Veteran trial lawyer James Edward “Jim” Maloney has opened a solo practice in Houston, at The Esperson Buildings, 815 Walker St., Suite 1150.

Educated at Yale and a graduate of the Harvard Law School, he began his career at Baker Botts where he spent the next 35 years representing leading business executives and major corporations, with a client list that has included:

• Shell Oil Company
• Pennzoil-Quaker State
• Reliant Energy and its predecessors
• Match.com
• Novartis
• Lyondell Chemical Company
• Southern Pacific Railroad Company
• Ford Motor Company
• Bridgestone-Firestone
• T. Boone Pickens

When he left Baker Botts in 2012, Maloney had headed the firm’s securities litigation section and had also served as the longtime chair of the firm’s employment committee.

More recently, he was a partner at Andrews Kurth. There, his clients included a major international oil and gas exploration company and a number of special and conflicts committees of boards of directors at public companies and master limited partnerships. He has been involved in securities litigation work, corporate takeover disputes, corporate investigations, class actions and complex commercial disputes in both state and federal courts.

Over more than 40 years of practice, Maloney has tried more than 100 cases to jury and bench verdicts and managed thousands of others to successful resolution, he said in a release.

Image by MB-one

A federal appeals court has overturned a historic antitrust settlement between retailers and Visa and MasterCard, reviving more than a decade of legal battles over processing fees, according to a report in The New York Times.

“The United States Court of Appeals in Manhattan said that the lawyers represented retailers with competing interests in the settlement, which was once valued at $7.25 billion, one of the largest in antitrust history,” wrote Rachel Abrams. “The judges pushed the suit back to a lower court.”

In a 2005 lawsuit, retailers accused credit card providers of scheming to fix the price of processing fees, the money the card companies charge retailers for each transaction, and a settlement was reached in 2012. But the court in Manhattan found that merchants had been “inadequately” represented in the settlement.

Read the article.

Reuters is reporting that a California jury ordered Oracle Corp. to pay Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co. $3 billion in damages in a case over HP’s Itanium servers, an Oracle spokeswoman said on Thursday.

The Itaniuum processor is made by Intel Inc.

According to the report by Dan Levine: “Oracle decided to stop developing software for use with HP’s Itanium-based servers in 2011, saying that Intel made it clear that the chip was nearing the end of its life and was shifting its focus to its x86 microprocessor.”

“But HP said it had an agreement with Oracle that support for Itanium would continue, without which the equipment using the chip would become obsolete.”

Read the article.

Money Inc. has compiled a list of the 20 richest lawyers in the world, and they’re a diverse group: one went to prison, one was disbarred, another is deceased, one manages a law firm in Kenya, and a couple of them are TV judges. People on the list “are all practicing attorneys or judges. There are plenty of other ‘lawyers’ with a considerably higher net worth, but they simply have a law degree and no longer use it,” writes Nat Berman.

Richest Lawyer in the World

Richard Scruggs won big money in cases involving tobacco, asbestos, Ritalin and Lehman Brothers before running afoul of the law. In 2008, he pleaded guilty to judicial bribery and eventually served six years in federal prison. His net worth is $1.7 billion, according to Money Inc.

“Although he passed away at the age of 90 in December 2015, Joe Jamail makes this list because he was the wealthiest practicing lawyer in the United States at the time of his death. Often referred to as the ‘King of Torts,’ he represented Pennzoil in a 1985 lawsuit against rival Texaco,” Berman writes.

Read the article.

Abraham & Rose P.L.C are one of the best Law Firms, go check and out if you need help.

Conservative hopes for a transformational term at the Supreme Court ended with Justice Antonin Scalia’s death this winter, and liberals instead prevailed on what are likely to be the term’s most influential decisions, reports Robert Barnes of The Washington Post.

The most high-profile cases, including affirmative action, abortion restrictions, labor union fees, gerrymandering and the use of executive power, ended either with liberal victories or draws that set no precedent.

Barnes wrote that “it was the absence of Scalia, the bombastic senior justice whose intellect and bravado powered the court’s conservative wing, that altered the court’s tone and reversed its reputation as a welcoming place for conservative causes.”

“Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. took on Scalia’s role as dissenter, airing from the bench his disagreements with the majority on abortion and affirmative action,” the article continues. “But unlike Scalia, he lacks a love of the whip.”

