<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Pringle Quinn Anzano, P.C.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pringle-quinn.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pringle-quinn.com</link>
	<description>Lawyers Who Lead</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:52:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>PQA&#8217;s Waldron wins judgment against defendant under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act</title>
		<link>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/08/29/pqas-waldron-wins-judgment-against-defendant-under-the-uniform-fraudulent-transfer-act/</link>
		<comments>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/08/29/pqas-waldron-wins-judgment-against-defendant-under-the-uniform-fraudulent-transfer-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:52:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured Case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pringle-quinn.com/?p=950</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On August 25, 2010, the Honorable Mary C. Jacobson, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court for Mercer County, entered an order finding that the transfer of a home by a chiropractor to his mother, constituted a fraudulent transaction under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, N.J.S.A. 25:2-20, et seq (the "UFTA").  The Court also ordered that PQA may file a new application for relief under the UFTA, and may apply for a final judgment up to the $525,000 amount of the value of the home that the defendant unlawfully conveyed, as well as its attorneys' fees and costs, once the amount of the damages the defendant owes to PQA's client is established at the conclusion of parallel proceedings that are pending in another court pursuant to the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act, N.J.S.A. 17:33A-1, et seq.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On August 25, 2010, the Honorable Mary C. Jacobson, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court for Mercer County, entered an order finding that the transfer of a home by a chiropractor to his mother, constituted a fraudulent transaction under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, N.J.S.A. 25:2-20, et seq (the &#8220;UFTA&#8221;).  The Court also ordered that PQA may file a new application for relief under the UFTA, and may apply for a final judgment up to the $525,000 amount of the value of the home that the defendant unlawfully conveyed, as well as its attorneys&#8217; fees and costs, once the amount of the damages the defendant owes to PQA&#8217;s client is established at the conclusion of parallel proceedings that are pending in another court pursuant to the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act, N.J.S.A. 17:33A-1, et seq.</p>
<p>The UFTA motion was successfully briefed and argued by PQA Associate Kathleen Waldron.  Discovery in this litigation, which included a series of third-party subpoenas to obtain the bank accounts of the defendant and his mother, and the records of the mortgage lender and broker involved in the transaction, was handled by PQA Associate Denise O&#8217;Hara.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/08/29/pqas-waldron-wins-judgment-against-defendant-under-the-uniform-fraudulent-transfer-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PQA Teams Up With LifeSize to Link its Offices Via Video</title>
		<link>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/08/11/pqa-teams-up-with-lifesize-to-link-its-offices-via-video/</link>
		<comments>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/08/11/pqa-teams-up-with-lifesize-to-link-its-offices-via-video/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:10:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kpringle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[PQA in the News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pringle-quinn.com/?p=943</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In July 2010, PQA joined the videoconferencing revolution.  The firm's LifeSize HD videoconferencing system will enable the attorneys and staff in PQA's Belmar, Morristown and Trenton offices to better communicate and collaborate with each other, and with the firm's clients.  The system will make it easier to arrange meetings and cut down on travel time and costs, all while reducing the firm's carbon footprint. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In July 2010, PQA joined the videoconferencing revolution.  The firm&#8217;s LifeSize high definition videoconferencing system will enable the attorneys and staff in PQA&#8217;s Belmar, Morristown and Trenton offices to better communicate and collaborate with each other, and with the firm&#8217;s clients.  The system will make it easier to arrange meetings and cut down on travel time and costs for both the firm and its clients, all while reducing the firm&#8217;s carbon footprint.  </p>
<p>The Belmar office has installed the <a href="http://www.lifesize.com/en/Products/Video/LifeSize_Team_Series/Team_220.aspx">LifeSize HD Team</a> system, which enables simultaneous video participation from four locations.  The other offices are equipped with the <a href="http://www.lifesize.com/Products/Video/LifeSize_Express_Series/Express_220.aspx">LifeSize Express</a> product.  The system&#8217;s dual-screen capabilities enable documents and other media to be broadcast and displayed alongside the teleconferencing screen, making it easier for the firm&#8217;s lawyers and clients to collaborate from a distance.  </p>
