| |
Home >> Headlines |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
 |
Maryland
Federal Court Dismisses Claims Against Attorneys for
Alleged Improper Robo-Signings of Trustees' Signatures
in Foreclosure Action
Plaintiffs filed suit against several attorneys and a
law firm alleging that the defendants participated in
fraudulent “robo-signings” of trustee’s signatures to
initiate foreclosure in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practice Act, Maryland Consumer Protection
Act, Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act and other
state laws.
On May 8, 2012,
United States District Judge Roger W. Titus filed a
Memorandum Opinion dismissing all claims.
Although the attorneys had failed to comply with
procedural rules governing the foreclosure process,
Plaintiffs had not alleged factual errors regarding the
existence of a secured debt or the delinquencies.
Consequently, Plaintiffs could not allege that
the improperly affixed signatures on the foreclosure
documents were material and that they were misled by the
fact that someone other than the substitute trustees had
signed an otherwise accurate document.
Absent these allegations, Plaintiffs failed to
state claims upon which relief could be granted.
Judge Titus’ opinion can be accessed at:
http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/Scottsdale
Default Judgment 050212.pdf
For more information about this decision or with
questions about litigation, contact
Harry Levy at
(410) 825-5223 or
levy@shumakerwilliams.com.
|
| |
|
|
|
Maryland
Court Holds That Limitations Period Is Not Tolled While
Parties Pursue Non-Binding Arbitration
Many contracts include the requirement that the parties
participate in non-binding arbitration before proceeding
with litigation.
Does the time spent in the arbitration process
toll the statute of limitations to initiate a case?
On
May 2, 2012,
the Court of Appeals of
Maryland
held that “while non-binding arbitration, mandated by
contract, may have constituted a condition precedent to
litigation, pursuing arbitration neither postponed the
accrual of the underlying breach of contract claims, nor
otherwise tolled the statute of limitations to
maintaining an action in court.”
Maryland’s
highest court pointed out that a party can avoid
concerns about limitations either by filing a law suit
and seeking a stay of an action pending arbitration or
making certain that a complaint is filed within the
applicable statute of limitations following the
completion of non-binding arbitration.
The Court’s opinion in Kumar v. Dhanda may be
accessed at:
http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2012/47a11.pdf
For more information about this decision or the
arbitration or litigation process, contact
Harry Levy at
(410) 825-5223 or
levy@shumakerwilliams.com.
|
| |
|
|
|
SEC
Clarifies Procedures to Deregister Stock
Under the JOBS
Act:
Is Deregistering the Right Decision
for Your Bank
Holding Company?
The
SEC
recently issued its second “Frequently Asked Questions”
publication which provided guidance for a bank holding
company with registered stock to deregister that stock.
The open question was whether the
SEC would
need to adopt a regulation prior to accepting a Form 15
to terminate Section 12(g) registration of that class of
stock if the number of shareholders of record is less
than 1,200.
As the Form 15 itself has yet to be amended, the
SEC
advised that any bank holding company desiring to
deregister should file the Form 15 with an explanatory
footnote that it is relying on amended Exchange Act
Section 12(g)(4).
The termination of the duty to file reports will
be effective ninety (90) days after the Form 15 is
filed. Until
effective termination, the bank holding company must
continue to file all reports required by Exchange Act
Sections 13(a), 14, and 16.
While this option is now clearly available to those bank
holding companies qualifying, the business decision of
whether this is the proper course of action should be
properly evaluated by the Board of Directors after
receiving a recommendation from senior management.
The obvious benefit is the reduction of costs
associated with the preparation of
SEC
reports and the ancillary benefit of not being subject
to Sarbanes Oxley requirements, especially the costs
associated with Section 404(b) internal control audits.
Listing on certain exchanges requires the
registration with the
SEC
of the class of stock being traded on the exchange.
Withdrawal from an exchange may have a negative
impact on the liquidity of the stock.
