ANNUAL SERVANT of JUSTICE AWARDS DINNER
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Felix J. Kushnir Shareholder
Felix J. Kushnir Shareholder T 301-945-9298 F 301-230-2891 E [email protected] Felix Kushnir is a strategic business lawyer and advisor who represents private equity, venture capital and corporate clients in connection with mergers, acquisitions, dispositions, financings, technology transactions and joint ventures, as well as other transactional and securities matters. In 2019 and 2020, Felix advised clients in 26 M&A transactions representing over $980 million of enterprise value. Delivering more than just legal advice, Felix regularly provides introductions and guidance on partnerships and day to day business matters. As a result, he builds close relationships with his clients and is deeply involved in their businesses. In addition to mergers and acquisitions, Felix advises his clients in connection with venture capital financings, securities offerings, debt financings, recapitalizations and other strategic transactions, and he also serves as outside general counsel to industrial, government contracting, technology and emerging growth clients. One of his clients recently commented on his experience working with Felix, “Felix’s responsiveness and quick turnaround for our sensitive matter allowed us to accomplish our goals sooner than we expected and with a great result.” -client name withheld for confidentiality "We went into a sizeable M&A transaction knowing a whole lotta nothin’. Well, that’s not entirely true – we knew the legal work and negotiations were going to be complicated, labor-intensive, and stressful at times. The deal was all of those, but we realized quickly that we were in good hands with Felix Kushnir, and others on the M&A team at Shulman Rogers. -
Bingham Mccutchen, LLP
Diversity is powerful. is Diversity bingham.com Attorney Advertising © 2013 Bingham McCutchen LLP One Federal Street, Boston MA 02110 T. 617.951.8000 Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Bingham McCutchen® Bingham McCutchen, LLP 2014 VAULT/MCCA LAW FIRM DIVERSITY SURVEY One Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-951-8000 Fax: 617-951-8736 www.bingham.com LOCATIONS Boston, MA; Hartford, CT; Los Angeles, CA; New York, NY; Orange County, CA; Lexington, KY; San Francisco, CA; Santa Monica, CA; Silicon Valley, CA; Washington, D.C.; Beijing, China; Frankfurt, Germany; Hong Kong, Hong Kong; London, England; Tokyo, Japan DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP Head(s) of Firm: Jay Zimmerman, Chairman and CEO; Steve Browne, Firm Managing Partner Diversity team leader(s): The Diversity Committee is chaired by 12 practicing partners. Focused on strategy, these partners comprise the Diversity Executive Committee, and its three working groups: Recruiting, Attorney Retention and Development, and Leadership and Business Development. The Diversity Executive Committee works with partner, associate and staff representatives - as well as leaders of various areas (such as Recruiting, Learning and Development and Marketing) - to implement our Diversity Action Plan. The Diversity Team Leaders are: Minita Shah-Mara, Director of Diversity and Inclusion; J. Bland, Diversity Executive Committee - Legal Recruiting; Ella Foley Gannon, Diversity Executive Committee - Legal Recruiting; Thurgood Marshall Jr., Diversity Executive Committee - Legal Recruiting; Julia Frost-Davies, -
March 2, 2009 Roger P. Joseph Bingham Mccutchen
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20549 DIVISION OF INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT March 2, 2009 Roger P. Joseph Bingham McCutchen LLP One Federal Street Boston, MA 02110-1726 Re: Master Portfolio Trust-Liquid Reserves Portfolio (File No. 811-10407) and Legg Mason Partners Money Market Trust-Western Asset Money Market Fund (File No. 811-04052) Dear Mr. Joseph: Your letter ofFebruary 24,2009 requests our assurance that we would not recommend that the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") take any enforcement action under Sections 17(a)(1i, 17(di and 12(d)(3)3 ofthe Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "Act"), and the rules thereunder, ifMaster Portfolio Trust and Legg Mason Partners Money Market Trust (each, a "Trust," and collectively, the "Trusts"), each ofwhich is registered with the Commission as an open-end investment company under the Act, amend the agreements and letter of credit summarized below and more fully described in the letter. Liquid Reserves Portfolio is a series ofthe Master Portfolio Trust, and the Western Asset Money Market Fund is a series ofLegg Mason Partners Money Market Trust (each a "Fund," and collectively, the "Funds"). Liquid Reserves Portfolio is a master fund in a master/feeder Section l7(a)(1) generally makes it unlawful for any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, to knowingly sell any security or other property to the registered investment company. 