Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Pressing the Reset Button: The UK Life Sciences Market Reinvents Itself (Institutional Real Estate, Inc.)
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Jan. 1 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Goodwin, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Pressing the Reset Button: The UK Life Sciences Market Reinvents Itself (Institutional Real Estate, Inc.)
*
Ray Fang, a Private Equity Real Estate partner and lawyer at Goodwin, says the UK life sciences segment is maturing as investors become more discerning. He describes how in the past investment was somewhat driven by pandemic tailwinds, "and frankly, a fear of missing out". "Private equity funds and institutional investors were making [good returns] and so others looked
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Jan. 1 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Goodwin, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Pressing the Reset Button: The UK Life Sciences Market Reinvents Itself (Institutional Real Estate, Inc.)
*
Ray Fang, a Private Equity Real Estate partner and lawyer at Goodwin, says the UK life sciences segment is maturing as investors become more discerning. He describes how in the past investment was somewhat driven by pandemic tailwinds, "and frankly, a fear of missing out". "Private equity funds and institutional investors were making [good returns] and so others lookedto increase their exposure in a broadly thematic way," he explains. "Capital allocators were just that they were allocators. Whereas now investors want specialised offerings, strong operators, and demand more discipline. It's a lot more fundamentals-led and a lot less speculative." He added. "But actually, if you know what you're doing or can partner with an operator who does, startups succeed, move into larger premises, and you can shape the real estate ecosystem around them."
Please read the Institutional Real Estate, Inc. article for more.
***
Original text here: https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/01/announcements-privateequity-pressing-the-reset-button
Venable Foundation Announces $4.1M in Charitable Grants in 2025
WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 -- Venable, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Venable Foundation Announces $4.1M in Charitable Grants in 2025
The Venable Foundation, the philanthropic arm of law firm Venable LLP, announced its last round of giving for 2025--$1.5 million in grants to 159 U.S.-based nonprofits--bringing its total for the year to nearly $4.1 million and 465 organizations.
"We are proud to support the important work of so many wonderful organizations," said Bob Waldman, president, Venable Foundation. "These organizations are impacting our communities in meaningful ways,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 -- Venable, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Venable Foundation Announces $4.1M in Charitable Grants in 2025
The Venable Foundation, the philanthropic arm of law firm Venable LLP, announced its last round of giving for 2025--$1.5 million in grants to 159 U.S.-based nonprofits--bringing its total for the year to nearly $4.1 million and 465 organizations.
"We are proud to support the important work of so many wonderful organizations," said Bob Waldman, president, Venable Foundation. "These organizations are impacting our communities in meaningful ways,and we're honored to be their partners."
The following are the total charitable grants/* and donations for the year:
- $1,301,000 to 147 organizations in Washington, DC
- $1,157,500 to 111 organizations in Baltimore
- $742,000 to 100 organizations in New York City
- $526,000 to 67 organizations in Los Angeles
- $157,500 to 27 organizations in Chicago
- $156,000 to 26 organizations in San Francisco
- $117,500 to 18 organizations in Miami
- $40,000 to 7 organizations in Denver
*/ Totals may reflect multiple grant donations to the same organizations.
"These organizations are at the forefront of addressing critical needs, and their impact inspires us to continue expanding our reach and deepening our support," added Michael Bigley, director, Venable Foundation. "We look forward to reviewing next year's applications."
Grants are given to nonprofits that align with one of the firm's eight focus areas--arts and culture, education, environment, health, human services, legal services, workforce development, and youth impact--and are located in a city where the firm operates. While grant amounts may vary, the average amount given is $10,000. The next application deadline is February 2. The submission form and a complete list of grant recipients can be found here.
The Venable Foundation is one of the largest law firm foundations in the United States, with more than four decades of impact, and is regularly recognized and ranked as one of the most charitable law firms. The Foundation is proudly funded by the partners of Venable.