Also, a bank holding company seeking funding in
the debt market through investment banks may be
pressured to maintain registered status as a condition
for the investment banks’ involvement in the issuance of
debt. The
federal law protections, by way of public notice
requirements, from shareholders contemplating a creeping
acquisition of stock or a tender offer also would be
lost. All of
these factors should be considered prior to deciding to
file a Form 15 to deregister with the
SEC.
|
|
|
Will the JOBS ACT Result in Reducing the Cost to Raise
Capital for Banks and Bank Holding Companies?
Both the U. S. Senate and the House of
Representatives have passed the Jumpstart Our Business
Startups ("JOBS") Act, and President Obama signed it
into law on April 5, 2012. The JOBS Act contains a
provision that community banks have long desired - an
increase in the number of shareholders that a bank or a
bank holding company can have before it is required to
register its shares with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Prior to the JOBS Act, that number was 500;
the JOBS Act increases that threshold to 2,000. This
change will provide community banks and holding
companies who have been concerned about the possibility
of triggering the registration requirement, with its
attendant expense and ongoing reporting obligations,
with much more flexibility in terms of their capital
raising activities.
Once a bank or bank holding company has been
required to register with the SEC, the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 provided that it could only
deregister if the number of its shareholders fell below
300. The JOBS Act also increases that number - to 1,200.
Banks and bank holding companies with fewer than 1,200
shareholders and which are not listed on a national
stock exchange, such as the NYSE or NASDAQ, will be able
to deregister their shares by filing a form with the
SEC. Once the form is filed, the bank's or bank holding
company's obligation to file reports with the SEC is
suspended. Any bank or bank holding company that wishes
to remain listed on a national exchange however, must
remain registered since the Exchange Act requires listed
companies to be registered, irrespective of the number
of shareholders they have. A bank or bank holding
company that decides it does not wish to remain listed
would both delist and deregister, filing two forms with
the SEC.
It should be noted, that the reporting obligations
of a deregistered bank or bank holding company are not
terminated, but only suspended. If the number of
shareholders goes over 1,200 at any point in the future,
the reporting obligations are resurrected.
The JOBS Act contains a provision in this section
requiring the SEC to issue final regulations to
implement the section within one year of enactment. It
is not clear yet whether or not the SEC will take the
position that banks and bank holding companies will need
to wait until the final regulations are issued in order
to be able to avail themselves of the relief provided by
the JOBS Act or whether the SEC might provide some
interim guidance. An informal inquiry to the SEC staff
by Shumaker Williams, P.C. resulted in a response that
the Commission does not yet have a timeline on this
decision.
In light of the intent of the JOBS Act, Shumaker
Williams, P.C. also has requested the FDIC to clarify
its guidance on the level of disclosure the FDIC will
require for banks that do not have registered stock.
Shumaker Williams, P.C. has requested the FDIC to
confirm that banks with non-registered stock be
permitted to use the same level of disclosure available
to Pennsylvania bank holding companies without
registered stock. If granted this will also reduce
expenses for small banks to raise additional capital.
The JOBS Act also contains a number of other
provisions that may be of use to community banks in
raising capital and they will be the subject of future
Legal Alerts.
|
|
|
Shumaker Williams Wins Dismissal of Copyright
Infringement Claim Against Anonymous Defendant
On April 4, 2012,
the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland granted a motion by Doe Defendant #128,
represented by Shumaker Williams, P.C., seeking to sever
the defendant from a copyright infringement lawsuit and
dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims.
The decision in
Cinetel Films,
Inc. v. Does 1-1,052 (8:11-cv-02438) is a significant victory for anonymous defendants in
copyright infringement actions, and, if followed by
other courts, may limit the ability of copyright holders
to sue multiple unrelated defendants in the same
lawsuit.
In the case, Cinetel Films, Inc. claimed that all of the
defendants, identified only by the internet protocol
address associated with their personal computers,
infringed upon Cinetel Films, Inc.’s copyrighted film by
downloading and sharing the film using BitTorrent
software.
