In last night’s Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton dismissed a question about whether she would resign if indicted for mishandling classified information, saying “Oh for goodness … that’s not going to happen. I’m not even answering that question.”

A report by Christian Science Monitor staff writer Peter Grier addresses the question: Is Clinton right to be so dismissive?

“On the one hand, the FBI investigation of the issue could be a shield for Clinton,” Grier writes. “If she isn’t indicted, she can use that fact as an all-purpose dismissal. Something along the lines of, ‘The feds found no problem here, so move along, move along.’ ”

But Republicans will keep the issue alive, he adds, pointing to two new lawsuits seeking access to Clinton’s State Department communications.

Read the article.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a legal response on Thursday to Apple’s refusal to help the FBI unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters, and Apple quickly responded, with general counsel Bruce Sewell delivering a tense and angry response in a conference call with reporters, reports Business Insider.

Sewell called the DOJ response a “cheap shot” and said that its tone “reads like an indictment.”

He was responding to the DOJ’s claim that “Apple’s rhetoric is not only false, but also corrosive of the very institutions that are best able to safeguard our liberty and our rights … .”

Read the article.

Stradley Ronon announced that it has opened an office in Chicago with the hiring of former K&L Gates partners David P. Glatz and Alan P. Goldberg, both of whom join the firm as partners in the investment management group. In addition to the Chicago-based partners, Eric S. Purple and Nicole Trudeau, both previously partners at K&L Gates, have joined Stradley Ronon’s Washington, D.C., office as partners in the investment management group.

“David, Alan, Eric and Nicole’s practices are a tremendous complement to our investment management group and enhance our subject matter expertise in critical areas such as exchange-traded funds and closed-end funds” said Bruce G. Leto, Chair of Stradley Ronon’s Investment Management Practice. “Our new colleagues are highly regarded in the investment management industry and their addition will help perpetuate the firm’s 80-year history of innovation in this area.”

“We have long admired and respected Stradley Ronon, particularly its highly regarded investment management group and its collegial culture, and are thrilled to join such a well-respected and talented group of attorneys,” said Goldberg, Partner-in-Charge of the Chicago office. “Stradley provides us with a tremendous platform to support our practices, and we know this move will be beneficial to our clients who value sophisticated legal advice from pragmatic, industry-savvy attorneys.”

In a release, the firm said the Chicago office opening marks Stradley Ronon’s first location outside the mid-Atlantic region and its eighth office overall. The location is close to several large firm clients, allowing the firm to provide on-the-ground service in the Midwest in the investment management industry and other areas.

“Given the success and leadership that Bruce’s team has established in the industry, it was an easy decision to open in Chicago. Our Managing Partner Jeff Lutsky and Executive Director Gillian Facher put forth an incredible effort to complete the transaction in record time,” said Stradley Ronon Chairman William R. Sasso. “Our new geographic footprint deepens our existing capabilities by adding to the strength of our robust investment management group and allowing us to expand other practices such as commercial litigation, corporate and securities, financial services, insurance, intellectual property, and securities enforcement and litigation into the Midwest.”

“Our expansion into Chicago is an integral part of our strategic plan to grow in regions and practice areas that complement our existing services and strengths, but more importantly, to add value to our clients,” said Stradley Ronon Managing Partner Jeffrey A. Lutsky.

About Stradley Ronon’s newest partners:

David P. Glatz concentrates his practice on closed-end funds, advising clients on issues arising under the federal securities laws, including the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940. His experience includes advising numerous closed-end funds in connection with their initial public offerings, as well as serving as part of the team that helped bring to market several new types of preferred shares to replace auction-rate preferred stock and to provide additional sources of leverage for closed-end funds. Before joining K&L Gates, Glatz was with its predecessor firm Bell, Boyd & Lloyd. He also served as assistant general counsel for securities & governance at Sears Holdings Corporation. Glatz earned his J.D., cum laude, from Loyola University Chicago School of Law and his B.S. from DePaul University.

Alan P. Goldberg concentrates his practices on representing registered investment companies and their independent board members, registered investment advisers, sponsors to unregistered investment pools and family offices. He handles all aspects of creating registered investment companies and registering new investment advisers, including the establishment of compliance policies and procedures. Prior to K&L Gates, he was the administrative partner to the investment management and financial services practice of its predecessor firm, Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, and also served on the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission in the Enforcement Division. Goldberg received his J.D. from Temple University Beasley School of Law, where he was a member of the Temple Law Review and the Moot Court Honor Society, and his B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania.