<p>In addition to enable real-time PQA is using the LifeSize VideoCenter appliance to stream live video presentations, updates and training sessions to its staff, clients and invited guests.  The VideoCenter also enables presentations to be easily archived, so they can be accessed from the firm&#8217;s secure video library.</p>
<p>PQA purchased its LifeSize system through <a href="http://www.etribeca.com/">eTribeca, LLC</a>.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/08/11/pqa-teams-up-with-lifesize-to-link-its-offices-via-video/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PQA wins important CAFRA rule change that will promote Smart Growth development</title>
		<link>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/08/11/pqa-wins-important-cafra-rule-change-that-will-promote-smart-growth-development/</link>
		<comments>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/08/11/pqa-wins-important-cafra-rule-change-that-will-promote-smart-growth-development/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:16:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Announcements]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pringle-quinn.com/?p=919</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On June 7, 2010 the Department of Environmental Protection <a href="http://pringle-quinn.com/files/2010/08/traffic_and_date_geq__june_7.pdf">adopted an important rule change</a> that will promote Smart Growth development in New Jersey's coastal communities.  For decades New Jersey's Coastal Area Facilities Review Act ("CAFRA") regulations have required that developments in the CAFRA zone involving 24 residential units or more provide at least 2 on-site parking spaces for each residential unit.  See N.J.A.C. 7:7E-8.14(e).  ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On June 7, 2010 the Department of Environmental Protection <a href="http://pringle-quinn.com/files/2010/08/traffic_and_date_geq__june_7.pdf">adopted an important CAFRA rule change</a> that will promote Smart Growth development in New Jersey&#8217;s coastal communities.  For decades New Jersey&#8217;s Coastal Area Facilities Review Act (&#8220;CAFRA&#8221;) regulations have required that developments in the CAFRA zone involving 24 residential units or more provide at least 2 on-site parking spaces for each residential unit.  See N.J.A.C. 7:7E-8.14(e).  While the purpose of this regulation  &#8212; namely, to ensure that multi-family development near the beachfront did not displace on-street parking used by beachgoers &#8212; was well-intentioned when originally adopted, the regulation was more broadly written than necessary to achieve this purpose.  In Monmouth County, for example, the CAFRA zone extends from the beach more than three miles inland to the Garden State Parkway, far from where even the most fervent sun worshiper is willing to park his car and trek to the beach. </p>
<p>The regulation&#8217;s unintended impact became apparent to PQA partner and Belmar Mayor Ken Pringle in 2007, when redevelopers involved with Belmar&#8217;s Seaport Village Redevelopment Plan attempted to obtain CAFRA approval for their projects.  Belmar&#8217;s redevelopment plan, which won the Smart Growth Planning Award from New Jersey Future in 2007, permitted redevelopers to calculate parking requirements based on a shared parking formula that took into account off-setting peak parking demands from residential and commercial uses in a mixed-use project.  The approach was designed to achieve both environmental and economic goals by minimizing the amount of on-site space that had to be dedicated to parking.  But Belmar&#8217;s redevelopers found that no matter how efficiently they designed the mix of uses on their projects, or the sizes of the residential units they proposed, NJDEP insisted that there had to be at least two on-site parking spaces for each residential unit.  To make matters worse, one CAFRA permit issued by NJDEP staff provided that that the only alternative to meeting this requirement would be for the Borough to make up any shortfall by dedicating on-street parking spaces for the exclusive use of residents of the development &#8212; exactly the outcome the regulation was designed to prevent!   </p>
<p>In the spring of 2007, <a href="http://pringle-quinn.com/files/2010/08/Lisa-Jackson-Letter-re-CAFRA-Parking-Requirements.pdf">Pringle wrote to then NJDEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson</a> to explain the problem, and pointed out that the DEP&#8217;s interpretation of N.J.A.C. 7:7E-8.14(e) was inconsistent with the both its original purpose, and four of the eight basic coastal policies underlying the Coastal Area Facilities Review Act.  Most notably, these policies include a mandate to &#8220;[c]oncentrate rather than disperse the pattern of coastal residential, commercial, industrial, and resort development,&#8221; and to &#8220;[e]ncourage residential, commercial, and recreational mixed-use redevelopment of the developed waterfront.&#8221;  Pringle pointed out that the NJDEP&#8217;s inflexible interpretation of N.J.A.C. 7:7E-8.14(e), was not only inconsistent with these policies, but with Smart Growth principles in general.  Indeed, the effect of the NJDEP staff&#8217;s interpretation of this regulation was to effectively bar coastal municipalities from adopting  shared parking strategies that were designed to make the most efficient use of precious &#8212; and expensive &#8212; coastal land.  See, e.g., Shared Parking, Urban Land Institute (2nd Ed., 2005). </p>