Without reaching the merits of the copyright
infringement allegations, the defendants asked the Court
to dismiss the claims against them on the basis that the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit the
joinder of 1,052 unrelated, unconnected defendants in
the same lawsuit.
The Court agreed and granted motions to sever
filed by Doe Defendant #128 and other defendants because
there were not enough common questions of fact and law
to justify suing 1,052 defendants in the same
litigation.
The Court explained that it would be inefficient,
unmanageable and unduly prejudicial to the defendants if
the case against 1,052 defendants, each one involving
different facts and defenses, was heard in the same
lawsuit. The
Court acknowledged the difficulties faced by copyright
holders in enforcing their copyrights but was “unwilling
to overlook serious procedural deficiencies and fairness
concerns to solve the growing problem of enforcing
pre-digital-age copyright laws in the internet era.”
Accordingly, the Court severed all but one of the
anonymous defendants from the action and dismissed
without prejudice the copyright infringement claims
against them.
Other courts have taken a different approach and
permitted numerous anonymous defendants to be sued in
the same lawsuit.
The decision in
Cinetel Films,
Inc. v. Does 1-1,052 is a significant development in
the law of electronic copyright infringement and may
lead to increased scrutiny of copyright trolling
lawsuits by other courts.
In the future, copyright plaintiffs may be
required to sue each defendant individually unless the
plaintiff can demonstrate a sufficient connection
between the defendants.
The Court’s opinion can be found at
www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/Cinetel4apr12.pdf
For more information, or if you receive a letter from
your internet service provider indicating that you have
been identified as a defendant in a copyright
infringement lawsuit, contact
Ryan P. Siney,
Esquire at
siney@shumakerwilliams.com or (717) 763-1121 |
| |
|
|
|
Important Immigration Law
Developments
Priority Date Retrogression – EB(2) Category
On Friday, March 23rd,
the Chief of Immigrant Visa Control & Reporting in the
US State Department provided members of the American
Immigration Lawyers Association with further information
on priority date movement in the EB-2 category for
China-mainland born and
India
for the remainder of FY2012. When the May Visa Bulletin
is published, the
China
and
India
EB-2 cut-off will retrogress to August 15,
2007.
Currently the
China
and India EB-2 cut-off date as published in the April
Visa Bulletin is May 1, 2010.
Accordingly for those affected applicants in the
adjustment process with approved I-140 applications with
priority dates between
August 15, 2007 and
May 1, 2010 it is imperative
that your Application for Adjustment of Status (Form
I-485) be filed as soon as possible.
For further information regarding
Adjustment of Status and the “Green Card” process please
contact Attorney Steven J. Koehler, or paralegals,
Nyasha Largen or Joanna Koch at 717-848-5134 or via
email at:
koehler@shumakerwilliams.com;
largen@shumakerwilliams.com; or
koch@shumakerwilliams.com
USCIS Announces Temporary Protective Status for
Syria
In another development announced on
Friday, March 23rd Secretary of Homeland
Security Janet Napolitano announced that she will be
designating Syria
for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for a period of 18
months. This week, USCIS will provide guidance on TPS
eligibility, registration and filing requirements.
TPS may be designated by the Secretary of Homeland
Security for a foreign country due to conditions in the
country that temporarily prevent the country's nationals
from returning safely, or where the country is unable to
handle the return of its nationals adequately.
The Secretary may designate a country for TPS due
to temporary conditions in the country including, armed
conflict; natural disaster (such as earthquake or
hurricane); an epidemic or other extraordinary and
temporary conditions
In accordance with this
designation, eligible nationals of
Syria
who are already in the
United States
are not removable from the
United States; can
obtain an employment authorization document (EAD); and
may be granted for travel authorization. Other countries
currently designated for temporary protective status are
El Salvador,
Haiti,
Honduras,
Nicaragua,
Somalia,
Sudan and
South Sudan.
