Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle LLP is pleased to announce that five of its partners have been recognized as top New York lawyers in their fields. Stephen M. Lazare, David E. Potter, Robert A. Giacovas, James F. Moyle and Yale Glazer have been named as New York Metro Super Lawyers. Attorneys are selected to Super Lawyers based upon peer nominations, independent research and detailed evaluations. LPGM provides business litigation, corporate and advisory services to companies, corporate boards and officers, and individuals.
In a case handled by LPGM Partner David Potter, the Second Circuit affirmed a decision from the Southern District of New York in Aegean Bunkering (USA) LLC v. M/T Amazon et al., No. 16-4065, granting summary judgment to LPGM client ING Bank N.V. and its co-defendants. ING Bank was the Security Agent under a $700,000,000 Multicurrency Revolving Borrowing Base Facilities Agreement and Security Agreement with O.W. Bunker Group, the world’s largest bunker fuel supplier at the time. When OW Bunker went into insolvency, ING Bank sought to enforce its security interest in an OW Bunker receivable for bunker fuel and the subcontractor physical supplier of the fuel arrested the vessel to enforce its alleged maritime lien on the same debt. The vessel owner commenced an interpleader action and deposited the disputed funds into court. In affirming judgment for ING Bank and its co-defendants, the Second Circuit held that the physical supplier was not entitled to a maritime lien because it did not supply the fuel “on the order of the owner or a person authorized by the owner.” A copy of the Summary Order can be found here.
LPGM Partner Johannes Gabël published an article entitled M&A under President Trump for the July Issue of the Journal for German and American Law (ZDAR) of the German-American Lawyers Association. The full article can be viewed here.
LPGM attorneys David Potter and Jaipat Jain obtained a preliminary injunction for an LPGM client in United States District Court in Minnesota that foiled an attempted corporate coup. After the owner of two wholly-owned subsidiaries advised the CEO of those two companies that he was being replaced, the CEO refused to leave and purported to remove the other two directors in each company. Upon LPGM’s motion, the Court enjoined the CEO from representing himself as an owner, director, officer, employee, or agent of the companies. A copy of the Court’s decision is available here.
In an insurance coverage matter successfully handled by LPGM Partner Yale Glazer, the Second Circuit broadly applied a two-year suit limitation period in a first-party property policy to run from the date on which the physical loss occurred. The Court rejected the insured’s argument that the provision – which, by its terms, was triggered as of “the date on which physical loss or damage occurred” – should be applied differently to a demand for lost business income. In finding for LPGM’s insurer client, the Second Circuit held that the provision was “reasonable and therefore enforceable against” the insured.
For further details, click here.
LPGM’s defense of a mutual fund, its adviser and senior officers in a $600 million securities class action was featured in a June 7, 2018 Law 360 article. LPGM partners James F. Moyle and Robert Giacovas have extensive experience representing parties in securities litigation, arbitrations and regulatory matters. The full article is featured here.
Jaipat Jain was a featured panelist on the regulatory aspects of Initial Coin Offerings at the LegalEra Conference held in New York City on May 24-25.
The coverage lawsuit at issue followed an underlying negligence action brought against a general contractor, a subcontractor and others. The general contractor sought additional insured coverage under the subcontractor’s policy. That policy included an additional insured endorsement which stated that i) “[t]he person or organization [required to be included as an additional insured, [i.e., the general contractor] does not qualify as an additional insured with respect to the independent acts or omissions of such person or organization”; and ii) “[t]he person or organization is only an additional insured with respect to liability caused by ‘your work’ [i.e., the subcontractor’s work] for that additional insured.” The trial court held that the insurer had a duty to defend because the underlying action alleged that the subcontractor – its named insured — caused the accident.
The First Department unanimously reversed, finding that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the general contractor. The Court specifically found that a duty to defend was not triggered by the underlying negligence claims asserted against the named insured. As the Court concluded, the endorsement only covers an additional insured’s vicarious liability and, since no such claim was alleged against the general contractor, there is no coverage.
Jaipat Jain on May 10 chaired and served as faculty for a 3-hour continuing legal education program on Blockchain for Lawyers. The CLE was heavily subscribed and covered not only the regulation of cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings and class action lawsuits, but also the building blocks of the technology behind bitcoin and smart contracts.
For complete details, click here.