The addition of Jeffrey Maddox, Jones Day’s Asia capital markets practice head, and partners Joseph Lee and David Neuville fulfills a longstanding ambition on the part of New York-based Cadwalader to acquire a leading Hong Kong practice. In an interview Sunday, Asia practice head Rocky Lee said the firm was especially pleased to have recruited a team that has worked well together previously.

Though last year saw a spate of U.S. firms launching or expanding Hong Kong capital markets practices, Cadwalader’s move comes amid a slump in deal activity dating back to the last quarter of 2011. Lee said the firm had its eye on the long haul and had actually found the market softening helpful in terms of recruitment.

“We’re opportunistic,” he said. “Sometimes when it’s slow, really good teams are more willing to talk to us.”

Maddox said the team works broadly across Asia, in India and Southeast Asia as well as China and Hong Kong, and could seek out the pockets of greatest activity. He said the team was drawn to Cadwalader by its strong reputation in capital markets.

Cadwalader is best known in the U.S. for its securitization practice, an area that was hit hard in the 2008 financial crisis. Lee said securitization remains underdeveloped in Asia, and the firm hoped to position itself for an expansion of that market in the years to come.

Maddox and Neuville both advise on U.S. law aspects of Asian equity and debt deals. Maddox joined Jones Day in 2003 from the Hong Kong office of Clifford Chance, where he was a partner and head of the U.S. securities group. Neuville joined Jones Day in 2007, having previously been a partner in the Hong Kong offices of Simmons & Simmons and Baker & McKenzie.

Hong Kong-qualified Joseph Lee joined Jones Day in 2010 from Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson. He was also previously a partner in the Hong Kong office of Simmons & Simmons.

Cadwalader opened its Hong Kong office at the end of 2010 but did not recruit a full-time resident partner in the Asian financial capital until almost a year later when structured finance specialist Jeffrey Chen joined from Mayer Brown JSM. The firm has had a Beijing office since 2005.

source from: lawjobs

Levitt and Akhtar handed in their notice last month, leaving Herbert Smith with one corporate insurance partner in London, Geoffrey Maddock.

The appointment is a rare example of transactional partners moving between major City firms and will be regarded as a boost for Ashurst’s profile in the sector. Herbert Smith has traditionally been one of the City’s leading corporate insurance advisers and Maddock is established as one of the top lawyers in the field.

The departing Levitt has advised on a number of high-profile mandates in recent years including acting for Bradford & Bingley on its £40 billion nationalization in 2008. Other clients include Pension Insurance Corp. and JP Morgan. He joined Herbert Smith as a partner in 2001 from Slaughter and May.

Akhtar was made up to partner at Herbert Smith in 2010. He has previously acted for clients including Swiss Re, Bradford & Bingley and Bank of Ireland. The hires take the number of partners in Ashurst’s London insurance practice to six.

Ashurst co-head of the financial institutions group, James Perry, said: “The level of activity in the sector is set to continue, driven in part by the need to reduce balance sheets and the ongoing development of the regulatory regime. Adam and Hammad will play a key role in extending and increasing the resource of our corporate offering to clients in the sector. In particular their expertise in the life assurance sector will be a great addition to the group.”

The news comes after Herbert Smith last week announced a 51-strong round of redundancies, with many of the job losses expected in the firm’s City corporate practice.

Lawyers in the firm’s City corporate team look set to bear the brunt of the proposed cuts, with up to 23 fee-earners at risk of redundancy across the team’s associate and of counsel ranks, as well as three professional support lawyers.

The fee-earner figure equates to around 9 percent of the London corporate team.

In addition, a further five fee-earner positions are at risk in the firm’s real estate practice alongside one professional support lawyer. Up to 19 personal assistant roles are also at risk of redundancy.

The firm said it hopes to achieve as many of these reductions through voluntary redundancies as possible.

source from: lawjobs

The jury hearing Oracle Corp.’s smartphone suit against Google Inc. found for Oracle on a major question of copyright infringement Monday, saying Google had infringed “the overall structure, sequence and organization of copyrighted works.” But it deadlocked on a second crucial part of that question: whether Google made fair use of that Java technology in its hugely successful Android operating system. That prompted Google lead counsel Robert Van Nest to move for a mistrial on that infringement question, which is where Oracle had hoped to cash in on the eye-popping damage figures, at one point estimated at around $1 billion.