* * *
Venable LLP is an Am Law Global 100 law firm headquartered in Washington, DC, with more than 900 professionals across the U.S. Known for its innovative solutions and client-focused approach, Venable serves as trusted counsel to corporations, nonprofits, and high-net-worth individuals worldwide. The firm's robust capabilities span business law, regulatory compliance, litigation, and intellectual property. For more information, visit Venable.com.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.venable.com/about/news/2025/12/venable-foundation-announces-4-m-in-charitable
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Revises Guidelines on Its Paid Sick Days Act
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Dec. 30 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Dec. 29, 2025:
* * *
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Revises Guidelines on Its Paid Sick Days Act
By Taylor N. Brailey and Mark T. Phillis
On December 9, 2025, the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania's Office of Equal Protection released revised guidelines regarding the administration of the Pittsburgh Paid Sick Days Act (PSDA). The PSDA Revised Guidelines both add new obligations and provide additional guidance to employers that provide paid sick leave to employees in the City. The Revised Guidelines will take
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Dec. 30 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Dec. 29, 2025:
* * *
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Revises Guidelines on Its Paid Sick Days Act
By Taylor N. Brailey and Mark T. Phillis
On December 9, 2025, the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania's Office of Equal Protection released revised guidelines regarding the administration of the Pittsburgh Paid Sick Days Act (PSDA). The PSDA Revised Guidelines both add new obligations and provide additional guidance to employers that provide paid sick leave to employees in the City. The Revised Guidelines will takeeffect on January 1, 2026 (when both the accrual rate and the amount of paid sick leave available under the PSDA will increase).
Mandatory Notification of Amount of Paid Sick Leave Accrued
Perhaps the most marked revision in the Revised Guidelines relates to notifying employees of the amount of their accrued paid sick leave. The previously issued PSDA Guidelines merely recommended that employers choose and maintain a reasonable system for providing notification of accrued sick leave, including listing updated amounts of sick leave available on pay stubs (e.g., regular payroll statements) or in an online system where employees can regularly access the information. The Revised Guidelines make this a requirement.
Using Existing Policies
The PSDA does not require employers that already have a paid leave policy (such as a paid time off (PTO) policy) or that provide paid sick leave in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) to provide additional paid sick leave as long as the policy or the provision in the CBA meets the PSDA's accrual requirements and the paid leave may be used for the same purposes and under the same conditions as paid sick leave under the PSDA. The Revised Guidelines clarify that PTO policies or contract provisions that require advance or written notice, require employees to find their own replacement, or that provide leave subject to employer approval, will not meet the minimum requirements of the PSDA and cannot be used to comply with the PSDA.
Frontloading
Under the PSDA, employers are permitted to "frontload" all or part of employees' required paid sick leave at the beginning of each calendar year. The Revised Guidelines make clear that when employers make any portion of the yearly cap of leave available at the beginning of the year, they must use a reasonable calculation, consistent with the law's accrual requirements, to ensure that the accrual, at all times, meets or exceeds the law's accrual rate. This is not a marked change, but it serves as a helpful reminder for employers that frontload a prorated amount of paid sick leave to their employees upon hire, especially for employees in positions expected to work overtime hours.
Retaliation
The Revised Guidelines clarify that, as a result of a provision in the PSDA which provides that there is a "rebuttable presumption" of unlawful retaliation "whenever an employer takes action against a person within 90 days" of filing of paid sick leave complaint, the Office of Equal Protection may seek "full restitution" for an employee for all lost wages and benefits in cases of retaliation.
Recordkeeping
Under the PSDA, employers are required to retain records documenting hours worked and sick leave taken by employees for a period of two years. Under the Revised Guidelines, employers must also retain records documenting any policy used to provide leave under the PSDA for a period of two years.
Additionally, if a party fails to respond to the City's inquiries regarding issues as to employees' entitlements to sick leave under the law within the established timeframes, under the Revised Guidelines it will be presumed that the employer violated the law absent clear and convincing evidence otherwise. Furthermore, a party's failure to respond to an inquiry from the City will be deemed a waiver of the right to respond.
Penalties for Notice and Posting Violations
The Revised Guidelines clarify the penalties for failing to satisfy the notice and posting requirements. For example, under the PSDA, an employer that willfully violates the law's notice requirements will be subject to a fine in an amount not to exceed $100 for each separate offense. Pursuant to the Revised Guidelines, violation of both the notice and posting requirements are subject to a fine, and every instance of an employer's failure to notify a covered employee or post the required poster constitutes a single violation.
Administrative Enforcement
Under the Revised Guidelines, the City is also entitled to require an employer to post or otherwise notify its workers of any ongoing investigation.
Next Steps
Employers with employees covered by the PSDA will want to review their leave policies and practices to ensure that they comply with the changes in the law and with these revised guidelines, both of which take effect January 1, 2026.
* * *
Authors
Taylor N. Brailey
Associate
Pittsburgh
Mark T. Phillis
Shareholder
Pittsburgh
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/pittsburgh-pennsylvania-revises-guidelines-its-paid-sick-days-act
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: New York Is the Eleventh State to Restrict Employers' Use of Credit History
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Dec. 30 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Dec. 29, 2025:
* * *
New York Is the Eleventh State to Restrict Employers' Use of Credit History
By Stephen A. Fuchs
On December 19, 2025, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law S03072, amending the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act/1 to prohibit New York employers from obtaining or using consumer credit history in hiring and personnel decisions.
