The North Carolina Supreme Court is hearing arguments over whether
school officials should be allowed to search students' bras for drugs.
A student at an alternative school sued after students had to untuck
their shirts and pull out their bras with their thumbs in front of two
men in 2008. The searches were done after the principal at Brunswick
County Academy received a tip that pills were being brought into the
school.
An appeals court ruled last year the searches were "degrading, demeaning and highly intrusive."
The attorney general's office is representing the school. The office
says no skin was shown during the search, and students who are assigned
to an alternative school because of disciplinary problems have a lesser
expectation of privacy than other students.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
The Shuman Law Firm Announces Class Action
The Shuman Law Firm today announced that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Molycorp, Inc.
between March 9, 2011 and November 10, 2011, inclusive (the “Class
Period”).
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights and interests with respect to this matter, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn toll free at (866) 974-8626 or email Mr. Shuman at kip@shumanlawfirm.com or Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com.
The complaint alleges that Molycorp and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. Specifically, it is alleged that the defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts during the Class Period: (a) Molycorp's development and expansion of the Mountain Pass mine was not progressing on schedule and would not allow the company to reach rare earth oxide production rates at the end of calendar 2012 and 2013; and (b) end users had been reducing demand for the company's products as prices for rare earth elements increased.
On November 10, 2011, the Company reported disappointing third quarter 2011 revenues and earnings results below analysts' estimates and announced a reduction in Mountain Pass production guidance for the fourth quarter of 2011 due to expected equipment downtime relating to Mountain Pass engineering and expansion issues. The Company's stock price fell from $38.70 per share on November 10, 2011 to $33.45 per share on November 11, 2011, or approximately 13.6%.
If you purchased Molycorp common stock during the Class Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class no later than April 3, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
The Shuman Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation, concentrating its practice in investor rights litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights and interests with respect to this matter, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn toll free at (866) 974-8626 or email Mr. Shuman at kip@shumanlawfirm.com or Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com.
The complaint alleges that Molycorp and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. Specifically, it is alleged that the defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts during the Class Period: (a) Molycorp's development and expansion of the Mountain Pass mine was not progressing on schedule and would not allow the company to reach rare earth oxide production rates at the end of calendar 2012 and 2013; and (b) end users had been reducing demand for the company's products as prices for rare earth elements increased.
On November 10, 2011, the Company reported disappointing third quarter 2011 revenues and earnings results below analysts' estimates and announced a reduction in Mountain Pass production guidance for the fourth quarter of 2011 due to expected equipment downtime relating to Mountain Pass engineering and expansion issues. The Company's stock price fell from $38.70 per share on November 10, 2011 to $33.45 per share on November 11, 2011, or approximately 13.6%.
If you purchased Molycorp common stock during the Class Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class no later than April 3, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
The Shuman Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation, concentrating its practice in investor rights litigation.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Jackson Township law firm opens fifth office
The law firm Krugliak, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty Co. has
opened an office in downtown Akron, the firm’s first in Summit County.
The firm has offices in Jackson Township, Alliance, New Philadelphia and Sugarcreek.
Managing Director Terry A. Moore said the firm’s clients in and around Summit County have asked for a location in Akron, and it appeared the timing was right.
In the Akron Centre at 50 S. Main St., Suite 501, the office will be managed by attorney Edward V. Buehrle, who recently joined Krugliak as a shareholder and director.
Buehrle’s practice is focused on real estate and financial and business-related transactions. He received his bachelor’s degree from Hillsdale College and a master’s of business administration and law degree from the University of Akron.
The law firm was founded in 1958. For more information, visit www.kwgd.com.
The firm has offices in Jackson Township, Alliance, New Philadelphia and Sugarcreek.
Managing Director Terry A. Moore said the firm’s clients in and around Summit County have asked for a location in Akron, and it appeared the timing was right.
In the Akron Centre at 50 S. Main St., Suite 501, the office will be managed by attorney Edward V. Buehrle, who recently joined Krugliak as a shareholder and director.