Please note that the registration
period for Syrian nationals has not yet opened.
As stated above we expect further guidance from
the USCIS in a matter of days.
For the latest information about filing for TPS
please contact our Immigration Law department with the
contact information set forth above.
|
| |
|
|
|
Employers Beware: Class
Action Waivers
Invalidated by NLRB
In January, the National Labor Relations
Board ("NLRB") made news yet again when it issued a
decision that essentially invalidates a critical
component of many employment agreements in both union
and non-union workplaces. In D.R. Horton, Inc.,
the NLRB found that a provision in an employment
agreement requiring all employment disputes to be
resolved through individual, bilateral arbitration
unlawfully barred employees from engaging in "concerted
activity" protected by the National Labor Relations Act
("NLRA").
This decision has drawn significant criticism from
employers. As a preliminary matter, the NLRB's decision
appears to conflict with the Supreme Court's recent
decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, in
which the Supreme Court upheld the validity of class
action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements.
Additionally, the decision was rendered by only two
Board members rather than the full five-member Board. A
2010 Supreme Court decision casts doubt on whether a
two-person Board has the power to render decisions
without the requisite quorum.
It is unlikely that D.R. Horton, Inc. will be the final
word with respect to class-action waivers in the
employment arbitration context. Indeed, the NLRB's
decision will be appealed and the final result is
uncertain. Nevertheless, in light of the current state
of the law, employers utilizing employment arbitration
agreements are urged to review and, if necessary, revise
the agreement language in order to avoid liability under
the NLRA. Also, all employers (union and non-union
alike), regardless of whether they require employees to
sign an arbitration agreement, should take note of the
D.R. Horton, Inc. decision in that it serves as yet
another reminder that the NLRA guarantees all employees
the right to engage in concerted, i.e., group, activity.
To the extent you have any questions related to the D.R.
Horton decision or other labor and employment law
questions, please do not hesitate to contact
Marc G. Tarlow at 717-848-5134 or
Michael E. Rowan at 410-825-5223.
|
|
|
Retail ATM Operators Get Bank's Safe Harbor
The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (“EFTA”) requires that the
operator of an automated teller machine
"ATM" display on or about the ATM a notice that the operator may
charge a fee for an electronic fund transfer.
Violations of the EFTA can subject the ATM
operator to actual and statutory damages.
The EFTA, however, provides a safe harbor for
such notice violations if, upon notice of a violation,
the operator cures the ATM notice defect, adjusts the
consumer’s account, and pays actual or statutory
damages.
Does this safe harbor provision also apply to retail
operators of ATMs, such as convenience stores, groceries
and wine shops, which are not financial institutions and
cannot adjust a consumer’s account for EFTA violations?
On March 2, 2012, the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland concluded that the
EFTA’s safe harbor was not limited to financial
institutions and extends more broadly to any ATM
operator, including retail stores, so long as the
violator responds properly to consumer complaints by
curing the defect and refunding the improper transaction
fee, together with any proven actual damages.
If you would like to discuss this decision, compliance with
the Electronic Fund Transfer Act or defense of a claim
under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, please contact
Harry Levy or Martin B. Ellis at (410) 825-5223 or
levy@shumakerwilliams.com or
ellis@shumakerwilliams.com.
|
|
|
Superior Court Panel Decision Brings Into Play the
Validity of Judgments Obtained and Sheriff Sales
That Relied Upon Act 91 Notices Sent Prior to
September 8, 2008
A
three (3) judge panel recently ruled on
separate appeals for three (3) Allegheny Common Pleas
decisions involving mortgage foreclosure judgments and
subsequent sheriff sales in which the mortgagor raised
the issue of an alleged defective Act 91 Notice at some
point of the proceeding before the Common Pleas Court.