<p>In addition to requesting that N.J.A.C. 7:7E-8.14(e) be amended to encourage mixed-use Smart Growth projects, Pringle also requested that NJDEP consider amending the regulation to make it easier for coastal municipalities to provide affordable housing within such projects.  Pringle pointed out that although N.J.A.C. 7:7E-8.14 contained an exemption for nursing home and assisted living facility uses, and provided a mechanism for reducing the two-space per residential unit parking requirement for senior citizen housing, it did not contain a similar provision for affordable housing units.</p>
<p>After several meetings with NJDEP&#8217;s CAFRA staff during late 2007 and 2008, and an internal review of the issue led by Acting Commissioner Mark Mauriello, a proposed amendment to the regulation was published in January 2009 that limited the two-space per residential unit parking requirement to developments located within one-half mile of the beach.  The amendment also provides that residential units of 650 feet or less would require only one off-street parking space.  Although the amendment was signed by Mauriello in January, 20010 during the waning days of the Corzine Administration, the publication of the regulation was delayed by Executive Order 1 issued by Governor Christie, which required that all pending regulations undergo review by a &#8220;Red Tape&#8221; commission before being finally adopted.  The amendment to N.J.A.C. 7:7E-8.14(e) was cleared for publication on June 7, 2010.  </p>
<p>The effect of this amendment is to eliminate the single biggest regulatory hurdle to Smart Growth development in New Jersey&#8217;s coastal communities, and to give municipal officials and local developers the flexibility to craft parking strategies designed to make the most efficient use of limited downtown real estate.  Because many New Jersey coastal communities in Monmouth and Ocean County are served by New Jersey Transit&#8217;s Coast Line, this amendment will also encourage transit-oriented development all along the New Jersey Transit Coast Line corridor.   </p>
<p>PQA&#8217;s land use attorneys represent both commercial and residential developers on projects of all sizes, from small-scale residential development to 300-lot subdivisions to large-scale shopping center and mixed-use projects.  PQA attorneys are actively engaged in statewide efforts to promote sustainable design and Smart Growth and transit-oriented development, and represent a number of municipalities and municipal land use boards ranging from the Boroughs of Red Bank and Spring Lake, to the City of Trenton.    </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/08/11/pqa-wins-important-cafra-rule-change-that-will-promote-smart-growth-development/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>George McGill appointed Bradley Beach Borough Attorney</title>
		<link>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/07/02/george-mcgill-appointed-bradley-beach-borough-attorney/</link>
		<comments>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/07/02/george-mcgill-appointed-bradley-beach-borough-attorney/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:18:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kpringle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[PQA in the News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pringle-quinn.com/?p=916</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[PQA Partner George D. McGill was appointed Bradley Beach Borough Attorney by Mayor Julie Schreck at the Borough's  annual reorganization meeting on July 1, 2010, and confirmed by a unanimous Borough Council.   This will be McGill's second tenure as Bradley Beach Borough Attorney.  He previously served as Borough Attorney from 2001 through 2002, and had served from 1994 to 2001 as the Assistant Borough Attorney, in the absence of then Borough Attorney Joseph Quinn.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PQA Partner George D. McGill was appointed Bradley Beach Borough Attorney by Mayor Julie Schreck at the Borough&#8217;s  annual reorganization meeting on July 1, 2010, and confirmed by a unanimous Borough Council.   This will be McGill&#8217;s second tenure as Bradley Beach Borough Attorney.  He previously served as Borough Attorney from 2001 through 2002, and had served from 1994 to 2001 as the Assistant Borough Attorney, in the absence of then Borough Attorney Joseph Quinn.</p>
<p>George McGill has a wide range of experience in municipal law, including land use matters, tax appeals and municipal litigation, including local public contract law, Title 59 matters and Alcoholic Beverage Licensing.   He also is experienced in a number of other practice areas which touch on municipal law, including workers compensation, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, and has appeared before numerous courts, boards and administrative tribunals.</p>