Eric S. Purple counsels mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, closed-end investment companies and other pooled investment vehicles, as well as investment advisers and independent fund directors, on matters arising under U.S. federal securities laws. Before joining private practice, he served on the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission as a senior counsel in the Division of Investment Management’s Office of Chief Counsel. Prior to the SEC, Purple was the compliance officer of the Rydex Funds and was in-house counsel to a financial services start-up that was acquired by a predecessor of TD Ameritrade. Purple earned his LL.M. (Securities and Financial Regulation) from Georgetown University Law Center, his J.D. from the University of Alabama School of Law, where he served on the Managing Board of the Alabama Law Review, and his B.A. from Vanderbilt University.

Nicole Trudeau represents open- and closed-end funds and exchange-traded funds, other pooled investment vehicles and their independent board members, and investment advisers on matters relating to U.S. federal securities laws. Her experience includes serving as issuer’s counsel for a closed-end fund’s initial public offering in 2015, which raised $555 million, and serving as ongoing fund and independent board member counsel to a leveraged ETF fund complex. Trudeau earned her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School and her B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley.

Quarles & Brady LLP has announced that Lindsey T. Millman has joined the firm’s Chicago office in its Litigation & Dispute Resolution Practice Group.

Millman represents and counsels clients in commercial and civil litigation matters, including product liability, construction negligence, wrongful death, and premises liability. She has first-chaired 12 jury trials, two bench trials, and more than 35 arbitrations in the area of insurance defense litigation. Millman has experience serving as general legal counsel for a real estate investment company, where she advised on general commercial litigation matters.

She received her law degree from Vanderbilt University Law School and her bachelor’s degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

A proposed executive order could require certain government contractors to provide paid sick leave to certain employees at certain times, resulting to a new benefit for 437,000 employees who currently get no such benefit, and possibly augmenting the leave of about 400,000 more workers, according to U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez.

In a report written by the Federal Contractor Compliance Practice Group and Wage and Hour Practice Group of Paul Hastings LLP, contractors who disregard the new requirements beginning in 2017 can be subject to debarment, among other penalties, so it is important that contractors understand the proposed rules and plan to ensure compliance.

“Federal contractors certainly should examine their policies in light of the proposed regulations, but all employers operating in jurisdictions with paid sick leave laws should review their policies for compliance with state and local laws,” according to the article.

Read the article.

According to 10 judges of the Federal Circuit, a patent owner’s right to sue for infringement in the United States is not exhausted by sales of products abroad or by sales subject to valid post-sale contractual restrictions on use, write David Tellekson, Stefan Szpajda and Phillip K. Decker of Fenwick & West LLP.

The case is Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Impression Prods, Inc., Nos. 2014-1617, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 12, 2016).

In a 10-2 en banc decision, the Circuit court held that U.S. patent rights need not be expressly reserved in foreign sales transactions to preserve the right to sue for infringement if the goods enter the United States downstream of the point of sale.

“Although the Federal Circuit’s decision purports to maintain the status quo regarding patent exhaustion, Lexmark has immediate implications for patentees, licensees, and downstream consumers alike,” the authors write.

Read the article.

Companies’ increased awareness of the substantial costs and exposure associated with data breaches has motivated them to beef up their data security requirements in vendor contracts, write Emily R. Lowe and Susan Milyavsky of Morgan Lewis & Bockius in an article posted on Lexology.com.  They write that companies should consider some basic issues that frequently arise when negotiating data security provisions.

“Because customers want the maximum protection, vendors should carefully consider how broad a requested representation is. It’s a balancing act, because vendors need to be able to be able to provide certain security controls to win business, but they also need to also understand the difference between providing an adequate degree of protection for their customers and an insurance policy,” the authors explain.

And cyber-liability insurance may be a mechanism for a company to mitigate its exposure with respect to damages associated with security breaches.

Read the article.

Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, L.L.P. has added three new partners to the firm’s team of information technology and intellectual property specialists.

They are David Black, Sam Joyner and Mark Howland.

Black, former general counsel of two Fortune 500 global publicly traded companies, has 30 years of experience representing companies ranging from start-up to mid-cap to global operations.

In a release, the firm says Joyner and Howland are seasoned intellectual property partners who established their credentials at AmLaw 100 firms.

Read details about the new hires.

The hardest won rights are often the easiest to lose, and in the thickets of fine print surrounding every labor contract or credit card bill, all it takes is one careless signature to get roped into a deal with the devil — before you know it, you’ve already compromised your right to a fair trial or to speak out against an abusive boss, writes Michell Chen in The Nation.

