January 25, 2016

Loryn Dunn Arkow quoted in "High Court Eminent Domain Case May Offer States Clarity"

LAW360 | Loryn Dunn Arkow, a partner in Stroock's Real Estate Practice Group, was quoted in a Law360 article that discusses how the Supreme Court's decision to hear an eminent domain case concerning a family-government dispute over adjacent Wisconsin properties is likely to provide clarity to states who also encounter this issue.


  • January 25, 2016

    James G. Sammataro quoted in "Google Facing Legal Gray Area In Voice Infringement Suit"

    LAW360 | James G. Sammataro, a partner in Stroock's Entertainment and Litigation Practice Groups and managing partner for the firm’s Miami office, was quoted in a Law360 article that discusses how singer Darlene Love filed a lawsuit against Google Inc. where she claimed that her recording "It's a Marshmallow World" was improperly used in an advertisement. ...Read More

    January 25, 2016

    Ross F. Moskowitz Co-Authors Letter to New York City Planning Commission Regarding Affordable Housing Proposal

    NEW YORK CITY BAR ASSOCIATION | Ross F. Moskowitz, a partner in Stroock's Real Estate Practice Group and the head of its Land Use Practice Group, in his capacity as Chair, Committee on Land Use Planning and Zoning, New York City Bar Association co-authored a letter to the New York City Planning Commission ("CPC") to express the Bar Association's views on the proposed Mandatory Inclusionary Housing text amendment currently before the CPC. ...Read More

  • January 20, 2016

    Steven D. Atlee authored "AB 1541: Defining 'personal information'"

    LOS ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL | Steven D. Atlee, a partner in Stroock's Financial Services/Class Action and Litigation Practice Groups, authored an article for the Los Angeles Daily Journal discussing the amendment Assembly Bill 1541, which was enacted to protect the personal information of employees and consumers in businesses. ...Read More

    January 12, 2016

    Benjamin G. Diehl quoted in "Bad News for Banks: More Regulatory Risk Is Coming, With a Political Twist"

    COMPLIANCE WEEK | Benjamin G. Diehl, special counsel in Stroock's Financial Services/Class Action and Government Relations Practice Groups, was quoted in Compliance Week's article where he discussed the likelihood of more regulatory scrutiny and rulemaking in the financial services industry this year....Read More

  • January 12, 2016

    James G. Sammataro quoted in "New year brings new class action against Spotify"

    LOS ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL | James G. Sammataro, a partner in Stroock's Entertainment and Litigation Practice Groups and managing partner for the firm’s Miami office, was quoted in a Los Angeles Daily Journal article that discusses how digital music service Spotify USA Inc. is facing a nine-figure class action lawsuit from a musician who claims the digital giant reproduced and distributed musical compositions without a license. ...Read More

    January 6, 2016

    Stroock Files Amicus Brief on Behalf of 163 Members of Congress for Upcoming Supreme Court Case Involving Women’s Access to Constitutionally Protected Health Care

    PRESS RELEASE | Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP filed an amicus brief on behalf of 163 members of Congress in the upcoming Whole Woman's Health v. Cole case. The matter involves the most direct attack on the mandates of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in nearly a decade – which the Supreme Court stated unequivocally is the law of the United States. The case is currently scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court on March 2, 2016.

    The amicus brief, joined by 39 members of the Senate and 124 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, argues that Texas and many other states are enacting onerous statutes which purport to promote women's health and safety, but in reality erode a woman's constitutional right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term. The amicus brief makes clear that permitting these pretextual laws, like Texas' House Bill 2, to take effect would allow states to undermine the mandates of Roe and Casey and would create a patchwork of constitutional rights across the country....Read More

  • January 5, 2016

    Todd E. Lenson quoted in "3 Hottest Industries For Deal-Making In 2016"

    LAW360 | Todd E. Lenson, a partner in Stroock's Corporate Practice Group, was quoted in Law360's article discussing the industry-specific trends that are set to drum up mergers between competitors in 2016....Read More

    January 5, 2016

    Two Stroock Partners Named Washingtonian's Top Lawyers for 2015

    PRESS RELEASE | Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, a national law firm with offices in New York, Los Angeles, Miami and Washington, DC, is pleased to announce that Chris Griner, partner and chair of Stroock's National Security/CFIUS/Compliance Practice Group, and Jeffrey R. Keitelman, partner and co-chair of Stroock's Real Estate Practice Group, were selected as Washingtonian's Top Lawyers for 2015 for exceptional work in their respective areas.

    Mr. Griner represents foreign and domestic clients regarding international transactions involving the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ("CFIUS") and other national security approval issues.

    Mr. Keitelman represents local, national and international investors, owners, occupiers, managers and brokers in acquisition, disposition, leasing, development, financing, joint ventures, property management and related matters involving office, industrial, retail, residential and mixed-use properties....Read More

FEB24

Andrew DeNatale, Bill Latza and Curt Mechling to speak at IAIR 2016 Insurance Insolvency Workshop

Stroock Partner Curtis Mechling, Of Counsel William Latza and Of Counsel Andrew DeNatale will be speaking at the International Association of Insurance Receivers (IAIR) 2016 Insurance Insolvency Workshop. They will participate in the panel discussion "Same Box, Different Recipe: What Might we Learn from Current Bankruptcy Practice?"

  • February 24-26, 2016 - IAIR 2016 Insurance Insolvency Workshop
    Read More
  • February 24, 2016 - Jewish Lawish Lawyers Guild's "Truth & Adversaries" Discussion 
    Read More
  • March 1, 2016 - D.C. Bar's SEC Derivatives Rule Proposal: A Panel Discussion with Key SEC and Industry Lawyers
    Read More
  • February 2016 | HABITAT

    "Was it the Price? Or Were They Not Nice?"

