You are here: Home / Archives for New York

N.Y. bomb plot highlights limitations of data mining – Computerworld

May 5, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Saturday’s botched bombing attempt in New York City provides an example of why the use of data mining approaches to uncover potential terrorism plots is a little like weather forecasting.

“You definitely need to do it, because it gives you warning of major storms,” said John Pescatore, an analyst with Gartner Inc. and a former analyst with the National Security Agency. “But it’s not going to tell you about individual raindrops.”

Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent was arrested Monday at New York’s John F. Kennedy International airport in connection with an attempt to detonate a car bomb in Times Square. Shahzad, who is scheduled to be indicted on terrorism-related charges in Manhattan today, was pulled off a plane bound for Dubai, minutes before the jetliner was scheduled to take off.

Shahzad is alleged to have parked an explosives-laden vehicle in Times Square, apparently with the intention of blowing it up. Media reports quoting the FBI and other authorities said the bomb could have caused a substantial number of deaths and injuries had it detonated.

The anti-terrorism task force was quickly able to identify Shahzad as the prime suspect in the case thanks to a series of mistakes the would-be bomber made. But for the moment, there is little to show that authorities had any inkling of either Shahzad or of his plot beforehand.

via N.Y. bomb plot highlights limitations of data mining – Computerworld.

Related articles by Zemanta
LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare
Filed Under: Tech Bytes Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Goldman Sachs Reveals Slew of Shareholder Suits | Corporate Counsel

May 5, 2010 By Leave a Comment

General counsel Gregory Palm of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. late Monday made a rare filing with the government, revealing at least six shareholder suits against the company over its dealings in the subprime mortgage market, and one highly critical letter from an institutional shareholder.

The filing made no direct reference to a rumored Justice Department criminal investigation. But it did say the company anticipates that additional shareholder actions “and other litigation may be filed, and regulatory and other investigations and actions commenced, with respect to offerings of collateralized debt obligations.”

Palm made the disclosures in an 8-K report (pdf) to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The filing came after shareholders had questioned Palm in a recent quarterly conference call about why the company hadn't revealed a civil investigation by the SEC over Goldman's role in the CDOs.

Monday's filing said that since the SEC filed suit (pdf) against Goldman on April 15, several putative shareholder derivative actions have been filed in New York Supreme Court and U.S. District Court in Manhattan against the company, its board of directors, and certain officers and employees.

Palm and Goldman have previously denied any wrongdoing. A Goldman spokesman Tuesday said the company would not comment on the filing or the suits.

The shareholder suits generally allege “claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, abuse of control, mismanagement and unjust enrichment in connection with collateralized debt obligation offerings made between 2004 and 2007,” the filing said.

The complaints also challenge “the accuracy and completeness of GS Inc.'s disclosure,” it said, which may be why the company decided to disclose them. Copies of the suits were included with the filing.

The complaints seek, among other things, declaratory relief, unspecified money damages, restitution, and corporate governance reforms. The filing also included a shareholder suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery relating to compensation levels for 2009, which was amended to include allegations similar to the five actions in New York.

In another unusual move, the company disclosed a critical shareholder demand letter in its filing. The letter, from counsel for the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System, accused Goldman's top officers and directors — including Palm and his co-general counsel Esta Stecher — “with breaching their fiduciary duties and other misconduct.”

The retirement fund relies on its holdings of shares of Goldman Sachs and other companies to provide benefits to thousands of police personnel throughout Louisiana, wrote lawyer Albert Myers, a partner in the New York office of Kahn Swick & Foti. The letter was a follow-up to a Sept. 2, 2009, demand that the company take action to remedy the breaches and misconduct.

via Law.com – Goldman Sachs Reveals Slew of Shareholder Suits.

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

Global EDD Group Adds Regional Offices, Updates Telephone Contact Information

April 29, 2010 By 1 Comment

As of 03 May 2010, Global EDD Group will be adding regional offices in New York City and San Francisco to provide localized service to our current and prospective clients.  Please note the following company contact information:

Headquarters

+1.216.539.8448     Main Number
+1.888.865.9548     Toll Free (US)
info@globaledd.com

Asia Pacific

c/o Data Management Corporation
+65 6275 0775     Main Number
infoasiapacific@globaledd.com

New York City

+1.646.502.8068     Main Number
+1.888.865.9548     Toll Free (US)
infonyc@globaledd.com

San Francisco

+1.415.315.9762     Main Number
+1.888.865.9548     Toll Free (US)
infosfo@globaledd.com

International Direct Dial

London  +44.020.8123.8228
Hong Kong   +852.8179.8901
Tokyo   +81.50.5806.6101
LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare
Filed Under: From The News, Global EDD Group Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wilmer Opening Business Center in Ohio for Back-Office Functions | National Law Journal

April 29, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr will move back-office functions to Dayton, Ohio, in September. The center is expected to house as many as 190 workers in technical support, billing support, conflict checks, data entry, finance and other business and administrative functions.

