You are here: Home / Archives for Connor

The Am Law 100 2010 — Gross Revenue: Baker & McKenzie Tops Skadden

April 29, 2010 By Leave a Comment

The Am Law 100 2010 — Gross Revenue: Baker & McKenzie Tops Skadden

For the first Time since 1994, Baker & McKenzie surpassed Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom for the number one position on our gross revenue chart. As was the case last year, Baker and Skadden are the only two firms to gross more than $2 billion.

Eleven other firms had gross revenue exceeding $1 billion. Among them is K&L Gates which moved into this group for the first time. The year’s biggest increase in gross revenue–22.6 percent—was posted by Cozen O’ Connor. The biggest decline was Howrey‘s 16.2 percent drop, although that firm’s 2008 gross revenue had included a contingency award.

  1. Baker & McKenzie
  2. Skadden
  3. Latham & Watkins
  4. Jones Day
  5. Kirkland & Ellis

[continued] The Am Law 100 2010 — Gross Revenue: Baker & McKenzie Tops Skadden.

Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

U.S. Steps Up Probe of Tech Hiring – WSJ.com

April 11, 2010 By
Seal of the United States Department of Justic...
Image via Wikipedia

The Justice Department is stepping up its investigation into hiring practices at some of America’s biggest companies, including Google Inc., Intel Corp., International Business Machines Corp., Apple Inc. and IAC/InterActiveCorp., people familiar with the matter said.

The inquiry is focused on whether companies, particularly in the technology sector, have agreed not to recruit each others’ employees in ways that violate antitrust law. Specifically, the probe is looking into whether the companies’ hiring practices are costing skilled computer engineers and other workers opportunities to change jobs for higher pay or better benefits.

After a probe that began more than a year ago, Justice Department investigators have concluded that such agreements do raise significant competitive concerns, according to the people familiar with the matter.

But the leadership of the antitrust division hasn’t yet decided whether—or how—to challenge the hiring practices, these people said. About a dozen companies are meeting with top antitrust officials at the Justice Department this week and next, some to defend their practices, others to provide information.

Antitrust experts say the Justice Department could argue that an agreement between competitors that holds down labor costs is as much a violation of antitrust laws as an agreement to fix prices.

Such agreements are “very close to the line,” said Melissa Maxman, an antitrust lawyer at the law firm Cozen O’Connor. “They’re not agreeing on price, but they’re kind of agreeing on costs.” Skilled computer scientists with some management responsibilities, for instance, often make base salaries of $180,000 to $210,000. Compensation for the most sought-after workers typically soars far above that and includes bundles of stock options and bonuses.

via U.S. Steps Up Probe of Tech Hiring – WSJ.com.

Related articles by Zemanta
Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Buy Globally, Sue Locally for Products Liability | Law.com

March 27, 2010 By

In a global economy, price and convenience are valued above all else. Global consumers demand produce out of season, buy sophisticated appliances made with cheap labor and build homes with materials shipped from abroad. And yet when these products prove to be defective, they expect to be able to sue the manufacturer at the local courthouse, regardless of where it resides. After all, the product reached them — so they should be able to sue in their home court, right?

We’ve come a long way from Penoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878), when a defendant’s physical presence in the forum state was required to exercise jurisdiction over him. Various U.S. Supreme Court decisions have expanded the notion of personal jurisdiction, simultaneously muddying the water as to precisely what constitutional analysis is required.

Take, for example, Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of Calif., 480 U.S. 102 (1986). There, the separate plurality opinions of justices Sandra Day O'Connor and William Brennan both approved of some form of the “stream of commerce” theory of jurisdiction but disagreed on the exact formulation of the test to be applied. Although lower courts subsequently used some form of “stream of commerce” analysis after Asahi, they seldom used it as a stand-alone test. Most have always added to it some form of “minimum contacts,” “purposeful availment” or other analysis to establish that the defendant somehow intended or expected to benefit from the jurisdiction. This traditionally has been seen as required by the due process clause.

via Buy Globally, Sue Locally for Products Liability.

Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,