2 Section l7(d) generally makes it unlawful for any affiliated person ofa registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such a person, acting as principal, to effect any transaction in which the registered investment company is a joint or joint and several participant with such person in contravention ofrules and regulations adopted by the Commission. -
Tech Savvy Pg 7.Pmd
The BTI Tech-Savvy Team for Law Firms 2003 Published by The BTI Consulting Group, Inc. 167 Milk Street, Suite 340 Boston, MA 02109 (617) 439-0333 Best of the Best Jones Day Leaders Cooley Godward Howrey Simon Arnold & White Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Sidley Austin Brown & Wood Honorable Mentions Bingham McCutchen Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich Clifford Chance Holland & Hart Cravath, Swaine & Moore Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw Crowell & Moring Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison Dewey Ballantine Rader, Fishman & Grauer Foley & Lardner Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Law Firms also Cited by Clients as Most Tech-Savvy Adams and Reese Merchant & Gould Allen & Overy Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius Alston & Bird Morrison & Foerster Andrews & Kurth Myers and Hulse Armstrong Teasdale Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Arnold & Porter Palmer & Dodge Covington & Burling Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler Faegre & Benson Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner Proskauer Rose Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi Greenberg Traurig Ryley Carlock & Applewhite Hogan & Hartson Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold Holland & Knight Shook, Hardy & Bacon Hughes & Luce Simpson Thacher & Bartlett Hunton & Williams Stroock & Stroock & Lavan Johnson, Finkel, DeLuca & Kennedy Sutherland Asbill & Brennan Jorden Burt Venture Law Group Kirkland & Ellis Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Warner Norcross & Judd Linklaters Weil, Gotshal & Manges Littler Mendelson Wiley Rein & Fielding McDermott, Will & Emery Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering McguireWoods Winston & Strawn This article reprinted with permission from The BTI Consulting Group, Inc. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved. Source: The BTI Tech-Savvy Team for Law Firms © The BTI Consulting Group, Inc. All rights reserved The BTI Tech-Savvy Team for Law Firms 617-439-0333 · www.bticonsulting.com. -
United States District Court, SD California. QUALCOMM
Untitled Document 2/28/10 4:30 AM United States District Court, S.D. California. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Plaintiff. v. BROADCOM CORPORATION, Defendants. Broadcom Corporation, Counter-Claimant. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Counter-Defendant. Civil No. 05CV1392-B(BLM) May 1, 2006. Adam Arthur Bier, Christian E. Mammen, James R. Batchelder, Day Casebeer Madrid and Batchelder, Kevin Kook Tai Leung, Law Office of Kevin Kook Tai Leung, Cupertino, CA, Barry Jerome Tucker, David E. Kleinfeld, Foley & Lardner LLP, James T. Hannink, Kathryn Bridget Riley, Randall Evan Kay, Brooke Beros, Dla Piper US, Brandon Hays Pace, Heller Ehrman LLP, Heidi Maley Gutierrez, Higgs Fletcher and Mack, San Diego, CA, E Joshua Rosenkranz, Heller Ehrman, Evan R. Chesler, Richard J. Stark, Cravath Swaine and Moore LLP, Richard S. Taffet, Bingham McCutchen, New York, NY, Nitin Subhedar, Heller Ehrman, Menlo Park, CA, Jaideep Venkatesan, Heller Ehrman, Menlo Park, CA, Jason A. Yurasek, Perkins Coie LLP, San Francisco, CA, Patrick Taylor Weston, McCutchen Doyle Brown and Enersen, Walnut Creek, CA, William F. Abrams, Bingham McCutchen, East Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiff. Alejandro Menchaca, Andrew B. Karp, Brian C. Bianco, Christopher N. George, Consuelo Erwin, George P. McAndrews, Gregory C. Schodde, Joseph F. Harding, Lawrence M. Jarvis, Leonard D. Conapinski, Matthew A. Anderson, Ronald H. Spuhler, Scott P. McBride, Stephen F. Sherry, Thomas J. Wimbiscus, Jean Dudek Kuelper, McAndrews Held and Malloy, Chicago, IL, Allen C. Nunnally, Daniel M. Esrick, John J. Regan, John S. Rhee, Joseph F. Haag, Kate Saxton, Louis W. Tompros, Richard W. O'Neill, Stephen M. Muller, Vinita Ferrera, Wayne L. Stoner, William F. -