The Superior Court held that judgments and sheriff sales
were null and void because in the Court's view the Act
91 Notice did not inform the mortgagor of a right to
have a face-to-face meeting with the lender/mortgagee.
In the view of Court, the homeowner/mortgagor raising
the issue of a defective Act 91 Notice divested the
Common Pleas Courts of subject matter jurisdiction thus
preventing the Common Pleas Courts from hearing requests
for judgments or sheriff's sales. Effective September 8,
2008, the Pennsylvania General Assembly amended Act 91
to delete the reference to a mortgagor potentially
having a right to meet with the lender/mortgagee.
Therefore, judgments and sheriff sales that relied on
the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Authority ("PHFA")
agency's uniform Act 91 Notice on or after September 8,
2008 are not impacted by this decision.
In Pittsburgh, the plaintiff's attorneys and consumer
groups are already requesting the Allegheny County
Sheriff to suspend sheriff sales. The Sheriff has
refused as requests by each lender/mortgagee for a
rehearing by the entire Superior Court are pending and
that at least one of the opinions was marked as a
non-precedential decision. Plaintiff's counsel estimates
there may be 100,000 judgments and sheriff's sales that
potentially may be set aside because of this Court
opinion. While this may be puffing, until a court
reverses these rulings, judgments and sheriff's sales
that were based on the use of the PHFA Act 91 Notice may
be open to judicial challenge. We can expect such
challenges to be made statewide, as this decision
becomes more widely known.
A Petition for Rehearing En Banc
has been filed by each homeowner/mortgagor and all are
pending. While there is a high likelihood the Superior
Court will grant a rehearing, a final disposition by the
Superior Court may be several months away. In the
meantime every lender who relied on the PHFA Act 91
Notice should be reviewing their pending foreclosure
actions and sheriff's sale requests to determine if the
three (3) panel rulings may jeopardize moving forward
with those court proceedings. Any mortgage lenders or
brokers who obtained a loan on a property that had
been foreclosed where the foreclosure was commenced
between [date] and September 8, 2008 may have an issue
with lien priority reps and warranties made to
subsequent purchasers of the loan.
If you need any legal assistance regarding the impact of
this Pennsylvania Superior Court decision, or any other
legal issues, please contact:
Steve Lovejoy,
Paul Adams,
Reg Evans or
Keith Clark.
|
|
|
New FinCEN Regulations Apply to
Mortgage Lenders and Brokers:
Anti-Money Laundering Programs
and Suspicious Activity Report Filing Requirements
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), a
bureau of the Department of the Treasury with authority
to enforce the Bank Secrecy Act
(“BSA”), finalized regulations requiring non-bank
residential mortgage lenders and originators to
establish anti-money laundering (“AML”) programs and
file suspicious activity reports (“SARs”) under the BSA.
The new regulations were
published in The Federal Register on
February 14, 2012. The regulations become effective on
April 16, 2012,
and compliance with the regulations becomes mandatory as
of August 13, 2012.
Companies providing mortgage lending and brokerage
services are required to comply with the new regulations
or face severe financial and/or criminal penalties.
Shumaker Williams, P.C. has helped numerous bank clients
navigate the Bank Secrecy Act rules and has the
expertise (and experience) to guide you through the
complicated new requirements.
Mortgage Lender and Broker Companies Must Comply With
the New Regulations.
The new regulations remove an exemption under the BSA
for “loan or finance companies” and specifically define
“loan or finance company” to include “residential
mortgage lenders or originators” (“RMLOs”).
A “residential mortgage lender” is defined as
“the person to whom the debt arising from a residential
mortgage loan is initially payable on the face of the
evidence of indebtedness or, if there is no such
evidence of indebtedness, by agreement, or to whom the
obligation is initially assigned at or immediately after
settlement.”
A “residential mortgage originator” is defined as a
“person who accepts a residential mortgage loan
application or offers or negotiates terms of a
residential mortgage loan.”