Buehrle’s practice is focused on real estate and financial and business-related transactions. He received his bachelor’s degree from Hillsdale College and a master’s of business administration and law degree from the University of Akron.
The law firm was founded in 1958. For more information, visit www.kwgd.com.
The Law Offices of Steven M. Simrin
The Law Offices of Steven M. Simrin provides legal services in the areas
of tax representation, probate (wills and trusts), and
conservatorships. We are dedicated to providing our clients with
high-quality legal services along with the personalized attention that
should be expected of a small law firm. Conveniently located near Jack
London Square in Oakland, we serve clients from Oakland, Berkeley and
the entire San Francisco Bay Area.
IRS Tax Representation
California State and Local Tax Representation
Probate
Trust Administration
Trust Litigation
Conservatorships
Steven M. Simrin has more than 12 years experience as both an attorney and a certified public accountant advising clients on tax, probate, trusts, and conservatorships. Our office provides the personalized and prompt service that we believe all clients should expect. Please call us today for a free telephone consultation on how we might be able to help you.
Law Offices of Steven M. Simrin
318 Harrison Street Suite 102
Oakland, CA 94607
Tel. (510) 444-4430
Steven M. Simrin has more than 12 years experience as both an attorney and a certified public accountant advising clients on tax, probate, trusts, and conservatorships. Our office provides the personalized and prompt service that we believe all clients should expect. Please call us today for a free telephone consultation on how we might be able to help you.
Law Offices of Steven M. Simrin
318 Harrison Street Suite 102
Oakland, CA 94607
Tel. (510) 444-4430
Family of Navy Electrician's Mate Awarded $6.5M
A Philadelphia jury has found Rockwell Automation Inc., sued as
successor to Allen-Bradley Company, liable for the asbestos-related
death of Navy electrician's mate, David Lanpher. The liability finding
is the first-ever asbestos-exposure verdict against Rockwell.
The case was tried as a reverse bifurcated proceeding - a multi-phase trial that requires the jury to determine first if the plaintiff's mesothelioma was caused by asbestos exposure, and if so, what amount of damages is reasonable to compensate for pain, suffering, loss of consortium, and other circumstances related to the plaintiff's illness. In Phase I, defendants remain unknown to the jury, and plaintiff's counsel is not permitted to discuss or make recommendations about the scope or amount of the award.
Phase II, the liability hearing , occurs if the jury finds that the plaintiff's illness was indeed caused by asbestos exposure. In Phase II, the jury hears evidence about the asbestos-containing products identified by the plaintiff, and determines which - if any - manufacturers are responsible for the plaintiff's illness. This in turn, directs how many manufacturers are apportioned a share of the damages awarded in Phase I.
In Lanpher vs. Alfa Laval, Inc., the jury found Rockwell - the lone defendant at verdict - to be one of eight manufacturers responsible for Mr. Lanpher's asbestos exposure and subsequent mesothelioma. As such, Rockwell is responsible for one-eighth, or 12.5 percent, of the $6.5 million awarded to the Lanpher family.
Phase I concluded on February 19, 2010. The final verdict was delivered on March 5, 2010, at the end of Phase II.
Mr. Lanpher, an active and gainfully employed 71-year-old husband, father and grandfather, had reportedly been in perfect health prior to his diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma in August 2007. He died on July 13, 2008 - less than one year later, and just one day after completing the video deposition in which he sharply recalled the types, names and brands of the asbestos-containing products that caused his illness and cut short his life.
Via video deposition, Mr. Lanpher recounted enlisting in the U.S. Navy in 1954. During his 20-year career as an electrician's mate, he worked in the engineering spaces of the USS Chemung, USS Randolph, USS Remey, USS Brough, USS Dashell, USS Benewah, and USS Wright. His assignments required him to handle various engine parts and components, including asbestos-containing insulating boards and motor control units. He recalled cutting and filing parts, including asbestos-containing motor control units manufactured and sold by Allen-Bradley, and the dust that he regularly breathed in tight quarters. He was honorably discharged in 1973, and worked as an electrician in Phoenix, Arizona, until he became too ill to work in 2007.
