Techlaw Group, Inc. Spring 2010 Member Directory

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Techlaw Group, Inc. Spring 2010 Member Directory 1 TechLaw Group, Inc. Spring 2010 Member Directory Published by: TechLaw Group, Inc. Executive Offices: Lisa Hood Skinner c/o Ackermann PR 1111 Northshore Drive NW Suite N-400 Knoxville, TN 37919 Tel: (865) 588-7456 x119 Fax: (865) 588-3009 [email protected] 2 Table of Contents About TechLaw Group, Inc. ............................................................................ 3 Officers ........................................................................................................... 5 TechLaw in London…………………………………………………………6 TechLaw in New York………………………………………………………7 Member Firm Listings Arthur Cox ..................................................................................................................................... 8 TechLaw Representative – Patrick McGovern, (+353) (1) 618 0545 Barnes & Thornburg LLP........................................................................................................... 10 TechLaw Representative – Donald E. Knebel, Esq., 317-231-7214 Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP ................................................................................................. 13 TechLaw Representative – Craig C. Thorburn, 416-863-2965 Denton Wilde Sapte ..................................................................................................................... 17 TechLaw Representative – Jacques Salès, 33 1 53 05 16 01 Dorsey & Whitney LLP ............................................................................................................... 21 TechLaw Representative – Nelson Dong, Esq., 206-903-8871 Fenwick & West LLP ……………………………………… ...................................................... 27 TechLaw Representative – Darryl Woo, 415-875-2368 Gómez-Acebo & Pombo .............................................................................................................. 30 TechLaw Representative – Gonzalo de Ulloa, 34 91 582 91 36 Haynes and Boone, LLP .............................................................................................................. 32 TechLaw Representative – David McCombs, Esq., 214-651-5533 Houthoff Buruma ......................................................................................................................... 39 TechLaw Representative – Wolter Bettink, Esq., 31 20-6056 367 Jenner & Block LLP .................................................................................................................... 42 TechLaw Representative – Richard Gray, 312-923-2939 Meitar Liquornik Geva & Leshem Brandwein……………………………………………………..45 TechLaw Representative – David Mirchin, 972-3-6103199 Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP .................................................................................................. 46 TechLaw Representative – Stephen Andress, 617-439-2293 Pinheiro Neto Advogados ............................................................................................................ 49 TechLaw Representative – Raphael de Cunto, 55 11 3247 8587 Reed Smith LLP ........................................................................................................................... 50 TechLaw Representative – Frederick Colen, Esq., 412-288-4164 Taylor Wessing ............................................................................................................................. 56 TechLaw Representative – Dr. Andreas Meissner, Esq., 49 40 3 68 03-0 Tonucci & Partners ...................................................................................................................... 59 TechLaw Representative – Alessandro Vasta, 39 049 658655 Venable LLP ................................................................................................................................. 61 TechLaw Representative – James Burdett, Esq., 202-344-4893 Walder Wyss & Partners Ltd. .................................................................................................... 64 TechLaw Representative – Didier Sangiorgio, Esq., 41 44 498 95 24 3 About TechLaw Group, Inc. Background TechLaw Group, Inc. was formed in 1986 by five large U.S. law firms. Their mission was unique to the rapidly evolving practice of technology law: share best practices, provide a mechanism for referrals when it was mutually advantageous to do so, and build membership carefully so as to preserve a small group of non-competitive firms so that lasting and productive relationships can take root. From there, the organization has grown to include 18 law firms with thousands of lawyers and offices in more than 31 countries. The organization's mission, however, remains unchanged. In fact, the small size and substantially non-competitive nature of the membership