Service of Process via eMail and ePublication

Last month in a Federal Court case pending in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION, Judge Robert M. Dow granted a Motion for the Service of Process via email and electronic publication. 

Those following this Blog know that this is hardly the first time that a similar Motion and Order has been granted in Unites States courts.  As a matter of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), specifically allows courts to grant alternative manners of service on foreign defendants when all other manners of service have been exhausted or have be unsuccessful.

The following is actual language from the Motion arguing for these alternative manners of service.   

Service of Process by E-mail and Electronic Publication is Warranted in this Case Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), Coach requests an order allowing service of process on Defendants via electronic mail (“e-mail”) to the registrant of each of the Defendant Domain Names at the e-mail address provided by the registrant to the registrar and by electronically publishing notice of this action at the Defendant Domain Names.

Electronic service is appropriate and necessary in this case because the Defendants, on information and belief, (1) have provided false physical address information in their registrations for the Defendant Domain Names in order to conceal their locations and avoid liability for their unlawful conduct, and (2) rely primarily on electronic communications to communicate with their registrars and customers, demonstrating the reliability of this method of communication by which the registrants of the Defendant Domain Names may be apprised on the pendency of this action. Coach respectfully submits that an order allowing service of process solely via email and electronic publication in this case will benefit all parties and the Court by ensuring the registrants of the Defendant Domain Names receive immediate notice of the pendency of this action and allowing this action to move forward expeditiously. Absent the ability to serve the Defendants in this manner, Coach will almost certainly be left without the ability to pursue a remedy.

Click the document to link to the actual Motion filed by the plaintiff law firm representing COACH, INC. and COACH SERVICES, INC.,

By Jeff Karotkin

Service of Process Under the Hague Convention... To Mail or not to Mail?

Courts around the country are split as to whether Article 10(a) permits Service of Process by mail in international civil actions, the New York courts are no exception.

Recently the New York Law Journal produced a white paper that provided expert analysis of the issues surrounding the differing points of view of various courts in New York.  

I am probably over simplifying the issue but it appears to me that part of the conflict  has to do with what is the definition of  "Service of Process" on the Hague Convention.  Is it correspondence and other informational material or is it more formal documents like a summons and complaint?  Some courts have held that it is both while others have not. 

It seems to me that if the initiator of the Service of Process and the recipient of the Service of Process are consenting to service via postal, electronic or other more convenient and cost effective channels then who cares. 

I encourage you to learn more by visiting the article at the link provided above.   

Jeff Karotkin

Alernative Service of Process - Service Via Website Posting

Last week a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Judge Ordered Service by alternative means pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3).  This manner of service is somewhat unique and as far as I know has only been ordered exactly this way in one other case.

The Order reads in part as follows:

1. Plaintiff shall serve each Defendant's Summons, Complaint, and all other current
 and future filings in this matter, upon Defendant 8 - chanelbags-2010.com via desianerbags@live.com; upon Defendant 10 - chanelpricelist.com via TopGiftzolzt@gmail.com; upon Defendant l 5 - designerbagsoutlets.com via designerbagsoutlets@hotmail.com; upon Defendant 28 madeinputian.com via madeinputian@hotmail.com; upon Defendant 39
sobestreplicahandbags.com via goodhandbagsonsaleçzgmail.com; upon Defendant 42
swissetawatches.com via saleslwatchzbuy.com; and upon Defendant 46 - topshoesshop.net via
topshoesshopro@hotmail.com ;

2. Plaintiff shall also serve each Defendant's Summons, a copy of the Complaint,
and all other current and future filings in this matter, upon each Defendant in this action via (A)
the e-mail addresses provided by Defendants (i) as part of the domain registration data for each
of their respective domain names, including service via registrar, or (ii) on their websites,
including by onsite submission form s, and/or

3. Plaintiff may effectuate service of process on Defendants via publication by
posting a copy of the Complaint, and Summonses on the Internet website appearing at the URL www.servingnotice.com/sdm/index.html

If you visit the website provided in the Order ( link above) you will find that it is the equivalent of an electronic publication of all the relevant documents in the case that would provide the defendants with actual notice of the lawsuit.  That is assuming they actually visited the site.  The complete Order in this case case her found here.

