CSG RSS Feedhttp://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=39&format=xml&stylesheet=rss2&directive=0&records=20en-us21 Oct 2020 00:00:00 -0800firmwisehttp://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rssNew Jersey Cannabis Insider: Clearing the Haze for NJ Employers as Recreational Cannabis Goes to Ballot and Medical Use Laws Evolvehttp://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=112234&format=xml&p=7016<p>With the express workplace protections afforded to medical cannabis patients under New Jersey&rsquo;s Jake Honig Compassionate Use Medical Cannabis Act (&ldquo;CUMCA&rdquo;), which was enacted on July 2, 2019, and recreational cannabis on the November 2020 ballot, employers will inevitably face cannabis in the workplace and need to be prepared.</p> <p>It is particularly imperative that employers know their rights and obligations related to medical cannabis pursuant to CUMCA to ensure they are adequately protecting their businesses and protecting against allegations of disability discrimination. Specifically, pursuant to CUMCA, employers are expressly prohibited from taking an &ldquo;adverse employment action&rdquo; against an employee who is a registered qualifying medical cannabis patient based solely on the employee&rsquo;s status as a registrant with the Cannabis Regulatory Commission. Moreover, employers with drug testing policies must now provide written notice and offer the employee or job applicant an opportunity to present a legitimate explanation for any positive drug test result, and an authorization for medical cannabis issued by a healthcare practitioner or a registry identification card is sufficient to provide such a satisfactory explanation. Pursuant to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, employees may also be entitled to a reasonable accommodation for off-duty medical cannabis use and may also be protected from adverse employment actions for such use.</p> <p>However, nothing in CUMCA requires an employer to commit any act that would result in a violation of federal law (including the Drug-Free Workplace Act), that would result in a loss of licensing pursuant to federal law, or that would result in the loss of a federal contract or federal funding. There is also nothing preventing employers from prohibiting employees from possessing or using intoxicating substances during work hours or on work premises.</p> <p>In light of CUMCA and with the potential for the legalization of recreational cannabis pursuant to the Marijuana Legalization Amendment, which, if passed, will likely result in an increase in the already significant portion of the population using cannabis for either medical or recreational purposes, employers need to be proactive and should do the following:</p> <ul> <li> <p>Revisit their drug-related policies to ensure they are in compliance with CUMCA&rsquo;s new drug-testing requirements.</p> </li> <li> <p>Consider modifying or eliminating drug screening for cannabis for positions that are not subject to federal laws mandating a drug free workplace or otherwise safety sensitive. Doing so may reduce the risk of inadvertent discrimination and also prevent employers from losing qualified applicants and employees solely because they test positive for cannabis.</p> </li> <li> <p>Consider training people to recognize when an employee is impaired at work as opposed to relying on drug screens if the employer is more concerned about employees showing up to work impaired (and decreasing productivity and increasing workplace safety concerns/liability), rather than employees&rsquo; off-duty cannabis use. This is because cannabis drug screens detect the presence of cannabis in the system and not present impairment.</p> </li> <li> <p>Consult with legal counsel whenever an employee requests an accommodation associated with medical cannabis and be prepared to engage in the interactive process, to accommodate an employee wherever possible, and to avoid any related adverse employment action.</p> </li> <li> <p>Review job descriptions to ensure appropriate positions are properly identifiable as safety-sensitive.</p> </li> <li> <p>Document performance issues and do so consistently and contemporaneously. Therefore, if someone who happens to be a medical cannabis cardholder is terminated for a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, the employer has a defense to any subsequent allegation that the termination was discriminatory.</p> </li> <li> <p>Apply all policies and procedures consistently.</p> </li> <li> <p>Consult with legal counsel on the nuances of the changing landscape of the law, particularly if you are a multi-state employer as the laws in each state are drastically different.</p> </li> </ul> <p>With the continued evolution of laws governing medical and recreational cannabis, employers may need to adapt and conform to a new operational modality. These best practices can hopefully serve as a guidepost in that process.