Barnes & Thornburg LLP announced today that David Wood, John Corbett and Joshua Rosenberg have joined the firm’s Litigation Department and Insurance Recovery and Counseling Practice Group. The trio arrives from Anderson Kill’s Ventura, California, office, where Wood served as co-managing shareholder.

Wood, a partner, and Rosenberg, an associate, reside in Barnes & Thornburg’s Los Angeles office, while Corbett, of counsel, is based in Dallas. They are the latest attorneys to join the firm’s growing litigation bench, which in the last three months has added Anthony Son and Lee Hutton in Minneapolis; Elizabeth Brandon in Dallas; Brett Pyrdek in Chicago; and Michael Battle in Washington, D.C.

Earlier this year, Barnes & Thornburg’s insurance recovery group was named an “Insurance Practice Group of the Year” by Law360 for its successful representation of clients in several noteworthy litigation matters. Members of Barnes & Thornburg’s Insurance Recovery and Counseling Practice Group have litigated against virtually all major insurance carriers in trial and appellate courts across the country.

“David, John and Josh have helped corporate and individual policyholders resolve insurance coverage disputes throughout the U.S. and will add to our deep bench of insurance recovery lawyers across the country,” said Charles Edwards, co-chair of the firm’s Insurance Recovery and Counseling Practice Group. “We welcome this high-caliber group who will vigorously advocate on behalf of clients facing risks with significant insurance implications.”

The firm’s release continues:

About the Attorneys

David Wood has more than 30 years of experience in high-profile insurance disputes and recovery litigation involving Fortune 1000 corporations and corporate directors and officers spanning many different industries, including financial services, healthcare, high tech, telecommunications, hospitality, construction, manufacturing and automotive. He represents publicly- and privately-owned corporations in enforcing their claims under professional errors and omissions, D&O liability, special risk and general liability policies, and fidelity bonds, among others. He also assists clients on insurance coverage matters concerning data breaches and other cybersecurity issues.

Wood is a frequent speaker and author on insurance policy enforcement topics and often serves as a subject matter expert for media regarding notable insurance cases and issues. Additionally, Wood is treasurer and a member of the board of directors of the Atlantic Legal Foundation based in New York. Closer to home, he is a director and past president of the Casa Pacifica Centers for Children & Families serving abused and neglected children. He is recognized as a leading practitioner in his field, including a peer rating of “AV Preeminent® by his peers as listed in Martindale-Hubbell®. In 2016, he was selected for the fourth time by his peers for recognition in Southern California Super Lawyers for Insurance Coverage.

Wood received his J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of Law after graduating cum laude from Williams College. He is admitted to practice in state of California and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Courts for the Central, Eastern, Northern and Southern Districts of California.

John Corbett represents corporate policyholders in a wide variety of industries ranging from construction and transportation to telecommunications and healthcare management. He has extensive experience in obtaining recoveries under general liability, cyber insurance,
director and officers (D&O) and professional errors and omissions (E&O) policies.

Corbett received his J.D., cum laude, from the Pepperdine University School of Law and his M.A. and B.A. from the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is admitted to practice in the states of California and Texas.

Joshua Rosenberg works exclusively with policyholders within his insurance recovery practice and concentrates on corporate and commercial litigation as well. Previously, he worked as a land use and planning legal consultant. Prior to that, Rosenberg was a judicial intern for Hon. Dana M. Sabraw in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Rosenberg received his J.D. from the Pepperdine University School of Law and his B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles. He is admitted to practice in the state of California and before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Harold D. Pope has joined Dykema in its Litigation Department as a senior counsel in the firm’s Detroit office. Prior to joining Dykema, Pope practiced at the Jaffe Raitt Heuer & Weiss office in Detroit.

Pope focuses his practice on representing local and national companies in State and Federal Courts on matters regarding commercial; products liability; defense of sex, age and race discrimination claims for corporate employers; personal injury; franchise termination and disputes over exclusive market areas; disputes between automotive suppliers and manufacturers; construction claims; general contact; small corporation disputes; professional malpractice; and directors’ and officers’ liability. His experience includes the dismissal and resolution of several multimillion dollar commercial disputes.