The other instance of service via a website that is very similar to this example can be found be visiting: www.serviceofpleadings.com  In this case the judge ordered the copies of the pleading to be posting in both English and Chinese as it was believed that the defendant might be of Chinese decent. 

By Jeff Karotkin

Can you Serve Summons & Complaint by Email?

The answer to that question depends upon who you ask.  Those that have been following this blog for the last few years know I have explored this and other challenging questions and concerns that are impacting the private process serving industry. 

Service of legal documents by electronic means has been evolving for more than a decade.  So it is no surprise to me that hardly a month goes by when there is another example of how technology is changing the way law is practiced and how the Service of Process is performed.  

Recently, I was made aware of another example of how things are changing that affect the process serving industry.  The example was a blog post by a company I have been following for some time.  I have considered them worthy of watching because I thought it was likely that their registered email product could be used to displace or disrupt traditional manners of service of process in use today.  That company is RPost.  

Before I forget, upon passing the baton a few years ago to Bob Musser and Eric Vennes (the last two NAPPS Technology committee chairs) I made sure that they knew that I felt strongly that they should be watching RPost.    Whether or not they took my advice, I do not know.

OK, back to RPost, they published a story on their blog recently that posed the question I asked above.  Can you Serve Court Papers by Email.   The quick answer is it depends upon a number of factors including applicable laws, statutes and individual judge rulings that hear requests for alternative forms of service.  Interestingly story cites a case pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of the Texas where RPost was the plaintiff.  The judge in that case Ordered service of process by email and the plaintiff attorneys used RPost's own registered email product to effectuate service on a foreign defendant.  IN my opinion one of the more important aspects of this story is that RPost is now touting its product as a being reliable, secure and court admissible proof of delivery for the Service of court documents.   

It is also be worth noting that RPost recently participated in a roundtable discussion hosted by the Federal Trade Commission.  The roundtable explored how changing technologies affects the ways debt collectors communicate with consumers and how emails are being used by collection agencies in the collection process.  

Now imagine if the debt collector is allowed under the FDCPA regulations to communicate with the debtors using regular email or RPost's product.  If that happens why couldn't a debt collector send a Summons to the debtor using a reliable and secure electronic channel?  The collector might say in the email I can send the summons to you by email or i can send a process server or Sheriff to serve you... You pick, but keep in mind if I send a process server I might include the cost of service in the judgment or settlement amount.  Now that might put a dent in the process serving industries pocket.

 

Of course I am speculating as to what could happen, but I submit my speculation is not too far-fetched. My blog cites more than a dozen examples in recent years where service by electronic means is becoming more and more common. 

If you are a process server that plans on remaining relevant over the next few years you should be asking yourself what are you doing and/or what is your association doing to address these challenges?  If you opt to not take these and the other examples of how the industry is changing seriously you have no one to blame but yourself.      

Service of Process By Mail...

I recently happened upon an article about a ruling from the New York State Appellate Division, Third Department, that held that Service of Process by Postal Mail internationally to countries that are signatories to the Hague Service Convention was not only allowed but was part of the conventions original intent. 

In a time when electronic notification and electronic service of legal process is becoming more and more commonplace this hardly seems like a step forward.  I would argue that given the Hague Convention Treaty was originally implemented almost 50 years ago updates to reflect the technological advances of our time are long overdue. 

The treaty, which currently has 65 member countries, was designed to create a uniform law of service to ensure both timely service to defendants and proof of service for plaintiffs. The treaty requires, in part, that each participating country set up an office to facilitate international service, but also allows for alternative methods, such as mail, as long as the defendant's country does not object. Canada and most other members, according to the ruling, have never objected to service by mail.

What do you think?

by Jeff Karotkin

Service of Process by Email.

Yet another example of how things are changing. This is becoming a common alternative to Physical Service when traditional service methods fail. Some would have you believe that this development is much ado about nothing.

"So long as the method of service is reasonably calculated to reach the defendant and allow the opportunity to object and respond to the litigation, service through e-mail comports with the due process clause," Thynge wrote in her opinion.

For the complete story click here: http://bit.ly/sK6rx8


Remember you heard about this first from SOPLF! The associations follow Service of Process Looking Forward if they want timely, actionable and relevant process serving related content. 
 
