Hogan Lovells announced the election of five partners to the firm’s board.

The firm issued the following information in a news release:

• Clay James has been elected to the At Large seat. Clay James is a partner in the firm’s IPMT team, based in our Denver and Silicon Valley offices. He is a litigator and trial lawyer who tackles high-stakes intellectual property disputes, class actions, privacy and data security cases and complex commercial litigation, with a focus on technology-related matters. Clay has acted as lead counsel in dozens of patent, copyright and trade secret cases including acting as lead counsel for Sun Microsystems Inc for seven years. He has also served as Chairman of the Intellectual Property Section of the Colorado Bar Association.

• Joaquín Ruiz Echauri has been elected to the Continental Europe seat. Joaquín Ruiz Echauri heads up the firm’s Spanish Insurance and Reinsurance practice and also our Product Litigation and Compliance practice. He joined the firm in 2007 and deals with Iberian and Latin American insurance and reinsurance, payment services and product liability matters. His practice has been recognized by Chambers & Partners and Legal 500 as a leading top tier practice for the last five consecutive years. He has significantly grown the team in Spain from one partner and one associate, to three partners, one counsel and 16 associates.

• Richard Lorenzo has been elected to the U.S. (other than D.C.) seat. Richard C. Lorenzo is Managing Partner of Hogan Lovells’ Miami office. His 22-year international commercial litigation and arbitration legal career has included representing clients across the U.S. and throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. He is experienced in the civil law systems and political landscapes of Spanish-speaking jurisdictions, which complements his English-language arbitration practices and procedures, providing bilingual and bicultural services to clients. He is one of the region’s most accomplished attorneys and is frequently invited to serve as a speaker for his knowledge and insight into arbitration trends and practices in Latin America. In addition to this legal career, Richard is an adjunct professor of International Arbitration and Litigation at Florida International University College of Law and serves as Chair of the Hispanic National Bar Foundation, a non-profit focused on attaining greater access to higher education for Hispanics and to increase diversity in the legal profession.

• Cate Stetson has been re-elected to the Washington region U.S. seat. Cate Stetson is co-head of the firm’s U.S. Supreme Court and Appellate practice group, a Chambers-ranked appellate litigator, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. She has more than 80 cases to her name, including in the Supreme Court, nearly all federal courts of appeals, and multiple state appellate courts. Her experience spans appeals presenting questions of administrative law and procedure, antitrust law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the False Claims Act, class certification, civil procedure, and constitutional, contract, copyright, employment, energy, environmental, food and drug, health care, insurance, patent, telecommunications, and tort law. Before joining Hogan Lovells, Cate served as a judicial clerk to The Honorable Stanley S. Harris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and The Honorable David S. Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

• Adrian Walker has been elected to the London seat. Adrian Walker is a founder of the firm’s Infrastructure Energy Resources and Projects practice which he led for 10 years. He co-leads the firm’s Social Enterprise and Business Integrity Groups. He is recognized for his expertise in promoting the most challenging projects in developed and emerging market, across economic and social infrastructure. A former member of the World Economic Forum’s Social Innovation Council, he has spent his career asking “why not”, helping the public and private sectors improve people’s lives through better access to energy and services whilst championing mission led business that is inclusive of all its stakeholders.

Clay, Joaquín, Cate and Adrian begin or continue their roles as of 1 May. Richard will begin his role as of 1 July.

Select Counsel will present its latest In House Focus CLE program, What GCs Need to Know About Vendor, Customer and Competitor Bankruptcies, on Wednesday, May 9, 2018,  at 9 a.m. PT / 12 ET.

The event is accredited for CLE in most states and is free for in-house counsel.

Ted Storey, former general counsel of Round Table Pizza, will join Tobias Keller and Jane Kim, partners in Keller & Benvenutti LLP, to discuss a range of issues commonly presented to healthy companies when vendors, customers or competitors file bankruptcy cases. These issues include engaging in competitive behaviors, recovering claims and evaluating ongoing credit exposure, and protecting against common motions and actions taken in bankruptcy.

Here are some of the questions that will be answered during the course of the program:

1. In what ways can a competitor’s bankruptcy filing be used to your advantage?

2. What will happen to the IP you’ve licensed when the licensor files for chapter 11?

3. What are the pros and cons to buying assets in bankruptcy?

4. How can you get paid when your customer or licensee files for bankruptcy?

Register for the webinar.

Exterro has published its 2nd Annual Study of Effective Legal Spend Management and made it available for downloading at no charge.

The report discusses how legal departments are allocating spend over the past year and what techniques are most effective in reducing legal spend.