</p> <p>This article was originally published in <em>NJ Cannabis Insider's </em>October 15, 2020 issue, which can be <a href="https://njcannabisinsider.nj.com/issues/136/index.html">found here</a>.</p>Publication15 Oct 2020 00:00:00 -0800http://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=112234&format=xmlNew Jersey Law Journal: NJ Top 40 - What Does Law Firms' 2019 Momentum Mean for 2020 Performance?http://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=112213&format=xml&p=7016<p>Following the release of the <em>New Jersey Law Journal's</em> 2020 Top 40 list of law firms by revenue, <a href="/?t=3&amp;a=18952&amp;format=xml&amp;p=16431">Daniel A. Schwartz</a> and <a href="/?t=3&amp;a=18886&amp;format=xml&amp;p=16431">Francis J. Giantomasi</a> discussed with the publication the factors that drove CSG's remarkable 8.5% year-over-year revenue growth in 2019 and shared a positive outlook of sustained momentum for both the firm and the future of the practice of law in New Jersey in 2020 and beyond. Notably, CSG was ranked as the 8th largest law firm in the state by revenue.</p> <p>To read the full article, please visit the <a href="https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/2020/10/12/nj-top-40-what-does-law-firms-2019-momentum-mean-for-2020-performance/"><em>New Jersey Law Journal's</em> website</a>.</p>Publication12 Oct 2020 00:00:00 -0800http://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=112213&format=xmlGSC-SHRM: Annual Conference and Expo Virtual Experiencehttp://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=112041&format=xml&p=7016<p><a href="https://www.csglaw.com/biographies/melissa-salimbene">Melissa A. Salimbene</a> and <a href="https://www.csglaw.com/biographies/lindsay-dischley">Lindsay A. Dischley</a> will offer valuable insight on hot topics on the horizon for employers as they present, &ldquo;Reasonable Accommodations Under The ADA And Recent Developments in Cannabis Law,&rdquo; during the 2020 Garden State Council-SHRM Annual Conference &amp; Expo on October 11 from 3:15 &ndash; 4:45 PM.</p> <p>Their virtual session will provide an overview of employer&rsquo;s obligations under the ADA and LAD regarding providing reasonable accommodations to potential and current employees, including when the obligation to engage in the interactive is triggered and when employers are obligated to accommodate a disability. Additionally, they will discuss how employers can best protect themselves from the FMLA trap and discipline or terminate employees with disabilities. In connection with this discussion, Melissa and Lindsay will provide an analysis of the current law on cannabis and how employers should address employee&rsquo;s requests to use medical marijuana as an accommodation pursuant to the ADA and the LAD.</p> <p>For more information and registration, please visit the <a href="https://web.cvent.com/event/6e398815-7a9f-4185-8f06-26b40b232cc9/regProcessStep1:32afa427-cf03-4828-9b91-c6ccfd7298f4">event website</a>.</p>Event11 Oct 2020 00:00:00 -0800http://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=112041&format=xmlBankruptcy Decision's Analysis of Surety's Rights in Bankruptcy and of Bonds as Executory Contracts Raises Concernshttp://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=112113&format=xml&p=7016<p>At a time of unprecedented energy sector bankruptcy filings and the urgent need for clarity concerning the interplay between bankruptcy and surety law, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on September 22, 2020, issued <u>In Re Falcon U</u>, LLC, 2020 WL 5648733, a decision that erroneously concludes that a surety bond is not an executory contract in Chapter 11. While the decision is facially appealing, it is fundamentally flawed and misguided. Sureties should be aware of its flaws and the need for diligent, active bankruptcy representation at the very outset of a principal&rsquo;s Chapter 11 Reorganization, as this decision might be one which sureties will have to confront and expose as mistaken in its analysis so as to avoid disallowance of the surety&rsquo;s claims and preservation of its rights to adequate protection with respect to outstanding surety credit (bonds).</p> <p><strong>The Facts:</strong> The Surety in <u>Falcon</u> issued four bonds to secure its Principal&rsquo;s obligations to several obligees for the plugging and abandonment of wells, for environmental liabilities and to satisfy local licensing requirements. At the time of the bankruptcy filing, the aggregate penal sum of the bonds was approximately $10.5 million; of which approximately $3.2 was secured by cash collateral. It appears likely that the Surety was assured that its rights would be unimpaired by the bankruptcy filing, as the Surety first appeared in the bankruptcy only months after a Plan of Reorganization had been confirmed. While the Plan retained the Surety&rsquo;s rights in its cash collateral, it discharged the remaining $7.3 million consisting of the Surety&rsquo;s unsecured bond exposure. The Plan made no reference to the assumption of the surety bond program or to the interim and final surety bond program which had been approved by interim and final Court orders that governed the surety relationship during the Chapter 11. The decision makes no reference to whether the Surety had informally or otherwise negotiated the terms of those surety bond program orders.