Pope is active in professional organizations, previously holding many leadership positions. He is a Past President for the National Bar Association, Past Chair for the National Bar Institute, and Past Chair for the American Bar Association (ABA) Council on Racial and Ethnic Justice. Pope is also a past member of the ABA Board of Governors, the State Bar of Michigan Judicial Qualifications Committee and previously served on the Board of Trustees for the Detroit Metropolitan Bar Association Foundation. He is a current member of the Wolverine Bar Association, the D. Augustus Straker Bar Association, the ABA House of Delegates Nominating Committee, and the ABA Audit Committee.

Pope has received numerous honors and awards, including the National Bar Association’s C. Francis Stradford Award, the State Bar of Michigan’s Champion of Justice Award, the D. Augustus Straker Bar Association Trailblazer Award, the Wolverine Bar Association’s Damon J. Keith Community Service Award, and the National Bar Association Commercial Law Section’s Cora T. Walker Legacy Award.

“Harold’s deep experience in product liability and commercial litigation matters enhances the strength of our Detroit office,” said Peter Kellett, Dykema Chairman and CEO. “His extensive involvement in professional organizations and the business community serve as a great model for other attorneys to follow. We are excited that he has joined the firm.”

Pope received his J.D. from Duke University Law School, and a B.A., summa cum laude, in Political Science from Concordia College.

Microsoft is facing two lawsuits seeking class-action status related to the company’s campaign to get people to use Windows 10, reports The Seattle Times.

A suit in U.S. District Court in Florida alleges Microsoft’s Windows 10 update prompts violated laws governing unsolicited electronic advertisements, as well as Federal Trade Commission prohibitions on deceptive and unfair practices. And a suit filed earlier in Israel, also seeking class-action status, alleges Windows 10 installed on Windows users’ computers without their consent, in violation of Israeli law.

“The lawsuits follow complaints from Windows users and longtime Microsoft watchers for what some said were pushy or deceptive prompts to update to Windows 10,” writes The Times‘ Matt Day.

Read the article.

A Fort Worth attorney who helped represent residents of Johnson, Tarrant and Dallas counties in a lawsuit against Chesapeake Energy and Total E&P USA is suing his co-counsel for a third of the legal fees from the nearly $53 million settlement, reports The Dallas Morning News.

Jim Ward of Wardlaw Services accuses Dan McDonald and his Fort Worth firm of breaching a 2014 agreement on how settlement proceeds would be handled and ignoring his contribution to the winning case.

“Oklahoma City-based Chesapeake and Total, an American subsidiary of a French firm, agreed in May to settle claims that they underpaid royalties to 13,000 plaintiffs in the Barnett Shale,” reports Austin Huguelet.

Huguelet explains: “In his lawsuit, Ward claims that while McDonald received ‘the recognition and spotlight’ as lead counsel in the case, the Wardlaw team spent two years assembling the research that served as a ‘blueprint for victory.'”

Read the article.

A.M. Best and Best’s Directories of Insurance Professionals will host a webinar to explore the legal and insurance issues surrounding lead injuries.

The one-hour complimentary event will begin at 2 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, August 3.

Lead was once used in a variety of construction materials, especially paint. Lead poisoning can be disastrous, if not deadly, the company says on its website. A panel of legal and insurance professionals will discuss the sources of lead injury claims, developing liability issues and the industry impact of lead-based claims.

Panelists include:

• Phil Pizzuto, partner; Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.;
• Eileen Buholtz, attorney/firm member; Connors, Corcoran & Buholtz, PLLC;
• Brian Hinton, attorney; Anderson Crawley & Burke, pllc; and
• Ken Gillespie, litigation specialist; Builders Mutual Insurance Company.

Best’s Directories’ Managing Editor John Czuba will moderate the discussion.

Register for the webinar.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals had to decide a case in which the parties disagreed as to whether there was even a contract, raising the obvious question is whether there is a document with both parties’ signatures. But this is not always definitive, explains Stephen M. Proctor in a Risk Management Update for Masuda Funai.

