placed limits on investor lawsuits against businesses accused of fraudulently inflating stock prices. The court’s ruling provides protection from securities suits to suppliers, banks, accountants and law firms that do business with public companies.
"The Supreme Court's 5-3 decision in this case was certainly expected, as the attempt to expand these lawsuits to third parties or vendors was much too tenuous," said David H. Kistenbroker, chairman of the Securities Litigation Practice at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (Chicago). "What this ruling basically does is maintain the status quo of the structure and parameters of these cases, which is, in my mind, the correct course of action."
Mr. Kistenbroker is available for interviews.
News Contact: Jason Milch
Email: milchj@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 312-846-9647
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Served on Vioxx Negotiating Committeeon Behalf of Thousands of Plaintiffs Nationwide
NEW YORK – Seeger Weiss LLP , one of the nation's premier plaintiffs' law firms, announces that founding member Christopher A. Seeger along with co-counsel on the Vioxx Negotiating Committee have obtained a $4.85 billion Global Resolution with Merck & Co. (NYSE: MRK) for heart attack and stroke claims related to more than 45,000 plaintiffs' use of Merck's arthritis drug Vioxx. The personal injury settlement was entered today in New Orleans before the Honorable Eldon E. Fallon, United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, as well before New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol E. Higbee and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Victoria Chaney who have coordinated the New Jersey and California Vioxx litigations, respectively. The resolution encompasses the majority of the Vioxx cases that have been in litigation throughout the country, including most of the New Jersey State Vioxx litigation, the California Vioxx litigation matters and the federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). As Co-Lead Counsel in the litigation, Mr. Seeger played an essential role in the resolution, together with the entire Vioxx Negotiating Committee, which included co-counsel Andy D. Birchfield, Jr. (Beasley Allen), Russ Herman (Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar), Arnold Levin (Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman), Tom Girardi (Girardi-Keese) and Ed Blizzard (Blizzard McCarthy).
Seeger Weiss has served in the forefront of the Vioxx litigation, with leadership roles, having been appointed as both Liaison Counsel and Co-Lead Counsel in the New Jersey State Vioxx coordinated actions by the Honorable Carol E. Higbee, and as Co-Lead Counsel in the federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) by the Honorable Eldon E. Fallon. Earlier this year, Mr. Seeger served as Lead Co-Counsel in Humeston v. Merck, wherein he and Seeger Weiss partners David R. Buchanan and Moshe Horn, and associates Laurence Nassif and Jeffrey Grand, obtained a $47.5 million jury verdict for injuries caused by Vioxx, an award that was included in the “Top 20 Personal Injury Awards of the Year (2007)” published by the New Jersey Law Journal.
“It's been a long hard fight in achieving justice for the many injured victims of Vioxx nationwide and I believe this global resolution is the best and fairest way to resolve this litigation,” said Mr. Seeger. “I will confidently recommend this settlement to my clients because it eliminates the risk attendant in litigation.”
Mr. Seeger initiated the Vioxx litigation in 2001 with co-counsel from Beasley Allen, the Lanier Law Firm, and Goforth Lewis Sanford, two years prior to Merck’s removal of Vioxx from the market. Seeger Weiss partners David R. Buchanan, Moshe Horn, and Diogenes P. Kekatos, and associates Laurence Nassif and Jeffrey Grand, have significantly contributed to the litigation, which over the years has resulted in 17 trials including Humeston v. Merck, more than 50 million pages of discovery documents, and more than 2000 depositions.
The settlement process began when the Honorable Eldon E. Fallon, Carol E. Higbee and Victoria Chaney called the parties in and implored them to begin settlement talks. Since that time, the judges have remained active in keeping the settlement process moving, working with the Vioxx Negotiating Committee.
The settlement is structured to include a threshold requirement, whereby each plaintiff will show that he or she suffered a heart attack or stroke while taking Vioxx, and once that claim clears the threshold, the plaintiff will be fairly and reasonably compensated. These claims are to be resolved as quickly as possible and the resolution is intended to bring to a close the personal injury cases in the Vioxx litigation.
Mr. Seeger is available to comment on the Vioxx Global Resolution.