</p> <p><strong>The Court's Decision:</strong> The Court&rsquo;s analysis was applied both to the surety bond program evidenced by the two court orders and the pre-petition terms of the bonds and general indemnity agreements. The decision is based upon an erroneous finding that a surety bond is not an executory contract under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code because, again erroneously, the Court found that the Surety had no on-going performance obligations to the Principal under the bonds or indemnity agreements, even though the Court clearly had construed those agreements as a single contract to be read as one agreement. The Court's simplistic discussion of whether the Surety owed a continuing obligation &quot;to the Principal&quot; ignores the nature of the tripartite relationship in the bond in which the consideration continuing to be provided by the Surety is a performance obligation for the benefit of the Principal which is being provided at its request, even if rendered to the third party Obligee. From this erroneous point of departure, the Court concluded as a matter of law that the bonds could not be assumed in bankruptcy, even as an integral part of the surety bond program approved twice by the court and even with the Surety&rsquo;s consent. Contrary to the Court&rsquo;s conclusion, the Surety had several on-going performance obligations. While the obligations were owed to the bond Obligees, the named beneficiaries of the bonds, they were put in place for the benefit of the Principal which continued to derive the value of the Surety&rsquo;s bonds. By virtue of such bonds, the Principal was able to comply with its permit and regulatory obligations and, as a result, could extract gas from wells it could not operate in the absence of the continuing surety credit being provided through maintenance of the subject bonds. Moreover, while the Principal had paid the bond premiums, that did not end its performance obligation (as the <u>Falcon</u> decision clearly acknowledges) and, by extension, the Surety&rsquo;s on-going performance obligations (which the <u>Falcon</u> decision fatally fails to understand). Rather, the Court seemed to overlook the indisputable factual and legal concept that the bonds remained executory as to the Principal as the Principal remained the primary obligor under the bonds, but the Surety held exactly the same performance obligatiofns as the Principal but as a secondary, not primary, obligation of performance. That secondary obligation is indisputably an on-going performance obligation of the Surety. Further, the Principal clearly owed to the Surety the duty of exoneration, a duty that further creates ongoing performance obligations. The Court&rsquo;s error was compounded by its speculation that, even if bonds were executory contracts, they were incapable of being assumed because they constitute contracts of financial accommodation which the Bankruptcy Code excepted from assumption or assignment to, for example, a third party purchaser. While that is true absent consent by the party extending the surety credit, here it appears that consent was given to the post-petition extension of such surety credit by virtue of the Surety&rsquo;s decision not to oppose the surety bond program orders which contemplated continued extension of surety credit through maintenance of the existing bonds and continued payment of premiums. To close its misguided analysis, the Court declared the Surety, as a matter of law, could not consent to an assumption of the bonds even if both parties clearly intended that result by the negotiated arrangement to keep its bonds in place during and after the bankruptcy, with both time periods being governed by the pre-petition, ordinary course of dealing among the parties. This ruling was rendered despite the predominant view of other Bankruptcy Courts that a surety bond is executory, but cannot be assumed or assigned as a contract of financial accommodation <u>absent the consent of the surety</u>. The Judge ruled that the Surety&rsquo;s unsecured $7,361,209.45 claim was contingent and unliquidated because the Surety had incurred no loss as of the confirmation date and, therefore, the claim was discharged. This ruling would seem to fly in the face of a surety&rsquo;s right to be placed in funds, a right which expressly exists in most general indemnity agreements and which, when breached, results in an immediate right to payment, i.e., a fixed claim for damages that is neither contingent nor unliquidated.