C.G. Schmidt, Inc. was a general contractor managing part of the construction of an 18-story office building in downtown Milwaukee for $52 million, explains Proctor. It negotiated with Permasteelisa North America to supply a custom outer covering for weatherproofing and aesthetics and a substantial part of the project. “CGS won the bid for the building relying on PNA’s bid. But PNA backed out. CGS claimed that it had an agreement with PNA for the curtainwall and relied on PNA’s Subcontract when it submitted the bid. CGS sued PNA for breach of contract and promissory estoppel,” Proctor explains.

It’s clear there was no formal written contract with both CGS’s and PNA’s signature, but this did not prevent CGS from prevailing. In the end, CGS did not prevail, but it raised some arguments that the judge discussed at length.

Read the article.

Bloomberg BNA’s Big Law Business, in partnership with Catalyst, will present a complimentary live event, “Taking Control of Corporate Discovery: What It Means for Outside Counsel,” Thursday, July 21, in New York. The event will be 3-7 p.m. EDT, at Bloomberg LP, 731 Lexington Ave., New York, NY.

This free event will explore the changing nature of the in-house and outside counsel relationship, given ever-tightening corporate budgets and new approaches to discovery.

Sessions will address:

• Best practices on managing costs in complex cases by leveraging technology
• An overview of the latest analytical tools to aid in discovery
• How the recently amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will affect eDiscovery

Register for the event.

A New York magistrate judge has found that a plaintiff’s request for individual defendants to search for and produce certain documents from their personal computers and email accounts was not “unduly intrusive or burdensome” because the request was limited in time frame and the parties had agreed to search terms, and granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel, according to a report by Doug Austin on eDiscoverydaily.

The magistrate judge noted that “to the extent such documents exist on the Individual Defendants’ personal computers, they may contain information going to bias or motivation which may show why a personal computer was used for such communications, including information which may support Plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference against the Individual Defendants.”

The case involved a transgender prison inmate who sued the defendants claiming they acted “with deliberate indifference” to serious medical needs by denying hormone therapy for gender dysphoria.

Read the article.

Chesapeake Energy will pay about $51 million to wipe out hundreds of lawsuits accusing the Oklahoma City energy giant of cheating North Texas property owners out of millions of dollars in natural gas royalties, according to a report in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Max B. Baker reports that the law firm representing the property owners said 91 percent of their 13,000 clients — representing 97.15 percent of the natural gas production — agreed to accept the out-of-court settlement.

“The lawsuits alleged that Chesapeake deducted higher-than-necessary postproduction costs from royalty checks,” Baker reports. “They contended that the company used sham sales to affiliates to transport and market the natural gas to increase what it earned.”

Read the article.

The Federal Trade Commission has determined that Herbalife is not a pyramid scheme, but the nutritional supplement marketer will still be required to pay $200 million to consumers and “fully restructure” its “unfair” business in a comprehensive settlement, the federal regulator said Friday, according to a report by USA Today.

“The settlement caps a two-year investigation by the FTC, which probed Herbalife over accusations that the company’s main focuses less on retail sales of products than on on bringing in increasing numbers of new sales people who were deceived into believing they could reap substantial profits by selling diet, nutritional supplement and personal care products,” report Nathan Bomey and Kevin McCoy.

Under the settlement, Herbalife must “fundamentally restructure its business, so that participants are rewarded for what they sell, not how many people the recruit,” FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez said in a statement.

Read the article.

Reuters is reporting that the U.S. Department of Justice has begun a rare internal examination of what went wrong in the prosecution of a controversial drug conspiracy case against delivery service Federal Express, according to the department’s top prosecutor in San Francisco.

“The review plays into a broader debate about how the government prosecutes suspected corporate wrongdoing and could influence its approach to such cases in the future,” write Dan Levine and David Ingram.

FedEx was indicted in 2014 on charges the company had knowingly helped Internet pharmacies ship illegal pills. Then, four days into a trial in San Francisco last month, the DOJ dropped all charges, a decision the judge praised, saying it was clear FedEx was “factually innocent.”

The new review will examine why prosecutors brought the case, what oversight supervisors provided and what role officials in Washington D.C. played.

Read the article.