<p>In addition to the Borough of Bradley Beach, Mr. McGill&#8217;s public entity clients include the Board of Adjustment of the City of Trenton; the Planning Board of the Borough of Spring Lake; and the Planning Board of the Borough of Spring Lake Heights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/07/02/george-mcgill-appointed-bradley-beach-borough-attorney/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PQA Wins Victory for Borough of Red Bank</title>
		<link>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/06/24/pqa-wins-victory-for-borough-of-red-bank/</link>
		<comments>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/06/24/pqa-wins-victory-for-borough-of-red-bank/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:11:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[PQA in the News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/06/24/pqa-wins-victory-for-borough-of-red-bank/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[PQA attorney Tom Hall recently won an important victory for the Borough of Red Bank and its children in the matter of General Sports Venue, L.L.C. d/b/a Astroturf v. Borough of Red Bank and Precise Construction Inc., Docket No., MON-L-2411-10.  The Borough advertised bids to install a synthetic turf sports field.  In the bid specifications, Red Bank reserved the right to choose the specific type of turf to be used within ten days of bid award.  Precise Construction was the low bidder and specified that it would perform all preparatory and site work and use synthetic turf manufactured and installed by Astroturf.  After the bid opening and at the municipality’s request, Precise agreed to substitute higher grade Field Turf brand synthetic turf at no additional cost.  Astroturf sued both the Borough and Precise. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PQA attorney Tom Hall recently won an important victory for the Borough of Red Bank and its children in the matter of General Sports Venue, L.L.C. d/b/a Astroturf v. Borough of Red Bank and Precise Construction Inc., Docket No., MON-L-2411-10.  The Borough advertised bids to install a synthetic turf sports field.  In the bid specifications, Red Bank reserved the right to choose the specific type of turf to be used within ten days of bid award.  Precise Construction was the low bidder and specified that it would perform all preparatory and site work and use synthetic turf manufactured and installed by Astroturf.  After the bid opening and at the municipality’s request, Precise agreed to substitute higher grade Field Turf brand synthetic turf at no additional cost.  Astroturf sued both the Borough and Precise.  Astroturf argued that because it had a subcontractor relationship with Precise, Red Bank violated the public bidding laws by improperly switching subcontractors and that the ten-day review process effectively created a sole source bid that only Field Turf could win.  PQA successfully defended the Borough by proving to the Court’s satisfaction that Astroturf was not a subcontractor, but a mere supplier that had no standing to challenge the bid specifications.  PQA also successfully argued that the prohibitions against “contractor shopping” and “sole source specifications” in the Local Public Contract Law were not violated under the facts of this case.  Most significantly, PQA discovered emails that Astroturf’s sales manager sent to the Borough which proved that Astroturf willingly participated in Red Bank’s ten day turf review process, even going so far as to invite a contingent of Red Bank officials on a fully paid visit to Astroturf’s Georgia factory.  Given this evidence, the Court ruled that Astroturf was prohibited from challenging the legality of the ten day turf review process when it unsuccessfully participated in that very same process, instead of challenging that process prior to the receipt of bids as required by the public bidding laws.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/06/24/pqa-wins-victory-for-borough-of-red-bank/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pringle presents at Monmouth University Climate Adaptation Conference</title>
		<link>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/06/11/pringle-presents-at-monmouth-university-climate-adaptation-conference/</link>
		<comments>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/06/11/pringle-presents-at-monmouth-university-climate-adaptation-conference/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:13:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kpringle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PQA in the News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pringle-quinn.com/?p=909</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[PQA Managing Partner Ken Pringle gave a presentation at the Climate Change Conference held at Monmouth University on January 15, 2010, on the panel discussing Potential Impact on Coastal Communities: Response &#38; Adaptation Strategies.  The conference was sponsored by the Monmouth Ocean Development Council, the Jersey Shore Partnership and Monmouth University&#8217;s Urban Coast Institute. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PQA Managing Partner Ken Pringle gave a presentation at the <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/CN/20100116/STATE/100116003/Experts-concerned-impact-of-rising-sea-levels-on-Jersey-Shore">Climate Change Conference</a> held at Monmouth University on January 15, 2010, on the panel discussing <em>Potential Impact on Coastal Communities: Response &amp; Adaptation Strategies</em>.  