</p> <p><strong>The Takeaway for Sureties: </strong>Sureties from the outset of a Chapter 11 should consider the need to educate the Court and other parties, regarding the unique nature of the tripartite surety relationship, and the intersection of ongoing contractual obligations and performance required of the various parties, particularly those of both the principal as the primary obligor under the bond and the surety as secondary obligor entitled to exoneration. Participation in the negotiation and court approval of a surety bond program order at the outset of a case is usually needed; and, perhaps more importantly, the surety should ensure that the Plan of Reorganization treats the surety as a voluntary provider of credit entitled to protections similar to those afforded secured lenders. Those protections should survive confirmation of the Plan and the Plan should leave no ambiguity about the surety&rsquo;s rights following the debtor&rsquo;s emergence from bankruptcy. It appears, however, from the Court&rsquo;s discussion of the facts in the <u>Falcon</u> case that the surety may have been lulled into inaction by assurances that its position would be protected and it would ride through the bankruptcy process with its rights unimpaired. But that assurance appears to have been for naught.</p> <p>This case might simply and correctly be viewed as a warning regarding the danger of being lulled into inaction by the assurances of a debtor regarding lack of impairment of the surety&rsquo;s rights as part of a bankruptcy plan. <u>In re Falcon</u> is, however, more pernicious in its analysis. It is a bad decision. Sureties therefore must be mindful of its existence, particularly because the analysis has some superficial appeal; and to avoid a similar result, sureties must be prepared to point out why the court&rsquo;s analysis was incorrect and why a bond is executory, as explained above. Finally, even if a court in a subsequent case were to be convinced that the <u>Falcon</u> Court was correct in its statement that the surety bond is not executory and therefore non-assumable, then it could not properly enter a surety bond program order as was done in the <u>Falcon</u> case as there would be no ongoing obligation to be maintained and no reason for the debtor to continue to pay premiums to maintain bonds that were not executory. In that case, the debtor, assuming that it needs to keep bonds in place, would have to find a surety that would be willing to post new bonds with all the protections available under sections 363 and 364 of the Bankruptcy Code. And the existing surety might consider issuing such bonds to replace its pre-petition bonds, with the beneficial effect of its obligations thereunder now being clearly post-petition and non-dischargeable. Thus, if a subsequent court were to be convinced erroneously that the <u>Falcon</u> Court was right, as long as that issue is addressed up front at the time of a surety bond program motion, the surety&rsquo;s position can only be strengthened. So the ultimate moral is beware of false assurances and make sure that the surety&rsquo;s interests are protected at the outset and in the final confirmed Plan. Of course, the surety in <u>Falcon</u> can hardly be criticized for its reliance upon the assurances it apparently was given. But when courts do not understand the rights of the parties, bad decisions inevitably follow.</p> <p>For more information, please contact your CSG attorney or the authors listed below.</p>Client Alert08 Oct 2020 00:00:00 -0800http://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=112113&format=xmlHRA of Southern NJ: Implementing Diversity and Inclusion in the Workplace Without Creating Legal Liabilityhttp://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=111984&format=xml&p=7016<p><a href="https://www.csglaw.com/biographies/melissa-salimbene">Melissa A. Salimbene</a> and <a href="https://www.csglaw.com/biographies/lindsay-dischley">Lindsay A. Dischley</a>, Members of CSG's Employment Law Group, will present a Human Resource Association of Southern New Jersey roundtable on Wednesday, October 7, from 8:00 &ndash; 11:00 AM. The program, &ldquo;Implementing Diversity and Inclusion in the Workplace Without Creating Legal Liability,&rdquo; will outline the benefits of diversity and inclusion, explain the interplay between D&amp;I initiatives and employment laws, provide practical solutions for successfully implementing this type of program within an organization, and much more.</p> <p>For more information and registration, please visit the <a href="https://hrasnj.shrm.org/events/2020/10/implementing-diversity-and-inclusion-workplace-without">event website</a>.</p>Event07 Oct 2020 00:00:00 -0800http://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=111984&format=xmlDesktop Support Specialist (3-5 Years of Experience)http://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=112035&format=xml&p=7016<p>Chiesa Shahinian &amp; Giantomasi PC (&quot;CSG&quot;), a full-service law firm, is seeking to hire a Desktop Support Specialist to join our team in West Orange, NJ.