It includes:

• 22 Page comprehensive report to benchmark your legal spend against other leading legal departments
• Analysis of the top techniques to reduce legal spend (22 techniques ranked)
• Expert insight with report key takeaways

Download the report.

The Supreme Court started the current term in October with a docket that could have a lasting impact on politics and culture, including major cases on partisan gerrymandering and LGBT rights, but six months later, the justices haven’t crossed off much on their to-do list, points out Todd Ruger for Roll Call.

That situation will result in some big decisions being handed down in the short time remaining before the end of the term in June.

“Speculation is rampant about what’s going on behind closed doors on some of the big cases — such as one about arbitration that was argued on the first day of the term in October,” writes Ruger. “Some legal experts say the court seems to be feeling out a new dynamic with Justice Neil Gorsuch in his first full term.”

He quotes Adam Feldman, a postdoctoral fellow at Columbia Law School and creator of a high court statistics blog, Empirical SCOTUS, as saying some recent decisions had fractured the justices, with each seemingly wanting to have their own say, which “shows they’re having trouble finding that point of consensus not along ideological grounds.”

Read the Roll Call article.

Bloomberg Law is reporting that three associates sued Morrison & Foerster on Monday, alleging it discriminated against them and held them back in their careers after they became pregnant.

The plaintiffs, women lawyers practicing in California, allege they were denied work opportunities because of their gender, and that they were cut out of their practice groups following maternity leave, reports Stephanie Russell-Kraft.

The three unnamed plaintiffs, who are suing the firm on behalf of a putative class of female attorneys at the firm, claim in their complaint that “At MoFo, the mommy track is a dead end.” A spokesman for the firm disputed the claim.

Several Big Law firms, including Proskauer Rose, Sedgwick, and Chadbourne & Parke (now Norton Rose Fulbright), have been hit with allegations of gender discrimination in recent years, but this is the first suit focusing on maternity discrimination, according to Russell-Kraft.

Read the Bloomberg article.

A New York federal jury awarded 10 former and current employees of a Long Island company $5.1 million because the company was found to have forced them to practice certain religious activities, reports The Washington Post.

Post contributor Gene Marks writes that the EEOC suit alleged that United Health Programs of America employees were being forced to follow an internal “Harnessing Happiness” system started by an aunt of the owners in 2007 that required them to engage in activities such as prayers, religious workshops and “spiritual cleansing rituals.”

“Nine employees said the ‘religiously infused atmosphere’ created a hostile work environment for them, and the jury agreed,” according to Marks. “The same jury also found that another employee was fired for opposing the practices. A judge had previously ruled that the Harnessing Happiness system — which was also known as ‘Onionhead’ — constituted a religion.”

Read the Post article.

NAVEX Global has published the 2018 Ethics & Compliance Hotline & Incident Management Benchmark Report. The report is available for downloading at no charge.

The newly released report shows the number of employee complaints and misconduct reports are rising — and a surprising 44 percent of all reports are substantiated.

However, cases are taking longer than ever to close, NAVEX points out in the report. “When cases take too long to resolve, employees feel unheard and are more likely to report outside your organization, where you miss the opportunity to mitigate risk with an appropriate response. Download the report to compare your compliance program against industry standards and get best practices from the experts to help you encourage internal reporting.”

Download the report.

Michael Best announced that Velvet Johnson has joined the firm’s Privacy & Cybersecurity Practice Group as senior counsel in Washington, D.C.

In a release, the firm said Johnson’s arrival comes on the heels of other recent hires to the group, including partners Ryan Sulkin and Elizabeth Rogers in Chicago and Austin, respectively.

Johnson concentrates her practice advising clients on various matters of internet policy, regulatory compliance, privacy and cyber-related issues, in addition to providing counsel on numerous cross-border business issues.

“Velvet has an incredibly strong background on cybersecurity matters from her time working in the government,” said Adrienne Ehrhardt, Chair of Michael Best’s Privacy & Cybersecurity Practice Group. “Her reputation and breadth of experience in Washington, D.C. will certainly enhance our group’s ability to address client’s needs, particularly as it relates to policy assessment and legal frameworks. Her addition comes at a key period in time as well with the European Union’s enforcement of the General Data Protection Regulation beginning later this month.”

Prior to joining Michael Best, Johnson spent nearly a decade in various legal and policy advisory roles both within the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Much of her time was spent advising on matters related to federal cybersecurity legislation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure, and national security law guidelines. In her latter role, she represented the DoD in multiple National Security Council-led Cybersecurity Interagency Committees, Working Groups, and senior-level policy forums. After her time with the government, she spent two years as a cyber strategy consultant with a global management consulting firm where she was responsible for managing and executing security and risk programs on behalf of her clients.