Information about Vioxx:
In 1999, Merck & Co. introduced and began marketing Vioxx (rofecoxib), which quickly became a hugely popular prescription pain reliever for the treatment of osteoarthritis, acute pain, menstrual pain and rheumatoid arthritis. Vioxx is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug ("NSAID") known as a COX-2 inhibitor. By early 2000, less than a year after the drug was introduced, a study that monitored over 7,000 patients found that people who take Vioxx have five times greater risk of heart attack than those who take other painkillers. Despite the results of this trial, Merck waited another two years before warning physicians of the cardiovascular risks associated with its multi-billion-dollar-a-year drug. During that time, scores of patients suffered heart attacks and strokes while taking Vioxx. On September 30, 2004, Merck voluntarily withdrew Vioxx from the market after a long-term study demonstrated an increased risk of cardiovascular events, including heart attacks and strokes for patients who took Vioxx.
About Seeger Weiss (www.seegerweiss.com)
With a team that includes former federal and state prosecutors, as well as trial attorneys who are alumni of some of the nation’s largest and most highly respected defense firms, Seeger Weiss attorneys have earned industry leading reputations in the areas of drug and toxic injury; personal injury; class actions; securities litigation; and commercial disputes. Seeger Weiss attorneys, along with co-counsel, have recovered more than $2 billion on behalf of firm clients and class members. The firm was named to the National Law Journal’s prestigious Plaintiffs’ Hot List for 2007, and was recently featured in the “Top 20 Personal Injury Awards of the Year (2007)” published by the New Jersey Law Journal. With more than 30 attorneys, Seeger Weiss has offices in New York's Financial District; Newark, NJ; Philadelphia, PA; and Tulsa, OK.
News Contact: Liz Lindley
Email: lindleyl@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 201-313-5661
News Contact: Kevin Aschenbrenner
Email: aschk@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 250-294-8431
Rankings, Surveys & Publications Report Available Today
Current Data Shows More Than 730 Surveys from 253 Publications
WASHINGTON – Jaffe Associates Inc., the leading public relations consultancy for law firms and the legal community, today announced the launch of its highly anticipated RankingsForLawyers(TM) service. RankingsForLawyers is the only available solution for the time-consuming and labor-intensive task law firm marketers face as they try to keep up-to-date with constantly changing information on the rankings, listings and surveys now so prevalent in the legal community. RankingsForLawyers gives legal marketers the knowledge they not only need to stay on top of all of the directories and ranking opportunities -- national, regional, and local – but also to better identify those that have true value for the firm. It also provides useful guidance in managing key deadlines.
“Jaffe Associates has been closely watching this rankings trend grow over the past 25 years and has recently received many urgent calls for help from more and more law firms. Our proprietary research has made clear that there are more rankings than ever before. Law firms may be surprised that there are more than 730 legal and business lists, that focus on individuals, practice groups, diversity, office space, deals and verdicts, and many other categories,” said Kathy O’Brien, Manager of RankingsForLawyers.
These numbers underscore how ubiquitous such lists have become within the legal profession. The increase can be attributed to a number of factors, including, a full court press among firms to remain competitive, to attract top talent, boost morale or increase visibility in the local community, and publications seeking to increase readership. It is becoming more and more important for firms to be recognized not only for their exemplary legal accomplishments, but also for their concerted efforts in creating a positive work environment, their diversity programs, and for community outreach. As such, the general business rankings are carrying more weight than ever before.
As of today:
- There are 345 surveys published by 69 major legal publications
- There are 387 surveys published by 184 general business publications in the top markets nationwide
- 170 surveys list the “largest law firms”
- 154 surveys highlight the “the best, super or top” lawyers
- There are also surveys by practice area—27 for intellectual property alone
- 108 surveys showcase “rising stars”
- There are 47 “pro bono” rankings
- 75 surveys rank workplace satisfaction
- 83 rankings showcase diversity efforts
- California fills the top spot as the state with the most surveys, while Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana have the fewest
- There are more than 37 surveys that appear in European and Canadian publications
“Often the omission from a list is more telling than inclusion on a list,” notes Jay M. Jaffe, President and CEO of Jaffe Associates. “RankingsForLawyers is the only accurate way for legal marketing professionals, as well as lawyers, to know which lists are worth their valuable time, attention, and marketing dollars. Our service also helps ensure that legal marketers will not be put in the embarrassing position of missing a listing opportunity.”