</p> <p>Position Specialty: Information Technology</p> <p>Position Location: West Orange, NJ</p> <p>Position Description: The Desktop Support Specialist is responsible for effective support, installation/configuration, operation, and maintenance of end user hardware and software and related infrastructure. This individual ensures that hardware, operating systems, software systems, and related procedures adhere to the firm&rsquo;s standards.</p> <p>RESPONSIBILITIES:</p> <ul> <li> <p>Provide Level 1 &amp; 2 support for staff on Microsoft Windows, Office, and other software as well as supporting desktop, laptop, and mobile devices.</p> </li> <li> <p>Participate in Help Desk operations to provide prompt and thorough support to staff and maintaining accurate and timely updates to Help Desk cases.</p> </li> <li> <p>Conduct Active Directory administration tasks such as resetting passwords, unlocking accounts, and adding/removing group memberships.</p> </li> <li> <p>Perform hardware maintenance on workstations, laptops, and other equipment including diagnosis, recommendation, repair, upgrade, and replacement as necessary.</p> </li> <li> <p>Keep current on IT developments, recommending upgrades in hardware/software systems as appropriate.</p> </li> <li> <p>Monitor and ensure installation of operating system updates and assigned software applications.</p> </li> <li> <p>Create and maintain detailed documentation of the IT systems and deployments.</p> </li> </ul> <p>QUALIFYING EXPERIENCE:</p> <ul> <li> <p>3-5 years of experience supporting Windows desktop/laptop PCs.</p> </li> <li> <p>Ability to configure, install, troubleshoot, and maintain workstations, laptops, and tablet PCs.</p> </li> <li> <p>Ability to setup and support Microsoft Windows, Office 2016 and higher and other office productivity software.</p> </li> <li> <p>Working knowledge of basic networking concepts (TCP/IP, DNS, DHCP, etc.).</p> </li> <li> <p>Knowledge of Windows 10 and Active Directory (users, groups, and computers) is a plus.</p> </li> <li> <p>Must be willing and able to coordinate and communicate effectively as a member of the IT team.</p> </li> <li> <p>Must have strong customer service skills and the ability to deal diplomatically with a wide variety of personalities.</p> </li> <li> <p>Must have good verbal skills, be able to explain technical items to non-technical personnel.</p> </li> <li> <p>Must be able to work flexible hours including occasional overtime.</p> </li> <li> <p>A+, MCP, MCITP or similar certifications highly preferred.</p> </li> <li> <p>Experience installing software, patches, updates on desktops &amp; laptops.</p> </li> <li> <p>Experience troubleshooting basic network, software, printing problems.</p> </li> <li> <p>Customer Service Experience a must.</p> </li> <li> <p>Knowledge of Server 2016, 2019.</p> </li> <li> <p>Prior experience working in a law firm or professional services industry.</p> </li> </ul> <p>EDUCATION:</p> <ul> <li> <p>Bachelor&rsquo;s degree preferred</p> </li> </ul> <p>Qualified candidates are encouraged to apply by email to <a href="mailto:recruitment@csglaw.com">recruitment@csglaw.com</a>. NOTE: We are not accepting recruiter submissions for this position.</p> <p><em>At CSG we are committed to the recruitment, development, and retention of diverse attorneys and staff. The firm&rsquo;s two programs &ndash; the Diversity &amp; Inclusion and Women&rsquo;s Initiatives &ndash; provide opportunities for attorneys and employees to enhance their legal careers through career development, mentoring and networking opportunities both within the firm and throughout the business and legal communities as a whole. CSG is proud to be an equal opportunity workplace and an affirmative action employer. Women, Minorities &amp; Veterans are encouraged to apply.</em></p>Available Position - Staff06 Oct 2020 00:00:00 -0800http://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=112035&format=xmlNew Jersey Board of Public Utilities Approves Application for Year 2 of the Community Solar Pilot Programhttp://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=112018&format=xml&p=7016<p>On October 2, 2020, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (the &ldquo;Board&rdquo;) officially approved the application to be used for Year 2 of the Community Solar Pilot Program (the &ldquo;Program&quot;). Year 2 of the Program will consist of 150 MW of projects (40% of which must serve low and moderate income customers), which will be evaluated by the same point system used by the Board for Year 1 of the Program.</p> <p>Project applications must be submitted electronically on or before February 5, 2021 via a yet to be established portal.</p> <p>For more information or assistance in filing an application, please contact your CSG attorney or the authors listed below.