“We’re thrilled that Velvet has decided to join us here in Washington, D.C.,” said Kevin Barner, Michael Best’s Washington, D.C. Office Managing Partner. “Her addition will help our clients navigate the complex regulatory and compliance challenges they will inevitably face.”

Johnson received her J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law and her B.S. from the University of Richmond. In addition to her university degrees, Johnson also earned a cybersecurity certification from Georgetown University and the Certified Information Privacy Professional/United States (CIPP/US) credential through the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP).

Foley & Lardner LLP announced that Ashley McDow has joined the firm’s Bankruptcy & Business Reorganizations practice as partner in the Los Angeles office. Prior to joining Foley, she was a partner at Baker Hostetler LLP.

In a release, the firm said McDow’s practice focuses primarily on bankruptcy and commercial law both nationally and in California. She represents businesses on all sides of the bankruptcy process, notably debtors in possession and creditor committees in Chapter 11 reorganizations, Chapters 7 and 11 trustees, as well as parties to various adversary proceedings. McDow advises clients across industries, including advertising, aviation, commercial real estate, entertainment, finance, franchising, health care, manufacturing, retail and technology.

“Ashley has a proven track record generating outstanding results for her clients,” said Jill Nicholson, chair of Foley’s Bankruptcy & Business Reorganizations practice. “Ashley’s experience will be a tremendous asset to our team, both on a national level and as we further expand our practice in California.”

The release continues:

A snapshot of McDow’s representative experience includes negotiating with secured creditors on behalf of debtors, representing unsecured creditors and liquidating trusts, handling settlement agreements and counseling on individual bankruptcy cases. Her work with Chapters 7 and 11 trustees, Chapter 11 reorganizations and a Chapter 9 bankruptcy case spans an array of businesses and notably includes assisting with the recovery and administration of patented and unpatented mining claims worth nearly $1 billion, as well as assisting with the defusing of a contentious dispute and negotiation of a settlement agreement in tandem with the claims.

In California, McDow has a strong local presence and is a leader in the legal community. She is chair of the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Executive Committee of the Commercial Law Section and of the Executive Committee of the Commercial Law and Bankruptcy Section. She is also an active member of the Los Angeles County Bar Advisory Board. In addition, McDow is on the editorial board of the California Bankruptcy Journal, where she regularly authors publications on key issues in bankruptcy and commercial law.

“Ashley’s considerable experience across a range of bankruptcy and commercial law matters spanning many industries perfectly complements the firm’s growing practice in California,” said Jeff Atkin, managing partner of Foley’s Los Angeles office. “She is well respected by her peers both nationally and regionally, and we are thrilled to have her join our team.”

DLA Piper announced that Alva Mather has joined the firm’s Litigation practice as a partner in Philadelphia.

Mather represents companies in the food and beverage industry, including manufacturers, suppliers, grocery stores and restaurants. This includes a focus on advising alcoholic beverage companies, retailers and other third-party providers involved in alcohol-related services on all aspects of manufacturing, distribution, sales and advertising.

“Alva brings extensive experience and is nationally recognized as a thought leader in the food and beverage industry, and her practice complements our efforts in this important sector,” said James Brogan, co-chair of DLA Piper’s US Litigation practice. “She is also a skilled litigator who has established herself as an authority, particularly on trends and issues impacting the alcohol industry, and her deep knowledge will allow us to significantly expand upon our practice offerings.”

“Alva has formed a number of strong relationships in the food and beverage industry, which, along with her experience and impressive track record, will be highly valuable to our clients in Philadelphia and across the country,” said Joe Kernen, managing partner of the firm’s Philadelphia office. “We are thrilled to welcome her to the firm, where she will immediately enhance our capabilities and further strengthen our national and global platform.”

Mather joins DLA Piper from Pepper Hamilton LLP, where she served as chair of the firm’s Alcoholic Beverage Industry practice and co-chair of its Food and Beverage and Cannabis Industry practices. She earned her J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, her M.A. in sociology from Northwestern University and her B.A., magna cum laude, from Mount Holyoke College.

Sidley Austin LLP announced that Michael Schiavone, Daniel O’Shea and David Ni have joined the firm’s New York office as partners in the Capital Markets practice. The group joins from O’Melveny & Myers LLP where Schiavone chaired the Capital Markets practice.

“I am thrilled to have Mike return home,” said Edward F. Petrosky, global chair of Sidley’s Capital Markets practice. “Mike, Dan and David are extremely talented capital markets practitioners with a substantial level of deal experience and market acceptance. Their practice will broadly diversify our preeminent Capital Markets practice and enhance our ability to serve our clients at the highest level across various industry sectors such as life sciences, financial institutions, consumer and media.”