makes TechLaw a unique example of how collaborative programming and personal relationships can foster long-term value for the firms that actively participate. Members Firms Members of TechLaw Group are selected by the Board of Directors based on each firm's ability to expand the organization's global network through their recognized and demonstrated leadership in major business markets of interest to the organization. Members bring to the organization the participation of senior lawyers in their firms. These professionals represent the broad range of intellectual property, litigation and business transactional law discussed at TechLaw meetings. Many of those who participate are recognized internationally as leading contributors to their fields of practice, and the relationships they build through active participation in TechLaw provide value to their practices and to their firms. Mutually Advantageous Relationships Member firms are largely non-competitive, and the number of members is intentionally kept small. The focus of our group remains squarely on issues and topics that are of particular interest to those practicing law in a tech setting. Thus, the mutually advantageous relationships built through the organization serve both our member firms and their clients in ways that larger organizations with more general interests cannot. Building upon mutually advantageous relationships, TechLaw provides an array of benefits to its members. Continuing Legal Education Our regular meetings – held each spring and fall – often include a CLE component. TechLaw member firms around the world host these CLE meetings on topics of contemporary interest to the membership. With faculty from TechLaw member firms, corporate counsel, the bench, and academia, TechLaw seeks CLE credit in multiple jurisdictions for these sessions. Audiences for these sessions are comprised of TechLaw firm attorneys, their clients and invited guests. Best Practice Sessions Marketing, information technology and practice group leadership are among the groups within our member firms who have used TechLaw as a conduit for the exchange of best practices in their areas of responsibility. Best practice meetings generally focus on a narrowly defined topic in which participants have the opportunity to discuss issues of concern in their firms and gain valuable insight and suggestions from their counterparts in other TechLaw member firms. 4 Managing Partner Meetings A relatively new addition to our annual meeting rotation is the managing partner meeting. These gatherings, held approximately every 18 months, give firm leadership an opportunity to meet in a confidential, non-competitive setting and discuss contemporary issues in firm management. Since its introduction several years ago, this has become one of the most popular and valuable elements of membership in TechLaw. Mutual Referrals Though not a requirement of membership, many lawyers with member firms find that the environment for strong referrals is among the most important advantages of membership in TechLaw. The relationships built through participation in TechLaw events give member firm lawyers confidence that a TechLaw colleague likely is available to assist in specific client matters. Referral facilitation is available by contacting the TechLaw representative for the particular firm or geography you need. Reciprocal Use of Office Resources When needs arise for TechLaw members to conduct client business for short periods of time in other locations, they can often take advantage of an informal reciprocal use custom in place among the member firms. This allows member firms to access conference facilities, court reporters, administrative staff and other resources of their fellow member firms. Please note that this custom is subject to availability of resources and the policies of the individual member firms. Charges may apply for use of some services. Courtesy Consults Lawyers with TechLaw member firms who need a quick overview of local court customs in another jurisdiction or have another brief question that is geographically specific can take advantage of this membership benefit. By calling the TechLaw representative for the member firm in the city of country of interest, lawyers can gain up to one hour of courtesy consultation on their issues of interest. Directory Twice annually, TechLaw publishes a comprehensive directory of contact information on member firm offices and experienced lawyers whose practice areas are likely to be of interest to other lawyers in the TechLaw family. The directory is provided to all member firms to facilitate referrals and access to the lawyers within the network. Publications Our Promotion and Member Benefits Committee is responsible for developing publications of mutual interest to the member firms. In the past, these have included our
Recommended publications
  • ?Mckenna Long?????Dentons??????