</p>Client Alert05 Oct 2020 00:00:00 -0800http://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=112018&format=xmlMid Atlantic Real Estate Journal: 6th Annual Industrial Real Estate Development Virtual Conferencehttp://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=111895&format=xml&p=7016<p>Join <a href="https://www.csglaw.com/biographies/dennis-toft">Dennis M. Toft</a> on Friday, October 2, at 11:20 AM as he presents, &ldquo;Industrial Development, Getting a Project Completed &amp; Financing and Future Trends,&rdquo; for the Mid Atlantic Real Estate Journal's 6th Annual Industrial Real Estate Development Virtual Conference.</p> <p>For more information and registration, please visit the <a href="https://marej.regfox.com/6th-annual-new-jersey-industrial-development-conference">event website</a>.</p>Event02 Oct 2020 00:00:00 -0800http://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=111895&format=xmlCSG Well-Represented in ROI-NJ 2020 Influencers: People of Color Listhttp://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=111976&format=xml&p=7016<p>Chiesa Shahinian &amp; Giantomasi PC (&ldquo;CSG&rdquo;) congratulates <a href="/?t=3&amp;a=19337&amp;format=xml&amp;p=16431">Shirley U. Emehelu</a>, <a href="/?t=3&amp;a=19697&amp;format=xml&amp;p=16431">Jason Holt</a> and Ariel Rivera for being named among <em>ROI-NJ&rsquo;</em>s 2020 Influencers: People of Color List &mdash; a recognition of New Jersey&rsquo;s most impactful and influential people of color. Notably, CSG had the largest presence of the State&rsquo;s law firms within the listing.</p> <p>&ldquo;Fostering a continuously more diverse and inclusive workplace is a strategic imperative for our firm&rsquo;s leadership, and outstanding professionals such as Shirley, Jason and Ariel &mdash; each of whom brings their own unique perspectives and backgrounds to the benefit of the CSG family &mdash; have been critical in moving us toward that objective,&rdquo; said <a href="/?t=3&amp;a=18952&amp;format=xml&amp;p=16431">Daniel A. Schwartz</a>, CSG&rsquo;s Managing Member. &ldquo;We are thankful to each of them for their many contributions, and we are delighted to be so well-represented amid such a prestigious group of the State&rsquo;s business leaders.&rdquo;</p> <p><em>ROI-NJ</em> credits Ms. Emehelu, through her role as Chair of CSG&rsquo;s Diversity and Inclusion Committee, with spearheading the firm&rsquo;s response to the racial injustices that took place in the spring and helping the firm raise more than $24,000 for the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice. In addition, she is currently advancing efforts to expand the firm&rsquo;s pro bono, training and development programs. Ms. Emehelu &mdash; who joined CSG after an almost decade-long career as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney&rsquo;s Office for the District of New Jersey, where she served as Chief of Asset Recovery and Anti-Money Laundering &mdash; is a Member of the firm&rsquo;s Litigation Group and co-leader of the Banking &amp; Finance Group, with her practice focusing on complex commercial litigation, financial regulatory compliance, white collar defense, corporate and government investigations, and asset recovery.</p> <p>The publication touts Mr. Holt&rsquo;s many high-profile roles in public service prior to joining CSG &ndash; which have included Business Administrator to the City of Atlantic City to assist in the implementation of the Municipal Stabilization &amp; Recovery Act, and Corporation Counsel to the City of East Orange, where he oversaw the broad spectrum of the city&rsquo;s legal affairs. Advancing the principles of diversity and inclusion was a central theme throughout Mr. Holt&rsquo;s career in public office. In acknowledgment of his commitment and civic efforts, he was awarded a Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition for his work on civil rights. As a Member with the firm&rsquo;s Real Estate, Development &amp; Land Use Group, he draws upon his background navigating the political and economic challenges that arise throughout the redevelopment process to assist both government entities and real estate developers. Notably, he is also a key member of CSG's Diversity &amp; Inclusion Committee.</p> <p>Mr. Rivera, who serves as the firm&rsquo;s Communications Specialist, was named to the <em>Rising Stars</em> segment of the list and dubbed &ldquo;one to watch in corporate communications.&rdquo; An essential member of the firm&rsquo;s marketing and business development team, Mr. Rivera &ldquo;has established himself as a trusted resource, a strong writer and a selfless team player who is always focused first and foremost on what is best for the CSG Law firm.&rdquo;</p> <p>To view the full <em>ROI-NJ</em> 2020 Influencers: People of Color list, please <a href="https://www.roi-nj.com/2020/09/29/roi-influencers/people-of-color/roi-nj-presents-our-roi-influencers-people-of-color-2020-list/">click here</a>.