Find us on facebook at http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/serviceofprocess/ 

Service of Process on Foreign Corps in the U.S.

United States Senate Bill S. 1946 introduced in the 112th Congress: 2011-2012; would require foreign manufacturers of products imported into the United States to establish registered agents in the United States who are authorized to accept service of process against such manufacturers. This is the third time that such a bill has been proposed in Congress. I believe that this bill deserves to be supported by all the state and national associations. If this bill were passed it could mean a new stream of process to be served in the United States.

In the past NAPPS took a neutral position on similar bills. Neither support or oppose; why? Without getting into the merits of the bill and if it is enforceable, why wouldn’t it be a good thing to allow process to be served in the U.S. on foreign entities doing business here? It seems to me that could generate a lot more work for process servers here. Those who are heavily invested in serving foreign process would naturally oppose this bill.

What do you think?

Remember you heard about this first from SOPLF! The associations follow this blog, my SOPLF group and ServeNow if they want timely, actionable and relevant process serving related content.

Jeff H. Karotkin
jeff@karotkin.com
Facebook group : http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/serviceofprocess/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/SOPLF

Philippine Supreme Court Allows eService of Summons on Foreign Firms

In an ever increasing litigation trend globally, the benefits of today's technologies is set to be implemented in yet another court system.

The Philippine Supreme Court announced the adoption of the use of electronic means to serve summons on foreign corporations who have been sued in the Philippines but have no resident agent or not registered to do business in the country.


The rule states in part:

“When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.”

From a practical standpoint this new rule is similar to the United States Federal Rule of Civil Procedure FRCP 4 (f) (3). U.S. courts have read this provision flexibly, consistent with the constitutional requirements of due process.


For example, in Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio International the United States Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by authorizing plaintiff to serve an Internet business outside the U.S. by email.


What does this mean for process servers? To say I knew for sure would be a stretch. I do believe that as the legal community in the Unites States and globally becomes more familiar with and accustomed to doing business online it is only a matter of time before traditional service of summons and complaints will be allowed by rule electronically.



Posted by Jeff H. Karotkin

Service of Process by Publishing Documents to a Public Website

Another creative way to Serve foreign defendants.

On February 24, 2010, Microsoft provided notice and service of the Complaint, Summons and related materials in English and Chinese through the publicly available website http://bit.ly/fZ5y4w (www.noticeofpleadings.com) Microsoft has updated the website throughout this case.


The Court’s orders and notice regarding this action have also been widely reported in international media publications, including news media in China. (D.I. 32-2 at ¶¶ 15-22.) The reporting and publication of this action in China and throughout the world has been continuous. (Ramsey Decl, Ex. 11 (filed herewith).)

Posted by Jeff Karotkin

Service of Process in a Virtual Law Firm

Reprinted with permission of Virtual Law Practice
Stephanie L. Kimbro, Esq., M.A., J.D.

Virtual Law Office: Kimbro Legal Services, LLC


More virtual law firms are springing up that combine a traditional litigation practice with the features of a virtual law office. Members of these virtual firms use the online law office as a way to communicate and collaborate on case matters and to work remotely. Their clients use the client portal as a way to keep current on the status of their case, review documents, avoid numerous in-office visits and to pay their legal fees online. Some litigation practices, depending on the state bar’s rules, are foregoing the office lease and meeting with clients in shared office spaces with virtual receptionists (if you are a licensed NJ attorney, stick w/the brick & mortar expenses).


One of the questions I hear from litigation-based virtual law firms is how to handle service of process online. Most rules of procedure still require that the summons and any other accompanying documents be handed to the defendant in person at his or her residence or place of business. Different states have variations of the rule. Some require only service of process by licensed, private process servers rather than service by a court official, such as a sheriff. Some allow for electronic service of process. The states also have different forms and time deadlines for the process.

If the case is being filed in U.S. district court, the process is covered by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For an in-depth, 2009 law review article on the topic of electronic service of process in federal court, check out: Electronic Service of Process at Home and Abroad: Allowing Domestic Electronic Service of Process in the Federal Courts, by Ronald Hedges, Kenneth Rashbaum and Adam Losey, The Federal Courts Law Review, Volume 4, Issue 1, 2009.