Educating Artists
DUKE LAW MAGAZINE MAGAZINE LAW DUKE Fall 2006 | Volume 24 Number 2 F all 2006 Educating Artists V olume 24 Number 2 Also: Duke Faculty on the Hill From the Dean Dear Alumni and Friends, University’s Algernon Sydney Sullivan Medal, awarded annually for outstanding commitment to service. This summer, four Duke law faculty members were Graduates Candace Carroll ’74 and Len Simon ’73 called to testify before Congressional committees. have used their talents and resources in support Professor Neil Vidmar appeared before the Senate of civil liberties, women’s rights, and public inter- Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, est causes; their recent leadership gift to Duke’s to address legislation on medical malpractice suits. Financial Aid Initiative helps Duke continue to attract Professor Madeline Morris testified before the Senate the best students, regardless of their ability to pay, Foreign Relations Committee regarding ratification of and gives them greater flexibility to pursue public the U.S.–U.K. extradition treaty. Professor James Cox interest careers. Other alumni profiled in this issue offered his views on proposed reforms for the conduct who are using their Duke Law education to make a of securities class action litigation to the House difference include Judge Curtis Collier ’74, Chris Kay Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee ’78, Michael Dockterman ’78, Andrea Nelson Meigs on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government ’94, and Judge Gerald Tjoflat ’57. Sponsored Enterprises. Professor Scott Silliman, I want to thank all alumni, friends, and faculty executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics and who contributed so generously to the Law School in National Security, was on Capitol Hill three times in the past year. -
Staying Put the Great Recession Led to a Ten-Year Low in Lateral Partner Moves
www.americanlawyer.com February 2011 THE LATERAL REPORT STAYING PUT The Great Recession led to a ten-year low in lateral partner moves. BY VICTOR LI FTER A RECORD YEAR for lateral moves What accounts for the drop? For one thing, the 2009 in 2009, law firm partners looked around numbers were artificially high because the market was in 2010 and decided that there was flooded with partners from firms that went under, such as no place like home. In the 12-month Heller Ehrman, Thacher Proffitt & Wood, Thelen, and period ending September 30, 2010, WolfBlock. (Those four firms accounted for 15 percent only 2,014 partners left or joined of the 2009 moves.) Additionally, continued economic un- Am Law 200 firms. That number certainty in 2010 meant that some firms were reluctant to was a hefty decrease—27 percent—from the same period hire. “In general, firms have been much more opportunistic a year earlier, when a whopping 2,775 partners moved. In [about partner recruiting], and that’s due to the relative sta- fact, 2010 marked the lowest number of partner moves bilization of the industry,” says Ari Katz, national director since 2000, when only 1,859 partners switched firms, and of legal recruiting at Bingham McCutchen. was well off the average of 2,458 partner moves each year Still, some firms defied this trend. DLA Piper could from 2005 to 2009. have installed turnstiles in its lobbies with all the turnover Illustration By JOHN UELAND it experienced as it brought in 67 partners, more than any other Am Rochester-based partners departed for LeClairRyan after our survey Law 200 firm, and was also among the leaders in departures—42. -
Tier 1 Law Firms Tier 2 Law Firms