    ?McKenna Long?????Dentons?????? Consolidation at the top of the global legal industry is showing no signs of stopping with the confirmation that Dentons, fresh off its last big international tie-up, wants to again walk down the aisle — this time with U.S.-bound McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP. Denton's potential addition of the Atlanta-based, 575-lawyer McKenna Long would add a significant new branch to Dentons' growing international structure, which now includes about 2,500 lawyers in 50 countries. If completed, the merger would bring Dentons to a top-three spot in the industry by size, with about 3,100 lawyers. In McKenna Long, Dentons would acquire a well-regarded but somewhat undifferentiated general services firm with solid roots in government contracts, established offices in a handful of major U.S. markets, a network of Washington contacts and no significant international profile. Among its more notable offerings is the firm's intellectual property and technology practice led by D.C.- and Seoul-based partner Song Jung, which has done considerable work for Korean tech giant LG Corp., among others. The addition of McKenna Long "adds to [Dentons'] capacities in D.C. and Los Angeles and San Francisco,” said firm management consultant Eric Seeger, a principal at legal consultant firm Altman Weil Inc. "They already had Chicago, and it gives them a large Atlanta office." For the McKenna Long partners now considering the deal, joining Dentons would immediately vault them from an increasingly squeezed U.S. middle tier into a global network with a slew of multinational clients, but one that is likely still experiencing growing pains from repeated cross-border mergers, experts say.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Fees the Government Response to Consultation on Proposals to Reform Fees for Grants of Probate
    Court Fees The Government Response to consultation on proposals to reform fees for grants of probate February 2017 Court Fees The Government response to consultation on proposals to reform fees for grants of probate Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty February 2017 Cm 9426 © Crown copyright 2017 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government- licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: Court & Tribunal Fees Policy, Post Point 3.38, Ministry of Justice, 102 Petty France, SW1H 9AJ. Email: [email protected] Print ISBN 9781474141253 Web ISBN 9781474141260 ID 21021711 02/17 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Court Fees | The Government Response to consultation on proposals to reform fees for grants of probate Contents Introduction 3 Chapter 1 – Summary of Responses 5 Chapter 2 – Conclusions and Next Steps 10 Chapter 3 – Equalities Statement 14 Annex A: List of respondents 15 1 Court Fees | The Government Response to consultation on proposals to reform fees for grants of probate 2 Court Fees | The Government Response to consultation on proposals to reform fees for grants of probate Introduction 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Your Guide to Choosing a Solicitor 2018/19
    your guide to choosing a solicitor 2018/19 www.spinal.co.uk DM_ad_130mm x190mm_HR 18/07/2018 08:59 Page 1 ACCESSIBLE DESIGN By And For Disabled People Award-winning designer ADAM THOMAS, a wheelchair- user since 1981 has over 30 years’ experience of access issues. He is a leading authority on accessible kitchen design and has been involved in projects for the SIA HQ in Milton Keynes, Stoke Mandeville hospital, the Injured Jockey’s Fund and the Olympic Village London 2012. Through his work he has helped hundreds of clients regain their independence, including those affected by catastrophic injury and ABI. DESIGN MATTERS offers a comprehensive end-to-end service from design to installation with outstanding customer support. Each kitchen is tailored to the client’s requirements and provides a fully accessible, safe space that is entirely fit-for-purpose. Some of our clients even report reduced reliance on PAs. APPROVED Tel: 01628 531584 MEMBER www.dmkbb.co.uk 801128 SIA Healthcare A4 Advert_Layout 1 01/02/2018 14:20 Page 1 801128 SIAYOUr Healthcare A4 Advert_Layout 1 01/02/2018 dedicated 14:20 Page 1 home delivery service SIASIA Healthcare's Healthcare's 2,000th 2,000th Member Member GavinGavin Walker Walker OverOver 2,6 2,006 00SIA SIA membersmembers have have chosenchosen it. 9it.2% 9 2of% of SIA Healthcare SIA Healthcare members would members would recommend it* recommend it* SIA Healthcare is a dedicated Home Delivery Service that provides spinal cord injured people with SIA Healthcareall of their urology is a dedicated and stoma Home products Delivery and prescription Service that providesmedication spinal efficiently cord injuredand discreetly people to with all oftheir their door.
    [Show full text]
  • Lex 100 P014-024 Winners.Qxp 17/08/2007 15:08 Page 14
    Lex 100 p014-024 Winners.qxp 17/08/2007 15:08 Page 14 Job satisfaction How would you rate your overall job satisfaction? Lex 100 winners 1 Farrer & Co 9.10 2 Harbottle & Lewis LLP 9.00 Analysis = McDermott Will & Emery UK LLP 9.00 This important category is topped this year by Farrer & Co in what’s = Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP 9.00 been a highly impressive overall performance – the firm appears in every single one of our Lex 100 5 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP 8.75 Winners tables, often near the top, the first firm to do so. So why is this 6 Covington & Burling LLP 8.71 mid-sized London firm so popular with trainees? It certainly sounds a fun place 7 Latham & Watkins 8.67 to work and offers six seats in a wide variety of practice areas. There’s a strong 8 Ashfords 8.63 bond between current trainees, who praise the ‘great people and great mix of work’, ‘unique atmosphere’ and ‘sheer breadth of training = Stephens & Scown 8.63 opportunities’. Media boutique Harbottle & Lewis comes next. Trainees here feel they have ‘considerably 10 Bristows 8.60 better quality work than peers, better experience and more exposure’. Then, as last year, there’s a strong showing = Shoosmiths 8.60 by five US firms: McDermott Will & Emery, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Cleary Gottlieb, Covington & 12 Browne Jacobson LLP 8.58 Burling and Latham & Watkins. These firms have not been offering training contracts for that long in London and all have 13 Birketts 8.50 limited intakes.