“Given the law on fair use and affirmative defenses, you cannot receive a partial verdict on question one,” said Van Nest, of Keker & Van Nest. Oracle lead counsel Michael Jacobs of Morrison & Foerster said he would save his arguments for the briefs, which will be filed this week. He will be asking for Alsup to rule, as a matter of law, that Google’s fair use defense fails. Google also is seeking judgment as a matter of law.

So it will be up to U.S. District Judge William Alsup to decide who will walk away “gnashing their teeth,” as he warned in a hearing before trial kicked off on April 16.

The only firm victory for Oracle on Monday came from a question about nine lines of computer code, which Google claims has absolutely no value. The jury found that Google’s use of something called rangeCheck method infringed Java copyrights. Oracle acquired Java’s creator, Sun Microsystems Inc., in 2010.

Making it clear that Oracle wasn’t the day’s victor, Alsup noted that save those nine lines of code, “there has been zero finding on liability on any copyright so far.”

Google prevailed on a second copyright infringement question, also dealing with Google’s use of Java technology in Google’s Android mobile platform. The jury said Google did not infringe copyrights on the “documentation” for 37 so-called API packages, or application programming interfaces, taken as a group.

So unless Alsup hands the major copyright infringement question to Oracle as a matter of law, the stakes are much lower than they looked at the outset. In an exchange with David Boies, the Boies, Schiller & Flexner partner who is co-lead counsel for Oracle, the judge said it “borders on the ridiculous” to seek infringer’s profits for those nine lines of infringed code. There are 15 million lines of code in Android.

Google spokesman Jim Prosser, who was in court for the verdict, issued a brief statement. “We appreciate the jury’s efforts, and know that fair use and infringement are two sides of the same coin,” Prosser wrote. And referring to another question of law still up to the judge, which could turn things even more in Google’s favor, he said, “The core issue is whether the APIs here are copyrightable, and that’s for the court to decide. We expect to prevail on this issue and Oracle’s other claims.”

Oracle spokeswoman Deborah Hellinger issued a statement saying the “overwhelming evidence demonstrated that Google knew it needed a license,” adding that “every major commercial enterprise — except Google — has a license for Java and maintains compatibility to run across all computing platforms.”

While the verdict was a nearly unpredictable mixed bag from top to bottom, the partial verdict on question one was hardly a surprise. Two notes from the jury focused on Google’s fair use defense. Bylate Thursday, there were indications they were at an impasse. Friday, the foreman reported they were deadlocked on just one question. They had deliberated for just over four days.

Making good on his promises to push the remaining phases of the trifurcated trial along quickly, Alsup had counsel back at work before the jury just minutes after the copyright verdict was read.

After a short educational video on patents, Jacobs delivered his 45-minute opening on the two patents Oracle says Google infringed.

“I think you’ll be pleased to know fair use is not at issue in the patent phase,” Jacobs said, prompting smiles, even from opposing counsel.

Correction: An earlier version of this story misquoted Judge Alsup. It incorrectly stated that Alsup would decide which side would be “mashing their teeth” after his ruling. Actually, he said “gnashing their teeth.”

source from: law

The firm has joined forces with Hermawan Juniarto, a 22-lawyer firm based in Jakarta that advises on corporate, finance, infrastructure, energy and litigation matters. Under local bar regulations, foreign law firms are prohibited from opening offices in Indonesia, but a number of international firms operate in the market through associations.

In a statement, Hogan Lovells said it has increasingly acted on energy, natural resources and infrastructure deals in Indonesia, and a presence in the country will help the firm to enhance existing client relationships and to develop new opportunities.

The firm’s recent work in the Southeast Asian country includes advising state-owned energy company PT Medco Energi Internasional on a $2.8 billion joint venture with Japanese, Korean and Indonesian partners to develop liquefied natural gas assets in Indonesia’s Sulawesi province.