The conference was sponsored by the Monmouth Ocean Development Council, the Jersey Shore Partnership and Monmouth University&#8217;s Urban Coast Institute.  Pringle, who is also the mayor of Belmar, is a member of the Urban Coast Institute&#8217;s Advisory Committee.  His presentation outlined Belmar&#8217;s five-step blueprint for assessing the Borough&#8217;s vulnerabilities to storm damage and other emergencies, coordinating resources between departments and other agencies, and developing prompt and effective communication strategies for keeping residents informed and prepared. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/06/11/pringle-presents-at-monmouth-university-climate-adaptation-conference/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pringle speaks on EPA Climate Change Panel</title>
		<link>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/06/09/pringle-speaks-on-epa-climate-change-panel/</link>
		<comments>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/06/09/pringle-speaks-on-epa-climate-change-panel/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:39:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Announcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Events]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pringle-quinn.com/?p=901</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On June 8, 2010, PQA managing partner Ken Pringle spoke on the opening panel of EPA's three-day national conference, "Resilient Water Management Strategies for a Changing Climate: Developing Decision-Support Tools for Local Communities." The bi-coastal conference was held simultaneously by teleconference to live audiences in EPA's Region 2 office in New York City and Region 9 office in San Francisco, and broadcast nationally via webinar.  ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On June 8, 2010, PQA managing partner Ken Pringle spoke on the opening stakeholders panel of EPA&#8217;s three-day national conference, &#8220;Resilient Water Management Strategies for a Changing Climate: Developing Decision-Support Tools for Local Communities.&#8221; The bi-coastal conference was held simultaneously by teleconference to live audiences in EPA&#8217;s Region 2 office in New York City and Region 9 office in San Francisco, and broadcast nationally via webinar.  Pringle, who has served for 20 years as the mayor of Belmar, NJ, spoke about the steps that his coastal community has taken to prepare for the impacts of climate change.  </p>
<p>The panel followed a keynote address by Andy Resnick, who writes the New York Time&#8217;s Dot Earth blog. Other panel members included: Aaron Koch, Policy Advisor, New York City Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability;  Jay Bloomfield, Chief of Inland Lakes and Fresh Waters, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation;  Susanne DeRoches, Sustainable Design Manager, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; and Rebecca Weidman, Director of Water Resource Protection, New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/06/09/pringle-speaks-on-epa-climate-change-panel/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appellate Division Upholds PQA’s Win in Dismissal of $245 Million Suit</title>
		<link>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/06/03/appellate-division-upholds-pqa%e2%80%99s-dismissal-of-245-million-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/06/03/appellate-division-upholds-pqa%e2%80%99s-dismissal-of-245-million-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:15:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured Case]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pringle-quinn.com/?p=889</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On March 16, 2010, the Appellate Division handed down a per curiam opinion in which the court upheld Superior Judge Daniel M. Waldman’s earlier dismissal of a suit that sought $245 million in damages from PQA’s client.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On March 16, 2010, the Appellate Division handed down a <em>per curiam</em> opinion in which the court upheld Superior Judge Daniel M. Waldman’s earlier dismissal of a suit that sought $245 million in damages from PQA’s client. PQA was first retained in July 2008 to defend the highly-publicized case, which was brought by the shareholders of a subsidiary of the client’s former employer, an international securities firm that is publicly traded on the NASDAQ exchange. The suit alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and based its claim of $245 million in damages on changes in price of the shares of the publicly traded parent corporation, which change plaintiffs’ contended was attributable to the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. See below for a further discussion of the case. The Appellate Division issued a 13-page opinion in support of its decision, affirming the dismissal for the reasons relied upon by Judge Waldman below. PQA partner Ken Pringle argued the case on appeal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/06/03/appellate-division-upholds-pqa%e2%80%99s-dismissal-of-245-million-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PQA Wins Dismissal of $245 Million Suit</title>