    [Show full text]
  • League Tables
    GLOBAL LEGAL ADVISER LEAGUE TABLES H1 2016 H1 2016 LEGAL ADVISER RANKINGS LEGAL CAPITAL MARKETS The Bloomberg Capital Markets Tables represent the top arrangers, bookrunners and advisors across a broad array of deal types including loans, bonds, equity and M&A transactions; according to Bloomberg standards. LEAG<GO> for a full range of league tables MA<GO> for a full range of merger & acquisition tables Due to the dynamic nature of the Professional Service product, league table rankings may vary between this release and data found on the Bloomberg Professional Service. DATA SUBMISSIONS AND QUERIES Contact Phone Email Americas Paul Bandong +1 609 279 5187 [email protected] EMEA Dustin Jooste +44 20 3525 8902 [email protected] Asia-Pacific Hung Truong +65 6212 1326 [email protected] © 2016 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. Bloomberg Global Legal Adviser | H1 2016 Global Equity, Equity Linked & Rights: Legal Adviser - Issuer Ranked by Volume Ranked by Deal Count H1 2016 H1 2015 Mkt Deal Firm Rank Share(%) Count Mkt Volume (USD Deal Prev Prev Mkt Mkt Share Firm Rank Share(%) Mln) Count Rank Share(%) Chg(%) Latham & Watkins LLP 1 4.90 32 Latham & Watkins LLP 1 4.902 8,773 32 1 5.456 -0.554 Conyers Dill & Pearman 2 0.71 22 Vinson & Elkins LLP 2 3.973 7,109 21 9 2.304 1.669 Vinson & Elkins LLP 3 3.97 21 Linklaters LLP 3 3.438 6,153 10 6 2.883 0.555 Goodwin Procter LLP 4 1.23 18 Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP 4 2.890 5,171 10 51 0.521 2.369 White & Case LLP 5 2.775 4,965 10 15 1.457 1.318 King & Wood Mallesons 4 0.90 18
    [Show full text]
  • USER GUIDE FEATURES and BENEFITS Contents
    NATIONAL PUBLIC SECTOR For the provision of LEGAL SERVICES REF: CPC/DU/LS/03A USER GUIDE FEATURES AND BENEFITS Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Framework Summary 3 3 Buying from the Framework 15 3.1 Direct Award 15 3.2 Further Competition 15 4 Further Competition Support Service 16 5 Placing an order 17 6 Contract and Account Management 18 7 Complaints and Escalation Procedures 18 8 Service Performance Expectations 19 9 Any Questions? 19 10 APPENDIX A – Supplier Account Manager Contact Details 20 11 APPENDIX B – Further Competition Template 22 12 APPENDIX C Further Competition Support Service Fee Structure 23 13 APPENDIX D – Example Framework Order Form 24 14 APPENDIX E – Access Agreement 25 15 APPENDIX F - Framework Weighting 26 Page 2 | National Public Sector Legal Services Framework User Guide Issue Two: September 2018 1. Introduction The Crescent Purchasing Consortium Limited has put in place an EU compliant framework for Legal Services reference CPC/DU/LS/03A (hereafter the framework). It is a proactive, best value, collaborative framework that can deliver your entire need for Legal Services. 2. Framework Summary The framework agreement is designed to be a one stop shop for an organisation’s entire Legal Services requirements across 14 Lots: • Lot 1 East Anglia • Lot 2 East Midlands • Lot 3 London • Lot 4 Northern Ireland • Lot 5 North East England • Lot 6 North West England • Lot 7 Scotland • Lot 8 South East England • Lot 9 South West England • Lot 10 Wales • Lot 11 West Midlands • Lot 12 Yorkshire • Lot 13 Channel Islands • Lot 14 National One-Stop-Shop CPC is pleased to make available to framework users a comprehensive range of Legal Services across each Lot.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge Management in the Legal Profession 5-6 March 2002