James Harris, the managing partner of Hogan Lovells’ Singapore office, said in the firm’s statement: “After a period of careful assessment we came to the conclusion that having an association in Indonesia was essential to the development of our South-East Asian practice, and Hermawan Juniarto provided an excellent match for our clients’ needs.”

source from: lawjobs

Apple Inc.’s former chief patent counsel, Richard “Chip” Lutton, has joined the maker of a “smart” thermostat as its first general counsel.

“They have great people and a great product that I really believe in,” Lutton said in an interview last week. “It’s going to transform the industry.”

The Mississippi native largely credited with building Apple’s now formidable patent portfolio left the company at the end of last year.

Lutton said he wanted to take some time off and spend time with his family, and wait for the right job to come along. That job was Nest, he said.

Lutton and Nest founder Anthony Fadell had both worked at Apple for years. Fadell, one of the engineers who helped create the iPod and iPhone, ran Apple’s iPod division until stepping down in 2008, but he stayed on as a special adviser to Steve Jobs until severing ties completely in March 2010. He founded Nest that same year.

The two reconnected after Lutton left Apple, and Fadell brought him on as an IP adviser early this year.

Now as general counsel, Lutton will oversee all aspects of Nest’s legal issues, but not surprisingly, he’ll be focused primarily on the company’s intellectual property.

“It’s a company where I believe I can actually make a difference,” Lutton said. “The company is fundamentally about innovation, and that makes IP really important. All those elements made Nest the place I wanted to be.”

There’s already plenty of work to keep him busy. In February, competitor Honeywell International Inc. filed a patent infringement suit against Nest in Minnesota federal court, claiming that the “Nest Learning Thermostat” infringes seven of its patents.

Nest’s attorneys at Fish & Richardson filed an answer Thursday denying the allegations, saying that “even if the patents covered what Honeywell alleges, they are hopelessly invalid.”

source from: lawjobs

Binnie was appointed to the Canadian Supreme Court in 1998 when the court made the rare move of taking a lawyer from the bar directly to the bench. Binnie had made a name for himself by representing governments, including Canada, in public law and aboriginal rights matters, counseling companies on patent and regulatory issues, appearing before various international tribunals, and representing Canada in high-profile disputes involving France and the United States.

From 1998 to 2011, Binnie wrote 170 decisions as a justice for Canada’s highest court, and ascended to the second most senior spot on the bench, behind only the chief justice.

But in May 2011, he made the unexpected announcement that he would step down from the bench, two years before he would hit the mandatory retirement age of 75. Binnie announced earlier this month that he would return to private practice at Toronto litigation boutique Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin.

“We are absolutely delighted to have him,” says Lenczner Slaght managing partner Peter Griffin. “He is the cream of the crop in terms of people in his category.”

The 73-year-old Binnie attributes his decision to return to private practice to his adrenaline-seeking nature. “On the court, you don’t have the highs or the lows that you do as a barrister. We come in to court and hear the arguments, and have a civilized discussion about the case. No one screams. It’s a very serene and stable existence,” he says. “After a while that becomes a bit too predictable.”

What Binnie craves now, he says, is the “disorganization” of a law firm. “I like when people are running around the office, putting something together at the last minute,” he says.

The firm, which has 45 lawyers including 15 partners, specializes in litigation related to liability insurance, insolvency and professional negligence. Binnie had worked alongside the firm’s five founders at McCarthy Tetrault before they left to start Lenczner Slaght in 1992. The McCarthy connection drew Binnie to Lenczner Slaght as did the firm’s sole focus on litigation.

But as a former justice, Binnie is barred from appearing in court. He will work at Lenczner Slaght instead as a sort of consultant, advising clients on litigation strategy and potential outcomes. He expects to be a “second opinion” for clients facing bet-the-company litigation.

In addition to joining Lenczner Slaght as counsel, Binnie will be a resident arbitrator at Arbitration Place, a new arbitration facility in Toronto that has partnered with the London Court of International Arbitration and the International Chamber of Commerce in Canada. Another resident arbitrator at Arbitration Place is Yves Fortier, the former chairman of Ogilvy Renault who left his firm in October 2011 shortly after its merger with Norton Rose.

