Latest News

Newswire RSS with Images
News from the ALM Network
  • Feds Indict Former Managing Partner Nathan Hardwick IV for $20M Embezzlement From His Now-Bankrupt Firm Morris Hardwick Schneider
    Nathan Hardwick IV, the former managing partner of Morris Hardwick Schneider, has been indicted on federal charges of conspiracy, wire fraud, bank fraud and making false statements in connection with his alleged embezzlement of more than $20 million from the residential real estate closing firm's escrow and operating accounts, and those of its affiliated title agency, LandCastle Title.
  • The Am Law 100, the Early Numbers: Debevoise Sees Double-Digit Profit Growth
    Profits per partner were up nearly 11 percent at the firm, which also saw a healthy increase in revenues.
  • Client Sues Quinn Over Billing Practices
    Complaint says firm charged higher hourly fees than it had agreed to when it undertook the defense of a white collar case.
  • When a Founder Talks (or Acts) Out of School
    Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates set tongues wagging in the tech world and beyond on Monday when he seemingly broke rank with the company he created as well as most of Silicon Valley on a major digital privacy issue.
  • Supreme Court Apt to Tinker With Patent Damages
    During arguments Tuesday in a pair of cases on willful infringement, Justice Stephen Breyer fretted that easing the standard could advantage large companies such as Google or Yahoo.
  • General Mill Supply Co v Great Lakes Water Authority

    General Mill Supply Co. v Great Lakes Water Authority - Case No. 18-13255


    On May 6, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted Plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court.  In declining to exercise jurisdiction over the case, the Eastern District ruled as follows:
    The Court finds that Defendants lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. Defendants have failed to articulate any reasonable basis for claiming that federal law was necessarily part of the case that Plaintiff would have to establish. All that has been shown is that Plaintiff mentioned federal law in its complaint, but that is a far cry from the threshold that a removing defendant would have to show so as to plausibly claim federal court jurisdiction. Any objective reading of the complaint is that the claims necessitate adjudication of state law issues exclusively. Defendants’ removal to federal court without an objectively reasonable basis to do so has delayed this litigation and ratcheted up Plaintiff’s costs. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion with respect to the award of costs and fees.” [emphasis added].