U.S. News & World Report – Best Lawyers in America 2011-12 listed more than 160 law firms in its ranking of Intellectual Property Litigation Firms. Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP is proud to have been ranked a Tier 1 Firm. The following lists all firms named, and the Tier under which each is listed. TIER 1 LAW FIRMS Covington & Burling LLP Winston & Strawn LLP Fenwick & West LLP Alston + Bird LLP Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Chaz De La Garza & Assoc., LLC Fish & Richardson P.C. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Foley & Lardner LLP Debevoise & Plimpton LLP K&L Gates LLP DLA Piper LLP Kenyon & Kenyon LLP Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP Howrey LLP Perkins Coie LLP Jones Day Sidley Austin LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Susman Godfrey LLP WilmerHale Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP TIER 2 LAW FIRMS Akerman Senterfitt LLP Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Bingham McCutchen LLP Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel LLP Cowan Liebowitz & Latman, P.C. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Ropes & Gray LLP Dechert LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP Faegre & Benson LLP Woodcock Washburn LLP Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto Abelman Frayne & Schwab Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Goodwin Procter LLP Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Milbrath & Gilchrist, P.A. Holland & Hart LLP Arnold & Porter LLP Kaye Scholer LLP Baker & McKenzie LLP Keker & Van Nest LLP Baker Botts L.L.P. -
Law Firm Mergers & Acquisitions 2007 – Acquired Firm
Law Firm Mergers & Acquisitions 2007 – Acquired firm size 100+ REPORT EFFECTIVE DATE DATE FIRM 1 MAIN OFFICE SIZE FIRM 2 MAIN OFFICE SIZE 1/2/07 Day Berry Hartford 225 & Pitney Hardin Morristown NJ 170 3/1/07 Reed Smith Pittsburgh 1250 & Sachnoff & Weaver Chicago 143 5/25/07 Locke Liddell Houston/Dallas 400 & Lord Bissell Chicago 300 8/27/07 LeBoeuf Lamb NYC 700 & Dewey Ballantine NYC 550 10/19/07 1/1/08 Reed Smith Pittsburgh 1500 & Richards Butler Hong Kong Hong Kong 110 12/17/07 1/1/08 K&L Gates Pittsburgh 1380 & Hughes & Luce Dallas 150 12/20/07 Mayer Brown Chicago 1568 & Johnson Stokes & Master Hong Kong 260 12/20/07 1/31/08 Blackwell Sanders Kansas City 330 & Husch & Eppenberger St. Louis 300 MERGERlineTM………………………………………………………………. Law Firm Mergers & Acquisitions 2007 – Acquired firm size 21-100 REPORT EFFECTIVE DATE DATE FIRM 1 MAIN OFFICE SIZE FIRM 2 MAIN OFFICE SIZE 1/8/07 Littler Mendelson San Francisco 550 & Duvin Cahn & Hutton Cleveland 46 3/1/07 Williams Mullen Richmond 240 & Maupin Taylor Raleigh NC 53 5/2/07 Bingham McCutcheon Boston 825 & Alschuler Grossman Los Angeles 40 5/3/07 Thompson Coburn St. Louis 290 & FagelHaber Chicago 40 5/22/07 Stinson Morrison St. Louis 325 & Blumenfeld Kaplan St. Louis 39 6/21/07 Bingham McCutchen Boston 850 & New Tokyo Intl. Law Office Tokyo 22 6/28/07 Lewis & Roca Phoenix 170 & Beckley Singelton Las Vegas / Reno 34 7/16/07 Baker Donelson Memphis 450 & Gambrell & Stolz Atlanta 36 10/11/07 1/1/08 Brownstein Hyatt Denver 180 & Hatch & Parent Santa Barbara 30 10/30/07 1/1/08 Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodg Boston 550 & Kendall Freeman London 60 12/3/07 Akerman Senterfitt Miami 465 & Stadtmauer Bailkin NYC 21 12/3/07 2/1/08 Manatt Phelps & Phillips Los Angeles 350 & Steefel Levitt & Weiss San Francisco 45 12/6/07 LeClair Ryan Richmond 170 & Seiden Wayne Newark 45 12/12/07 1/3/08 Paul Hastings Los Angeles 1125 & Smeets Haas Wolff Frankfurt 27 MERGERlineTM………………………………………………………………. -
Corporate Counsel Institute
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION in cooperation with THE AMERICAN CORPORATE COUNSEL ASSOCIATION and THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CORPORATE SECRETARIES present the 7th Annual Corporate Counsel Institute March 13-14, 2003 • Washington, DC Georgetown, ACCA and ASCS offer you a 11.0 CLE credits, of which 2 will apply to legal ethics corporate counsel program with an unparalleled At the Seventh Annual Corporate Counsel Institute, you will: faculty. This Institute has become the premier event for corporate counsel because it offers you ● Receive an up-to-the-minute ● Receive a CEO perspective on practical, real-world review of the administration’s working with the law department solutions to your antitrust priorities from the from Knoll, Inc.’s Burt Staniar toughest problems. Chairman of the