Binnie says arbitration has always been a part of his practice, but sitting on the Supreme Court helped him further understand why companies opt to arbitrate. “It’s a pretty sad commentary that you’d be sitting [on the bench] dealing with a dispute that’s ten years old. Litigation gets trapped in the courts — it’s time-consuming and expensive,” he says.

Arbitration Place’s long-term objective — and Binnie’s — is to make Toronto a center for arbitration. “It’s a neutral turf for an American company that gets into fights with a British company, for instance. I would think the parties would be quite happy to come to Toronto,” he says.

Binnie will officially start taking on cases at Lenczner Slaght and the Arbitration Place as soon as he concludes a case in New Zealand. The government there has hired him to provide an opinion in a wrongful criminal conviction case. Binnie is working as a one-man commission of inquiry for the government independent of the firm and the arbitration facility. The case should wrap up in the fall, he says. Afterwards, he’ll return to Toronto and “get the adrenaline going again,” he says.

By that time he’ll be 73 1/2. “As long as I’m interested in what I’m doing and I’m in good health, I’m going to keep working,” says Binnie. Sitting on the Supreme Court was the chance of a lifetime, he says, “but everyone should be shaken up every now and then.”

source from: lawjobs

In a statement issued Monday, Allen & Overy said: “We have concluded our discussion with Allen & Gledhill on a proposal for an alliance or combination between the two firms. As a result both parties have agreed not to proceed.”

Allen & Gledhill would remain a “leading independent Singapore firm,” managing partner Lucien Wong said in a separate statement.

“Our strategy of maintaining our market leading position in Singapore and being a leading law firm in South East Asia has not changed, and we are confident of pursuing this strategy without being in an alliance with, or being part of, an international law firm,” he said.

The tie-up talks between the two firms had shaken the Singapore legal market when they first became public last November. Allen & Gledhill is Singapore’s leading corporate law firm by a considerable margin. Moreover, at the time it began talks with Allen & Overy, Allen & Gledhill had already been in a joint law venture with another Magic Circle firm, Linklaters, for over a decade.

That non-exclusive JLV is now coming to a close as well. In a joint statement, also issued Monday, the firms said they had reached an amicable agreement to end their JLV.

“The firms have enjoyed a long-standing and successful joint venture in Singapore for some 11 years and have great respect for each other’s experience, expertise and people,” the firms said in their statement. “We expect to work together for mutual clients in accordance with their preference outside the JLV but both firms now wish to pursue different strategic directions in the dynamic South East Asian region.”

A combination between Allen & Overy and Allen & Gledhill would have created a legal giant in Asia. Allen & Gledhill, until last year, was the largest firm in Singapore with over 300 lawyers. Meanwhile Allen & Overy has over 2,600 lawyers and has offices in 27 countries. The firm also holds a Qualifying Foreign Law Practice license, which allows it to practice local corporate law in Singapore. Foreign firms can otherwise only practice Singapore law through JLVs.

A tie-up between the two firms would have faced major hurdles though. Top Singapore firms are significantly less profitable than those of the Magic Circle, making financial integration a challenge. Closer ties to Allen & Overy might have cost Allen & Gledhill referral work from other international firms.

Last month, the Singapore Parliament enacted legislative changes that would clear the way for partial mergers between foreign and domestic law firms. The reform was largely seen as a sign of government support for a tie-up between Allen & Overy and Allen & Gledhill. A number of Singapore firms have said privately they may combine with international firms.

Wong seemed to leave the door open for a future deal in his statement. “We will continue to review strategic options to enhance our position in Singapore and Asia,” he said.

source from: lawjobs

Wendy Lazerson, the former labor and employment co-chair at Bingham McCutchen, joined Sidley in Palo Alto this week as partner.

She brings Sidley’s office in Silicon Valley to 39 attorneys, according to the firm’s website.

Office Managing Partner Thomas DeFilipps said his firm has been looking to add someone with wage-and-hour class action experience, but who also brings the ability to counsel clients on labor and employment matters and who could support the firm’s M&A work. And that’s not all.

