• July 26, 2006 | The Legal Intelligencer

    Blank Rome Sprouts Alliance With Brussels Firm

    Blank Rome has partnered with Brussels-based public affairs firm Interel, saying the goal is to help international clients coordinate their government relations and legal needs between Washing

    1 minute read

  • March 13, 2003 | New York Law Journal

    Judge HellersteinBrady v. Montefiore Medical; Stewart v. NYC; Shaw v. American Honda Finan. — Orders signed.Fadem v. Ford Motor Co. — Stip.Judge H

    1 minute read

  • In re Reno

    Publication Date: 2012-08-30
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2012-08-30
    Court: Ca. Sup. Ct.
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Bill Lockyer, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, Robert R. Anderson and Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, John R. Gorey, Joseph P. Lee, Robert David Breton and Mary Sanchez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent State of California. Kent S. Scheidegger for Criminal Justice Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondent State of California. Michael Laurence for the Habeas Corpus Resource Center and California Public Defenders Association as Amici Curiae. Michael J. Hersek, State Public Defender, and Nina Rivkind, Deputy State Public Defender, for the Office of the State Public Defender as Amicus Curiae. Cliff Gardner; Lawrence A. Gibbs; and John T. Philipsborn for the Federal Public Defender for the Eastern and Central Districts and the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice as Amici Curiae.
    for defendant: James S. Thomson, Saor Stetler and Peter Giannini, under appointments by the Supreme Court, for Petitioner Reno.

    Case Number: No. S124660

    Cite as 12 C.D.O.S. 10049 In re RENO on Habeas Corpus. No. S124660 In the Supreme Court of Califor

  • January 6, 2005 | The Legal Intelligencer

    Class Certified in Canceled Options Suit

    A Philadelphia judge has certified as a class the nonmanagement employees of a Massachusetts biopharmaceuticals firm who claim the company should not have canceled stock options it had previou

    1 minute read

  • July 23, 2009 | New York Law Journal

    New Deals

    Skadden, Paul Weiss and Wachtell Counsel $3 Billion CIT Refinancing Deal CIT Group negotiated a late-night lifeline with its bondholders Sunday that is intended to keep

    1 minute read

  • October 31, 2002 |

    U.S. and European Regulators Strike Accord

    Seeking more consistency in the antitrust review of international deals, regulators from the United States and European Union on Oct. 30 adopted a set of guidelines for coordinating merger inv

    1 minute read

  • April 28, 2010 | The Legal Intelligencer

    Whistleblower Suits Against AstraZeneca Settle for $520 Mil.

    Drug maker AstraZeneca has agreed to pay $520 million to settle whistleblower lawsuits filed in federal court in Philadelphia that accused the company of engaging in illegal tactics — inc

    1 minute read

  • September 20, 2006 | The Recorder

    Attorneys in HP Scandal Lawyer Up

    The combined weight of investigations by state prosecutors, federal regulators and the Department of Justice has forced lawyers in Hewlett-Packard's boardroom mess to get their own attorneys.

    1 minute read

  • October 24, 2006 | The Legal Intelligencer

    3rd Circuit Overturns $6M Award to Former Mobil Employees

    A federal appeals court has overturned an award of $6 million to 52 former employees of Mobil Corp. who said they were cheated out of severance pay when they were not hired by the newly formed Exxo

    1 minute read

  • Paradigm Oil Inc. v. Retamco Operating Inc.

    Publication Date: 2012-06-25
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2012-06-22
    Court: Tx. Sup. Ct.
    Judge: David M. Medina Justice
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: NO. 10-0997

    Argued February 9, 2012 JUSTICE MEDINA delivered the opinion of the Court. JUSTICE GREEN did not participate in the decision. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215.2(b)(5) au