</p>News02 Oct 2020 00:00:00 -0800http://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=111976&format=xmlTwo CSG Attorneys Recognized Among 2020 New York Metro Super Lawyershttp://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=111951&format=xml&p=7016<p>Chiesa Shahinian &amp; Giantomasi PC (&ldquo;CSG&rdquo;) is pleased to announce that two attorneys in its New York City office &ndash; <a href="/?t=3&amp;a=19042&amp;format=xml&amp;p=16431">Samuel Newbold</a> and <a href="/?t=3&amp;a=22097&amp;format=xml&amp;p=16431">Matthew E. Foreman</a> &ndash; have been selected for inclusion in the 2020 edition of New York <em>Super Lawyers</em>.</p> <p>&ldquo;This recognition of Sam and Matt, both outstanding attorneys in their respective fields and representatives of the future of our firm, is welcome validation of the stellar team we have put in place across the river as we <a href="/?t=40&amp;an=111071&amp;anc=2095&amp;format=xml">continue to expand our New York City presence</a>,&rdquo; noted <a href="/?t=3&amp;a=18952&amp;format=xml&amp;p=16431">Daniel A. Schwartz</a>, CSG&rsquo;s Managing Member. &ldquo;We are grateful to our peers for their continued support in this prestigious listing.&rdquo;</p> <p>Newbold, Chair of CSG&rsquo;s Immigration Law Group, has been selected for inclusion in the 2020 edition of <em>New York Super Lawyers &ndash; Rising Stars</em>, which recognizes the top 2.5 percent of lawyers who are either under the age of 40 or have been in practice for ten years or less. Newbold, acknowledged as a <em>Rising Star</em> in the area of Immigration since 2014, represents companies from across the country as well as multinational organizations spanning the globe, providing counsel on employment-based immigration matters as well as corporate compliance best practices. He has developed a robust emerging companies practice, serves as a member of CSG&rsquo;s Alternative Capital Group and manages the firm&rsquo;s EB-5 practice.</p> <p>A newcomer to the firm, Foreman was awarded the <em>Super Lawyers</em> distinction for 2020 in the Taxation area. He provides counsel on a broad range of tax issues to ensure that clients understand the tax implications of their operations and transactions, comply with federal, state and local tax laws and regulations, reduce the risk of a tax audit, and improve efficiency by eliminating unnecessary structures. Prior to joining CSG in September 2020, Foreman served as Managing Attorney of The Law Offices of Matthew E. Foreman P.C. He has been previously recognized as a Super Lawyer Rising Star in 2018 and 2019.</p> <p>Each year, the research team at <em>Super Lawyers</em>, which is a service of Thomson Reuters &ndash; Legal division, undertakes a multi-phase selection process. This process includes a statewide survey of lawyers, independent evaluation by the attorney-led research staff, a peer review by practice area, and a good-standing and disciplinary check.</p>News01 Oct 2020 00:00:00 -0800http://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=111951&format=xmlOpportunityDb Podcast: Securities Law Considerations for Opportunity Zone Fundshttp://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=111952&format=xml&p=7016<p><a href="/?t=3&amp;a=19040&amp;format=xml&amp;p=16431">Clem G. Turner</a> was featured on the <em>OpportunityDb Podcast</em> discussing the myriad of securities laws that Qualified Opportunity Fund issuers should be aware of prior to raising capital from investors, as well as the major differences between the different types of private placement offerings available to those interested in participating in the Qualified Opportunity Zone program.&nbsp;</p> <p>To listen to the podcast, please visit <a href="https://opportunitydb.com/2020/09/clem-turner-110/"><em>OpportunityDb's</em> website</a>.</p>Publication30 Sep 2020 00:00:00 -0800http://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=111952&format=xmlCSG's Chung Appointed Trustee to The Historical Society of the United States District Court for the District of New Jerseyhttp://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=111913&format=xml&p=7016<p>Chiesa Shahinian &amp; Giantomasi PC (&ldquo;CSG&rdquo;) is proud to announce that <a href="/?t=3&amp;a=19033&amp;format=xml&amp;p=16431">Jenny Chung</a> has been appointed as a Trustee of the Historical Society of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (&ldquo;the Society&rdquo;). She was nominated for the role by the Honorable Leda Dunn Wettre, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of New Jersey, and unanimously voted in during a virtual Board Meeting of the Society on September 21, 2020.</p> <p>Since its founding more than 20 years ago, the Society has been dedicated to celebrating and preserving the 220-year history of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey &ndash; the second oldest in the nation. It has created and hosted numerous programs commemorating the history of the Court, as well as taken the lead in restoring and highlighting historic Courthouse artwork.