The amended statute, which takes effect 120 days after enactment--on April 18, 2026--tracks the New York City Stop Credit Discrimination in Employment
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Dec. 30 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Dec. 29, 2025:
* * *
New York Is the Eleventh State to Restrict Employers' Use of Credit History
By Stephen A. Fuchs
On December 19, 2025, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law S03072, amending the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act/1 to prohibit New York employers from obtaining or using consumer credit history in hiring and personnel decisions.
The amended statute, which takes effect 120 days after enactment--on April 18, 2026--tracks the New York City Stop Credit Discrimination in EmploymentAct (SCDEA) that took effect in 2015, and makes New York the eleventh state to enact legislation restricting such use of consumer credit history, joining California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, as well as New York City; the District of Columbia; Chicago; Cook County, Illinois; Madison, Wisconsin; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Statutory Prohibitions
The New York credit history discrimination law amends the New York General Business law by prohibiting the acquisition of or use by employers of an applicant's or employee's consumer credit history, that is, the individual's credit worthiness, credit standing, credit history or payment history, as indicated by a consumer credit report, a credit score, or information obtained directly from the individual regarding their credit history, debts, bankruptcies, judgments or liens. The statute makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer, labor organization, employment agency or their agent to:
1. Request consumer credit history;
2. Use consumer credit history of an applicant for employment or of an employee; or
3. Otherwise discriminate against an applicant regarding hiring, compensation or the terms or conditions of employment based on the consumer credit history of the applicant or employee unless the position sought or held is within one of the enumerated exemptions.
Statutory Exemptions
Like all such laws, the statute contains several exemptions from its general prohibition on the use of an individual's consumer credit history. These exemptions largely mirror the exemptions in the New York City SCDEA. Specifically, the statute does not apply to:
1. Employers required by state or federal law or by a self-regulatory organization to use an individual's consumer credit history for employment purposes;
2. Persons applying for employment as peace officers, police officers, or positions with a law enforcement agency;
3. Persons in a position subject to a background investigation by a state agency where the person is in an appointed position bearing a high degree of public trust;
4. Persons in a position required to be bonded under state or federal law;
5. Persons in a position requiring security clearance under state or federal law;
6. Persons in a non-clerical position having regular access to trade secrets,2 intelligence information or national security information;
7. Persons in a position with (a) signatory authority over third-party funds or assets valued at $10,000 or more or (b) have a fiduciary duty or authority to enter into financial transactions valued at $10,000 or more on behalf of the employer; or
8. Persons in a position whose regular duties allow the employee to modify digital security systems.
Similar to the exemptions under the New York City SCDEA, these exemptions are narrowly defined and are expected to be narrowly construed by courts and state agencies.
Restrictions on Consumer Reporting Agencies
The New York State statute goes further than any of the other similar laws by prohibiting consumer reporting agencies (credit bureaus and background check companies) from providing consumer reports for employment purposes that contain information bearing on an individual's credit worthiness, standing, capacity, or history unless the employer or position is exempt from the statute. This provision of the law may be subject to a preemption challenge by consumer reporting agencies to the extent it narrows the permissible scope of credit reporting under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Scope of Coverage
As the New York State credit history discrimination law amends the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act, on its face (and absent any contrary guidance from state agencies enforcing the statute),/3 the amendments apply to any individual in New York whose credit or personal data may be used by employers or other entities through a consumer reporting agency for employment purposes. This application differs from the scope of the New York State Human Rights Law, which is interpreted to cover decisions regarding employment in New York, employment decisions made in New York, or that have an effect on employees working in the state. As a practical matter, this means an individual who lives in New York but applies for a position in another state whose credit history is obtained for employment purposes may be covered by the New York credit history discrimination law.
Conclusion
Employers conducting credit history checks for employment purposes for positions in New York or on persons located in New York should review their policies and practices and closely monitor guidance issued by agencies enforcing the amended statute in advance of the April 18, 2026 effective date of the statute.
* * *
See Footnotes
1/ N. Y. Gen Bus. L. Sec.380 et seq. The new credit history discrimination provisions amend N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. Sec.Sec.380-a and 380-b.
2/ "Trade secrets" means information that: (A) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; (B) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy; and (C) can reasonably be said to be the end product of significant innovation. The term "trade secrets" does not include general proprietary company information such as handbooks and policies. The term "regular access to trade secrets" does not include access to or the use of client, customer or mailing lists.