While individuals employed by a company acting as
a mortgage lender or broker are specifically excluded,
the company itself, even if it is a sole-proprietor
acting as a mortgage lender or broker, is included
within the definition of a loan or finance company and
must comply with the new regulations.
FinCEN has, at this time, declined to further
define “loan or finance company” to include other types
of consumer or commercial finance companies or real
estate agents but it may, and likely will, add other
types of loan and finance businesses in future
amendments.
Anti-Money Laundering Programs for Mortgage Lenders and
Brokers.
The new regulations require RMLOs to develop and
implement a written AML program that is reasonably
designed to prevent the company from being used to
facilitate money laundering or the financing of
terrorist activities.
Such AML programs must include, at a minimum, the
following:
· Incorporate policies, procedures and
internal controls based upon the lender’s or
originator’s assessment of money laundering and
terrorist financing risks associated with its products
and services.
· Designate a compliance officer who will be
responsible for ensuring that the anti-money laundering
program is implemented effectively, the anti-money
laundering program is updated as necessary and
appropriate persons are educated and trained on an
ongoing basis.
· Provide for ongoing training for appropriate
persons either directly or through a third party, and
provide for independent testing to monitor and maintain
an adequate program, including testing to determine
compliance of agents and brokers with their obligations
under the program.
Suspicious Activity Report Filing Requirements for
Mortgage Lenders and Brokers.
RMLOs are required under the new regulations to file
SARs with FinCEN when a transaction involves or
aggregates funds or other assets of at least $5,000.00
AND the company suspects or has reason to suspect that
the transaction (or pattern of transactions of which the
transaction is a part):
· Involves funds derived from illegal
activity.
·
Is designed to evade any requirements of any
regulations promulgated under the Bank Secrecy Act.
·
Has no business or apparent lawful purpose
or is not the sort in which the customer would normally
be expected to engage.
· Involves the use of the mortgage loan
originator to facilitate criminal activity.
Electronic filing of SARs with FinCEN at
www.fincen.gov will
be required for RMLOs, and FinCEN has delayed the
effective compliance date for the new regulations in
order for FinCEN to implement a modernized filing system
and a new electronic form as well as to allow time for
the industry to implement appropriate programs and
systems.
Given the potential complexity involved in completing a
SAR, it is highly recommended that mortgage brokers and
lenders seek advice from the attorneys at Shumaker
Williams who have extensive experience assisting
financial institutions with SAR filing.
In addition, there are strict confidentiality
requirements such that disclosure of the contents of a
SAR report, or even the disclosure that such a reports
exists, may subject the discloser to severe penalties,
both monetary and imprisonment.
Shumaker Williams, PC can assist your company in
developing policies and procedures to comply with the
new regulations.
Please contact
Steve Lovejoy,
Esq.,
Rachel Wolf, Esq.,
or
George
Kinsel at 410-825-5223; or
Paul Adams, Esq.,
at 717-763-1121 for more information.
|
| |
|
|
|
 Former
Shumaker Williams, P.C. Partner, Craig T. Trebilcock,
Sworn in as Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of York
County
Shumaker Williams, P.C. is pleased to
announce the election of our former partner, colleague
and friend, Craig T. Trebilcock as Judge of the Court of
Common Pleas of York County, Pennsylvania.
Craig T. Trebilcock joined
Shumaker Williams, P.C. in October of 2006 as a partner
and chairman of our immigration practice group.
His primary focus was on business and health-care
industry immigration.
He represented both business and professional
clients across the
United States.
Prior to developing and
concentrating on his immigration practice, Craig was a
trial attorney.
Craig acted as counsel (pro
bono) for Mr. Albert Snyder against the
Westboro
Baptist
Church’s
harassment of grieving military families at funerals, a
case which was heard by the United States Supreme Court
in 2010.
Craig was the President of the York
County Bar Association in 2011, and was the founder of
the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s award winning project
designed to protect battered women & children.