“We were looking to find somebody who could do all of those things but also had a proven record of getting client business,” DeFilipps said. “I feel very comfortable that she has a good long list of not just company clients but strong relationships with GCs and AGCs who manage the process of selecting law firms and selecting counsel.” He declined to name any of Lazerson’s clients.

Two years ago, Sidley recruited three L&E partners from Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton in Los Angeles — Douglas Hart, Jennifer Zargarof and Geoffrey DeBoskey — who focus on employment litigation, counseling and traditional labor work with an emphasis on wage-and-hour and employment discrimination class action litigation.

Lazerson couldn’t be reached by deadline. In a press statement, she said Sidley’s national employment class action practice was key to her decision to join the firm.

Bingham Los Angeles partner Debra Fischer has taken over as the new co-chair of the firm’s labor and employment practice, said a firm spokesman. Fischer is also deputy chairwoman of Bingham’s global litigation group.

“We wish Wendy the very best in her new position,” the spokesman said.

source from: lawjobs

Osborne Clarke is to merge with its Spanish and Italian allies in a push to become a more internationally focused firm.

Osborne Clarke Spain and SLA Studio Legale Associato are set to merge with Osborne Clarke under a Swiss verein model, with the tie-ups expected to go live in July.

The firms have so far signed non-legally binding heads of terms setting out shared ambitions, but Osborne Clarke managing partner Simon Beswick said he has “no doubt that we will get across the finish line.”

The network expansion will gift Osborne Clarke six new offices — two in Spain and four in Italy — and will add 21 partners to the firm, of which 11 are based in Spain and 10 in Italy, bringing total partner headcount to 145. The deals are expected to boost Osborne Clarke’s turnover by around £27 million to £117 million.

At the same time, Osborne Clarke is also loosening its links with its other alliance members — Dutch firm Ploum Lodder Princen, French outfit Stehlin & Associes and Belgium-based De Wolf & Partners. The Osborne Clarke Alliance network was first established in 1987.

The merger talks kicked off around one year ago when Osborne Clarke began talking to its alliance members about its future strategy. “We were aware that some of our partners wished to remain independent, but Spain and Italy shared our vision and agreed we need to be more international,” said Beswick.

Beswick said the move will give clients “access to international legal services in our user-friendly, sector-focused style under the OC brand,” while swapping the former alliance for “a more loosely aligned group of like-minded firms,” operating on a non-exclusive best-friend basis.

He added there is “no timetable for a full financial merger” with Osborne Clarke Spain and SLA, stating: “We wanted to combine as quickly as possible, and a Swiss verein gives us the greatest flexibility. We will look again at structure further down the road, but currently we have no plans to merge financially.”

Further European expansion is planned within the next 12 months, although Osborne Clarke has not entered any new best-friend relationships, and is not seeking any. “We’re not stopping with Italy and Spain,” said Beswick, “we’re just trying to figure out where we want to go next.”

source from: lawjobs

Partner Joon Yong Kim, the head of the firm’s Korea practice, will relocate from Tokyo to lead the new office in Seoul. He will be joined by partner Edward Kim, who is also coming from Squire Sanders’ Tokyo office.

A corporate partner, Joon Yong Kim will focus mainly on mergers and acquisitions and joint ventures, though he has also advised Korean companies on U.S. intellectual property matters, including litigation. He joined Squire Sanders in 2010 as a partner from Sidley Austin, where he had been a partner since 2000. Kim had a brief earlier stint as a partner at Squire Sanders in Los Angeles after that firm acquired most of the offices of his former employer, Graham & James, in 2000 but he left soon after to join Sidley.

Edward Kim advises on project finance deals, focusing on the technology and logistics industries.

The announcement by 1,300-lawyer Squire Sanders follows those of fellow U.S. firms Paul Hastings and Ropes & Gray, both of which submitted their applications to the Korean Ministry of Justice Tuesday. A number of other U.S. and U.K. firms have also recently announced plans to launch in Seoul.

Squire Sanders has over the past few months made a significant push for its Asia-Pacific practice. In February, the firm announced a Singapore opening, having hired new partners from St. Louis-based Bryan Cave. Last August, the firm opened an office in Perth with lawyers recruited from Australian firm Minter Ellison.

source from: lawjobs