    These events qualify for up to 17 CPD hours Knowledge Management in the Legal Profession 5-6 March 2002 The Role of Professional Support Lawyer Expert contributions from: 7 March 2002 The Martin Tolhurst Partnership Solicitors Consignia Legal Services Berwin Leighton Paisner IBM Software Group Denton Wilde Sapte Book before Latham & Watkins Baker & McKenzie 7 January 2002 Blake Lapthorn and receive a Bevan Ashford CMS Cameron McKenna 10% discount Wragge & Co. Masons NautaDutilh Norton Rose Morgan Cole SJ Berwin produced by White & Case arkappliedgroup research & knowledge Linklaters & Alliance www.ark-group.com Pinsent Curtis Biddle researched by Horwath Consulting nowledge Baker Robbins & Co. Management K Hildebrandt International ManagingPartner Sherwood Consulting PSF Ltd. The essential guide to strategic practice management Knowledge Management in the Legal Profession Tuesday, 5 March 2002 8:30 Registration ! Structuring the team: who should be involved and when? ! Common obstacles to implementing a KM strategy: 9:15 Chair’s opening remarks people, processes and resources Andrew Terrett, Baker Robbins & Co. ! Carrying out an effective initial and regular ‘needs analysis’ of KM Ensuring knowledge management ! Linking KM into all operational areas: which ones are works to your advantage the most important to start with? 9:30 Maintaining competitive advantage through KM ! Linking KM into client info, client know-how, industry Ian Cowan, Baker Robbins & Co. knowledge, accounts, e-mails, research sites and websites ! Creating business
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • First Briefing, May 2021 – Scheme Funding in the Legal Sector
    First Briefing, May 2021 – Scheme funding in the legal sector Many legal firms prepare their statutory accounts as at 30 April. This briefing looks at some of the issues these firms face when preparing this year’s FRS 102 pension disclosures. It includes analysis of the majority of legal firms with a Defined Benefit pension scheme (33 schemes across 30 firms). Contact us for a free benchmarking report to find out how the funding of your scheme compares to others in the sector. Change in assets since 30 April 2020 Financial conditions over the year have been mixed as markets looked to recover from the pandemic-induced volatility we saw in the first quarter of 2020. Equities have performed well, with positive returns over the year averaging from 25% to 30%. Bond yields have risen significantly so far in 2021, meaning that the values of government and corporate bond holdings are generally lower than they were at the start of the year. Overall, the impact on individual schemes will vary according to the investment strategy adopted. Schemes with higher allocations to equities will have seen their assets increase, whereas schemes with high bond allocations may have seen a reduction in assets over the year (although as we discuss in the next section, this may have been offset by a reduction in liabilities).1 Global equities: +30% UK equities: +25% Average DGF: +10% Index-linked gilts: 0% Corporate bonds -5% Fixed-interest gilts: -15% © First Actuarial LLP 2021 all rights reserved. The information contained in this bulletin is, to the best of our knowledge and belief, correct at the time of writing.