“Despite American society’s reputation for litigiousness, there are as many things to sue over as there are ways to escape a lawsuit. In February, a coalition of lawmakers led by Senators Patrick Leahy and Al Franken introduced legislation to strengthen worker and consumer protections against binding arbitration — the obscure legal mechanism through which countless people have accidentally compromised their rights, by ensuring that a prospective future dispute with a company gets tracked into a separate legal system rigged with corporate impunity,” she writes.

In her article, Chen says the measure aims to shield access to the courts for workers and consumers by preventing corporations from trying to impose arbitration before any dispute even arises.

Read the article.

A New Jersey court recently used the so-called contract “disclaimer” language in an employer’s handbook to preclude the employer from enforcing a mandatory arbitration program contained in that same handbook, reports Kevin C. Donovan in a Wilson Elser client alert.

He writes that employers who wish to enforce alternate dispute resolution procedures without falling into the same trap should consider the ruling. But, he wrote, the decision appears contrary to federal policy, enforced by a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that strongly favor enforcement of arbitration agreements.

In New Jersey, as in most states, employment is presumed to be “at will,” meaning that either the employer or the employee can freely terminate the employment relationship without a reason (cause) to do so. Under certain circumstances, however, express promises contained in an employer handbook can result in contractually binding terms and conditions of employment.

“While [the ruling] is a New Jersey decision, rulings in other states have also limited an employer’s ability to enforce an arbitration agreement in employee handbooks under some circumstances,” Donovan wrote.

Read the article.

Two attorneys from the Texas-based family law boutique Orsinger, Nelson, Downing & Anderson, LLP, once again have earned recognition among the state’s top young lawyers in the 2016 edition of the annual Texas Rising Stars list.

Dallas associate Holly B. Rampy and San Antonio associate R. Porter Corrigan II were selected for their accomplishments in family law.

 “We are thrilled, but not surprised, that these two exceptional attorneys were recognized yet again on the Rising Stars list,” says firm partner Scott Downing. “Both Holly and Porter are valuable assets to their clients and our firm. We are proud to have them on our team.”

Texas Rising Stars recognizes the state’s leading attorneys who are 40 or younger, or who have been in practice no more than 10 years. Only 2.5 percent of eligible attorneys receive this award, which is based on peer nominations and extensive editorial review, the firm said in a release.

A third-time Rising Stars honoree, Rampy focuses her practice on cases involving divorce, complex property division, modification actions, enforcement actions and child custody issues. She earned her law degree from Texas Tech University School of Law.

Corrigan is making his sixth appearance on the Rising Stars list. Corrigan, who worked with two federal judges at the district and appellate court levels, represents family law clients in both trial courts and appeals courts. He graduated from St. Mary’s University School of Law.

The complete 2016 list of the state’s leading young attorneys is available online at www.superlawyers.com and will appear in the April issues of Texas Monthly and Texas Rising Stars magazines.

Orsinger, Nelson, Downing & Anderson, LLP,  has 16 lawyers and offices in Dallas, San Antonio and Frisco, Texas. Every firm partner is a member of the Texas Academy of Family Law Specialists and all are Board Certified in Family Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Orsinger holds additional board certification in Civil Appellate Law.

Strasburger & Price, LLP has announced that 17 attorneys from across the state have been selected for inclusion in the 2016 Texas Rising Stars list. The April 2016 issue of Texas Monthly and Texas Super Lawyers – a Thomson Reuters business – Rising Stars Edition will feature the selected attorneys.

In a release, the firm said Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. The Rising Stars list is developed using the same multiphase selection process used for the Super Lawyers list except, to be eligible for inclusion in Rising Stars, a candidate must be 40 years old or younger or in practice for 10 years or less. While up to 5 percent of the lawyers in a state are named to Super Lawyers, no more than 2.5 percent are named to Rising Stars.