An article written by Matthew DeVries on Burr & Forman LLP‘s Best Practices Construction Law blog illustrates an oft-repeated plea from lawyers: “Please, please, please read your contract.” In this instance, one party’s failure to strictly follow the contractual notice provision was a $209,235.36 mistake.

He describes a case in which a general contractor entered into an agreement with the City of New York Department of Sanitation to construct a garage. “The subcontractor agreed to to furnish and install five elevators for the project. Although the court’s decision does not elaborate on the details, the subcontractor filed suit and was awarded more than $200,000 in damages incurred as a result of delays in performance of the work.”

According to the article,”When you are required to strictly comply with a particular provision or legal requirement, then any departure from that requirement (no matter how insubstantial) can void the claim or provide an absolute defense.”

Read the article.

With the recent passage of the Defense of Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), businesses are welcoming the many benefits the statute brings, including federal jurisdiction, robust equitable relief, and the ability to recover compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees, according to a report by Fisher & Phillips LLP.

The article points out that many employers may overlook a requirement that requires revisions to existing confidentiality agreements and restrictive covenants.

“Namely, employers are required to provide employees with notice that they are entitled to immunity if they disclose a trade secret for the purpose of reporting suspected illegal conduct,” writes Michael R. Greco. “If employers fail to give notice in the manner required by the DTSA, they will not be able to recover punitive damages or attorneys’ fees. Consequently, employers must pay careful attention to the DTSA notification requirements, which are not as straightforward as many believe.”

Read the article.

Texas Lawyer’s annual listing of the top verdicts in Texas includes last year’s trial win by Dallas-based Rose•Walker for firm client ThermoTek Inc. as one of the state’s top contract verdicts.

In November of last year, Judge Sidney Fitzwater of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas entered a judgment of $9.6 million for medical products manufacturer ThermoTek. The judgment followed a unanimous verdict in which jurors agreed with Rose•Walker’s argument that a competitor fraudulently obtained ThermoTek’s business information for a series of physical therapy machines.

“We’re always happy to walk out of court with a win on behalf of our clients,” says firm founder Marty Rose, who represented ThermoTek at trial along with firm partner Chris McDowell. “But to have our work recognized among other top trial wins is a special honor.”

Read the article.

BP Plc faces more than $20 million in penalties and surrendered profits after a U.S. regulator found that the energy giant manipulated commodity markets in Texas, according to a report by Bloomberg and published by The Business Times.

The case dates back to 2008, when — according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — BP rigged prices at a Texas natural gas hub.

The order upholds an earlier ruling by the agency’s judge. BP had denied the allegations, Bloomberg reports.

“We find the violation here to have been very serious,” the commission said. “BP manipulated the market to profit from a natural disaster, and it did not stop after a trade or two but rather kept the scheme going for nearly three months.”

Read the article.

One of the founders of futuristic transportation start-up Hyperloop One has filed a wrongful termination suit against his former co-founder, alleging nepotism and harassment, CNN is reporting.

The company is competing to build a Hyperloop transportation system to transport people and cargo up to 760 mph in a partially pressurized tube.

“On the outside, Hyperloop One appeared to be leading the competition with plans to have a working Hyperloop by 2020.” report Heather Kelly & Laurie Segall. “Inside, the startup was apparently being torn apart by mismanagement and growing tensions between leaders, according to the lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on July 12.”

Plaintiffs allege the current leaders of the company gave  lucrative jobs and raises to relatives and, and in one case, a girlfriend, pocketed money themselves and harassed other employees.

Read the article.

U.S. securities regulators have accused a KPMG partner and two other individuals of insider trading on tips about three pending corporate mergers on which the accounting firm was providing advice, Reuters is reporting.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed the suit in federal court in Atlanta, claiming KPMG tax partner Thomas Avent of passed tips to his stockbroker, Raymond Pirrello, writes Nate Raymond. The SEC says Pirrello told a friend, Lawrence Penna, who with his family made more than $111,000 trading on the information.

The report says KPMG said on Friday that it was “deeply troubled” by the allegations and had placed Avent, a 63-year-old Atlanta resident, on administrative leave.

Read the article.