No lawyers will be located at the new business center at first, but the firm plans to add some basic document-review attorneys down the road, said co-managing partner William J. Perlstein. The new setup will add efficiency and cost less than housing business services in pricey offices in major cities, he said.

At present the firm divides back-office functions between its Washington, New York and Boston offices.

“As we addressed the question of trying to consolidate, that freed us up to look outside the metro areas, where space is less expensive and we can get a business campus setting,” Perlstein said. “It’s a combination of cost savings and the efficiency of having everyone in one location.”

The firm is still securing space for the new business center, and its not yet clear how much money it will save with the move, Perlstein said.

Wilmer is not the first firm to establish an off-site business center in a lower-cost area. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe established its global operations center in Wheeling, W.Va., in 2000. The facility now houses about 200 workers.

via Law.com – Wilmer Opening Business Center in Ohio for Back-Office Functions.

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

The 2010 Am Law 100 – The American Lawyer

April 29, 2010 By 1 Comment

It could have been worse. That,s the best that can be said for the performance last year of The Am Law 100, the top-grossing law firms in the nation. Three of the four key categories we,ve measured for 25 years–gross revenue, head count, and revenue per lawyer–fell, while profits per equity partner (PPP) barely increased by 0.3 percent, or $3,463, to $1.26 million.

But on average, even the bad results weren’t nearly as dire as many firms had feared just a year ago.

THE CHARTS

Gross Revenue

For the first Time since 1994, Baker & McKenzie surpassed Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom for the number one position on our gross revenue chart.

Revenue Per Lawyer

The downward trend continued for Am Law 100 firms in 2009 as more than half posted drops in revenue per lawyer (RPL), our best measure of a firm,s financial health.

Profits Per Partner (Top Ten)

Sixteen Am law 100 firms had profits per partner (PPP) of $2 million or more in 2009, the same number as in 2008.

Compensation – All Partners (Top Ten)

The average pay for a firm’s entire partnership, both equity and nonequity; in 2009, 42 Am Law 100 firms posted declines in CAP.

Value Per Lawyer (Top Ten)

Value Per Lawyer ranks firms by how efficiently they generate profits. For the fifth year in a row, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz tops our list.

via The Am Law 100 2010.

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

Flexibility, Directness Key In E-Discovery: Judges – Law360

April 25, 2010 By Leave a Comment

To ensure a successful resolution to electronic discovery disputes while staying on a judge’s good side, be forthcoming with information and willing to compromise with opposing counsel, magistrate judges advise.

Three magistrate judges detailed their views on important discovery rules and attorney conduct during discovery Friday at the annual conference of the American Bar Association’s litigation section in New York.

Magistrate Judge Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey said opposing parties in a case must talk early on in the discovery process about key issues, including the format in which they want the documents to be produced, so conflict can be avoided down the line.

If the parties reach an impasse, they should get the judge involved to work out a compromise, she said, adding that “I’m the type of magistrate judge that wants to know early on if there’s going to be a problem.”

Specificity is a virtue in e-discovery, Judge Salas said, so she does not look kindly upon counsel who provide vague data or fail to give a reason for their objections to discovery requests.

“If you say it would be too expensive and I say, ‘How much will it cost?’ and you say, ‘I don’t know,’ that’s a problem, guys,” she said.

The judges on the panel said they often liked to hear from the information technology staff members of a company involved in a discovery dispute, since their expertise can clear up arguments.

via Flexibility, Directness Key In E-Discovery: Judges – Law360.

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

Federal Circuit Ruling May Rein In Patent Re-Examinations | Law.com

April 22, 2010 By Leave a Comment
Patent Office relief on the Herbert C. Hoover ...
Image via Wikipedia

A federal appeals court ruling may curb the growing trend of using re-examinations to challenge other parties’ patents.

In In Re Suitco Surface Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejection of some claims in a patent re-examination. The PTO’s interpretation of Suitco’s patent claim for “material for finishing the top surface of the floor” was “unreasonably broad,” wrote Circuit Judge Randall Rader.

Rader noted that case law requiring the PTO to give claims “their broadest reasonable construction” does not give the PTO “an unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention,” Rader wrote. “Rather, claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent.”

Suitco will be a frequently cited case for patent lawyers helping clients fight re-examinations, said Steven Moore, an intellectual property litigation partner in the Stamford, Conn., office of New York’s Kelley Drye & Warren, who was not involved in the case.

“It’s a fight that we all have with the patent office,” Moore said. “If it’s in your specification and you’ve used it in a particular manner, that’s what should rule, not this broadest-interpretation concept.”

Seeking a re-examination of the patent is “almost a knee jerk reaction” for defendants in patent infringement cases, he added.

“With the number of re-exams being allowed by the patent office, if you’re in litigation you almost always have a re-exam,” Moore said.

via Law.com – Federal Circuit Ruling May Rein In Patent Re-Examinations.