AUSTIN
Sujata Ajmera (2013 to 2016), Immigration Law: Business
Jeff Bates (2008, 2012 to 2016), Real Estate: Business, Business Litigation, Banking

COLLIN COUNTY
Julie Biermacher (2011 to 2016), Business Litigation, General Litigation, Banking
Alyson Blatney (2015 to 2016), Business Litigation
Allison Reddoch, Employment & Labor, Consumer Law
Martin Thornthwaite (2010 to 2016), Business Litigation, Employment Litigation: Defense
Ginny Webb, Business Litigation

DALLAS
Carla Crapster, Insurance Coverage
Tate Hemingson, Business Litigation, Professional Liability: Defense, Franchise/Dealership, Appellate
Jadd F. Masso (2009 to 2016), Appellate
Justin P. Melkus (2013 to 2016), Insurance Coverage
Kathryne Morris (2014 to 2016), Business Litigation, Intellectual Property, Technology Transactions
Melody Smith (2015 to 2016), Employment & Labor, Business Litigation, Government Relations
Carr Staley, Banking, Business/Corporate

HOUSTON
Kelly Hunsaker Leonard, Appellate

SAN ANTONIO
Katherine E. David (2005 to 2016), Tax, Nonprofit Organizations
Carrie L. Douglas (2015 to 2016), Healthcare, Business Litigation, Transportation/Maritime

Tuesday, March 29, 2 p.m. EST
(register below)

eSignLive by Vasco is sponsoring an online presentation featuring one of the foremost e-signature law experts, Margo Tank, partner from BuckleySandler LLP, offering a unique look at e-signatures and answering the most frequently asked legal questions on the topic.

The complimentary webinar will be Tuesday, March 29, at 2 p.m. Eastern time.

Andrea Masterton, Corporate Marketing Director of eSignLive, will be featured.

The event will cover:

• Are electronic signatures and records legal across the United States?
• What legal and compliance requirements do we need to consider?
• Are there any exclusions or exceptions?
• What have we learned from e-signature case law?
• What special considerations should global companies be aware of when using e-signatures in other countries?

Register for the webinar here:

Photo by Mingle Media TV

Sportscaster Erin Andrews has triumphed in a Nashville courtroom and then ignited social media by winning a $55 million judgment against the stalker who filmed her nude and the hotel where the incident occurred, but her spectacular seeming victory will certainly turn into a far smaller payout, predicts The Hollywood Reporter.

“Her stalker, Michael Barrett, is on the hook for $28 million of that judgment, but Andrews will never see that money. ‘They can garnish his wages, but there’s essentially nothing to collect,’ says Rick Sanders, a litigator based in Nashville and a partner at Aaron & Sanders. ‘He’s a perfect example of a judgment-proof defendant,'” the report says.

The Nashville Marriott and the company that operates the hotel were held responsible for almost $27 million, but it’s unlikely that the plaintiff will collect that amount either.

Read the story.

Soft-spoken and bookish litigator Elizabeth Cabraser stood out from the cloud of alpha lawyers when made her low-key pitch to a federal judge as to why she should be selected to lead a massive consumer-fraud case against Volkswagen AG, reports The Wall Street Journal, via NASDAQ.

Her eloquence and focus on the clients contrasted with dozens of others who pitched the judge that day, bragging about their most recent newspaper awards, school credentials and trial prowess, the report says.

“U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer hours later named Ms. Cabraser to lead a team of 21 lawyers handling the plaintiffs’ cases, which consolidate more than 500 lawsuits. Volkswagen has admitted its diesel cars were installed with software meant to trick emissions tests and is working with regulators on a fix,” according to the report.

“The San Francisco Bay Area native has built a reputation for her encyclopedic knowledge of class-action law, effectiveness in oral arguments, and ability to diplomatically manage large cases, lawyers say.”

Read the story.

A prominent Long Island attorney is accused of misusing up to $200,000 in funds that were awarded to his clients, reports CBS New York.

Steven Morelli, reported tolive in Manhasset and to own a home in Manhattan, is accused of pocketing settlement money meant for his clients, some of whom say they’ve been waiting for their payouts for more than a year.

“Somebody I know to be a good man and a good lawyer found himself in some trouble here,” Marc Gann, Morelli’s defense attorney, said to the news outlet. “I hope it doesn’t end this way. This is a guy who has fought for his clients for many years. I know the allegations are serious allegations, but my understanding is that everyone to this point has been made whole.”

One client was reportedly shorted $50,000 from a nearly $70,000 settlement. Irman Rubbani, a limousine driver in Brooklyn, told CBS2 that he has not seen “one penny” of the $50,000 Morelli owes him.

Read the story.

By Rob Scott
Scott & Scott LLP

I am a technology lawyer representing banks and other financial institutions in technology transactions. As you might imagine, many of my clients are investing heavily in security products and services. In some instances, they are considering cloud solutions to enhance their customers’ experiences. Financial institutions are regulated by the Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act, (“GLBA”) which is codified at 16 CFR 314. GLBA defines financial institutions as all business, regardless of size, that are significantly engaged in offering financial goods or services. GLBA includes both privacy and safeguard rules related to customer information. These rules require financial institutions to implement adequate administrative, procedural, and technical safeguards designed to safeguard customer information.