Read the article.

Litigation associate Erin Nowell from the Dallas office of Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, has earned a spot on the 2016 National Bar Association “40 Under 40 Best Advocates” list, which recognizes the country’s leading young attorneys  for their legal accomplishments.

With approximately 65,000 members, the National Bar Association is the oldest and largest network of African-American attorneys and judges in the U.S., the firm said in an announcement. Award recipients are vetted by a panel of former association presidents and key individuals, in addition to a separate evaluation covering nominees’ advocacy, innovation, leadership and community involvement.

“Erin is very deserving of this recognition based on her immense passion for achieving justice for those who have been injured through no fault of their own,” says Jeffrey Simon, a founding shareholder of Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett. “We are not surprised she rose to the top of the hundreds of nominees for this award.”

A graduate of the University of Texas School of Law, Nowell devotes her practice to representing victim of serious injuries and wrongful death caused by toxic substances such as asbestos, benzene and silica, as well as dangerous pharmaceuticals and other defective products. She will be honored at the 40 Under 40 Awards Gala on July 18 during the group’s annual convention in St. Louis.

“I am honored to be in the company of such accomplished lawyers from across the nation,” says Nowell. “Hard work truly pays off, and I am fortunate to be at a firm where I am able to help my clients fight for justice each day.”

USA Today is reporting that German automaker Volkswagen Group is expected to deliver a $10 billion settlement to cover government fines and compensate owners of vehicles fitted with software that cheated emissions standards.

The newspaper cited reports by Bloomberg and the Associated Press saying Volkswagen’s deal, which is due to be filed in a federal court by Tuesday, includes payments of up to $7,000 to owners of vehicles affected by the scandal.

“The settlement has a provision to remove any VW diesel vehicle with a 2-liter engine that hasn’t been brought into compliance, said Elizabeth Cabraser, the court-appointed lead counsel for the plaintiff’s steering committee. Either they will have to be modified or VW will buy them back.” USA Today reports.

Read the article.

The Supreme Court has ruled against Cuozzo Speed Technologies Corp. in its challenge to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s procedures for canceling patents in a case involving a vehicle speedometer that tells drivers when they are speeding, reports Reuters.

The ruling is seen as a victory for technology companies like Apple and Google, which have used the procedures to invalidate patents they believed to be weak.

With the decision, the court validated a 2015 appeals court ruling upholding the USPTO’s invalidation of New Jersey-based Cuozzo’s speedometer patent. GPS device maker Garmin had challenged Cuozzo’s claims in that case, report Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung.

The legal question was whether the federal agency’s procedures have made it too easy to successfully cancel patents. In an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court backed the process.

Read the article.

Photo by Marc Nozell

A conservative watchdog group was temporarily blocked on Tuesday from interviewing former State Department officials under oath in what would have been the third lawsuit over Hillary Clinton’s emails to progress to that stage, The Hill is reporting.

The ruling delays Judicial Watch’s effort to interview officials as part of an open records lawsuit related to Clinton’s use of a private server for her personal email account when she was secretary of State. The judge told Judicial Watch to finish interviews in two other ongoing cases first.

“To avoid duplicative discovery and unnecessary expenditure of public funds, the court will stay this case pending the completion of discovery in those other cases,” Walton ordered.

“The ruling gives some relief to the State Department and Clinton, which have both been the subject of intense scrutiny over the bespoke email setup that the former secretary of State used throughout her time in the Obama administration,” wrote Julian Hattem.

Read the article.

A New Hampshire court has issued a decision on the duty to defend arising from an indemnity obligation in a design contract, distinguishing between the duty to defend often invoked for insurance coverage, from a duty to defend expressed in a contractual indemnity, writes Stan Martin of Commonsense Construction Law LLC.

The court found that an engineering firm owed a duty to defend the New Hampshire town that had hired the firm to design a wastewater treatment plant, from claims arising from the design against the town made by the contractor.

Martin describes the case and the arguments made by the parties. He concludes: “An explicit contractual duty to defend against allegations of negligence or breach by the indemnitor may well be construed to require such a defense from the outset, even when parties are still arguing over ultimate liability. And an indemnitor who has not been in breach of its contract up to that point may yet breach its contract by refusing to defend when required.:

Read the article.