		<link>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/06/03/pqa-wins-dismissal-of-245-million-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/06/03/pqa-wins-dismissal-of-245-million-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:04:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured Case]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pringle-quinn.com/?p=887</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[PQA won a stunning victory on April 22, 2009 in a civil matter pending before Judge Daniel M. Waldman in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Monmouth County, in which the plaintiffs were seeking $245 million in damages from PQA's client. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PQA won a stunning victory on April 22, 2009 in a civil matter pending before Judge Daniel M. Waldman in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Monmouth County, in which the plaintiffs were seeking $245 million in damages from PQA’s client. PQA was retained in July 2008 to defend a client in a highly-publicized case brought in Monmouth County by the shareholders of a subsidiary of his former employer, an international securities firm that is publicly traded on the NASDAQ exchange. The suit alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and based its claim of $245 million in damages on changes in price of the shares of the publicly traded parent corporation, which change plaintiffs’ contended was attributable to the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The allegations in the New Jersey action mirrored allegations that were the subject of an earlier filed New York matter as well as those asserted in an arbitration proceeding before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). PQA’s client was separately represented in those matters by Stephen Harmon and Matthew Aaronson, Esquires, of the New York City office of Troutman Sanders, LLP. Before the plaintiffs could commence discovery in New Jersey, PQA moved to dismiss the New Jersey action on three grounds: (1) the filing of the suit in New Jersey violated the forum selection clauses contained in the shareholders agreement, option agreement and employment contract to which the parties were bound; (2) the New Jersey court should defer to the courts of New York pursuant to the first-filed doctrine, as recently enunciated by the New Jersey Supreme Court in <em>Sensient Colors, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co., Inc.,</em> 193 N.J. 373 (2008); and (3) that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims against PQA’s client because the claims they asserted were derivative of the claims of the corporation of which they were shareholders, and could only be brought directly by that entity. On April 22, 2009, Judge Waldman handed down a 31-page opinion, deciding in favor of PQA’s client on each of the above three issues, and dismissing the case in its entirety. <a href="../attorneys/partners/kenneth-pringle/">PQA Managing Partner Ken Pringle</a> argued the motion before the Court, and was assisted on the brief by <a href="../attorneys/associates/denise-ohara/">PQA Associate Denise O’Hara.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/06/03/pqa-wins-dismissal-of-245-million-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PQA wins $233,000 fee award against chiro who engaged in delaying tactics</title>
		<link>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/06/01/pqa-wins-233000-fee-award-against-chiro-who-engaged-in-delaying-tactics/</link>
		<comments>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/06/01/pqa-wins-233000-fee-award-against-chiro-who-engaged-in-delaying-tactics/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 18:35:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Insurance Fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pringle-quinn.com/?p=865</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On April 23, 2010, the Honorable Robert J. Brennan, J.S.C., Morris County, sided with PQA attorney Kathy Waldron and ordered the chiropractor, who is the lead defendant in a 6-year-old suit brought under the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act, to reimburse PQA&#8217;s insurer client $233,323.39 in legal fees and costs incurred in connection with [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On April 23, 2010, the Honorable Robert J. Brennan, J.S.C., Morris County, sided with PQA attorney Kathy Waldron and ordered the chiropractor, who is the lead defendant in a 6-year-old suit brought under the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act, to reimburse PQA&#8217;s insurer client $233,323.39 in legal fees and costs incurred in connection with a motion for partial summary judgment.   The Appellate Division had remanded the case for a re-hearing on the summary judgment motion, but granted PQA leave to seek fees on behalf of its client, because of the extraordinary circumstances created by the defendant’s pattern of delay and obfuscation in the litigation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pringle-quinn.com/2010/06/01/pqa-wins-233000-fee-award-against-chiro-who-engaged-in-delaying-tactics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
