June 20, 2017

James Sammataro quoted in "'All Eyez on Me' and the struggle to bring Tupac’s life to the big screen"

MARKETWATCH | James Sammataro, a partner in Stroock’s Entertainment and Litigation Groups and managing partner of the firm’s Miami office, was quoted in a MarketWatch article that discusses the long, tumultuous road to bring the Tupac Shakur biopic to the big screen.


Join Anne Salladin at PLI's "Doing Business in and with Emerging Markets 2017" in New York on June 28, 2017

Stroock Special Counsel Anne Salladin will be speaking on a panel to discuss the effects of political changes in the U.S. and Europe on investments in developed markets, the growing interest in outbound deals due to the need to diversify portfolios in emerging markets, and surrounding topics such as CFIUS risks and strategies, sovereign wealth funds, family offices, and strategic investors.

  • June 28, 2017 - PLI's Doing Business in and with Emerging Markets 2017
    Read More
  • July 12, 2017 - The Business and Legal Reality of Virtual Reality
    Read More
  • July 31 - August 1, 2017 - PLI's ERISA 2017: The Evolving World
    Read More

    "What Lawyers Can Learn from Poker Players"

    Litigation is often compared to chess. The image is evoked of a lawyer strategically developing evidence and making arguments the same way a chess player moves and sacrifices pieces on a chessboard, to defeat an opponent. But ask any trial lawyer, and he or she will tell you that litigation is nothing like chess. In chess, both players have the same pieces and start from the same squares on the board — in effect, their cases are equally strong. Moreover, in chess, both players have an unobstructed view of the board; in other words, they both possess full knowledge of the facts. In litigation, neither of these fundamental premises is true.

    The better analogy and, more importantly, the better place to turn for useful practice pointers, is poker. In poker, each player starts with the cards as they are dealt; a hand may be good or bad, depending on the luck of the draw.

    Likewise, in litigation, the lawyer is presented with his client’s case, whatever its strengths or weaknesses may be. Almost by definition, the two sides in litigation will not be equally matched at the outset as occurs in chess. In poker, each player’s knowledge is limited; she can see her cards, and any common cards, but not the cards of her opponent. So, too, in litigation, the lawyer’s knowledge is limited to what he can learn from his client or through discovery; he does not know privileged information known only to his adversary. As a result, lawyers, like poker players, in order to win, must constantly make the best decisions they can base on imperfect information.

    So what do winning poker players know that you don’t?


    "Which Constitutional Question
    Will Decide PHH v. CFPB?"

    The May 24, 2017, oral argument in PHH Corp. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”) before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, sent strong signals that the Court is likely to decide this case on the Constitutionality questions, rather than the statutory ones. Discussion of the statute of limitations and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) issues in the case, themselves of weighty legal and practical consequence for the mortgage industry, occupied but a few minutes at the end of the oral argument (with a brief PHH plea for reinstatement of the three-judge panel’s RESPA decision in its favor).

    While commentators have focused on the Constitutionality of the CFPB’s structure, there is a real question of whether the deciding Constitutionality issue in PHH will be:

    1. the CFPB’s single-director structure is consistent with the Constitution; or

    2. whether the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) who heard the case was an “inferior officer” under the law and thus appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause (the question in Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) v. Lucia, argued immediately before PHH).

    Finally, perhaps the even more important practical question is whether the Court will render its decision in time to have a significant impact on the date when Richard Cordray will leave his post as CFPB Director.


    "Foresight Energy Refinancing Results in Big Win for Stroock's Clients"

    Due to a combination of factors, including a winning litigation strategy and execution thereon, noteholders represented by Stroock and Houlihan Lokey in the Foresight Energy situation, whose notes traded as low as 70% of par, recently benefited from a redemption at par plus a make-whole premium. Noteholders also received and still hold warrants that could have significant value.

    All in, the Foresight matter was a huge victory for the noteholders and a case study in how pushing back on an issuer’s overreach can pay large dividends. This Stroock Special Bulletin details how that victory was achieved.