In connection with the launch, visitors to the RankingsForLawyers pages on the Jaffe Associates web site (www.jaffeassociates.com/RankingsForLawyers/) can sign up to receive a complimentary copy of the 2007-2008 Rankings & Publications Report. This report, available November 5, provides all of the publication opportunities and publication dates of current rankings and awards published by media outlets and other organizations, as of that day. The report, built from Jaffe’s proprietary RankingsForLawyers research, will begin to support legal marketers who need to organize the monumental task of managing, tracking and submitting ranking, directory and survey information. But, the free report is only the tip of the iceberg as the RankingsForLawyers research has all of the additional information that marketing professionals and lawyers will need for their rankings/survey management decision-making purposes and will be available by subscription only after the November 5th launch date.
Also on November 5, Jaffe Associates will launch the RankingsForLawyers blog site: (www.rankingsforlawyersblog.com) to give marketers a venue to share their thoughts and opinions about rankings and surveys in a direct and informal way without having to monitor a listserv just to learn more about this subject. Through the collaborative nature of the blog, Jaffe intends to respond to user comments by fine-tuning and modifying the RankingsForLawyers service to meet the needs of the legal marketing community.
“In response to the growing market demand we have heard within the legal community, we compiled our market intelligence and knowledge of the growing list of legal guides into a comprehensive, proprietary research tool that enables us to help legal marketers and lawyers better manage the arduous process of list selection and submission,” says Liz Lindley, Director of Public Relations at Jaffe Associates.* “An extension of the service is the RankingsForLawyers blog site which further empowers legal marketers with a voice to change and enhance the tools they need to do their job more efficiently and effectively.”
Following the November 5 release of the free RankingsForLawyers 2007-2008 Rankings & Publications Report, Jaffe Associates will launch several services to further support law firms with survey/ranking list management, to include subscriptions for RankingsForLawyers Research Access, Customized Reports, and Submission Strategy & Support.
Disclaimer:
While Jaffe Associates has made reasonable attempts to ensure that the information contained in the RankingsForLawers report has been obtained from reliable sources, given the inherent hazards of electronic communication, there may be delays, omissions or inaccuracies in information contained in this report. By your use of this report, you agree that Jaffe Associates is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information. All information contained in this report is provided "as is", with no guarantee of completeness, accuracy, timeliness or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including, but not limited to warranties of performance, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose
Jaffe Associates cannot guarantee placement on any of the lists identified in this report. In no event will Jaffe Associates, its related partnerships or corporations, or the partners, agents or employees thereof be liable to you or anyone else for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the information in this site or for any consequential, special, or similar damages, even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Further, a lists inclusion in the RankingsForLawers report should not be deemed an endorsement of that list.
Note: Any time the acronym “TBD” (To Be Determined) is seen in reference to a submission deadline or publication date, there are two possibilities: (1) the submission deadline and/or publication date has already passed and information about the following year has not yet been released by the publication, or (2) the publication has not yet released the information. In either case, we will update the information as soon as it becomes available.
Jaffe Associates, Inc., established in 1979 in Washington, D.C., (www.jaffeassociates.com) provides a wide range of business-development services and products to law firms and other professional services firms. Jaffe's professionals in three departments, Public Relations, Business Development Consulting and Creative and Web Services help clients in law firms and other organizations tackle their most challenging and complex issues, from the setting of clear goals through to the full implementation of numerous strategies and techniques needed to grow and sustain business.
* Liz Lindley will be a panelist in a Law Journal Newsletters Webinar entitled "Rankings: Nominations that Get Noticed and Impact Business Development and Recruiting" on Thursday, December 6, 2007. For registration information, contact Liz at lindleyl@jaffeassociates.com.
News Contact: Kathy O’Brien
Email: obrienk@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 203-268-1315
LOS ANGELES – Lawdragon, the world’s fastest growing legal community, is pleased to announce the publication of the third annual Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America in its Fall 2007 issue, currently available, and online at www.lawdragon.com.
First published in 2005, The Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America is the leading guide to the nation’s best lawyers and judges. It is comprised of private lawyers from a wide range of practices, as well as in-house counsel, law professors, judges and neutrals, government attorneys, and public interest lawyers. Those named to the list represent less than one-half of one percent of the legal profession, placing them among the most elite group of legal professionals.
