Blank Rome Secures Precedential Opinion on Personal Jurisdiction in Dutch Run-Mays Draft V. Wolf Block

Adrienne C. Rogove

On July 5, 2017, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, ruled in favor of our client WolfBlock LLP in the matter of Dutch Run-Mays Draft V. Wolf Block, making it the first published case in a New Jersey court to apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest rulings on personal jurisdiction.

Background

In 2004, Dutch Run, a West Virginia limited liability company having its place of business in Deerfield Beach, Florida, retained Pennsylvania attorney, Henry Miller, a partner with the law firm of WolfBlock LLP, a Pennsylvania limited liability partnership, in connection with Dutch Run’s acquisition of 5,000 acres of property in West Virginia. In March 2009, WolfBlock’s partners voted to dissolve the partnership, and all of its activities as a law firm ceased. At that time, WolfBlock shuttered all of its offices and its attorneys and staff were dismissed. Since that time, WolfBlock has been winding down its affairs. In 2014, Dutch Run filed suit against WolfBlock in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, for legal malpractice arising out of its representation of Dutch Run in 2004. In this regard, Dutch Run claimed that there were title defects that rendered the West Virginia property unfit for residential development. Continue reading “Blank Rome Secures Precedential Opinion on Personal Jurisdiction in Dutch Run-Mays Draft V. Wolf Block

District Court of New Jersey Holds No Duty Under FDCPA to Warn of Tax Consequences for Debt Settlement

Jonathan M. Robbin and Kyle E. Vellutato

In a case of first impression in the Third Circuit, Vincent Carieri v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 17-0009 (D.N.J. June 26, 2017), the District Court of New Jersey held that that a debt collector does not have a duty to notify a debtor of potential tax consequences for settling a debt at a discount under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”).

Continue reading “District Court of New Jersey Holds No Duty Under FDCPA to Warn of Tax Consequences for Debt Settlement”

Construction Contracts: Advanced Negotiation Techniques for the Top Sticking Points

Blank Rome Partner Adrienne Rogove will speak at the National Business Institute (“NBI”) “Construction Law: Advanced Issues and Answers” seminar on Wednesday, July 12, 2017, which will take place from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in Princeton, NJ.

In this advanced-level course, experienced faculty will share their decades of construction law experience and will provide you with valuable tools you can use to help your clients through change order disasters, project delay disagreements, construction defect disputes and more.

Ms. Rogove will present the first session, from 9:00 a.m. to 9:45, “Construction Contracts: Advanced Negotiation Techniques for the Top Sticking Points.” Her presentation will cover:

  • Payment Clauses
  • Pass-Through Clauses
  • No Damage for Delay Clauses
  • Performance and Timing Clauses
  • Project Termination Clauses
  • Liquidated Damages Clauses

For more information or to register, please click here.

The Perils of Dealing with Whistleblowers under the False Claims Act

Blank Rome LLP Partner Nicholas C. Harbist recently spoke on “Lyin’, Cheatin’, Stealin’: The Perils of Dealing with Whistleblowers under the False Claims Act” at Seton Hall Law’s U.S. Healthcare Compliance Certification Program, on June 12, 2017, at Seton Hall Law School. Continue reading “The Perils of Dealing with Whistleblowers under the False Claims Act”

Pre-Complaint Discovery: An Underutilized, Underrated and Unknown Tool

Ethan M. Simon

Suppose there is a hit-and-run in a sparsely populated area. You are retained as counsel to represent the victim, who sustained significant property damage to her vehicle and debilitating personal injuries. After a preliminary investigation, you learn that there are no witnesses to the incident, but there is a nearby gas station equipped with video cameras that may have footage of the hit-and-run and from which you may be able to identify the other driver. The gas station refuses to share its video footage with you. At this point, you could file a “John Doe” complaint and then serve a subpoena on the gas station. But the fastest and cheapest way to obtain the video is by filing a petition for pre-suit discovery under New Jersey Rule 4:11-1. Continue reading “Pre-Complaint Discovery: An Underutilized, Underrated and Unknown Tool”

Supreme Court Restricts Venue in Patent Infringement Cases

Christopher K. Hu

On May 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued an 8-0 decision, which will have a significant impact on the number of patent infringement cases filed in districts in States in which large or technology-based companies, or other frequent targets of patent litigation, are incorporated. This includes New Jersey, Delaware, California, and Illinois.

The patent infringement litigation venue statute, 28 U.S.C. 1400(b), provides that “[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has regular and established place of business.” In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, No. 16-341, 581 U.S. __(2017), the Supreme Court held that for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), as applied to domestic corporations, “‘reside[nce]’ in § 1400(b) refers only to the State of incorporation.” Continue reading “Supreme Court Restricts Venue in Patent Infringement Cases”

Reimbursements for Costs Incurred in Internal Investigations

Nicholas C. Harbist

Internal investigations have become commonplace in corporate America. From Fox’s Bill O’Reilly to the General Motors investigation, companies often hire law firms as a signal to shareholders that they are taking a crisis seriously, as well as a signal to the government that they are able to clean house. Apart from these high profile scandals, internal investigations are routinely done in order to ferret out wrongdoing within companies which have been victimized by employees. In cases where companies are victims, they often use internal investigations to root out the mechanics of the fraud as well as the responsible employees in order to turn them over to the authorities. In these instances, the provisions of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2) require a court to order restitution for a victim’s “actual loss directly and proximately caused by the defendant’s offense of conviction.” A recent case from the Fifth Circuit demonstrates the reach of the MVRA.

Continue reading “Reimbursements for Costs Incurred in Internal Investigations”