|
|
|
Corporate Partner Louis Lehot Expands
Legal Topics |
2009/08/21 16:18
|
| According to a press release distributed by Shepard Mullin today, Louis Lehot has joined the Silicon Valley office of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP as a partner in the firm's Corporate practice group. Lehot joins Sheppard Mullin from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP in Palo Alto.
Lehot's Silicon Valley practice is focused on advising technology companies and their financial sponsors and investment banks in M&A transactions, capital raising transactions, strategic and commercial transactions, as well as corporate governance and securities law compliance matters.
Lehot's recent M&A experience includes advising SiRF Technology in its public stock-for-stock merger with CSR plc, and recent capital markets deal credits include advising the underwriters in Oracle Corporation's $4.5 billion debt financing, in Micron Technology's concurrent public common stock and convertible note offerings and in GLG Partners' convertible note offering. His clients have included technology names such as AOL, Seagate Technology and SiRF Technology, investment banks including Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Citi, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, UBS and Wachovia, as well as leading Bay Area-based financial sponsors.
"Louis is a rising star in the deal world and an excellent fit firm wide with both our Corporate practice group and technology practice, as well as our Silicon Valley office. His Wall Street law firm expertise coupled with his Silicon Valley experience will be of great value to our clients," said Guy Halgren, chairman of the firm.
Commented Lehot, "Sheppard Mullin offers a large statewide footprint for a technology company practice in Silicon Valley. Additionally, the firm's New York, Washington, D.C. and Shanghai offices and leading digital entertainment, media, energy and high technology practices provide a full-service and international platform to support our clients. I am thrilled to be joining the firm and look forward to growing the Silicon Valley corporate and transactional practice with partner Riaz Karamali."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3rd Circuit Appeal Challenges Judge's Outside Research In Bench Trial
Legal Topics |
2009/08/20 16:24
|
According to the New Jersey Law Journal, a federal appeals court has been asked to limit the right of judges to do their own research in bench trials, lest they be swayed by facts not before them.
US Magistrate Patty Shwartz in Newark, N.J., no-caused a medical malpractice claim after consulting published and unpublished cases -- not cited by the parties -- that dwelled on the type of injury the defendant doctor was accused of inflicting.
A three-judge panel of the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict, saying the research was for "informational" purposes only and was not the basis for Shwartz's decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Split Supreme Court Orders Review Of Death Row Inmate's Claims That Witnesses Recanted Testimony
Legal Topics |
2009/08/18 16:15
|
According to the Fulton County Daily Report, the case of Troy Anthony Davis took another extraordinary turn on Monday as the US Supreme Court ordered a federal district judge to hear testimony on the death row inmate's claims that he did not murder a Savannah, Ga., police officer.
Justice Antonin Scalia said in a dissent that the high court hadn't made a similar move in nearly 50 years.
The decision was welcomed by supporters of Davis, who for years have claimed that prosecution witnesses have recanted their testimony from the 1991 trial in which a jury condemned Davis to die for the 1989 killing of Officer Mark Allen MacPhail.
Georgia Attorney General Thurbert E. Baker, whose office has fought Davis' efforts to gain relief, issued a measured response to the ruling, saying simply that he hoped the hearing would resolve doubts about the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redbox Says Fox Is Trying to Kill It
Legal Topics |
2009/08/14 16:11
|
Courthouse News reports that Redbox, the DVD kiosk rental giant, says Twentieth Century Fox is trying to kill its business by cutting off the supply of DVDs because Redbox refused to agree to a 30-day "blackout period," during which it will withhold new releases. In its antitrust complaint in Delaware Federal Court, Redbox claims Fox is conducting an illegal boycott in restraint of trade.
Redbox says Fox ordered its distributors, Ingram Entertainment and Video Product Distribution, to cut Redbox off.
In remarkably self-serving language written in high dudgeon, Redbox cites "tough economic times," during which "people simply need some form of release from their financial pressures, even if just for a couple of hours." Redbox says it provides this through its cheap movies, but Fox demands a "business-killing blackout period ... during which consumers would be allowed to procure these DVDs only through more expensive channels ... despite the fact that consumers are being battered by one of the toughest economic recessions in history." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Claims Insurers Cancel Just As Hurricane Season Begins
Legal Topics |
2009/08/11 16:27
|
According to Courthouse News, a class action claims Texas insurance companies collect premiums for storm coverage from November through May - when there's no risk of hurricanes - then cancel policies by the thousand just before hurricane season begins. Unitrin, an insurance holding company, allegedly canceled 40 percent of one of its subsidiaries' policies before this year's hurricane season began.
Plaintiffs claim the scheme allows Unitrin and its creatures to fix prices and charge for insurance without providing it. Unitrin has been doing this since 2006, according to the complaint in Jefferson County Court.
When the 2007 hurricane season was predicted to be a big one, the defendants canceled many "hurricane" policies, the class claims. After Hurricane Ike in 2008, Unitrin and its Capitol County subsidiary collected hurricane premiums from policyholders as long as possible, then canceled more than 40 percent of residential policies before the 2009 hurricane season started, according to the complaint.
Such cancellations require the defendants to return unearned premiums, but Unitrin is ducking that by calling its cancellations "non-renewals," the class claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Watchdogs Sue Kellogg's Over Cereal Ads
Legal Topics |
2009/08/10 20:53
|
According to Courthouse News, Kellogg falsely advertises that its Frosted Mini-Wheat cereal "improved children's attentiveness by 20 percent," the National Consumers League claims in Superior Court. The nonprofit Consumers League claims Kellogg's "study" compared kids who ate its sugared cereal with children who did not eat breakfast at all - and even then, juggled the numbers.
The Consumers League claims the breakfast cereal giant's "clinical study" actually found that only one out of nine children who ate Frosted Mini-Wheats for breakfast was more attentive by 20 percent.
"In fact, kids in the clinical study who ate Frosted Mini-Wheats had an average of 10.6 percent better attentiveness three hours later than kids who had skipped breakfast," the complaint states. "Indeed, relatively few kids - only approximately one in nine -experienced 20 percent improved attentiveness in the study, and only one in seven kids who ate the cereal improved their attentiveness by 18 percent."
The National Consumers League seeks damages of $1,500 per violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, plus costs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge Tosses Budweiser Buyout Class Action
Legal Topics |
2009/08/07 15:51
|
Courthouse News reports that a federal judge dismissed an antitrust class action challenging InBev's buyout of Anheuser-Busch. The class claimed the Belgian brewer's buyout of the corporate parent of St. Louis' iconic Budweiser beer would reduce competition.
But US District Judge Jean Hamilton found no evidence that InBev was entering the US market from scratch. "Here, InBev has no existing breweries or distributorships to produce, promote and distribute its product and enter the US beer market de novo," Hamilton wrote. "InBev would have to build factories and develop a nationwide distribution system. Instead, InBev entered into a distributorship agreement for its imports, which would hinder its entry into the US market. Also, as discussed above, there is insufficient objective evidence that InBev had a subjective intent to enter the US market de novo. Accordingly, the Court finds that InBev was not an actual potential competitor in the US beer market and grants Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Headline Legal News for You to Reach America's Best Legal Professionals. The latest legal news and information - Law Firm, Lawyer and Legal Professional news in the Media. |
|
|
