Indianapolis Business & Corporate Law Firm

Legal Marketing 2012/02/29 09:41   Bookmark and Share
Entity Selection & Formation
There are many important decisions to be made by an emerging business, each of which come with potential pitfalls that be damaging to the business and its owners in the absence of proper legal guidance. Our attorneys can help you with these issues, steering you clear of the problems while helping you select the type of entity which best serves your business interests and goals. From drafting the formation documents to stock issuance to agreements between co-owners, our Firm’s skilled business attorneys can help you establish a solid legal foundation for your business’s future.

Contract Drafting & Negotiation
Beyond the formation of business entities, our Firm acts as a corporate counsel for many of its business clients, including the negotiation, drafting and review of our client’s contracts, ranging in size from a few thousand dollars to millions of dollars. With just a few hours’ time, our review of contracts before they are signed can help our clients avoid paying for hundreds of hours of attorney time in litigation once a contract dispute arises.

Riley Bennett & Egloff Law is a Business & Corporate law firm that offers an all-inclusive range of legal services for their business clients and is capable of handling the various issues any business can face. Based in Indianapolis, their attorneys have expertise in entity selection and formation, contract drafting and negotiation, and mergers and acquisitions. Their experience can help you establish a solid legal foundation for your business's future. See www.rbelaw.com.
top

Sydney Criminal Lawyers - Sydney criminal defence lawyers

Legal Marketing 2012/02/28 10:19   Bookmark and Share
Sydney Criminal Lawyers are a team of professional, experienced and highly respected specialist criminal and traffic defence lawyers. With two offices located in Sydney's Downing Centre Courts, our team of attorneys consistently achieve outstanding results in different criminal cases throughout the NSW area. We are the only criminal law firm to offer an "Accredited Specialist Guarantee" which means we will represent you on all important court days by the very best criminal or traffic lawyer in our firm. Additionally, we offer a great fixed fee-no hidden costs for our clients who are on a budget. Sydney Criminal Lawyers is the only accredited criminal law firm to offer these fixed fees for a wide range of criminal law services. Our results speak for themselves and we are the legal experts here to defend for your freedom to get you back on the road and on with your life as soon as possible.

At Sydney Criminal Lawyers, their attorneys have extensive experience in a wide range of criminal cases. With their comprehensive knowledge of drink driving, drug, and assault laws, their ability to defend their clients and win criminal cases have shown a proven track record. They care and understand how important a clean record is and will fight for their clients to secure favorable results. We have a winning attitude that will help ease your stresses.



top

Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action

Legal Marketing 2011/11/17 09:44   Bookmark and Share
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has filed a class action suit against Jon S. Corzine, J. Randy MacDonald, Henri J. Steenkamp and certain other individuals that alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of the securities of MF Global Holdings Ltd. during the period May 20, 2010 through October 28, 2011, inclusive, including investors who purchased MF Global common stock previously traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "MF" and purchasers of the Company's debt securities.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A copy of the complaint may be obtained from Kaplan Fox or the Court.

The complaint alleges that in March 2010, Corzine, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and former Governor of New Jersey, became Chairman and CEO of MF Global and that after Corzine became Chairman and CEO of MF Global, the Company increased its risk and used its own money to trade, including making investments in European sovereign debt that has plummeted in value. Reportedly, Corzine's strategy was to transform the Company from a futures broker into a boutique investment bank.

The complaint further alleges that Corzine's push into more risky and principal trading with the Company's money was central to MF Global's profit-growing plan and transformation, and that Corzine and the other defendants represented that they could grow and transform the business without taking on excessive risk, while maintaining adequate capital and liquidity. Further, it is alleged that while making this transformation, Corzine and the other defendants failed to disclose that the Company was undercapitalized, exposed to excessive risk due to massive bets on debt issued by certain European governments, and did not have proper risk controls in place to manage these risks.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court no later than January 3, 2012 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class and is represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP. Our firm, with offices in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey, has many years of experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving financial fraud. For more information about Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, or to review a copy of the complaint filed in this action, you may visit our website at www.kaplanfox.com.
top

Brower Piven Announces Investigation of El Paso Corp.