Archer Norris published its second annual California Business Litigation Report, revealing that corporate lawyers continue to view many aspects of California’s business environment as perplexing, downright exasperating, and in many ways more challenging than other states.

In a release, the firm said employment laws and labor issues were found to be by far the most significant legal concern of companies doing business in California, reported by 62% of respondents. When it comes to areas in which litigating in California is more challenging than in other states, employment law and labor issues again landed in the top spot (69%), followed by environmental law and regulation (57%). The survey showed that the most-cited legal stumbling blocks also include commercial litigation, product liability, intellectual property, land use, and health care. Among out-of-state counsel specifically, regulatory compliance was repeatedly cited as a chief challenge across a wide spectrum of legal concerns.

Conducted in partnership with ALM Marketing Services, Archer Norris’s survey polled general and corporate counsel with business interests in California on their opinions of the California legal climate, how they evaluate litigation matters, and how they choose outside counsel for handling these matters.

This year, Archer Norris also examined current attitudes toward hot issues such as cybersecurity, finding that anxiety about exposure to cyber risks indeed runs deep among in-house counsel, with nearly two-thirds reporting they are “very concerned.” They are most worried about information loss and associated costs resulting from data leakage or systems attacks, damage to critical IT infrastructure, and risk arising from malware and computer viruses.

“The results of our 2016 survey make it clear the legal terrain in California continues to prove daunting not only to companies new to litigating in the state, but also to those who have been handling matters here for some time,” said Gene Blackard, Managing Partner of Archer Norris. “In order to overcome these challenges, it’s more critical than ever for companies doing business in California to have highly responsive and knowledgeable outside counsel. Archer Norris has guided hundreds of businesses through the complex litigation and transactional landscape here, with the goal of seeing our clients succeed in California long-term. With more than 100 attorneys practicing in five offices across the state, we’re exactly where our clients need us to be to best handle their diverse needs.”

The survey also yielded insights about how in-house counsel evaluate which outside California counsel is the right partner. While 55% of respondents noted the importance of a firm offering competitive rates and fees, a number of other factors were deemed more important than cost. Respondents first and foremost look for dependability and consistency (74%), followed by responsiveness, depth of experience, knowledge of the business and industry, and whether the law firm is one known for thoroughly exploring options for resolution other than going to trial.

Respondents reported spending about one-quarter of their overall legal budgets on outside counsel, and most said their budgets will stay the same or increase this year (37% and 29% respectively) compared to last. Many admit they would consider paying “premium” fees (up to 30% above the norm) to defend “bet the company” issues (23%) or legal matters where the client risks losing $1 million or more (32%).

The previous Business Litigation Playbook white paper, which also reveals corporate counsels’ greatest legal concerns within a variety of practice areas, can be downloaded.

A supposedly rogue investigation that Uber originally claimed it knew nothing about — and which could turn out to be a costly embarrassment for the ride-hailing giant — began with a 10-word request from the company’s general counsel, reports Matthew Flamm in Crain’s New York Business.

By email in 2015, Uber GC Salle Yoo asked the company’s security chief, “Could we find out a little more about this plaintiff?”

The Uber email, along with some others, eventually led to involvement by global intelligence firm Ergo, court records reveal.

“They were entered in support of a motion for relief brought by Connecticut conservationist Spencer Meyer—the mysterious plaintiff about whom Yoo inquired immediately after Meyer filed an antitrust class-action suit charging Uber Chief Executive Travis Kalanick with price fixing,” Flamm reports. The plaintiff claims the Ergo investigator used a ruse to snoop on him on his lawyer.

Read the article.

Considerable litigation has arisen as to whether a  waiver of subrogation provision in a construction contract applies to bar an insurer’s subrogation claim against a contractor to the extent the insurer covered damage to the owner’s “non-work” property under the owner’s existing property policy, writes Robert Barrack in Robinson Cole’s Construction Law Zone blog.

He explains that a majority of jurisdictions have held that the waiver of subrogation provision in the construction contract applies to bar subrogation claims where the owner’s property policy covers the damage to “non-work” property.

In his article, he explains waiver of subrogation provisions and discusses some cases that address the subject.

Read the article.