</p> <p>A frequent litigator in the District of New Jersey, Chung is an associate with CSG&rsquo;s Litigation, White Collar Criminal Defense &amp; Government Investigations and Product Liability &amp; Toxic Tort Groups &ndash; focusing her practice on criminal, civil and general tort litigation. She also serves as President of the Asian Pacific American Lawyers Association of New Jersey and is an active member of the firm&rsquo;s Diversity &amp; Inclusion Committee.</p> <p>Chung began her legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable Michael A. Hammer, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of New Jersey. She is a graduate of Brooklyn Law School and earned her undergraduate degree from Boston University.</p> <p>To learn more about The Historical Society of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, please <a href="http://www.history.njd.uscourts.gov/">click here</a>.</p>News29 Sep 2020 00:00:00 -0800http://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=111913&format=xmlNew Jersey Business Magazine: Helping small businesses survive and thrivehttp://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=111915&format=xml&p=7016<p><a href="/?t=3&amp;a=19000&amp;format=xml&amp;p=16431">Edward B. Stevenson</a>, Co-Chair of CSG&rsquo;s Corporate &amp; Securities Group, was featured in a <em>New Jersey Business Magazine</em> article outlining the many ways accountants, attorneys and financial institutions are helping small businesses navigate the challenging landscape the coronavirus pandemic has brought to bear. In the article, Ed focuses on the implications of <em>force majeure</em> clauses on supplier relationships, as well as considerations for businesses faced with a departing shareholder or partner and the subsequent agreement termination procedures.</p> <p>To read the full article, please visit <a href="http://digital.njbmagazine.com/publication/?m=18790&amp;i=674088&amp;p=32"><em>New Jersey Business Magazine's</em> website</a>.</p>Publication28 Sep 2020 00:00:00 -0800http://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=111915&format=xmlNJBIZ: Paradigm Shift - How some New Jersey businesses plan to observe the first Juneteenth holiday next yearhttp://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=111935&format=xml&p=7016<p><a href="/?t=3&amp;a=19337&amp;format=xml&amp;p=16431">Shirley U. Emehelu</a>, Member with the firm's&nbsp;Government &amp; Corporate Investigations Group and Chair of CSG's Diversity &amp; Inclusion Committee, was featured in an <em>NJBIZ </em>article exploring the business community's reaction to New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy's signing of a bill establishing Juneteenth as a state holiday. Shirley discusses CSG's consideration of Juneteenth as a dedicated firm holiday and day of service, as well as the Committee's efforts to drive awareness around racial injustice and social movements.</p> <p>To read the full article, please visit <a href="https://njbiz.com/juneteenth-nj-business-observance-paradigm-shift/"><em>NJBIZ's</em> website</a>.</p>Publication28 Sep 2020 00:00:00 -0800http://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=111935&format=xmlABA Fidelity and Surety Law Committee Newsletter: Claims Against Sureties Under The Unfair Trade Practices Act And The Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Acthttp://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/RA534S261/assets/files/News/Kantar_ABA FSLC Fall 2020 Newsletter_Claims Against Sureties Under the Unfair Trade Practices Act And The Unfair Claims Settlement Act.pdf&format=xml&p=7016<p><a href="/?t=3&amp;a=18902&amp;format=xml&amp;p=16431">Brian Kantar</a> was published in the American Bar Association Fidelity and Surety Law Committee's Fall 2020 Newsletter with an article titled, &quot;Claims Against Sureties Under The Unfair Trade Practices Act And The Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act.&quot; In the article, he examines the history of the model unfair trade practice and unfair claims settlement practice acts (the &ldquo;Acts&rdquo;), highlights certain key provisions of the Acts, and evaluates issues that sureties are often required to address under the Acts.</p> <p>To read the full article, please view the PDF below.</p>Publication25 Sep 2020 00:00:00 -0800http://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/RA534S261/assets/files/News/Kantar_ABA FSLC Fall 2020 Newsletter_Claims Against Sureties Under the Unfair Trade Practices Act And The Unfair Claims Settlement Act.pdf&format=xmlBio Only Publication Testhttp://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=111887&format=xml&p=7016<p>Text goes here</p>Bio Only Publication25 Sep 2020 00:00:00 -0800http://csglaw.wiseadmin.biz/?t=40&an=111887&format=xml