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

‘They Can Sue You’: Navigating the Foreign e-Discovery Mine Field | Corporate Counsel

April 21, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Handling electronic discovery in a foreign country means navigating a mine field of competing legal interests, in-house lawyer Alexander Shapiro told a group of in-house and outside counsel last week.

Shapiro, managing director and senior managing counsel at The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, spoke at the 2010 spring meeting of the American Bar Association Section of International Law in New York. Prior to joining BNY Mellon, he spent 10 years as a government lawyer, including as an assistant U.S. attorney in New York.

“Private communications in the workplace are a fundamental freedom in Europe,” Shapiro warned. “You have a duty of privacy to your customers in the foreign jurisdiction, and to your employees. They can sue you if you violate it. And some of these foreign laws have criminal provisions.”

One unidentified lawyer in the audience pointed out that in Europe both a company’s in-house lawyer and outside counsel can be charged for violating those laws, as well as the corporation itself.

In addition, Shapiro said some countries have a blocking statute that bars a bank from sending documents out of country for a pretrial proceeding.

So what if you have a U.S. judge demanding discovery of bank documents in Germany? “Your job is to navigate the competing pressures,” Shapiro said. He advised talking to all parties and judges involved, and trying to obtain privacy waivers from employees in a form consistent with local law.

via ‘They Can Sue You’: Navigating the Foreign e-Discovery Mine Field.

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

Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Fabrice Tourre | Securities and Exchange Commission

April 17, 2010 By Leave a Comment
Seal of the U.S.
Image via Wikipedia

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 21489 / April 16, 2010

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Fabrice Tourre, 10 Civ. 3229 (BJ) (S.D.N.Y. filed April 16, 2010)

The SEC Charges Goldman Sachs With Fraud In Connection With The Structuring And Marketing of A Synthetic CDO

The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed securities fraud charges against Goldman, Sachs & Co. (“GS&Co”) and a GS&Co employee, Fabrice Tourre (“Tourre”), for making material misstatements and omissions in connection with a synthetic collateralized debt obligation (“CDO”) GS&Co structured and marketed to investors. This synthetic CDO, ABACUS 2007-AC1, was tied to the performance of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS“) and was structured and marketed in early 2007 when the United States housing market and the securities referencing it were beginning to show signs of distress. Synthetic CDOs like ABACUS 2007-AC1 contributed to the recent financial crisis by magnifying losses associated with the downturn in the United States housing market.

According to the Commission’s complaint, the marketing materials for ABACUS 2007-AC1 — including the term sheet, flip book and offering memorandum for the CDO — all represented that the reference portfolio of RMBS underlying the CDO was selected by ACA Management LLC (“ACA”), a third party with expertise in analyzing credit risk in RMBS. Undisclosed in the marketing materials and unbeknownst to investors, a large hedge fund, Paulson & Co. Inc. (“Paulson”), with economic interests directly adverse to investors in the ABACUS 2007-AC1 CDO played a significant role in the portfolio selection process. After participating in the selection of the reference portfolio, Paulson effectively shorted the RMBS portfolio it helped select by entering into credit default swaps (“CDS”) with GS&Co to buy protection on specific layers of the ABACUS 2007-AC1 capital structure. Given its financial short interest, Paulson had an economic incentive to choose RMBS that it expected to experience credit events in the near future. GS&Co did not disclose Paulson’s adverse economic interest or its role in the portfolio selection process in the term sheet, flip book, offering memorandum or other marketing materials.

The Commission alleges that Tourre was principally responsible for ABACUS 2007-AC1. According to the Commission’s complaint, Tourre devised the transaction, prepared the marketing materials and communicated directly with investors. Tourre is alleged to have known of Paulson’s undisclosed short interest and its role in the collateral selection process. He is also alleged to have misled ACA into believing that Paulson invested approximately $200 million in the equity of ABACUS 2007-AC1 (a long position) and, accordingly, that Paulson’s interests in the collateral section process were aligned with ACA’s when in reality Paulson’s interests were sharply conflicting. The deal closed on April 26, 2007. Paulson paid GS&Co approximately $15 million for structuring and marketing ABACUS 2007-AC1. By October 24, 2007, 83% of the RMBS in the ABACUS 2007-AC1 portfolio had been downgraded and 17% was on negative watch. By January 29, 2008, 99% of the portfolio had allegedly been downgraded. Investors in the liabilities of ABACUS 2007-AC1 are alleged to have lost over $1 billion. Paulson’s opposite CDS positions yielded a profit of approximately $1 billion.

The Commission’s complaint, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges GS&Co and Tourre with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §77q(a), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §78j(b) and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5. The Commission seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, prejudgment interest and civil penalties from both defendants.

via Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Fabrice Tourre.

Related articles by Zemanta
LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare
Filed Under: From The News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »