|
|
|
Insurance Litigation Law Firm Clark & Fox Launches New Website
Press Release |
2014/08/01 13:59
|
John M. Clark, Michael Fox, Georgia S. Foerstner and Erin Nulty are pleased to announce the formation and opening of Clark & Fox (www.clarkfoxlaw.com) , a law firm solely serving and representing the insurance industry. Patrick J Reilly, III and Megan Foster join them as associates, and Scott Patterson as Of Counsel. Clark & Fox brings over 80 years of collective experience in representing and servicing the insurance industry, including doing so in complex liability defense matters, reinsurance/coverage cases and investigating and prosecuting insurance fraud for state and local law enforcement. All of the attorneys also have its extensive and intimate knowledge of the London insurance market. Founders John M. Clark and Michael Fox both participated in the Secondee Counsel Program with Lloyd’s of London syndicates serving as in-house counsel.
"I am thrilled to start a company with these attorneys and staff,” says co-founder, President and CEO John M. Clark. "The strong insurance background of attorneys and staff demonstrate a penchant for helping insurance companies of all sizes both domestically and internationally with all of their needs. We truly appreciate and understand through all of our experience the insurance industry’s unique needs and we can assist and partner with them to achieve their goals in an efficient and cost effective manner."
Although its main offices will be based in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the firm will have a national presence with offices also located in New York City, Cleveland Ohio and Maryland\Washington DC. The firm will be solely focused on representing and servicing the insurance industry. The firm provides practical and efficient solutions to the legal issues faced by insurance carriers of all sizes in today's complex and fast-paced litigation friendly environment.
Whether the need is for Clark & Fox team to represent an insured in a complex liability manner or provide counseling and advice on a complicated reinsurance or insurance coverage issue, our experience and expertise in insurance leveraged with our state of the art technology allows us to be flexible to meet our clients needs. We partner with our clients and leverage our industry knowledge, contacts and technology to provide effective and business oriented counseling in ways that often go beyond traditional legal advice. In addition, we are also there if our clients need us to vigorously defend and represent their interests in complex and contentious litigation.
Its co-founder, President and Chief Executive Officer, John M. Clark, will lead the firm. Georgia S. Foerstner, Vice President and Chief Operating Officer will be responsible for the day-to-day management of the firm's attorneys and staff.
For more information about Clark & Fox please visit www.clarkfoxlaw.com. Also, you may contact any of the partners as follows:
John M. Clark jclark@clarkfoxlaw.com or 856-288-2403
Michael Fox at mfox@clarkfoxlaw.com or 856-345-0374
Georgia S. Foerstner at gfoerstner@clarkfoxlaw.com or 856-345-0377
Erin Nulty enulty@clarkfoxlaw.com or 856-432-1570
  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
German court receives suit against EU bank union
Attorney News |
2014/07/28 13:36
|
A group of German professors has filed a complaint to the country's highest court against the European Union's plans to create a so-called banking union, a central part of the effort to make the continent's financial system more resilient.
The Federal Constitutional Court said Monday it had received the complaint. It wasn't clear when the court might rule; verdicts on previous attempts to block measures meant to stem Europe's debt crisis took at least several months.
The group behind the complaint says the banking union "has no legal basis in the European treaties."
It objects to handing the European Central Bank direct supervision of the eurozone's biggest lenders with binding powers over national authorities, and opposes plans for a separate authority with the power to dissolve or restructure failing banks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court throws out Chiquita terror payment claims
Attorney News |
2014/07/28 13:36
|
A divided federal appeals court on Thursday threw out claims potentially worth billions of dollars against produce giant Chiquita Brands International made by relatives of thousands of Colombians killed during years of bloody civil war.
A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that federal courts have no jurisdiction over the Colombian claims. The lawsuits accused Chiquita of assisting in the killings by paying $1.7 million to a violent right-wing paramilitary group known as the AUC, the Spanish acronym for United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia.
Chiquita, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, formerly operated large banana plantations in Colombia through its Banadex subsidiary. Chiquita insists it was the victim of extortion and was forced to pay the AUC or face violence directed at its employees and assets in Colombia.