    [Show full text]
  • Big Names Move Into Records Management
    THE LEADER IN LEGAL TECHNOLOGY NEWS Issue 146 Big names move into records management Hummingbird has acquired LegalKEY Technologies, a New York-based software company best known for its electronic records management and conflicts of interest checking systems. With effective records management, including corporate document retention policies, now high on the agenda for law firms in the wake of Enron and similar scandals, there has been a suggestion that in an ideal world, the best possible approach is a combination of a conventional document management system linked to a records management system that, like LegalKEY, could handle both paper and electronic files. Hummingbird will now be able to deliver this integrated solution from one source. LegalKEY will function as a subsidiary of Hummingbird and continue to serve its existing clientele - UK users include Clifford Finers to roll out DDS Chance, Norton Rose and Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw. The on practice-wide basis executive management of LegalKEY will also remain in charge of the LegalKEY operation, while for LegalKEY customers running Finers Stephens Innocent is to roll out the rival iManage DMS, Hummingbird will offer a free migration BigHand’s TotalSpeech digital dictation package from iManage to Hummingbird DM5. workflow management system to 122 users Commenting on the deal, Hummingbird UK country across the firm, following the completion of manager Liz Maloney described the move as part of a broader a pilot project in the firm’s property strategy to provide complete life cycle management of department. The firm’s IT manager Nick documents, knowledge repositories, digital and paper records, Boarland said the pilot, which began in and client and matter information.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2004-2005: Rankings & Listings
    Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2004-2005: Rankings & Listings Capital Markets Foreign firms China 1. Allen & Overy LLP Baker & McKenzie Clifford Chance LLP Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Herbert Smith Linklaters Shearman & Sterling LLP Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP 2. Davis Polk & Wardwell Deacons Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Johnson Stokes & Master Jones Day Latham & Watkins LLP Morrison & Foerster O’Melveny & Myers LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Richards Butler Simmons & Simmons White & Case LLP 3. Allens Arthur Robinson Gallant Y.T.Ho & Co Gide Loyrette Nouel Kaye Scholer LLP Livasiri & Co Lovells Mallesons Stephen Jaques Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP Woo, Kwan, Lee & Lo Firms are listed A-Z in tiers which are ranked in order of priority Source: Legal 500 Asia Pacific, 2004/2005 edition. Latham & Watkins operates as a limited liability partnership worldwide with an affiliate in the United Kingdom and Italy, where the practice is conducted through an affiliated multinational partnership. © Copyright 2005 Latham & Watkins. All Rights Reserved. Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2004-2005: Rankings & Listings Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP Infrastructure and Project Stephenson Harwood Woo, Kwan, Lee & Lo Finance Firms are listed A-Z in tiers which are ranked in order of Foreign firms priority China 1. Latham & Watkins LLP is a major name Allen & Overy LLP in projects worldwide, and has extensive Baker & McKenzie experience on significant projects in China Clifford Chance LLP from its Hong Kong office. The firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer advised the PRC and the international Gide Loyrette Nouel bank lenders on the US $4.3bn Nanhai Herbert Smith Petrochemical complex.
    [Show full text]
  • Clifford Chance, 4 Coleman Street, London
    CITY OF LONDON LAW SOCIETY CONSTRUCTION LAW COMMITTEE Held on Monday 7 March 2005 at 13.00 At Clifford Chance, 4 Coleman Street, London Present: Alan Elias, Clifford Chance (Chairman) Terry Fleet, Nabarros (Deputy Chair) John Scriven, Allen & Overy Jake Davies, Jones Day John Rushton, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw Patrick Holmes, Macfarlanes Marc Hanson, Cameron McKenna Jenny Baster, Arup Apologies: David Johnson, Kendall Freeman Bill Gloyn, AON Miranda Ramphul, Denton Wilde Sapte Robert Bryan, Simmons & Simmons David Courtney-Hatcher, Denton Wilde Sapte Paul Cowan, White & Case Marshall Levine, Field Fisher Waterhouse Adrian Creed, Trowers Anthony Bowles, Druces Lynne Freeman, Richards Butler Peter Brinley-Codd, Robert McAlpine Jessica Taylor, Trowers & Hamlins Stephanie Canham, Trowers & Hamlins Jane Jenkins, Freshfileds Matthew Jones, Travers Smith 1. Chairman's Report - Alan Elias Alan had nothing specific to report from the main Committee of the CLLS. However, he urged members and additional working group meetings to participate fully and to regularly attend meetings. There was a need to maintain momentum and to produce regular out-put. 2. Reports from Working Groups 2.1 UK Development Working Group - Terry Fleet (Chairman) (a) Standard From Novation Agreement: The CLLS form is now available on the SCL site via a link. It has been successful and is being used by practitioners. Recent SCL seminar criticised CLLS form in favour of CIC alternative. Extent of comment unknown as none of those present had attended the relevant SCL meeting. Terry to gather more information and formulate a response, if required. However, there was an opportunity further to promote its use (and therefore the work of the Committee).
    [Show full text]