What is a service provider under GLBA Safeguard’s Rule?

GLBA extends to the financial institution’s vendors by operation of law if the vendor meets the definition of service provider. A service provider is defined as:

Any party that is permitted access to a financial institution’s customer information through the provision of services directly to the institution.

Given the complexity of hosted and cloud based services, it is sometimes difficult to determine if a vendor meets the service provider definition under GLBA. This is an important threshold issue in any transaction because GLBA has specific rules regarding vendor due diligence and required contract provisions for contracts with service providers.

What is customer information under GLBA Safeguard’s Rule?

At the beginning of a new project, counsel should discuss the potential operational and legal risks of the proposed transaction. It is critical to understand where the data will reside and how it will be moved, shared, and stored. Counsel should keep probing until clear on the question of whether the proposed transaction involves customer information as that term is defined under GLBA 16 C.F.R. 313(n) which provides:

(n)
(1) Nonpublic personal information means:
(i) Personally identifiable financial information; and
(ii) Any list, description, or other grouping of consumers (and publicly available information pertaining to them) that is derived using any personally identifiable financial information that is not publicly available.

(2) Nonpublic personal information does not include:
(i) Publicly available information, except as included on a list described in paragraph (n)(1)(ii) of this section; or
(ii) Any list, description, or other grouping of consumers (and publicly available information pertaining to them) that is derived without using any personally identifiable financial information that is not publicly available.

(3) Examples of lists —
(i) Nonpublic personal information includes any list of individuals’ names and street addresses that is derived in whole or in part using personally identifiable financial information (that is not publicly available), such as account numbers.
(ii) Nonpublic personal information does not include any list of individuals’ names and addresses that contains only publicly available information, is not derived, in whole or in part, using personally identifiable financial information that is not publicly available, and is not disclosed in a manner that indicates that any of the individuals on the list is a consumer of a financial institution.

I look to 313(n) for the definition of customer information even though it is in the GLBA Privacy Rule. The GLBA Safeguards Rule’s definition of customer information is contained in 16 CFR 314.2 and reads as follows:

Customer information means any record containing nonpublic personal information as defined in 16 CFR 313.3(n), about a customer of a financial institution, whether in paper, electronic, or other form, that is handled or maintained by or on behalf of you or your affiliates.

Therefore, I have to understand whether the vendor will be permitted access to any record containing personally identifiable financial information or any list, description or grouping derived using personally identifiable financial information. If I conclude that that data in question includes personally identifiable financial information then I continue to the next line of questions.

What is permitted access under GLBA?

After determining whether or not customer information is at risk, counsel should evaluate the proposed architecture and service delivery options. These questions may include: How the vendor will deliver services? Where are the applications hosted? Who owns the hardware? To properly apply the GLBA safeguards rules, everyone should understand how the vendor will interact with customer data throughout the project life cycle. It is usually pretty easy to determine whether the vendor will be permitted access to customer data if they are hosting in the vendor’s cloud. More difficult permission cases include service and support of on-premises applications where service providers are given access to customer data to trouble-shoot or resolve issues. I assume all vendors whose applications store customer information to be service providers under GLBA’s safeguards rule unless I am convinced otherwise during the client interview. Rarely, the client will present a use case involving an on-premises deployment of an application where the vendor never has access to the application. Most of the time, even when on-premises deployments are further evaluated, the vendor is a service provider because they are permitted access to the application during implementation or when performing maintenance and support. A vendor is not a service provider under GLBA merely because a compromise of the vendors system could lead to access to customer data. Accordingly, the GLBA safeguards rule is triggered only when access is given by permission, either through the contract or operationally.

Transactions between financial institutions and their technology services providers are often regulated by GLBA. Lawyers need to determine whether the transaction involves personally identifiable financial information and if so, whether the vendor will ever be permitted access to any records at any time. These two issues will determine whether the vendor is a service provider under GLBA’s Safeguards Rule. Once the determination has been made, GLBA imposes numerous additional requirements for both the service provider and financial institution.

The National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) recently released Director Essentials: Strengthening Compliance and Ethics Oversight, providing an overview of the role of the board in compliance oversight and outlining key questions directors can ask management to assess whether compliance and ethics programs have a real impact on business conduct.