Kevin Perry and Joanne Elieli of of Cooley offer some insight for American general counsel on the drafting of international arbitration clauses, covering preliminary considerations and specific drafting issues.

The article is posted in the Cooley blog Cooley M&A.

The topics they discuss in the article include: consider likely nature of the dispute, should the clause cover all disputes that could arise?, should you include a dispute escalation clause? could any dispute include more than two parties? will there be any enforcement issues? choice of law issues (the contract and the arbitration), institutional or ad hoc arbitration, confidentiality, the rules to be used, the number of arbitrators, the seat/place of arbitration, and the language of the arbitration.

Read the article.

The Foundation of the International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) has announced publication of its first “Survey of International Litigation Procedures: A Reference Guide” that offers an extensive overview of civil justice systems relevant to defendants throughout the world.

Developed through input from IADC members from around the globe, the reference guide provides overviews on the civil justice systems of 49 countries, including information about key aspects of litigation in each jurisdiction, including:

–Local methods of adjudication‎
–Alternative dispute resolution
–Discovery
–Trial procedure
–Experts
–Privilege
–Limitations
–Costs rules
–Jurisdiction
–Other topics of interest to potential litigants

“The IADC Foundation Survey of International Litigation Procedures Reference Guide is a useful tool for general counsel who want to know the key differences between U.S. and other civil justice systems and what to expect when managing litigation in a foreign jurisdiction,” said Gordon McKee, IADC Board member and a former member of the IADC Foundation Board, who was instrumental in creating the reference guide.

McKee, who also is a partner with Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, added that the reference guide is particularly noteworthy for its high-level overview and brevity in summarizing each country’s litigation procedures, processes and rules.

Publication of the Survey of International Litigation Procedures Reference Guide is an outcome of the IADC Foundation’s mission to educate the public and global legal community on issues impacting the civil justice system, provide a forum for discussion of topics critical to corporate and defense counsel, promote projects for the advancement of the legal system, and support scholarship for the continued education of defense attorneys and corporate counsel.

Download the reference guide.

About the International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC)
In a news release, the association said, “The International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) is the preeminent invitation-only global legal organization for attorneys who represent corporate and insurance interests. Founded in 1920, the IADC’s members hail from five continents, 45 countries, and all 50 U.S. states. The core purposes of the IADC are to enhance the development of skills, promote professionalism, and facilitate camaraderie among its members, their clients, as well as the broader civil justice community.”

Unlike most contractual disputes, it is not just merely the language used but also the circumstances in which the parties were contracting that will be determinative of whether direct claims are covered by the indemnity (and thus whether there will be reimbursement of legal fees), write Richard Levine, Peter Feist and Jessica Djilani in Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP’s Global Equity Watch.

The authors write that “even a winning litigant in the U.S. typically cannot recover its attorneys’ fees and expenses – a principle known as the ‘American Rule.’ Indemnification provisions typically reverse the American Rule by providing that the indemnified party can recover its attorneys’ fees and expenses from the indemnitor.  Thus, whether an indemnification provision applies to claims between the contracting parties – say for breach of a representation or warranty – is often heavily litigated.”

This article is the first in a series on the subject.

Read the article.

On June 17 the Austin Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in favor of Beck Redden‘s clients Statoil ASA and Fargo Acquisition, Inc., vacating a class certification order, the law firm reported.

The case, Brigham Exploration Co. et al. v. Boytim et al., involves Statoil’s 2011 acquisition of Brigham Exploration Company, the firm said in a release. Immediately following the announcement of the acquisition, a group of Brigham shareholders filed a purported class action, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Brigham’s board of directors and aiding and abetting that breach against Statoil, Fargo, and Brigham.

Beck Redden represents Statoil and Fargo in the litigation, led by partner Fields Alexander and associate Chris Cowan, and handled the second appeal of the class certification order. Appellate briefs were filed by appellate partner Russell Post with the assistance of Cowan and associate Parth Gejji.

After hearing oral argument by Post and lawyers for the Brigham defendants, the appellate court vacated the class certification on the ground that the class was not sufficiently defined because it included numerous shareholders who lacked standing, according to the release.

The case has been remanded for further proceedings in the trial court.

Image by Ron Mader | Planeta

At the Big Law Business Summit last week, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman ripped into Exxon Mobil for its stance on climate change, reports Bloomberg.