3/ While the statute tasks the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR) with monitoring the use of exemptions under the statute and reporting on such use to the state legislature, it does not specify whether NYSDHR or the agencies that enforce violations of the New York State Fair Credit Reporting Act (i.e., the New York Department of Financial Service and the New York Division of Consumer Protection), will enforce violations of these credit history discrimination provisions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/new-york-eleventh-state-restrict-employers-use-credit-history
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: Federal Court (Mostly) Blocks California's Push Into Labor Law
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Dec. 30 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Dec. 29, 2025:
* * *
Federal Court (Mostly) Blocks California's Push into Labor Law
By Alex MacDonald and Joy Rosenquist
Last week, a U.S. district court blocked California from enforcing most of its expansive new labor law, AB 288. Had it taken effect, AB 288 would have allowed a state agency, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), to process cases previously handled by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB sued on preemption grounds to protect its own authority, and the district
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Dec. 30 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Dec. 29, 2025:
* * *
Federal Court (Mostly) Blocks California's Push into Labor Law
By Alex MacDonald and Joy Rosenquist
Last week, a U.S. district court blocked California from enforcing most of its expansive new labor law, AB 288. Had it taken effect, AB 288 would have allowed a state agency, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), to process cases previously handled by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB sued on preemption grounds to protect its own authority, and the districtcourt largely agreed that AB 288 was preempted by federal law. The court however, left some parts of AB 288 in place. The mixed ruling potentially sets up appeals from both sides. But in the meantime, labor law in California returns (mostly) to the status quo.
Why did California enact AB 288?
California enacted AB 288 against a backdrop of turmoil at the NLRB. In 2024, the NLRB came under fire in a series of lawsuits challenging its structure. These lawsuits argued that the NLRB's members and/or its administrative law judges were improperly protected from removal by the president. By statute, neither the judges nor the members can be removed except for cause. The challengers argued that those removal protections interfered with the president's ability to manage the executive branch. The results in court were mixed. Some courts found that private parties could not raise these arguments because the parties could not show they had been harmed by the removal protections. But in August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with the challengers in one case and enjoined the NLRB.
As these challenges proceeded, the NLRB also lost its statutory quorum. By law, the NLRB can act only when it has a quorum of at least three members. But in January, President Trump fired one member, Gwynn Wilcox, dropping the NLRB to two members. (That firing was later upheld by the D.C. Circuit.) In August, then-Member Marvin Kaplan's term expired, dropping the NLRB to one member.
AB 288 ostensibly responded to these developments. The law's authors asserted that the NLRB had lost its "independence." Independence, they said, was central to the NLRB's mission and to Congress's intended system of national labor law. They argued that without it, the NLRB could not protect employees' rights to form unions, join them, or bargain collectively, leaving the state to fill the void.
What did AB 288 do?
AB 288 transferred authority to the PERB. It allowed the PERB to exercise jurisdiction over an employee or employer in six circumstances: (1) when a worker who was previously covered by federal labor law loses coverage; (2) when the NLRB expressly declines to exercise jurisdiction; (3) when the NLRB loses a quorum, (4) when the NLRB loses independence; (5) when the NLRB is enjoined from processing a case; and (6) when the NLRB unduly delayed in processing a case. In those circumstances, AB 288 allowed the PERB to take up the case. If the PERB took up such a case, it did not have to follow the NLRB's procedures or doctrines. Instead, it could follow its own view of the law.
Predictably, the NLRB objected to that change and sued to block the law. The NLRB argued that under longstanding case law, it had exclusive authority to process union-representation petitions and unfair labor practice charges. It also had a well-established duty to develop labor policy in the first instance. By giving that authority to a state agency, California was interfering with the NLRB's ability to carry out its mission. It therefore asked the court to enjoin California from enforcing the law.
What did the court hold?
The court mostly agreed with the NLRB. It recognized that under longstanding judicial precedent, the NLRB has exclusive authority to supervise union elections and to police unfair labor practices. That authority, the court explained, does not evaporate whenever the NLRB loses a quorum. To the contrary, Congress knew that the quorum requirement would sometimes prevent the NLRB from carrying out certain functions, but nevertheless made the NLRB's authority exclusive. In other words, the loss of a quorum was part of Congress's original statutory design.
Similarly, the NLRB did not lose its exclusivity whenever it took too long to process a case. Federal law, the court found, sets no deadline for the NLRB to act on a case. Instead, it leaves any deadlines up to the NLRB itself. California could not contradict that choice simply because it thought the NLRB was acting too slowly.