More than 20,000 attorneys were nominated for the list by their peers and the Lawdragon editorial staff, who selected 2,500 finalists, all of whom are featured at Lawdragon.com
The Lawdragon 500 was selected from that group, based on a proprietary system that takes into account dozens of qualifications that are scored to determine the best lawyers nationwide. Among the factors utilized in the list’s selection are extensive research by a staff of award-winning journalists who interview thousands of lawyers nationwide and a survey of lawyers and general counsel who nominate and vote for their peers online. The 500 Leading Lawyers in America also reflects the practices that are the “hottest” during a particular year, as well as those individuals who have had the greatest recent impact on the legal world.
“The Lawdragon rankings are intended to inform the public of the nation’s top legal professionals, and we are enormously proud of the 500 lawyers that we are honoring this year as the best in the country,” said Katrina Dewey, CEO of Lawdragon. “This year represents a real changing of the guard in American law, with new faces moving to the fore. The legal profession needs a guide not just to the legends of the law, but also to the lawyers you need standing by your side in a crisis today.”
Lawdragon’s objective is to help those who need a lawyer get better information about their choices in legal counsel. During the three months Lawdragon researched the guide for the Lawdragon 500, its site traffic increased more than 1200 percent as clients from Central Florida, family lawyers from Minneapolis, general counsel from Los Angeles and top-flight New York dealmakers all went to Lawdragon.com and shared their views on the counsel they would trust with their own matters.
About Lawdragon
Established in 2005, Lawdragon levels the playing field in the area of law firm rankings, offering everyone free access to the nation’s best lawyers and addressing the legal profession’s need to provide better information to clients. Lawdragon’s Web site (www.lawdragon.com) features hundreds of online profiles and evaluations of the nation’s leading lawyers and a database of nearly 200,000 U.S. attorneys.
News Contact: Pamela Ulijasz
Email: ulijaszp@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 312- 829-0583
Katten Muchin Rosenman attorneys serve as counsel in pro bono case
CHICAGO – A Cook County judge has awarded $1.3 million to Toby Paulose, 28, and Amer Zaveri, 26, victims of a vicious post-9/11 hate crime that occurred in Chicago’s West Loop in November 2002. Joseph Gutierrez, 25, and George Petroski, 24, repeatedly said, “Are you Taliban?” and “Go back to your country!” before attacking Paulose and Zaveri, American-born citizens of Indian descent. Gutierrez punched and kicked Paulose, causing a blowout fracture to his face. Zaveri sustained a three-inch gash when Petroski smashed a beer bottle on his head. Judge Donald J. O’Brien, Jr. awarded the two $300,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.
Zaveri stated: “This lawsuit was not about the money. This judgment shows that hate crimes do not go unpunished. No crime should be committed because of race, religion, or ethnic origin. Our families, like all American families, were hurt by the 9/11 attacks. We grieved, we mourned, just like you.”
Paulose continued, “Just because we’re a different color doesn’t give someone the right to attack us or associate us with a terrorist group. We are Americans born and raised in this country, just like you. Our parents came to this country for equality, not inequality.”
Paulose and Zaveri are represented by Betsy Shuman-Moore of the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and pro bono attorneys Ferris Hussein, Jonathan Baum, and Mark Magyar of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP.
“It is our privilege as lawyers to be able to help courageous clients like Toby and Amer secure justice for the outrageous and un-American abuse they suffered,” said Hussein.
The Illinois Hate Crime Act allows people injured in these crimes to press criminal charges and file civil lawsuits against those responsible. The Bias Violence Project of the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee provides free legal representation to victims of hate crime. For 38 years, the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee, through its 40-plus member law firms and staff legal team, has provided free legal services to challenge civil rights violations.
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (www.kattenlaw.com) is a full-service law firm with offices in the nation's largest centers of business, government, finance and technology and an affiliated entity in London. With over 650 attorneys in more than 40 areas of practice, Katten provides timely and cost-effective counsel to clients in numerous industries. Katten provides advice for a wide range of public and private companies – from entrepreneurial, emerging-growth, and middle market firms to global Fortune 100 corporations – as well as government entities, institutions of higher learning, museums and a host of other charitable and cultural organizations.