Legal Marketing 2011/10/17 09:59   Bookmark and Share
The law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, has commenced an investigation into possible breaches of fiduciary duty to current shareholders of El Paso Corporation and other violations of state law by the Board of Directors of El Paso relating to the proposed acquisition of the company by Kinder Morgan, Inc. The firm’s investigation seeks to determine whether El Paso’s Board breached its fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to maximize shareholder value.

On October 16, 2011, El Paso and KMI jointly announced that they have entered into a definitive merger agreement whereby KMI will acquire all outstanding shares of El Paso for $26.87 per share based on the closing prices of each of the companies on October 14, 2011. The joint press release stated that the agreement provides that El Paso shareholders will receive for each of their shares $14.65 in cash plus 0.4187 KMI shares and 0.640 KMI warrants with a five-year term exercisable at $40.00 per share.

According to the joint press release, while under all circumstances El Paso shareholders will receive 0.640 KMI warrants per El Paso share held, subject to proration, El Paso shareholders will be able to elect, for each El Paso share held, either (i) $25.91 in cash, (ii) 0.9635 shares of KMI common stock, or (iii) $14.65 in cash plus 0.4187 shares of KMI common stock. According to the joint release, El Paso’s board, two members of which will join the KMI board after the transaction closes, has agreed not to solicit competing transactions. Further, under certain circumstances, according to the companies, KMI will receive a termination fee of $650 million, or over $0.90 per El Paso share, from El Paso. According to Yahoo! Finance, at least one analyst has set a price target for El Paso of $28 per share.

If you own El Paso common stock and would like to learn more about the investigation being conducted by Brower Piven, you may email or call Brower Piven, who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions. You may contact Brower Piven by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com, by calling 410/415-6616, or at Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, 1925 Old Valley Road, Stevenson, Maryland 21153.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have combined experience litigating securities and other class action cases of over 60 years.

hoffman@browerpiven.com

top

Court turns away appeal over commandments display

Legal Marketing 2011/10/03 11:25   Bookmark and Share
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the appeal of an Ohio judge wanting to display a poster of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom.

The display has been covered with a drape since a federal judge ordered Richland County Common Pleas Judge James DeWeese to remove it in October 2009. DeWeese also had posted a label above it bearing the word "Censored."

DeWeese that he is disappointed but knew his effort to get the Supreme Court to hear the case was a long shot, the Mansfield News Journal reported.

"I will probably eventually take the display down," he told the newspaper.

DeWeese hung the poster in his Mansfield courtroom in 2006 after the U.S. Supreme Court let stand lower-court rulings that another Ten Commandment poster he hung in 2000 violated separation between church and state.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation sued, and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled the display endorsed religious views and was unconstitutional.
top

A Court Cannot Exclude Evidence Because It Is Self-Serving

Legal Marketing 2011/08/31 08:41   Bookmark and Share
In Reed v. City of Evansville, _ N.E.2d _ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 82A05-1012-PL-768, Evansville sought to have some of the evidence the Reeds submitted in opposition to the City's motion for summary judgment because it was "self-serving." Today, the Court of Appeals clearly stated that parties should not make this same objection in the future.

The Reeds filed a claim against Evansville and Evansville moved for summary judgment, arguing that the notice was not timely under the Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted that motion and the Reeds appealed.

On appeal, the Court held that the trial court erred when granting summary judgment to the City, because there were genuine issues of material fact. The court then addressed the City's cross-appeal, which challenged the trial court's denial of the City's motion to strike some of the Reeds' evidence. The City moved to strike some of that evidence because it was "self-serving." The Court had none of it.

http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/A-Court-Cannot-Exclude-Evidence-Because-It-Is-Self-Serving


top









Disclaimer: Nothing posted on this blog is intended, nor should be construed, as legal advice. Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. Nothing submitted as a comment is confidential. Nor does any comment on a blog post create an attorney-client relationship. The presence of hyperlinks to other third-party websites does not imply that the firm endorses those websites.

Affordable Law Firm Website Design