Sidley’s Capital Markets team grew last year with the additions of partners David Buck, Jon Daly, George Vlahakos, William Cooper and Angela Richards in Houston and Wim De Vlieger and Till Lefranc in London.

Mr. Schiavone has experience on Wall Street, working with convertible securities. He focuses on bank-side capital markets representations. He represents underwriters and issuers in a wide variety of equity, debt and convertible securities offerings and has advised clients in acquisition finance, debt restructuring and liability management transactions.

O’Shea has represented underwriters in IPOs and debt and bond offerings. He has a background advising issuers and investment banking institutions and he has also counseled clients on corporate governance matters and public company reporting.

Ni represents clients in a variety of offerings, including primary and secondary equity, convertible notes, investment-grade and high-yield debt, and hybrid securities. He has worked in acquisition and leveraged finance, debt restructuring, liability management transactions and remarketings.

FisherBroyles, LLP announced the addition of Marc Boiron as a partner in its FinTech and Blockchain practice group, based in the firm’s Los Angeles and Palo Alto, Calif., offices.

“Marc is highly regarded as a leader in the blockchain community who is on the forefront of new technological and legal issues,” said Adam T. Ettinger, FisherBroyles partner and co-chair of the FinTech and Blockchain practice group. “Marc truly excels at meshing the important technological benefits of blockchain with a creative yet responsible approach to advising clients on legal issues.”

Boiron said, “FisherBroyles provides clients with an exceptional partnership platform for growing their blockchain-based businesses. I look forward to collaborating with the firm’s other highly experienced attorneys to help develop in a positive manner the legal infrastructure for companies to excel in this space and uncertain legal environment.”

In a release, the firm said Boiron represents leaders in blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies and digital currencies that operate businesses in diverse industries, including ad tech, ecommerce, energy, healthcare, mobile apps, music, payment systems, real estate, and video games. With his background in corporate and securities law, Boiron advises companies on issues that include initial coin offerings, security token offerings, smart contracts, cryptocurrency funds, cryptocurrency exchanges, and other blockchain-related laws. He also advises early stage companies in traditional and crowdfunding financings, using exemptions like Reg D, Reg A+ and Reg CF.

Previously, Boiron was the founder and leader of the Blockchain, Smart Contracts and Cryptocurrencies practice group at Rutan & Tucker, LLP. He also formerly practiced in Delaware at Richards, Layton & Finger.

Boiron also regularly speaks and writes on issues relating to blockchain technology, including latest developments in blockchain and ICO regulation.

Boiron received his J.D. from Dickinson School of Law and his Master of Business Administration from Smeal College of Business, both of Pennsylvania State University, and his Bachelor of Business Administration from Middle Tennessee State University.

A Missouri ruling is likely to end a contentious nine-year dispute between a local activist who claims that Husch Blackwell LLP, an AmLaw 100 firm — used the legal system to squelch his speech rights, according to Bloomberg Law.

Reporter Samson Habte explains that the court’s April 23 opinion highlights the difficulty of proving two types of tort claim — malicious prosecution and abuse of process — that disgruntled litigants could try to use to turn the tables on opposing parties and their lawyers.

The dispute started when John T. Impey ran for a school board seat  and campaigned against a $3 million bond proposal that L.J. Hart & Co. and its owner, Larry Joe Hart, underwrote. Husch Blackwell brought defamation and tortious interference lawsuit against Impey on Hart’s behalf.

The firm obtained a preliminary injunction that prohibited Impey from repeating some accusations against Hart; but when the campaign ended — and the bond initiative failed — Husch Blackwell advised Hart to drop the defamation case.

Read the Bloomberg article.

In a blog post, John McFarland of Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody discusses a lawsuit over a petroleum lease dispute that led to a claim under Texas’ Anti-SLAPP statute.

He explains that a SLAPP is a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” a suit intended to censor or intimidate critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

The case involves the dispute over whether a petroleum company’s oil and gas lease had expired. When the property owner filed a suit for trespass, the production company filed counterclaims for breach of the lease. The property owner filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims under the anti-SLAPP statute.

An appellate court found that the property owner had waived its right to protection under the anti-SLAPP statute because it agreed in the lease not to sue before giving prior notice and an opportunity to cure.

Read the article.

One of a court’s most frequent tasks is interpreting ambiguous contracts created by the use of ambiguous language in contracts; however, by the time a court is deciding the issue, costly litigation may have taken years, write Richard Raysman and Elliot Magruder for Holland & Knight.