Nor, the court said, could California take over the NLRB's responsibilities just because it thought the NLRB was no longer independent. The court disagreed with the premise that the NLRB was no longer independent because the NLRB's members could be removed by the president. Further, the court saw nothing in the statute or the case law to suggest that the NLRB's exclusive authority depended on its members' removal protections. The state could not transfer authority to the PERB based on its own view of independence.
The court did, however, agree with the state on some points. It agreed that the state could step in when the NLRB expressly declined jurisdiction; federal law itself says the state can do that much. The court also agreed that the state could exercise jurisdiction over workers who lost federal coverage. If a worker loses coverage, the court reasoned, there is no conflict with the NLRB's jurisdiction; the worker sits in a legal vacuum, and the state is free to fill that vacuum with its own law. Finally, the court agreed that the state could step in when the NLRB is enjoined from processing a case. In that scenario, the NLRB is legally blocked from exercising its own authority, so there is no risk of conflict if the state steps in.
What happens next?
Both sides could appeal. In the meantime, the law in California will return mostly to the status quo prior to AB 288. The court's order blocks the most aggressive parts of AB 288 and while the court left the state free to act in some cases, none of those cases is present in California today. The NLRB has not expressly declined jurisdiction over the state's workers, the workers have not lost coverage under federal law, and no court has enjoined the NLRB from processing cases in the Golden State. So while the court's order left the state with some leeway, that leeway is (for now) academic. Moreover, the NLRB's quorum will imminently return with the swearing in of new members Scott Meyer and James Murphy.
Similarly, last month a different federal district court blocked New York's analogous law. For now, employers should understand that the labor-law landscape remains mostly unchanged. While some states are pushing to expand local authority over labor relations, those expansions have been largely blocked. Labor law remains (mostly) a matter of federal concern.
* * *
Authors
Alexander T. MacDonald
Shareholder
Washington, D.C.
Joy C. Rosenquist
Shareholder
Sacramento
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/federal-court-mostly-blocks-californias-push-labor-law
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Names Freddie Akrouche a 2025 Go To Lawyer for Commercial Real Estate
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Dec. 29 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Goodwin, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Names Freddie Akrouche a 2025 Go To Lawyer for Commercial Real Estate
*
Partner Freddie Akrouche has been recognized by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly as a Go To Lawyer: Commercial Real Estate for 2025. Since 2020, Go To Lawyers has showcased the leaders in the Massachusetts legal community across practice areas.
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly recognized Freddie for his expertise across the full range of commercial real estate transactions and for
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Dec. 29 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Goodwin, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Names Freddie Akrouche a 2025 Go To Lawyer for Commercial Real Estate
*
Partner Freddie Akrouche has been recognized by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly as a Go To Lawyer: Commercial Real Estate for 2025. Since 2020, Go To Lawyers has showcased the leaders in the Massachusetts legal community across practice areas.
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly recognized Freddie for his expertise across the full range of commercial real estate transactions and forthe trusted strategic partnerships he builds with colleagues and clients. A partner practicing in Goodwin's Real Estate Industry group for nearly 15 years, Freddie focuses his practice on complex real estate client consultation, including sophisticated joint ventures, restructurings and recapitalizations, mortgage, construction and mezzanine financings and workouts, and asset-level and entity-level acquisitions and dispositions. He also advises commercial real estate investment managers in structuring investment vehicles for real estate investment funds and investor accounts.
Freddie serves on various internal committees, where he advises on both firmwide and Real Estate-centric strategy focuses. His pro bono practice focuses on community-driven real estate projects, helping local organizations preserve heritage, expand green infrastructure, and create civic and cultural spaces across Massachusetts.
In addition to this honor, Freddie has been ranked by Chambers USA annually since 2020, and by The Legal 500 US annually since 2024 for his work in the real estate industry.
***
Original text here: https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/news-and-events/news/2025/12/announcements-realestate-massachusetts-lawyers-weekly-recognizes-freddie-akrouche
Pennsylvania Superior Court Vacates $1 Billion Verdict Against Mitsubishi
LOS ANGELES, California, Dec. 26 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Pennsylvania Superior Court Vacates $1 Billion Verdict Against Mitsubishi
*
On December 22, 2025, the Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated a jury's $1 billion verdict against our client Mitsubishi.
Our team includes partners Tom Dupree and Michael Holecek and associates Jeff Liu, Branton Nestor, and Summer Wall.
***
Original text here: https://www.gibsondunn.com/pennsylvania-superior-court-vacates-1-billion-verdict-against-mitsubishi/