News Contact: Cari Brunelle
Email: brunellec@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 302-656-6096
ALEXANDRIA, Va. – The U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has affirmed the Massachusetts district court’s judgment in favor of SMC Corp. of lack of infringement of Festo Corporation’s U.S. Patent No. 4,354,125. The July 5, 2007 ruling determined that prosecution history estoppel applied because Festo failed to rebut the Supreme Court’s presumption that SMC’s accused equivalent was foreseeable. This nearly 20-year long landmark patent infringement dispute between SMC and Festo included two Supreme Court and five Federal Circuit decisions, two of which were en banc.
“SMC is, of course, pleased with this decision,” said Arthur I. Neustadt, a name partner at Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C., and the lead counsel for SMC who successfully argued this case before the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.
The CAFC ruling, which includes a history of this case, is available upon request.
Assisting clients for more than 35 years, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C., in Alexandria, Va., is one of the largest intellectual property firms in the United States. The firm provides a full range of intellectual property services, including litigation matters in all courts, the International Trade Commission, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The firm also continues to have the largest patent prosecution practice and one of the largest trademark prosecution practices in the country.
News Contact: Vivian Hood
Email: hoodv@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 904-220-1915
Supreme Court Overrules 96 Year Antitrust Precedent
Manufacturers can set minimum prices
For almost one hundred years it has been illegal for a manufacturer to dictate minimum prices to its distributors. That changed yesterday when the Supreme Court opened the door to allowing manufacturers to set a floor on the resale price at which its distributors or retailers may sell the manufacturer's products.
In Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, the Court examined the economic arguments regarding the competitive effects of minimum resale price maintenance. The five-member majority ruled that minimum resale price arrangements are not illegal per se, but are to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. A court can only impose antitrust liability where it is shown that the arrangement's adverse effects on competition outweigh its pro-competitive benefits.
"The Court's new opinion does not grant manufactures a free pass to insert minimum price restrictions into distribution and sales agreements. Careful evaluation of the competitive environment and legitimate business reasons are required," says Beth Fancsali, a partner with Wildman Harrold (Chicago). "However, the Court's reversal of Dr. Miles Medical v. John D. Park & Sons means that courts will view such policies within a broader context and manufacturers can utilize them with substantially reduced risk of antitrust scrutiny or liability," she says.
Paul Olszowka, also a partner with Wildman Harrold, believes the decision will be helpful to manufacturers. "The ruling brings the minimum price issue into line with other vertical distribution programs, which courts analyze within the framework of actual effects—positive or negative—on competition with other competing brands," he says, "It permits manufacturers to more consistently implement their pricing and distribution program."
Fancsali and Olszowka are available as sources on the decision and its impact on manufacturers.
News Contact: Pamela Ulijasz
Email: ulijaszp@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 312-829-0583
Author of ruling used by Court available for interviews
The Supreme Court today imposed a strict standard that investors must meet to avoid having their securities fraud lawsuits thrown out of court, ruling, based on a statute drafted by Bruce G. Vanyo, co-chair of the Securities Litigation Practice at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (Los Angeles), that courts must weigh possible innocent explanations for defendants’ conduct at the very start of a securities fraud case. Doing so can lead to early dismissal of investors' lawsuits.
The ruling came in a shareholders suit against Tellabs Inc., which misled investors by conspiring to inflate Tellabs’ stock price from December 2000 to June 2001, providing false assurances from the company CEO of robust demand for its products.
“For what it’s worth, the Court’s decision is what I intended when I wrote the statute adopted by Congress, however, it is Congress’ intent which is actually important here,” Mr. Vanyo said. “This decision ends any uncertainty about whether a court must engage in a genuine analysis of competing inferences from an alleged set of facts. It is also important that the Court specified that a judge must look not only at the complaint, but any other sources that can be examined in ruling on a motion to dismiss.”
David Kistenbroker, Chicago-based co-chair of Katten’s Securities Litigation Practice and chair of its National Litigation Practice, who has argued many high-profile securities fraud cases, also noted that, “The Supreme Court got this one right. The reversal was appropriate, however this is not a landmark shift in the law. It really only serves to more clearly articulate the law as put on the books by Congress. This doesn't preclude access to the courts by shareholders, but does more clearly explain their responsibilities and standards that they must meet in order to bring suit.”
Mr. Vanyo and Mr. Kistenbroker are available for interviews on the Court’s decision in this case and the statute from which the ruling was derived.
News Contact: Jason Milch
Email: milchj@jaffeassociates.com
Phone: 312-846-9647
