|
|
|
Sidley Austin LLP Expands Project Finance Practice in Washington D.C.
Press Release |
2012/02/29 09:42
|
Sidley Austin LLP is pleased to announce that Timothy J. Moran will join the firm as a partner in the project finance practice in Washington, D.C. Mr. Moran's practice focuses on infrastructure project development and finance, where he represents lenders, project sponsors and developers in the development, financing, acquisition and sale of infrastructure projects located in North America, Central and South America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Mr. Moran's projects include alternative energy (wind, solar and biomass), coal and natural gas-fired facilities, natural gas storage facilities, LNG projects and natural gas pipelines.
"Tim's level of experience in project finance will be instrumental as we continue to expand the firm's ability to represent clients on what are certainly going to be important undertakings in the global economy," said Carter G. Phillips, Managing Partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Sidley, and a member of the firm's Management Committee. "He has a highly respected and very dynamic project finance practice that fits perfectly with the firm's significant expansion of its energy practice, as well as our enhancement of project finance capabilities. Tim's practice will be a wonderful complement to our newly established Houston office."
"Sidley provides an ideal opportunity for me to grow my practice on an international platform that is already successful but very well equipped for new opportunities," said Mr. Moran. "I look forward to working with the project finance team in Washington, New York, Houston and Los Angeles, as well as Sidley's highly regarded energy and environmental lawyers in Washington and Houston."
Mr. Moran represents lenders in construction and term financings and equity investors in private placements and tax-based equity investments. Mr. Moran is currently representing both developers and lenders in the structuring and financing of wind, solar and mid-stream oil and gas projects, to be located in the U.S., Latin America and Canada.
With respect to developers, Mr. Moran has represented both large and small sponsors in the development and financing of infrastructure projects throughout North America, Central America, South America, China and numerous countries in Europe and Africa. He has also represented developers in connection with bids on more than 90 major power facilities, acquisitions of individual and portfolios of power facilities, and of gas storage facilities and pipelines. Mr. Moran has also represented developers and lenders in asset sales, as well as whole and partial sales of interests in energy-related companies.
www.rubenstein.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proof of a Negative Not Required for Summary Judgment
Opinions |
2012/02/28 10:23
|
The Indiana Court of Appeals has issued a decision that may have a large impact on summary judgment practice in Indiana. In Commr. of the Indiana Dept. of Ins. v. Black, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), the Court essentially held that Indiana will apply the standard set forth in Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), at least in some circumstances.
Tim Black alleged that Dr. Harris and others rendered negligent care to his wife after she complained of chest pain. The negligence allegedly resulted in severe cardiac arrest and resulted in the need for a heart transplant. The medical review panel unanimously concluded that Dr. Harris failed to comply with the applicable standard of care.
After the panel decision, Black filed a petition seeking payment of $1 million from the Patient's Compensation Fund and asserted that he had settled with Dr. Harris for $250,000, thereby satisfying the qualifying amount to get to the fund. The Commissioner sought discovery of the settlement agreement but Black refused to produce it, saying it was confidential. Black did produce a copy of an unauthenticated check in the amount $250,000 from the Medical Assurance Co., made payable to Black and his counsel. Black also produced some correspondence between counsel that discussed a prospective settlement.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss the petition claiming that he needed the settlement agreement in order to make payment. It was not clear from the check whether the payment was for settlement with Dr. Harris or other defendants. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and after conducting a hearing on damages, ordered the Commissioner to pay Black $1 million. The Commissioner appealed.
In considering the motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals observed that matters outside the pleadings were submitted in support of the motion to dismiss and were relied on by the trial court. In light of this fact, the Court of Appeals, pursuant to T.R. 12(B), treated the motion as one for summary judgment. In a footnote, the court recognized that T.R. 12(B) requires that "all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such motion by Rule 56." Although no such "opportunity" was given, the court found there was "no prejudice" and proceeded to consider the appeal as a summary judgment case.