Mr. Lanpher's wife, Pauline, and daughter and son-in-law, Nancy and Terry Perkins, traveled from Phoenix for the trial. The family was present during both Phase I and Phase II verdicts, and were relieved and satisfied with the trial's outcome.
The case was tried as a reverse bifurcated proceeding - a multi-phase trial that requires the jury to determine first if the plaintiff's mesothelioma was caused by asbestos exposure, and if so, what amount of damages is reasonable to compensate for pain, suffering, loss of consortium, and other circumstances related to the plaintiff's illness. In Phase I, defendants remain unknown to the jury, and plaintiff's counsel is not permitted to discuss or make recommendations about the scope or amount of the award.
Phase II, the liability hearing , occurs if the jury finds that the plaintiff's illness was indeed caused by asbestos exposure. In Phase II, the jury hears evidence about the asbestos-containing products identified by the plaintiff, and determines which - if any - manufacturers are responsible for the plaintiff's illness. This in turn, directs how many manufacturers are apportioned a share of the damages awarded in Phase I.
In Lanpher vs. Alfa Laval, Inc., the jury found Rockwell - the lone defendant at verdict - to be one of eight manufacturers responsible for Mr. Lanpher's asbestos exposure and subsequent mesothelioma. As such, Rockwell is responsible for one-eighth, or 12.5 percent, of the $6.5 million awarded to the Lanpher family.
Phase I concluded on February 19, 2010. The final verdict was delivered on March 5, 2010, at the end of Phase II.
Mr. Lanpher, an active and gainfully employed 71-year-old husband, father and grandfather, had reportedly been in perfect health prior to his diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma in August 2007. He died on July 13, 2008 - less than one year later, and just one day after completing the video deposition in which he sharply recalled the types, names and brands of the asbestos-containing products that caused his illness and cut short his life.
Via video deposition, Mr. Lanpher recounted enlisting in the U.S. Navy in 1954. During his 20-year career as an electrician's mate, he worked in the engineering spaces of the USS Chemung, USS Randolph, USS Remey, USS Brough, USS Dashell, USS Benewah, and USS Wright. His assignments required him to handle various engine parts and components, including asbestos-containing insulating boards and motor control units. He recalled cutting and filing parts, including asbestos-containing motor control units manufactured and sold by Allen-Bradley, and the dust that he regularly breathed in tight quarters. He was honorably discharged in 1973, and worked as an electrician in Phoenix, Arizona, until he became too ill to work in 2007.
Mr. Lanpher's wife, Pauline, and daughter and son-in-law, Nancy and Terry Perkins, traveled from Phoenix for the trial. The family was present during both Phase I and Phase II verdicts, and were relieved and satisfied with the trial's outcome.
Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love Being Sued
An Oklahoma oil and gas company has filed a $16 million lawsuit against a
Charleston law firm and two of its attorneys for legal malpractice and
for breach of contract.
Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love LLP and attorneys Charles B. Dollison and Julia A. Chincheck are the defendants in the case filed by Hinkle Oil & Gas Inc., which is based in Oklahoma City. The case originally was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, but was removed to the Western District of Virginia in October.
Hinkle claims the firm and its attorneys are responsible for them losing millions of dollars because of a collapsed deal to buy some oil and gas wells.
A representative for Bowles Rice, which primarily does defense work, dismissed Hinkle's claims.
"The firm thinks the lawsuit is without merit, entirely without merit," partner Gerry Stowers told The West Virginia Record.
According to its complaint, Hinkle buys and develops oil and gas wells across the country.
"Hinkle is a small operator that seeks out, purchases and develops small wells and properties, many of which are quite old and nearly 'played out,'" the complaint states. "Because of the history of these wells, Hinkle occupies a special niche in the market: it purchases wells that are generally smaller than those that would attract so-called 'major players,' and because of the relatively small size of the wells, the owners-sellers, and producers, Hinkle can normally obtain these properties at highly favorable rates, then redevelop these properties, and earn substantial profits in so doing."