This guide will be especially helpful for onboarding new directors and as a resource for board members who wish to refresh their knowledge about core governance topics.

In light of renewed regulatory focus, directors should consider strengthening their oversight of corporate compliance and ethics programs. New U.S. Department of Justice emphasis on the effectiveness of compliance and ethics programs in preventing, detecting, and mitigating the risk of individual wrongdoing is raising the bar for companies’ compliance efforts.

The full publication is available exclusively to NACD members, but a complimentary executive summary is available for anyone to download.

Download the summary.

Practical Law will present a free 75-minute webinar on Wednesday, March 9, at 1 p.m. EST to discuss key employment laws, practices, and policies of particular concern for startups.

Startup founders focused on financing, developing, and marketing their business may not prioritize complying with the panoply of federal, state, and local employment laws, the company says in a release. However, as an early-stage startup grows and hires more staff, non-compliance with these laws can pose substantial legal risks. To avoid potentially devastating liability and reputational damage, startups must have a plan for identifying and managing employment and human resources-related issues.

Philip M. Berkowitz, a shareholder with Littler Mendelson P.C., and his colleague, Christine L. Hogan, will lead the discussion.

In this program, attendees will:
* Obtain an overview of key steps startups should take before hiring their first employees, and the ones they can’t afford not to take.
* Review best practices for documenting a startup’s relationship with its founders and employees.
* Learn how startups can avoid common employment law pitfalls, including employee misclassification, noncompliance with minimum wage and overtime regulations, and more.
* Explore critical workplace policies and compliance areas.

Presenters will be:
* Philip M. Berkowitz, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.
* Christine L. Hogan, Associate, Littler Mendelson P.C.
* Barbara Harris, Senior Legal Editor, Labor & Employment Service, Practical Law
* Joe Green, Senior Legal Editor, Capital Markets & Corporate Governance Service, Practical Law

Check the registration page for CLE availability.

Register for the webinar.

Herbert Smith Freehills has strengthened the New York hub of its global Latin America offering, the firm announced in a release.

Projects and Infrastructure partner Juan-José Zentner relocated to Herbert Smith Freehills’ New York Office on March 1 to advise clients on the development and financing of major infrastructure projects. Juan-Jose joins International Arbitration partner Christian Leathley and the rest of the team to focus on Latin America from the New York hub, with an emphasis on mining, power and general infrastructure opportunities in the region. He was previously based in Herbert Smith Freehills’ office in Melbourne, Australia.

The release continues:

Fluent in English and Spanish and of Argentinean heritage, Juan-José has represented the firm’s clients in South America for more than a decade, during that time living and working in Chile for more than a year. He specializes in all forms of design, engineering, procurement and construction contracts and offtake agreements. He also has extensive experience in corporate, project and structured finance.

Herbert Smith Freehills’ highly regarded Latin America Group comprises an experienced global team in Madrid, London, Paris, Melbourne, Sydney, Perth, Tokyo, Beijing, and other offices across the firm’s international network. Co-led by Christian Leathley, the New York hub includes US and UK- qualified lawyers, fluent in Spanish and Portuguese, with specialist projects and infrastructure and international arbitration experience. The practice offers expertise in mining, power and general infrastructure and represents a large Australasian client base – which is one of the most active currently investing in Latin America.

The New York office also includes a team of US and UK-qualified disputes lawyers that represents clients in US courts in commercial litigation, investigations, cross-border matters and class actions. Lawyers working in the New York office are also qualified to practice in Paris, Singapore, Brazil, Ecuador, New Zealand and Australia.

Juan-José, who has been with the firm since 2001, commented:

“With the current pressure on commodity prices, many global corporates are looking to strengthen their balance sheets by selling assets and restructuring their investments, while others are acquiring or developing assets to capitalize on opportunities. Many of the banks, trading houses, pension funds, infrastructure funds and other investors we represent have large offices in New York with mandates to invest in Latin America. As the majority of the financing for cross-border transactions in Latin America originates from New York, there is acute demand for our transactional expertise in the City.”

Christian Leathley, co-head of the firm’s Latin American group, said: “We established the New York hub for our Latin American practice to better serve clients with interests in the region. Juan-Jose’s relocation to New York allows us to provide a broader, integrated offering that includes counsel on international best practice for risk allocation, bankability of project documents and project structures, arbitration and dispute resolution, with a multi-lingual team that has deep roots in the region. The development of this capability it key to the firm and we will continue to add strength to our local team.”