If you are a virtual law firm, you are more likely to be handling cases where your clients and their case matters are not geographically located in the same cities where you and your firm members are practicing law. Imagine how a multijurisdictional virtual law firm that handles litigation must comply with different states’ rules for service of process. Most states allow for service by mail if the defendant is located in another state. But what if the virtual law firm has a presence in that state in the form of a firm member who is working remotely? Or what if the firm does not have a member physically in that state but who is licensed to practice law in the state that the defendant resides in? Is service by mail allowed then? Can email or social networking sites be used after snail mail fails to work?

I’m sure many of you read about the Australian case in 2008 where the law firm had attempted to follow traditional methods of service and after those failed turned to Facebook as a means of serving the defendant. See another fun law review article on this topic: Superpoked and Served: Service of Process via Social Networking Sites, by Andriana L. Shultz, University of Richard Law Review, Volume 43, 2009.

There are a lot of arguments in favor of electronic service of process which I’m not going to get into. In 2006, the ABA Section of Science and Technology Law updated its Best Practice for Electronic Service of Process. From my reading though, e-service continues to grow in acceptance and use, but is not in every states’ rules of procedure. Many firms, even those that use technology to deliver legal services, still prefer in-person service of process. In certain cases, they may want the in-person method to also convey to the defendant a greater sense of urgency that he or she take the matter seriously. A sheriff banging on the door might send a certain message that a posting on the Facebook wall might not.


For that reason and while waiting for all court systems to get on the electronic service of process bandwagon, a virtual law practice could consider the use of a web-based process server that allows the firm to order, track and manage service of process securely online. This might be a good use of web-based technology to assist a virtual law firm in handling service of process across the country, online in a secure web-based system. I’m sure there are other process server companies out there adapting to the changes in technology, but I’ve been exploring the services offered by USA-Serve and how they might be used by a virtual law firm whether its a solo practice or a larger multijurisdictional firm. The company has a secure portal for attorneys to manage and track service of process. If you are a litigation-based virtual law practice, it might be worth checking out this cloud based service for certain cases.

Know of any other companies providing electronic service of process or that has a web-based system that firms can use to track and manage service of process across the country and internationally? How can these systems’ features be integrated into the case and client management of a virtual law office? As more litigation-based firms add virtual law offices to their services, I would expect to see this component added into the process of managing a client’s case online for use by the firm’s remote attorneys and virtual administrative assistants and paralegals.
 
For more blog posts from the author of this post please visit Virtual Law Practice

Service of Process by E-Mail on a Foreign Defendant

In a case that was heard in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Judge Jeffrey S. White ordered the following:

"Although the Court does not find that the service already effectuated by Plaintiffs was improper, in an abundance of caution and considering that the WikiLeaks Defendants may be foreign  parties, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to re-serve the amended complaint and summons and all TRO-related papers, including this Order, on the WikiLeaks Defendants at their listed email addresses by no later than 3:00 p.m., today, February 13, 2008."

This is an example that the world we live in is getting smaller or perhaps more local.  This is in large part thanks to the power of the internet and its ability to bring things that were once far away or difficult to gain access to directly to our desktops.

The power of the internet and the technology that enables it is making easier  to communicate in ways that were not even contemplated just a few short years ago.   This power to communicate is spilling over into the world of litigation and more specifically the act of giving notice to a party of a pending action or Service of Process.  

This blog has in part called to your attention numerous examples of courts worldwide that have come to recognize that sometimes the most effective manner for providing legal notice of a pending action is by electronic means.  In the past the only alternative for effecting service on a party that could not be located was publication. Now we are seeing service by Twitter, Facebook, and email more and more frequently.  

Is this a much ado about nothing as some in positions of power in the process serving community have suggested or is this yet another example of trend that seems to be gaining momentum?  

You be the judge. 

District of Court Permits International Service of Process via Email

MR Printing Equipment, Inc. and MR Sales and Service, Inc

-v-

Dietmar Potscher

Case Number: 10cv00937

Filed: February 10, 2010

Court: Illinois Northern District Court

U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah permitted Plaintiff, MR Printing Equipment, Inc., to serve a complaint and summons on Austrian defendant, by e-mail. This is yet another example of a continuing trend in federal litigation in the US and courts globally.