In a post for the firm’s Ditigal Technology & E-Commerce Blog, they discuss a recent case in which parties to a software development and license agreement confronted this unfortunate truth, and both left unsatisfied.

In Apacheta Corp. v. Lincare, Inc., Apacheta sued for breach of contract in claiming that Lincare’s termination violated the right-to-cure provision because Lincare neither provided notice of breach nor a cure period.

Read the article.

“Pay when paid” clauses are common in the construction industry, according to Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, but courts generally disfavor conditions precedent (an event that must occur before another party’s performance is due) and will not observe their existence unless they are unambiguously laid out in the contract.

The article, published by JD Supra, states that “subcontractors and general contractors should be aware that if language in a contract clearly establishes that the prime contractor is only obligated to pay the subcontractor if the owner pays the prime contractor for that work, and the contract states that the subcontractor is taking the risk of the owner’s potential insolvency, then courts are likely to enforce the contract as written—condition precedent and all. This language establishes what is known as a pay if paid clause.”

Read the article.

Although limited liability protections normally insulate business owners from personal liability for their business’s debts, lenders routinely require a small business owner to sign a personal guaranty as a condition for a commercial loan to the business entity, points out Thomas C. Wolff, writing for Ward and Smith.

This requirement essentially circumvents the statutory protection against personal liability, he writes.

“Any potential guarantor should read a proposed guaranty agreement carefully and understand each contractual provision. Often the terms can be negotiated, even if a business entity is a startup and has limited assets and income,” writes Wolff.

In the article, he discusses continuing guaranties, unlimited and limited guaranties, joint and several liability, the obligation of contribution, guaranty of payment vs. guaranty of collection, the lender’s right to set-off, and the death of a guarantor.

Read the article.

Seyfarth Shaw has some advice for franchisor when considering their legal strategy in “no-hire” agreement class actions: franchisor employers should assess whether the joint employer risk is worth accepting in order to pursue the single-enterprise defense.”

In its Workplace Class Action Blog, the firm discusses class actions claiming that provisions contained in franchise agreements prohibiting the hiring of employees of other intrabrand franchisees without the consent of their employer violate the antitrust laws.

The authors discuss the single-enterprise defense, potential joint employer liability, and other defenses.

Read the article.

Trial attorney Alex Brauer, co-founder of the Dallas-based complex litigation boutique Bailey Brauer PLLC, has been selected to D Magazine’s 2018 Best Lawyers in Dallas listing.

Chosen for a third consecutive year for his commercial litigation work, Brauer represents companies and high net worth individuals involved in high-stakes business disputes, the firm said in a release.

The release said his practice spans various industries and issues including claims of fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, deceptive trade practices, trade secret theft, RICO, antitrust and violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act. He also has successfully defended against class actions and represents clients in complex tort matters, including negligence and wrongful death.

“This firm was built on the premise of providing sophisticated legal representation that results in aggressive, creative solutions. It is a description that also matches Alex’s practice,” said firm co-founder Clayton Bailey. “He is an exceptional attorney, deserving of this recognition.”

Founded in 2013, Bailey Brauer has received multiple honors for individual lawyers and the firm from BTI Consulting Group, Benchmark Litigation, U.S. News-Best Lawyers, The National Law Journal, The Best Lawyers in America and Texas Super Lawyers.

A graduate of Georgetown University Law Center, Brauer has served on several key Dallas Bar Association committees. He is a board member for the Readers 2 Leaders literacy program. He also has served on the Host Committee for the Great Investors’ Best Ideas Foundation, which benefits The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research and the Vickery Meadow Youth Development Foundation.

The Best Lawyers in Dallas list is based on a review of peer nominations conducted by D Magazine editors and a panel of the city’s most respected attorneys. The full listing appears in the publication’s May edition.

DePuy Orthopaedics and Johnson & Johnson will get a new trial after the previous one in 2016 ended with the companies having to pay $151 million in damages to five plaintiffs with alleged hip replacement injuries, reports the SE Texas Record.

The Fifth Circuit found that plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lanier’s “deceptions furnish independent grounds for a new trial” that centered on Pinnacle artificial hips and that the trial court allowed the Houston lawyer to introduce “inflammatory character evidence.”

David Yates reports that Lanier told the Record he thought the opinion was “interesting” and that the legal reasoning upholding the various actions against Depuy and J&J are strong and important and will help all future cases.

Lanier said he thought the court misunderstood the issues of monetary representations about the doctors. He added that he plans to seek a retrial.

Read the Record‘s article.