The report says Schneiderman accused Exxon of glossing over the risks that climate change poses to its core businesses in its public securities statements, and then couching its disclosure as first amendment protected.

“The first amendment doesn’t protect fraud – it doesn’t protect fraudulent speech,” he said.

Seventeen state attorneys general are investigating whether fossil fuel companies mislead investors in public disclosures about the risks associated with climate change.

Read the article.

FedEx Ground Package System Inc. has agreed to pay drivers in 20 states $240 million to settle lawsuits claiming the second-largest U.S. parcel delivery company misclassified them as independent contractors, it said on Thursday, according to a Reuters report.

Reporter Daniel Wiessner said Beth Ross, lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in an email that the settlement, if approved, would be divided among 12,000 drivers, some of whom would receive tens of thousands of dollars.

FedEx previously contracted directly with independent operators in an effort to save on taxes, fringe benefits, health care costs, pensions and other workers’ costs.

“The deal, subject to approval by a federal judge in Indiana where the cases were consolidated, would end nationwide litigation claiming that because drivers were required to use company-branded trucks, uniforms and scanners, FedEx was their employer under federal and state laws,” Reuters reports.

Read the article.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, whom Donald Trump has publicly denounced as a “hater,” will decide whether to release videos of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s testifying in a lawsuit against Trump University, reports NBC News.

The videos Trump’s lawyers want to keep out of the public record are from Trump’s deposition late last year and early this year in a class-action lawsuit accusing him of fraud. They said there’s “no legitimate reason” for the plaintiffs to submit the videos, arguing that the only motive to submit the videos is to create “prejudice” against Trump.

“This is precisely the type of ‘prejudice’ our adversarial system demands,” the ex-students’ lawyers said, adding that Trump “may think anything that does not go his way is unfair, but that is clearly not the legal definition of unfair prejudice,” according to the report by NBC’s Alex Johnson.

Read the article.

Gawker Media’s last-ditch effort to protect itself from a debilitating $140 million judgment using Chapter 11 may be a novel strategy to the media world but pharmaceutical and casino companies alike have recently used it with varying degrees of success, writes Maria Chutchian for Forbes.

A Florida jury recently awarded pro wrestler Hulk Hogan the damages in a privacy lawsuit stemming from Gawker’s publication of a Hogan sex tape in 2012, but Hogan is barred from executing the award against Gawker because of the company’s Chapter 11 protection from debtors.

“But Gawker founder Nick Denton, who is jointly liable for $115 million of that judgment plus another $10 million in punitive damages, doesn’t have the same protection. Gawker must convince a judge that the stay should be extended to cover Denton himself,” Chutchian writes.

Read the article.

When negotiating and drafting a contract on behalf of a business, one of the most important considerations is whether it will create personal liability for the individual signing on behalf of the business, as illustrated by a recent decision from Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal, Frieri v. Capital Investment Services, Inc., writes Adam B. Edgecombe of Jimerson & Cobb, P.A.

“Frieri involved an investor who contributed $6 million to a business trust that he formed with the president of a small corporation, with each of them owning 50% of the trust,” Edgecombe explains. “In exchange for the investor’s contribution, the president of the corporation was to transfer 78% of the corporate stock to the trust. However, after the investor paid over his $6 million contribution, the president of the corporation never transferred the stock.”

The investor sued both the president of the corporation and the corporation, alleging that the defendants had breached the stock-purchase agreement. The trial court agreed, entering a final verdict in the amount of $7,369,222.00 against the corporation and the president individually. On appeal, the president and the corporation argued there was no basis for his personal liability.

“The Third District disagreed with the president’s position, finding that, when two businesses contract, the entirety of the document must be analyzed to determine whether the parties intend to bind the businesses alone or whether the obligation extends to the signing agents in their individual capacities,” Edgecombe writes.

Read the article.

A federal judge has shot down a motion by Oracle to overturn a jury verdict that found Google’s use of Java application program interfaces (APIs) in Android was “fair use.” The verdict also rejected Oracle’s claim that the mobile system infringed its copyrights.

Ars Technica reports that U.S. District Judge William Alsup’s stinging rebuke rejected Oracle’s arguments on every front.

“The final jury charge culminated an exhaustive and iterative process of proposals by the judge followed by critiques by counsel,” Alsup wrote.

Read the article.