The case, MR Printing Equipment, Inc. v. Potscher, is pending in the United States District Court

in Illinois. Upon motion of the MR Printing the court permitted the defendant, to be served via e-mail under Rule 4(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The fact that the defendant resides in Austria which is not a signatory to the Hague Convention and the permissive language of the Federal Rules related to the service of process, allowed the Judge to permit international Service of Process via email.

Below is the Judges Minute Order on the Plaintiff's Motion to allow International Service via email and the Proof of Service filed in the case indicating the manner of service.



Superpoked and Served: Service of Process via Social Networking Sites

Whether professional process servers like it or not increasingly courts worldwide are leveraging technology and social media outlets to provide parties with a method of service that is reasonably calculated to provide actual notice over other forms of alternative service. I submit that this trend is part of a natural evolution of the Service of Process and that service by electronic means is more reliable and predictable than Service by Publication or by the Postal Service.

In 2009 the University of Richmond Law Review Article was published regarding the use of Social Networks to affect Service of Process. I have to admit that I somehow missed its publication. It is yet another example of logical and practical thinking coming from the legal community related to the evolution of Service of Process.

The following are a few key points made in the Law Review article I found worthy of mentioning here...

The fact that the Hague Convention does not expressly permit service of process through social networking sites is not detrimental; the Convention does not expressly permit service through other technological means such as fax and e-mail, but these methods have been approved by a number of courts and were even endorsed by the Hague Commission.

Rule 4 - Courts have held that service of process can be effectuated by electronic means when foreign defendants are evasive. At least one commentator has suggested that electronic service should be permitted in domestic cases, even though doing so would require amending the current Federal Rules. Absent an amendment to the Federal Rules, the only logical prong under which service of process via Facebook might suffice is Rule 4(f).

Technological advancement often presents difficult barriers for courts to overcome in the application of traditional law,” but service of process is “so fundamental to the operation of law that historically [it has] been more open to adaptability and change.” Courts are beginning to find electronic service constitutionally permissible under Mullane, and the trend toward electronic service is “a logical step forward in the evolution of civil procedure and reflects the popular use of new technologies in common communication.” Facebook is one such new technology.

If you would like to read the entire law review article I have posted it to my Google documents page that can be found here.

Service on Foreign Corporations - Hague Convention not Required

California Appellate Court Okays Service on Foreign

Corporations Through Service on Their California

Subsidiaries in Certain Circumstances Despite Hague

Convention Requirements

Authors: Cristian L. Vallejo & Eric S. Jones
http://manattcentral.manatt.com/news.aspx?id=11458


Foreign companies doing, or planning on doing, business in California should be aware that a recent decision from the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District held that under certain circumstances a foreign corporation can be validly served in California by serving such corporation’s California-based subsidiary despite the requirements of the Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters (the “Hague Service Convention”). Such Decision requires foreign companies to be alert to the receipt of service documentation by their California-based subsidiaries.

In Yamaha Motor Company, Ltd. v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth

District reminded us that federal law makes the validity of service dependent on state law. Relying on Cosper v. Smith & Wesson Arms Co. (California Supreme Court decision) and Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk (U.S. Supreme Court case) and interpreting the relevant provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure and Corporations Code, the California Court of Appeal ruled that a Japanese company could be served under California law by serving its American subsidiary (alleged by plaintiff to be the Japanese company’s “general manager” in California) rather than through the Hague Service Convention. The Court of Appeal held that although such method of service seems “too easy a way to get around the Hague Service Convention,” in reality, under California law, that is the case.

The plaintiff in the case was a 12-year-old boy who was injured while riding a Yamaha product. A lawsuit was brought against Yamaha Motor Corporation USA (“Yamaha-America”) and Yamaha Motor Company, Ltd. (“Yamaha-Japan”). Plaintiff alleged that Yamaha-America was the wholly owned domestic subsidiary of Yamaha-Japan and the exclusive importer and distributer of Yamaha vehicles for the United States. In addition, plaintiff alleged that Yamaha-America conducted the following activities in connection with Yamaha vehicles: testing, provision of warranty and owner manuals, marketing, and receiving of all customer complaints and accident reports for the United States. Plaintiff’s theory to serve Yamaha-Japan by serving Yamaha-America was that Yamaha-America was Yamaha-Japan’s “general manager” in California and, as

such, it can be validly served on behalf of Yamaha-Japan under California law.