The lawsuit stems from Hinkle and a subsidiary - Minerals Management Group Inc. - dealing with a company called Buffalo Properties LLC. Hinkle and MMG were involved in "substantial legal disputes" with Buffalo Properties. In 2004, Buffalo filed for bankruptcy in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
In 2005, Hinkle and Buffalo began negotiations to settle their differences. In November, they reached an agreement that Hinkle would buy 17 oil and/or gas wells and 900 acres from Buffalo for $400,000.
Hinkle was being represented by Louisa, Ky., attorney Raymond Dodson. But the company needed an attorney licensed in West Virginia because Buffalo's bankruptcy was pending here.
In April 2006, Hinkle retained Bowles Rice to complete the paperwork on the Buffalo contract. Chincheck was assigned to Hinkle. Chincheck was group leader of Bowles Rice's commercial and financial services group.
"Since the underlying terms of the resolution agreement [with Buffalo] had already been agreed-to, Hinkle justifiably expected that the settlement agreement would be consummated and effected within two weeks at the most," the complaint states.
After a month, Hinkle says it contacted Chincheck, who said Buffalo's bankruptcy trustee was "difficult to get hold of" or "was not returning telephone calls."
Hinkle then states that Chincheck met with Buffalo's bankruptcy trustee on May 25, 2006. The trustee told Chincheck that Buffalo "had entered into another contract concerning the exact same subject matter as that involved in the Hinkle-Buffalo Properties resolution agreement, with an entity named Elk River Energy LLC."
The complaint says Hinkle was "flabbergasted at this development."
Between May 25 and June 2, Hinkle says it learned that Elk River Energy was formed only two weeks before the May 25 meeting and that Dollison, a partner at Bowles Rice, "was not only the organizing attorney," but "he also had a financial stake in Elk River Energy."
Had Hinkle known of what it called this "absolutely inexcusable conflict of interest," it never would have retained Bowles Rice nor would it have disclosed confidential and proprietary information consisting of the terms of the agreement with Buffalo.
On June 2, 2006, Chincheck informed Hinkle - "in a transparent attempt to excuse her culpability," according to the complaint - that she would no longer being representing the company.
Three days later -- through current counsel Hugo N. Gerstl of Monterey, Calif. - spoke with Buffalo's bankruptcy trustee, who said Elk River was trying to back out of its contract with Buffalo and trying to dissolve. Meanwhile, the trustee also moved to sell the subject property in bankruptcy court. The "Objection or Upset Bid" date was set for June 14, 2006.
Hinkle states that the contract it had with Buffalo "would have gone through promptly and with no difficulties." But because of the defendants' actions, Hinkle said it had to lodge its "upset bid" at a much higher price than it would have had to pay under the agreement. It also had to bid on all of Buffalo's properties instead of just the ones it wanted in the original deal.
Meanwhile, a new Nevada-based company called Heritage Financial Group Inc. made a bid for all of Buffalo's assets for $7 million. On Sept. 18, 2006, the bankruptcy court issued an order granting the sale to Heritage.
Hinkle claims wrongful acts by Bowles Rice, Chincheck and Dollison are responsible for the collapse of its contract with Buffalo Properties and that, as a result, it has suffered and sustained damages because of the breach of fiduciary obligations. Those damages include loss of opportunity, loss of credibility in the oil and gas industry and natural incremental increase in its asset and profit base.
It also says it has lost profits from the wells it would have purchased. Studies show that amount, Hinkle says, exceeds $16 million. Hinkle says it also lost $6.6 million in consideration. That represents the $7 million Heritage purchase price for properties Hinkle would have bought for $400,000.
Hinkle also seeks compensation for resolving litigation involving two wells in Boyd County, Ky. The company says the actions of the defendants resulted in it having to settle on terms that would have been different had its purchase gone through.
Hinkle also seeks attorney fees and court costs for trying to salvage its contract with Buffalo Properties and the fess and costs paid to Bowles Rice.