The majority cited a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as Kiobel vs. Royal Dutch Petroleum that imposed limits on attempts by foreigners to use U.S. courts to seek damages against corporations for human rights abuses abroad. Chiquita had insisted that ruling meant the Colombians' lawsuit had to be tossed out.
"We are gratified that the U.S. Court of Appeals has now agreed with us and the claims have been dismissed," said Chiquita spokesman Ed Loyd in an email statement. "The decision reinforces what Chiquita has maintained from the beginning — that Chiquita is not responsible for the tragic violence that has plagued Colombia."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 ag-gag laws facing federal court challenges
Attorney News |
2014/07/21 16:00
|
The years-long fight between farm organizations and animal rights activists over laws prohibiting secretly filmed documentation of animal abuse is moving from state legislatures to federal courts as laws in Utah and Idaho face constitutional challenges.
Half of U.S. states have attempted to pass so-called ag-gag laws, but only seven have been successful. Among them are Idaho, where this year's law says unauthorized recording is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine, and Utah, whose 2012 law makes it a crime to provide false information to gain access to a farm. Both states now face separate but similarly worded lawsuits that say the measures violate federal statutes offering whistleblower protections and free-speech guarantees.
Farm organizations and livestock producers say ag-gag laws are aimed at protecting their homes and businesses from intruders, and some plan to use social media to assure the public they have nothing to hide. But animal rights groups, free-speech activists and investigative journalists want to throw out the laws because they say the secrecy puts consumers at higher risk of food safety problems and animals at higher risk of abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Montana court sends wind farm clash to California
Attorney News |
2014/07/21 16:00
|
A dispute over a Montana wind farm's potential to harm nearby nesting eagles and other birds should be heard in California, the Montana Supreme Court said Friday, in an opinion that deals a legal setback to the project's developers.
The legal row over the Rim Rock wind farm near Cut Bank began last year, when San Diego Gas & Electric accused developer NaturEner of concealing the possibility that eagles and other birds could be harmed by the 126-turbine project.
NaturEner, whose parent company is based in Spain, filed a competing lawsuit in Montana. Its attorneys alleged SDG&E was trying to get out of an unfavorable contract and using the eagle issue as an excuse.
The Rim Rock wind farm is near an area with seven golden eagle nests and Montana's densest concentration of ferruginous hawks. Under federal law, a take permit is required for activities that could injure, kill or otherwise harm protected birds such as eagles.
SDG&E alleges federal officials recommended to NaturEner that the wind farm needed such a permit. NaturEner has denied the claim.
Montana District Judge Brenda Gilbert ruled in May that the case should be heard in Montana because of Rim Rock's importance to the economies of Glacier and Toole counties. She also issued an injunction requiring the utility to pay NaturEner nearly $2 million a month. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court to take up Missouri execution case
Legal News |
2014/07/17 12:15
|
A last-minute stay from a federal judge has put a Missouri inmate's execution temporarily on hold.
John Middleton was scheduled to die one minute after midnight Wednesday for killing three people in rural northern Missouri in 1995. With less than two hours to go before the execution, U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry granted a stay, ruling there was enough evidence of mental illness that a new hearing should be held.
Courts have established that executing the mentally ill is unconstitutional.
Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster appealed to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but that court adjourned for the night without a ruling.
It was a confusing end to a day that saw a flurry of court actions. Perry first granted a stay early Tuesday, but that was overturned by the appeals court. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn the appeals court ruling and declined to halt the execution on several other grounds, including the contention by Middleton's attorneys that he was innocent of the crimes.
Middleton's attorneys then went back to Perry, who once again granted a stay.
However the appeals court eventually rules, the case is likely to end up again in the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the stay is lifted, the state could execute Middleton at any time Wednesday. The death warrant expires at midnight Thursday and if Middleton is not executed by then, the Missouri Supreme Court would have to set a new date. State witnesses and media were told to report back to the prison by 10:30 a.m.
Middleton, 54, would be the sixth man put to death in Missouri this year — only Florida and Texas have performed more executions in 2014 with seven each.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
