As part of our experience representing owners, contractors and design professionals throughout the industry, we have written and negotiated contracts based on industry standard forms (such as the AIA forms) and have also developed custom contract documents for specific clients and projects. Based upon our experience drafting and negotiating contract documents, as well as our advice and representation of clients in construction disputes, we know what works in a contract and what does not.

* We know contracts: We routinely draft and negotiate design and construction contracts for large, complex projects.
* We know construction: We know the industry, the terminology, the technology and procedures, the economics and accounting, as well as the law and the potential pitfalls for disputes.
* We know contractors: Having represented contractors of all sizes and specialties for decades, we know how they work; we know how they plan, estimate and schedule jobs; we know their management, accounting and claims procedures; and we know what is important to them and what is not in contract negotiations and in the resolution of claims and disputes.

Riley Bennett & Egloff Law has expertise in all areas of construction law and their construction attorneys are dedicated to finding the best solution their construction industry clients. With much experience working with small, family-owned contractors, to some of the biggest general contractors in the Indianapolis area, Riley Bennett & Egloff Law knows what works. Visit www.rbelaw.com to see more.

A European Union court ruled Thursday that social networking sites cannot be compelled to install general filters to prevent the illegal trading of music and other copyrighted material.

The decision is a victory for operators of social networking sites in the EU, but a setback for those who seek to protect copyrighted material from being distributed without payment or permission.

It also comes as protests are growing in Europe against ACTA, the proposed international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which is meant to protect intellectual property rights.

In Thursday's decision, the EU Court of Justice, which is based in Luxembourg, ruled that requiring general filters that would cover all the site's users would not sufficiently protect personal data or the freedom to receive and impart information.

SABAM, a Belgian company that represents authors, composers and music publishers, filed the lawsuit leading to Thursday's ruling. In it, the company objected to the practices of Netlog NV, a social networking site, saying users' profiles allowed protected works to be shared illegally.

Michael Gardner, head of the intellectual property practice at London law firm Wedlake Bell, called the ruling a further blow to copyright owners because it appears to rule out forcing operators of social network sites and Internet service providers — at their own expense — to impose blanket monitoring and filtering aimed at stopping infringements.

An Italian court Monday convicted two men of negligence in some 2,000 asbestos-related deaths blamed on contamination from a construction company, sentencing each of them to 16 years in prison and ordering them to pay millions in what officials called a historic case.

Italian Health Minister Renato Balduzzi hailed the verdict by the three-judge Turin court as "without exaggeration, truly historic," noting that it came after a long battle for justice.

"It's a great day, but that doesn't mean the battle against asbestos is over," he told Sky TG24 TV, stressing that it is a worldwide problem.

Prosecutors said Jean-Louise de Cartier of Belgium and Stephan Schmidheiny of Switzerland, both key shareholders in the Swiss construction firm Eternit, failed to stop asbestos fibers left over from production of roof coverings and pipes at its northern Italian factories from spreading across the region.

During the trial, which has stretched on since December 2009, some 2,100 deaths or illnesses were blamed on the asbestos fibers, which can cause grave lung problems, including cancer. Prosecutors said the contamination stretched over decades.

The defendants had denied wrongdoing.

Hundreds of people, many of them who had lost parents or spouses to asbestos-linked diseases, crowded the courtroom and two nearby halls to gather for the verdict. When the convictions were announced, some of the spectators wept.

Two hours after announcing the convictions, Judge Giuseppe Casalbore was still reading the court's complete verdict, which included awards of monetary damages from civil lawsuits from some 6,300 victims or their relatives who alleged that loved ones either died or were left ill from asbestos.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday added another wrinkle to Ohio's debate over how strictly the state's lethal injection procedures should be followed.

The court without comment refused to allow the execution of a condemned killer of an elderly couple to proceed, an execution delayed by federal courts over concerns that the state continues to deviate too often from its written rules for lethal injection.

Both the state and the inmate's attorneys were trying Wednesday to determine what comes next, but the decision is likely to further delay executions even though Ohio's procedures have never been ruled unconstitutional.

The court denied the state's appeal of decisions in inmate Charles Lorraine's case that said Ohio had strayed too far from its execution policies to be trusted to carry out the death sentence for now.

Federal courts must monitor every Ohio execution "because the State cannot be trusted to fulfill its otherwise lawful duty to execute inmates sentenced to death," the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month.

The court upheld an earlier decision by U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Frost that chided Ohio for not following his warnings to adhere strictly to their policies.

Robert L. Herskovits

Practice Areas

•Securities Litigation and Arbitration
•Securities Industry Regulatory Defense
•Broker-Dealer Advisory Services
•Securities Industry Employment Litigation
•Commercial Litigation

Robert concentrates his practice in the areas of securities litigation and regulatory enforcement matters. Robert routinely advises broker/dealers, industry professionals and investors in varied litigation, arbitration and regulatory matters relating to the securities industry. Robert is certified as an arbitrator for FINRA, AAA and the NFA and formerly served as in-house counsel for an NYSE-member broker/dealer.

Prior to forming Herskovits PLLC, Robert was a partner with Gusrae Kaplan Nusbaum PLLC for more than five years.

Robert received a JD from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and a BA from Syracuse University. Robert is admitted to practice in the State of New York and before various federal courts, including the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

An active participant in the bar, Robert is the Co-Chair of the Committee for Securities and Exchanges of the New York County Lawyers' Association. Robert's accomplishments were recently recognized by Thomson Reuters' "Super Lawyers", which designated Robert as a 2011 Rising Star in business litigation.

Enforcement by the state attorney general against securities fraud doesn't pre-empt private common-law claims of negligence against investment companies, New York's top court ruled Tuesday.

The Court of Appeals rejected J.P. Morgan Investment Management's argument that New York's Martin Act gives the attorney general exclusive authority over fraudulent securities and investment practices. The court said Assured Guaranty (UK) Ltd. can sue J.P. Morgan.

"We agree with the attorney general that the purpose of the Martin Act is not impaired by private common-law actions that have a legal basis independent of the statute because proceedings by the attorney general and private action have the same goal — combating fraud and deception in securities transactions," Judge Victoria Graffeo wrote.

Assured claimed breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence, alleging J.P. Morgan invested heavily in risky mortgage-backed securities while committing to a conservative investment policy for reinsurance company Orkney RE II PLC, whose obligations Assured guaranteed. After the market crashed, Assured had to cover Orkney losses.

"Here, the plain text of the Martin Act, while granting the attorney general investigatory and enforcement powers and prescribing various penalties, does not expressly mention or otherwise contemplate the elimination of common-law claims," Graffeo wrote. The unanimous ruling upheld a midlevel court, which had reversed a judge.