He also faithfully served on the Board of
Directors for many organizations, including the York
Chapter of the Red Cross.
Craig is an advocate for enlisted military personnel and
veterans alike.
He personally served in the U.S. Army as an
officer in the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps.
Upon retiring from active duty in 1991, Craig
served in the U.S. Army Reserves, where he reached the
rank of Lieutenant Colonel.
In 2003, Craig was recalled to active duty, was
assigned to Marine Corp unit and deployed to Operation
Iraqi Freedom for 15 months.
It was during this deployment that Craig worked
to restore the Iraqi judicial system.
Besides
Iraq,
Craig has served overseas in
Germany
and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
During his combat tour, Craig was awarded with
the Bronze Star, the Army Commendation Medal for Valor
and his unit was the recipient of the Navy/Marine Corps
Presidential Unit Citation for their support of the
First Marine Expeditionary Force during the invasion of
Iraq.
Craig is a published author and has
written
One Weekend a
Month and
No Time for Ribbons.
These written works are written accounts of the
experiences of reserve soldiers in Iraq. Craig has
been married to his wife, Teresa for 27 years and they
have two grown sons.
While we are
very happy for Craig’s accomplishment, it is bittersweet
to see him go.
We wish Craig the very best
as he embarks on the next phase of his career as Judge
of the Court of Common Pleas of York County.
Shumaker
Williams, P.C. is also happy to announce Steven J.
Koehler’s appointment as Chair of our Firm’s Immigration
Practice Group and will continue to offer the same
business immigration services to clients throughout the
United States Mr. Koehler is a member of the American
Immigration Lawyers Association and has been a member of
the York County Bar Association for twenty-eight years.
|
| |
|
|
|
Evan C. Pappas named one of
Central PA’s “Forty Under 40”
 On
Tuesday, October 18, Evan C. Pappas will be honored as
one of Central Penn Business Journal’s 2011
Forty Under 40 award recipients for his commitment to business
growth, professional excellence and the community at an
evening reception and awards program at Hilton
Harrisburg from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. This year marks the
program’s 17th anniversary.
Mr. Pappas is a partner at Shumaker
Williams, P.C., a law firm with offices in
Harrisburg, York and Towson
Maryland.
Mr. Pappas is a member of
the commercial litigation group and handles matters at
various stages of litigation, including pretrial and
discovery proceedings, trials, mediation and
arbitration, bankruptcy court, appeals and enforcement
of judgments. His practice also includes
representation of liquor licensees with regard to liquor
license citations as well as transfer and renewal
hearings before the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board.
Mr. Pappas also advises clients on intellectual
property matters including trademarks, service marks,
copyrights, licensing and infringement.
"I am honored to be
recognized as one of this year’s Forty Under 40!
I look forward to
establishing new connections with the other Forty Under
40 award recipients and building new relationships that
will promote the ongoing economic development in this
city and beyond.”
.
This year’s
nominations for the
Forty Under 40
program ended in late April.
A panel of four
judges, comprised of past award recipients, reviewed and
scored the nominees to determine the top forty list.
2011 judges were
Tonia Ulsh, Chief Operating Officer, Mountz Jewelers;
Deepa Mehta Balepur, Principal/Partner, The Wolman Group
and RE/MAX Associates of Lancaster County; Brian Wassell,
Partner with Trout Ebersole Groff; and Joshua George,
Associate, Site Design Concepts.
Following the event, Mr. Pappas and the other award
recipients will be featured in a special supplement to
the October 21st
edition of the
Central Penn Business Journal.
The list of winners will also appear in the 2012
Book of Lists
publication.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Harrisburg
3425 Simpson Ferry Rd
Camp Hill, PA 17011
717.763.1121 |
Towson
Dulaney Center II
901 Dulaney Valley Road
Suite 610
Towson, MD 21204
410.825.5223 |
York
1 East Market Street
Suite 301
York, PA 17401
717.848.5134 |
|