The court noted that the Commissioner's position on the motion required him to prove a negative?-that there was no settlement with Harris for $250,000. In Jarboe v. Landmark Cmty. Newspapers of Indiana, Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 1994), the Indiana Supreme Court rejected the view that a party seeking summary judgment could simply point to the opponent’s burden of proof at trial and prevail unless the non-movant produced evidence supporting its claim or defense. This ruling has for many years been perceived as being at odds with Celotex, in which the U.S. Supreme Court reached a different conclusion under the federal rules. In 2000, Justice Boehm, in dissenting from a denial of transfer in Lenhart Tool & Die, Inc. v. Lumpe, 722 N.E.2d 824 (Ind. 2000), expressed the view that a party who puts forward evidence that a non-movant will be unable to present evidence to prove an essential element of its claim or defense, should be entitled to summary judgment if the non-movant fails to present such evidence. In Black, the Court of Appeals held: "Today, we accept Justice Boehm's views on this subject expressed in his dissent."
Having adopted this new standard, however, the Court of Appeals found that in this case, based on the unauthenticated check and the settlement correspondence, there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether a $250,000 settlement on Black’s claim against Harris had been accomplished. So, the Commissioner was not entitled to summary judgment. Black was also not entitled to a judgment on his claim since it was not clear that the required settlement with Harris for $250,000 had been consummated.
The Court held that the Commissioner is entitled to discovery of the settlement agreement and that the confidentiality term in the settlement agreement would not trump the Commissioner's right to such discovery. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sydney Criminal Lawyers - Sydney criminal defence lawyers
Attorney News |
2012/02/28 10:22
|
Sydney Criminal Lawyers are a team of professional, experienced and highly respected specialist criminal and traffic defence lawyers. With two offices located in Sydney's Downing Centre Courts, our team of attorneys consistently achieve outstanding results in different criminal cases throughout the NSW area. We are the only criminal law firm to offer an "Accredited Specialist Guarantee" which means we will represent you on all important court days by the very best criminal or traffic lawyer in our firm. Additionally, we offer a great fixed fee-no hidden costs for our clients who are on a budget. Sydney Criminal Lawyers is the only accredited criminal law firm to offer these fixed fees for a wide range of criminal law services. Our results speak for themselves and we are the legal experts here to defend for your freedom to get you back on the road and on with your life as soon as possible.
At Sydney Criminal Lawyers, their attorneys have extensive experience in a wide range of criminal cases. With their comprehensive knowledge of drink driving, drug, and assault laws, their ability to defend their clients and win criminal cases have shown a proven track record. They care and understand how important a clean record is and will fight for their clients to secure favorable results. We have a winning attitude that will help ease your stresses.
http://www.criminallaw.com.au
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court 101 in session at high court
Topics in Legal News |
2012/02/28 10:22
|
George Mason University law student Matthew Long still has three months of schoolwork before graduation, but this week he and two classmates had a case before the Supreme Court.
The group of students is part of a new class dedicated to Supreme Court work at the Fairfax, Va., school. Nationwide, more than a half dozen law schools offer similar courses.
The students don't get to argue the cases. They aren't even lawyers yet. But students participating in the so-called Supreme Court clinics get to do everything else: research issues, draft briefs and consult with the lawyer actually presenting the case to the high court.
"We're all very much aware that you can go your entire legal career without ever being on a case before this court, and it's unbelievable that we'd have this experience as law students," Long, 26, said as he stood outside the Supreme Court after Monday's arguments in a case about a man in prison for murder in Colorado and time limits involved in his case.
Stanford University started the first Supreme Court clinic for students in 2004 and is still involved in the most cases. But schools with clinics now include Harvard University, Yale University, the University of Virginia and the University of Texas. In the past three years, clinics report that students have been involved in about 1 out of every 6 cases argued before the court. This week, students are participating in two of the court's cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Announces Class Action
Legal Business |
2012/02/28 10:21
|
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf of purchasers of the securities of TranS1 Inc. between February 21, 2008 and October 17, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
TranS1 is a medical device company that designs, develops and markets products that implement its proprietary surgical approach to treat degenerative conditions of the spine affecting the lower lumbar region. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company and certain of its executive officers misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations and financial performance, including that: (i) the Company was not in compliance with federal healthcare fraud and false claim statutes; (ii) the Company engaged in improper reimbursement practices; (iii) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (iv), as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased TranS1 securities between February 21, 2008 and October 17, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until March 26, 2012, to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