In Schlunk, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the only transmittal to which the [Hague Service] Convention applies is a transmittal abroad that is required as a necessary part of service” and that “the Due Process Clause does not require an official transmittal of documents abroad every time there is service on a foreign national.” Therefore, the question becomes a matter of state service of process law. That is, if the applicable state law requires service abroad, then the Hague Service Convention will apply, and if it does not, then the Hague Service Convention is not implicated.

While California does state in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 413.10 that the rules Governing summonses are “subject to” the Hague Service Convention, the Yamaha court was quick to point out that “subject to” does not mean “pursuant to the rules of,” but rather that “treaties trump conflicting state law.” Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 416.10, a corporation may be served, among other techniques, by any method authorized in Sections 1701, 1702, 2110, or 2111 of the California Corporations Code. Corporations Code Section 2110 specifically applies to foreign corporations and authorizes hand delivery of process to the “general manager in this state” of a foreign corporation as valid service on such foreign corporation, therefore the Hague Service Convention is not implicated.

In Cosper, while interpreting a subsequently repealed California Corporations Code Section, the California Supreme Court concluded that, under California law, service was proper when the “agent served is of sufficient character and rank to make it reasonably certain that the defendant will be apprised of the service made.” In formulating this language, the court was attempting to determine if a sales representative that operated on a nonexclusive basis was the  “general manager” in California of the foreign corporation. The court found that, yes, such a sales representative was the “general manager” and that service was proper because the representative was of sufficient rank to make it reasonably certain that the foreign corporation

would be apprised of the service made.

Taking into account the fact that Yamaha-America provided to Yamaha-Japan the exclusive services described above, which are much more in-depth than those found in the Cosper case, the Yamaha court found that it was “reasonably certain” that Yamaha-America would apprise Yamaha-Japan of any service in California, and as a result, Yamaha-America was the “general manager” in California for Yamaha-Japan. In addition, the Yamaha court found that the fact that the Corporations Code Section discussed in Cosper had been repealed was a “non-issue,” as the court could not “tease out an intervening change in the statutory law.” Therefore, service on Yamaha-Japan’s domestic subsidiary, Yamaha-America, which acts as its “general manager” in California, was valid.

Although, as a result of this California Court of Appeal’s decision, plaintiffs may, under certain circumstances, forgo service on a foreign corporation pursuant to the Hague Service Convention, it is important to keep in mind that there are very good reasons to prefer such service instead. As Justice O’Connor pointed out in the Volkswagenwerk case, “those who eschew [the Hague Service Convention’s] procedures risk discovering that the forum’s internal law required transmittal of documents for services abroad and that the [Hague Service Convention] provided the exclusive means of valid service.” In addition, she points out that “parties that comply with the [Hague Service Convention] ultimately may find it easier to

enforce their judgments abroad.”

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP’s attorneys stand ready to assist you with any questions you may
have regarding the implications of this decision.

For additional information on this issue, contact:

Cristian L. Vallejo - Mr. Vallejo’s practice focuses on both financial restructuring and finance and corporate transactions with particularly experience in cross border transactions. His experience includes: Representation of lenders and investors in corporate finance transactions of all types; Representation of clients in connection with the start -up and acquisition of companies in the US and throughout Latin America; Representa tion of bondholders, lenders, servicers and other creditors in connection with financial restructuring and workouts, involving multiple jurisdictions, of US and Latin American based companies; and
Representation of clients in connection with the development and financing of large energy and other infrastructure projects throughout Latin America.

Eric S. Jones - Mr. Jones is an associate with the Business, Finance & Tax practice group in the
Los Angeles office. He has a broad-based tax practice in corporate, partnership, international and individual income tax, including mergers and acquisitions, reorganizations and dissolutions, choice of entity considerations, executive compensation, and transactional matters.

http://manattcentral.manatt.com/news.aspx?id=11458