19 McCandlish Holton  Attorneys Named 'Legal Elite' in Virginia Business 23rd Edition

McCandlish Holton is pleased to announce that nineteen of our attorneys are named in the 23rd Edition 'Legal Elite' by Virginia Business Magazine. Each year Virginia Business Magazine asks attorneys throughout the Commonwealth to nominate their peers for distinction in 20 categories. The full list of 19 McCandlish Holton attorneys on this year’s Legal Elite list, recognized in 7 categories: 

Read More

McCandlish Holton’s Top 5 From 2021

As we prepare to welcome 2022, we revisit five memorable McCandlish Holton moments from 2021 worth sharing, celebrating and commemorating during a globally challenging year, complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The following is a list of inclusion, not order,  featuring our firm’s top five from 2021:

Read More

20 McCandlish Holton Attorneys Named 2021 Virginia 'Legal Elite'

The 22nd Edition of Virginia Business Magazine Legal Elite recognizes twenty McCandlish Holton attorneys in seven practice categories: Civil Litigation, Immigration, Business Law, Construction, Labor/Employment Law, Real Estate/Land Use, and Young Lawyer.

Read More

Mike Gladstone to Speak on Uranium Mining Case at IADC Regional Virtual Meeting

Mike Gladstone, civil litigation attorney and member of the McCandlish Holton trial team that successfully represented the Office of the Attorney General of Virginia in Wise County Circuit Court on behalf of the Commonwealth in defense of the moratorium on uranium mining, will present ‘‘RIP: A Very Short History of Virginia’s Uranium Litigation from Richmond, Virginia’’ at the IADC Mid-Atlantic Virtual Regional Meeting held in Richmond, Virginia on October 28, 2021.

Read More

Supreme Court of Virginia Refuses to Hear Virginia Uranium’s Request for Appeal

 

Outcome Obtained by Trial Team Becomes Final

On September 30, 2021, the Supreme Court of Virginia announced their refusal to hear an appeal from Virginia Uranium Incorporated (‘‘VUI’’) seeking review of the July 30, 2020 decision from the Wise County Circuit Court. The Supreme Court determined: “The court is of the opinion there is no reversible error in the judgment complained of,” ending this round of litigation which first began in 2015.

Read More

The 2021 Proposed Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act- New Protections for Virginia Consumers, Burdens for Virginia Businesses

By: Michael H. Gladstone, Esq. Mike's Bio

Senators Marsden and Dunnavant introduced Senate Bill No. 1392 this session, a bill providing a “Consumer Data Protection Act” for Virginia. Code of Virginia §§ 59.1-579 – 580. The Act authorizes consumers to determine, by inquiry to a controller, whether or not their personal data is being processed by a data controller or processer and, if it is, on a qualified basis (only “commercially reasonable efforts” required) to correct inaccuracies, obtain a copy of the data, and opt out of future processing, and to delete the data. The bill has a delayed effective date of January 1, 2023.

Terms utilized in the Act and their lengthy definitions have the ring of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), however, in comparison, the Act’s effect is much more modest.  

Which Businesses Qualify?

The Act limits its application to data controllers and processers conducting business in the Commonwealth or businesses which produce products or services targeted to Virginia residents and which control or process personal data of at least 100,000 consumers, or control or process data of at least 25,000 consumers and derive over 50% of their gross revenue from the sale of personal data. The Act’s coverage is not, thus, strictly limited to businesses which

Read More

25 McCandlish Holton  Attorneys Named 2020 Virginia 'Legal Elite'

25 McCandlish Holton attorneys are recognized in the 21st Edition of Virginia Business Magazine Legal Elite in 11 practice categories. Launched in cooperation with the Virginia Bar Association, the Legal Elite polls lawyers licensed to practice in Virginia each year, asking them to identify which of their peers are the top attorneys in a variety of legal specialties. Below, find the full list of McCandlish Holton attorneys named on this list Legal Elite list: 

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION:

James M. Snyder

BANKRUPTCY/CREDITORS' RIGHTS:

C. Walker Terry

BusinesS law:

Samuel C. Haisley

Civil Litigation:

D. Cameron Beck, Jr.

Lawrence A. (Lex) Dunn

Michael H. Gladstone

J. Matthew Haynes, Jr.

Lauren E. Hutcheson [Read Lauren’s Profile]

Joseph M. Moore

Brennan C. Morrissett

Read More

McCandlish Holton Trial Team Successfully Defends Commonwealth’s Uranium Mining Moratorium Against Constitutional Challenge

McCandlish Holton, PC Directors Cameron Beck, Michael Gladstone and Audra Dickens obtained a significant and noteworthy trial outcome on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the matter of Virginia Uranium Inc., et al, v. Commonwealth of Virginia, et al, heard recently in the Circuit Court of Wise County, Virginia. Following a four-day trial in July of 2020, the trial court upheld Virginia’s uranium mining moratorium. The outcome is significant because of its statewide implications for the human and environmental health of Virginians.    

Background of the Litigation

After unsuccessful efforts lobbying the legislature to reverse the General Assembly’s 1983 temporary uranium mining moratorium, Virginia Uranium Inc. and land owners of a uranium deposit in rural Pittsylvania County, Virginia, filed lawsuits in federal and state court in 2015 to remove the Commonwealth’s uranium mining moratorium. The Plaintiffs

Read More

McCandlish Holton's Response to COVID-19

McCandlish Holton wishes to assure our clients and the community that we are working to maintain full operations during the current health crisis. We are carefully following the regional and national updates on the spread and impact of COVID-19 (Coronavirus) to protect our employees, clients, and community.

Read More

Early Pattern Emerges for Federal Consideration of GDPR-based Objections to Discovery

A Series By: Michael H. Gladstone, Esq. Mike's Bio

In Finjan, Inc. v. Zscaler, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24570 the USDC for the Northern District of California addressed an objection by Defendant to discovery propounded by Plaintiff seeking emails possessed by one of defendant’s European employees.  The objection argued the employee’s emails may not be produced without violating privacy requirements contained in the GDPR, which became effective in May, 2018.  The Court approached the dispute methodically and provided what this author predicted may be a model for future analysis of discovery objections under the GDPR by U.S. Courts of such disputes. 

[Are You Within the Reach of the GDPR?]

The Court first announced the general rule that “…a foreign country’s statute precluding disclosure of evidence does “not deprive an American court of the power to order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce evidence even though the act of production may violate that statute.”  Societe Nationale Industreille Aerospatiale v. United States Dist. Court for Southern Dist., 482 U.S. 522, 544 n. 29, 107 S. Ct. 2542, 96 L Ed. 2d 461 (1987).  The Court then identified the considerations pertinent to the question whether or not a foreign statute excuses non-compliance with a U.S. discovery order:  1. The importance of the documents or other information requested to the litigation, 2. The degree of specificity of the request, 3. Whether the information originated in the United States, 4. The availability of alternative means of securing the information, and 5. The extent to which noncompliance would undermine important interests of the United States.  Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F. 2d 1468, 1475 (9th Cir. 1992). 

The Court addressed the factors individually. 

Consideration No. 1: The importance of the documents or other information requested to the litigation. The court concluded the documents were directly relevant to the infringement issue and the data subject’s knowledge of the patented technology at issue.  As such, this consideration weighed in favor of disclosure. 

Litigation Participants Subject to GDPR Must Justify their Use of Protected Data

Consideration No. 2: The degree of specificity of the request. The court found the

Read More

Content not found