Federal Trade ● Explore the toughest problems Given the events of Commission and a former Assistant facing general counsel - and the this past year, Attorney General for the Antitrust ways to solve them - during the you cannot Division of the Department of Justice popular General Counsel afford to ● Review SEC priorities with Roundtable moderated by Tyco miss this Commissioner Harvey Goldschmid General Counsel Bill Lytton timely and analyze the new corporate ● Obtain a new perspective on the event! compliance regulations and the work of the Supreme Court from Commission’s enforcement priorities CBS News’ Bob Schieffer, our with the heads of the Divisions of luncheon speaker Enforcement and Corporation Finance ● Assess some of the pressing -
Nameprotect Trademark Insider®
NAMEPROTECT TRADEMARK INSIDER® Comprehensive Guide: Trademark Industry IN THIS ISSUE: Top 200 Trademark Firms Top 100 Company Trademark Filers 2003 Industry Summary Madrid Protocol Annual NameProtect Trademark Insider AwardsTM Annual Report 2003 NameProtect ® digital brand protection Methodology Pre-Publication Review The NameProtect Trademark Insider® is developed through analysis of public Upon request, NameProtect is happy to offer any attorney, law firm or company trademark filings data compiled by the United States Patent and Trademark the opportunity to review our rankings prior to publication. Interested parties Office (PTO) and maintained in NameProtect's global trademark data center. may submit a request for pre-publication review to the Trademark Insider edi- tors at [email protected]. Data Integrity In order to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the law firm and company rank- Disclaimer ings presented herein, NameProtect employs the following data integrity practices: NameProtect makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of the data provided within this report. However, for various reasons including the potential for 1) Collection. As a trademark services provider, NameProtect collects and incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by the United States Patent and aggregates PTO and other trademark filing data from around the world, which Trademark Office, we cannot warrant that this report or the information con- is maintained in electronic form in the Company's trademark data center. tained herein is error free. NameProtect will not be liable for any reliance upon the 2) Normalization. In order to create this report, data from numerous fields data, analysis, opinions or other information presented within this report. within the PTO data set is normalized and parsed for detailed aggregation and Contact Information analysis. -
Understanding the Lateral Hiring Frenzy Richard T
Understanding The Lateral Hiring Frenzy Richard T. Rapp, Principal, Veltro Advisors, Inc. Why is lateral hiring proceeding at a frenetic pace even though legal employment is far below its 2007 peak? According to The American Lawyer, “Among Am Law 200 firms, the lateral partner market was so overheated that 92.5 percent of respondent to [their] new partner survey released in November said that legal 1 recruiters already had approached them.” Is lateral hiring at this pace a destabilizing force in the law industry or a sensible, productive feature of the legal labor market? And is it transitory or will it last? To know the answers requires stepping back to understand the economics of the market for lawyers. We can address this in two parts: first, managerial motives for lateral hiring which are easy to understand and, second—and harder to grasp—the market forces that propel lateral mobility, the likes of which we do not find in most other markets for senior talent. As it turns out, the best way to think about lateral hiring among law firms is as a kind of arbitrage; arbitrage that is likely to persist as long as the gains to partners from shifting are available. When we think about arbitrage we usually think about buying and selling to capture the gains from differences across markets, for example, differences in EuroDollar exchange rates between London and Singapore. But more generally, arbitrage refers to any effort to gain by exploiting differences in prices. In this case it is differences among law firms in the price of legal talent that is the main—though not the only—motivator of lateral moves by senior lawyers.