    A long-standing mantra has been that boards of cooperative housing corporations can accept or reject a purchaser for any reason or no reason, absent discrimination. And board members need not disclose their reasons – at least until they are sued.

    So let's look at the myriad issues raised when the board members' reasons just don't make sense, as was the case in Berkowitz v. 29 Woodmere Blvd. Owners’ Inc.

  • January 25, 2016 | STROOCK SPECIAL BULLETIN

    "Final Margin Rules for Uncleared Swaps: A Comparison"

    On December 16, 2015, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) adopted a final rule and interim final rule establishing margin requirements for uncleared swaps for swap dealers (“SDs”) and major swap participants (“MSPs”) that do not have a prudential regulator (together, the “CFTC Final Rule”). In October of 2015, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Farm Credit Administration and Federal Housing Finance Agency (collectively, the “Prudential Regulators”) had jointly adopted a final rule and interim final rule that addressed, among other topics, margin requirements for uncleared swaps for SDs and MSPs that fall under their prudential regulation (together, the “Prudential Regulators Final Rule” and, with the CFTC Final Rule, the “Final Rules”).

    This Stroock Special Bulletin compares and contrasts these Final Rules.

  • January 14, 2016 | STROOCK SPECIAL BULLETIN

    "New 'Intel'-igence on ISDA "Loss" Definition"

    The September 15, 2008 Chapter 11 filing of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. ("LBHI") was an Event of Default under hundreds, if not thousands, of 1992 ISDA Master Agreements (Multicurrency — Cross Border) ("1992 ISDAs") between LBHI and its affiliates and counterparties across the world. Many of these defaults ripened into valuation disputes, which became the subject of mediations and litigations. These proceedings often revolved around the calculation by the Non-defaulting Party of its "Loss" under a 1992 ISDA, and the meaning of the terms of the "Loss" provision. While counterparties had previously litigated some aspects of the "Loss" provision, the Lehman mediations and litigations revealed important lacunae in New York case law—one of the two potential governing laws under the 1992 ISDA.

    In this Stroock Special Bulletin we first review the key parts of the Loss provisions of the 1992 ISDA.

    Next, we analyze the relevant facts of the Intel case and how the Bankruptcy Court reached its decision. We conclude with some practice pointers for counterparties who find themselves having to terminate a 1992 ISDA, where the Loss provision is the governing payment measure.

  • January 13, 2016 | STROOCK SPECIAL BULLETIN

    "When Is Your Tax Return a False Claim to the Government?"

    On October 20, 2015, the New York Court of Appeals issued a 6-1 decision in People v. Sprint Nextel Corp. allowing the New York Attorney General ("AG") to pursue an enforcement action against Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint"), based on allegations that Sprint violated the New York State False Claims Act ("NYFCA") by engaging in allegedly fraudulent tax practices.This Stroock Special Bulletin examines

    some of the implications of the decision (the first opinion from New York's highest court on this statute), which is the latest in a string of court cases that state governments and qui tam plaintiffs (also known as "relators") have brought in the past decade, alleging that companies have violated a given state's false claims act by failing to comply with that state's tax laws.

  • January 11, 2016 | STROOCK SPECIAL BULLETIN

    "No Longer Conceptual: SEC Proposes Significant Regulations Governing the Use of Derivatives and Other Transactions by Registered Funds and BDCs"

    The Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") recently proposed new Rule 18f-4 (the "Proposed Rule") under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the "1940 Act"). The Proposed Rule would permit mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, closed-end funds and companies that have elected to be treated as business development companies under the 1940 Act (collectively, "funds") to enter into derivatives transactions and financial commitment transactions notwithstanding the prohibitions and restrictions on the issuance of senior securities under Section 18 of the 1940 Act, provided that the funds comply with the conditions of the Proposed Rule.

    If the Proposed Rule is adopted, the SEC would rescind long-standing guidance that funds currently rely on when engaging in derivatives transactions and financial commitment transactions. In order to continue to engage in those transactions, funds would be required to comply with the Proposed Rule's leverage restrictions, asset coverage requirements and, in some cases, adopt a formal derivatives risk management program.

    This Stroock Special Bulletin provides an overview of the Proposed Rule, which would be a significant departure from current guidance relied on by funds when engaging in senior securities transactions.

    Funds that rely heavily on derivatives transactions to implement their investment strategies may face some difficult decisions in determining whether they can effectively pursue their current investment objectives if the Proposed Rule is adopted. Even for funds that will not need to materially alter their investment policies, all funds that engage in these types of transactions will need to amend their current asset segregation practices and will face increased compliance obligations. In addition, funds' boards of directors will face a considerable increase in their oversight responsibilities.

  • January 6, 2016 | NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL

    "'Levandusky' After 25 Years: Business Judgment Rule Deference Continues"

    For over 25 years, the Court of Appeals’ decision in Levandusky v. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp. has stood for the proposition that the actions of condominium and co-op boards are entitled to judicial deference when made in the proper exercise of their business judgment. Levandusky held that discretionary board actions are subject to such deference unless the apartment owner who is challenging the board’s action can show that the board acted in bad faith, outside of its authority or not in furtherance of the condominium or co-op’s legitimate interests.

    This deference has been a powerful tool for boards, one that benefits the entities they serve and the overwhelming majority of apartment owners, and avoids the expense and disruption of litigation by encouraging summary dismissal of unwarranted claims.

    This column updates our prior columns dealing with Levandusky and its progeny and reviews 13 recent cases, dating from 2011 through 2015, invoking the business judgment rule.