It also seeks punitive damages.
"The acts of the defendants, and each of them, constituted constructive fraud, oppression and malicem [sic] and was, at least in part, motivated by defendants' desire for profit," the complaint states. "Said acts were made with conscious disregard for plaintiff's rights.
Hinkle claims Bowles Rice, Dollison and Chincheck breached their written contract with the company and breached their implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Hinkle also says the defendants are guilty of legal malpractice.
Hinkle says the defendants "assumed a duty of care to represent plaintiff's interests competently, completely and without any conflict of interest."
Stowers said Bowles Rice did nothing wrong.
"Hinkle Oil & Gas claim they had a done deal with the bankruptcy trustee for the purchase of these wells," Stowers said. "All bids are subject to court approval and upset bids. When they went through the process, there was indeed an upset bid. The suit claims we are responsible for not completing the deal with the bankruptcy trustee. We deny that unequivocally because everything is subject to court approval.
"The law firm developed a conflict, and we couldn't go forward. Hinkle engaged new counsel, and their bid didn't go through."
Bowles Rice is being represented by Gerald P. Green and Mark E. Hardin of the Oklahoma firm of Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green as well as Richmond, Va., attorney William D. Bayliss of the firm Williams Mullen Clark & Dobbins.
The jury trial originally was scheduled for April 22 in Roanoke before Judge Samuel G. Wilson, but has since been rescheduled for May 19-21.
Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love LLP and attorneys Charles B. Dollison and Julia A. Chincheck are the defendants in the case filed by Hinkle Oil & Gas Inc., which is based in Oklahoma City. The case originally was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, but was removed to the Western District of Virginia in October.
Hinkle claims the firm and its attorneys are responsible for them losing millions of dollars because of a collapsed deal to buy some oil and gas wells.
A representative for Bowles Rice, which primarily does defense work, dismissed Hinkle's claims.
"The firm thinks the lawsuit is without merit, entirely without merit," partner Gerry Stowers told The West Virginia Record.
According to its complaint, Hinkle buys and develops oil and gas wells across the country.
"Hinkle is a small operator that seeks out, purchases and develops small wells and properties, many of which are quite old and nearly 'played out,'" the complaint states. "Because of the history of these wells, Hinkle occupies a special niche in the market: it purchases wells that are generally smaller than those that would attract so-called 'major players,' and because of the relatively small size of the wells, the owners-sellers, and producers, Hinkle can normally obtain these properties at highly favorable rates, then redevelop these properties, and earn substantial profits in so doing."
The lawsuit stems from Hinkle and a subsidiary - Minerals Management Group Inc. - dealing with a company called Buffalo Properties LLC. Hinkle and MMG were involved in "substantial legal disputes" with Buffalo Properties. In 2004, Buffalo filed for bankruptcy in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
In 2005, Hinkle and Buffalo began negotiations to settle their differences. In November, they reached an agreement that Hinkle would buy 17 oil and/or gas wells and 900 acres from Buffalo for $400,000.
Hinkle was being represented by Louisa, Ky., attorney Raymond Dodson. But the company needed an attorney licensed in West Virginia because Buffalo's bankruptcy was pending here.
In April 2006, Hinkle retained Bowles Rice to complete the paperwork on the Buffalo contract. Chincheck was assigned to Hinkle. Chincheck was group leader of Bowles Rice's commercial and financial services group.
"Since the underlying terms of the resolution agreement [with Buffalo] had already been agreed-to, Hinkle justifiably expected that the settlement agreement would be consummated and effected within two weeks at the most," the complaint states.
After a month, Hinkle says it contacted Chincheck, who said Buffalo's bankruptcy trustee was "difficult to get hold of" or "was not returning telephone calls."
Hinkle then states that Chincheck met with Buffalo's bankruptcy trustee on May 25, 2006. The trustee told Chincheck that Buffalo "had entered into another contract concerning the exact same subject matter as that involved in the Hinkle-Buffalo Properties resolution agreement, with an entity named Elk River Energy LLC."
The complaint says Hinkle was "flabbergasted at this development."
Between May 25 and June 2, Hinkle says it learned that Elk River Energy was formed only two weeks before the May 25 meeting and that Dollison, a partner at Bowles Rice, "was not only the organizing attorney," but "he also had a financial stake in Elk River Energy."
Had Hinkle known of what it called this "absolutely inexcusable conflict of interest," it never would have retained Bowles Rice nor would it have disclosed confidential and proprietary information consisting of the terms of the agreement with Buffalo.
On June 2, 2006, Chincheck informed Hinkle - "in a transparent attempt to excuse her culpability," according to the complaint - that she would no longer being representing the company.
Three days later -- through current counsel Hugo N. Gerstl of Monterey, Calif. - spoke with Buffalo's bankruptcy trustee, who said Elk River was trying to back out of its contract with Buffalo and trying to dissolve. Meanwhile, the trustee also moved to sell the subject property in bankruptcy court. The "Objection or Upset Bid" date was set for June 14, 2006.
Hinkle states that the contract it had with Buffalo "would have gone through promptly and with no difficulties." But because of the defendants' actions, Hinkle said it had to lodge its "upset bid" at a much higher price than it would have had to pay under the agreement. It also had to bid on all of Buffalo's properties instead of just the ones it wanted in the original deal.
Meanwhile, a new Nevada-based company called Heritage Financial Group Inc. made a bid for all of Buffalo's assets for $7 million. On Sept. 18, 2006, the bankruptcy court issued an order granting the sale to Heritage.
Hinkle claims wrongful acts by Bowles Rice, Chincheck and Dollison are responsible for the collapse of its contract with Buffalo Properties and that, as a result, it has suffered and sustained damages because of the breach of fiduciary obligations. Those damages include loss of opportunity, loss of credibility in the oil and gas industry and natural incremental increase in its asset and profit base.
It also says it has lost profits from the wells it would have purchased. Studies show that amount, Hinkle says, exceeds $16 million. Hinkle says it also lost $6.6 million in consideration. That represents the $7 million Heritage purchase price for properties Hinkle would have bought for $400,000.
Hinkle also seeks compensation for resolving litigation involving two wells in Boyd County, Ky. The company says the actions of the defendants resulted in it having to settle on terms that would have been different had its purchase gone through.
Hinkle also seeks attorney fees and court costs for trying to salvage its contract with Buffalo Properties and the fess and costs paid to Bowles Rice.
It also seeks punitive damages.
"The acts of the defendants, and each of them, constituted constructive fraud, oppression and malicem [sic] and was, at least in part, motivated by defendants' desire for profit," the complaint states. "Said acts were made with conscious disregard for plaintiff's rights.
Hinkle claims Bowles Rice, Dollison and Chincheck breached their written contract with the company and breached their implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Hinkle also says the defendants are guilty of legal malpractice.
Hinkle says the defendants "assumed a duty of care to represent plaintiff's interests competently, completely and without any conflict of interest."
Stowers said Bowles Rice did nothing wrong.
"Hinkle Oil & Gas claim they had a done deal with the bankruptcy trustee for the purchase of these wells," Stowers said. "All bids are subject to court approval and upset bids. When they went through the process, there was indeed an upset bid. The suit claims we are responsible for not completing the deal with the bankruptcy trustee. We deny that unequivocally because everything is subject to court approval.
"The law firm developed a conflict, and we couldn't go forward. Hinkle engaged new counsel, and their bid didn't go through."
Bowles Rice is being represented by Gerald P. Green and Mark E. Hardin of the Oklahoma firm of Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green as well as Richmond, Va., attorney William D. Bayliss of the firm Williams Mullen Clark & Dobbins.
The jury trial originally was scheduled for April 22 in Roanoke before Judge Samuel G. Wilson, but has since been rescheduled for May 19-21.
Mayer Brown Merges with Hong Kongs JSM
US-based international law firm Mayer Brown and Hong Kong’s Johnson,
Stokes and Master are merging in a move that will create the world’s
tenth-largest law firm by revenue.
The rare trans-pacific merger reflects the increasingly global operations of large businesses. It brings together two firms founded in the 19th century which are both largely focused on commercial transactions and litigation.
The combined entity, which will be known in Asia as Mayer Brown JSM, will have an annual revenue of $1.3bn and around 1800 lawyers. Jim Holzhauer, Mayer Brown chairman, will chair the global firm’s central policy and planning committee, and Elaine Lo, chairwoman of JSM’s partnership board, will head the combined entity’s Asia board.
The firms expect to grow substantially after the merger. Mr Holzhauer projects annual revenue to hit $2bn ”very quickly” and Ms Lo predicts earnings of $4bn within two to three years. ”This kind of growth cannot be obtained by just organic growth alone,” said Ms Lo.
Up to now, Mayer Brown’s Asia presence has been limited to one office in Hong Kong and a representative office in Beijing. JSM, whose clients include HSBC, Bank of China and Cathay Pacific, has 200 lawyers in mainland China, but none outside Asia.
That has meant that both firms had to find outside partners when handling cases that involve elements outside the firms’ home regions, such as cross-border mergers and acquisitions.
”The synergies will come from the clients,” said Paul Maher, Mayer Brown vice-chairman. ”Many of the major banks or industries we represent have transactions that will have both a European and Asian component, for example, and we will soon be able to do both within one firm.”
The merger comes nearly six years after the trans-atlantic tie-up between the US’s Mayer, Brown & Platt and the UK firm of Rowe & Maw to create Mayer Brown. The firm has suffered a tumultuous year, most recently with partner Joseph Collins being indicted in Manhattan on fraud charges related to the collapse of trading firm Refco in 2005. Mr Collins has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Ms Lo said the merger brings together JSM’s knowledge of the Chinese market with Mayer Brown’s global reach and experience in sophisticated commercial transactions. ”The world is becoming more globalised,” she said. ”Chinese companies are encouraged by the central government to expand overseas and they are just poised to grow out of China.”
The rare trans-pacific merger reflects the increasingly global operations of large businesses. It brings together two firms founded in the 19th century which are both largely focused on commercial transactions and litigation.
The combined entity, which will be known in Asia as Mayer Brown JSM, will have an annual revenue of $1.3bn and around 1800 lawyers. Jim Holzhauer, Mayer Brown chairman, will chair the global firm’s central policy and planning committee, and Elaine Lo, chairwoman of JSM’s partnership board, will head the combined entity’s Asia board.
The firms expect to grow substantially after the merger. Mr Holzhauer projects annual revenue to hit $2bn ”very quickly” and Ms Lo predicts earnings of $4bn within two to three years. ”This kind of growth cannot be obtained by just organic growth alone,” said Ms Lo.
Up to now, Mayer Brown’s Asia presence has been limited to one office in Hong Kong and a representative office in Beijing. JSM, whose clients include HSBC, Bank of China and Cathay Pacific, has 200 lawyers in mainland China, but none outside Asia.
That has meant that both firms had to find outside partners when handling cases that involve elements outside the firms’ home regions, such as cross-border mergers and acquisitions.
”The synergies will come from the clients,” said Paul Maher, Mayer Brown vice-chairman. ”Many of the major banks or industries we represent have transactions that will have both a European and Asian component, for example, and we will soon be able to do both within one firm.”
The merger comes nearly six years after the trans-atlantic tie-up between the US’s Mayer, Brown & Platt and the UK firm of Rowe & Maw to create Mayer Brown. The firm has suffered a tumultuous year, most recently with partner Joseph Collins being indicted in Manhattan on fraud charges related to the collapse of trading firm Refco in 2005. Mr Collins has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Ms Lo said the merger brings together JSM’s knowledge of the Chinese market with Mayer Brown’s global reach and experience in sophisticated commercial transactions. ”The world is becoming more globalised,” she said. ”Chinese companies are encouraged by the central government to expand overseas and they are just poised to grow out of China.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)