Press Room

Press Contact: Jennifer Papantonio • 212-702-3147 •

Tannenbaum Helpern Launches Business Litigation Bulletin

10.29.2012  •  Press Release

New York, NY -- Tannenbaum Helpern's Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice has recently launched Business Litigation Bulletin, a thought leadership series that provides strategic insight on legal cases that impact the business community. While no business wants to be involved in litigation, as a practical matter, companies must be prepared to deal with litigation - whether to vindicate rights, defend against baseless claims, address systemic problems that have been overlooked or simply deal with aggressive negotiation tactics that seek to use the courts to alter the parties' leverage. Knowing and understanding key court rulings can help companies strategically position themselves - either to avoid litigation by modifying behavior to comply with evolving jurisprudence or to make appropriate adjustments to ensure compliance.

"The commercial legal landscape is evolving with each case and court decision. The Business Litigation Bulletin focuses on what the readers really need to know," said Vincent J. Syracuse, Chair of the firm's Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice and former chair of the New York State Bar's Commercial and Federal Litigation Section.

"It is crucial for companies and their legal counsel to keep an eye on the legal developments that impact their business," added Paul D. Sarkozi, a partner in the firm's Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice who was recently named as one of the Top 100 Lawyers in the New York Metro area for 2012 by Super Lawyers. "The Business Litigation Bulletin is designed to provide executives with useful insight in an efficient way, with a particular focus on practical suggestions."

The inaugural issue examines a recent decision from the New York's Commercial Division that may resuscitate the champerty doctrine to prevent litigation in certain distressed debt investments. The next issue, to be released in November, cautions parties that courts may not always enforce term sheet provisions that purport to bar contractual commitments in the absence of a final executed agreement.

This Page