In an article published on July 11, 2018, Bloom Parham Counsel Troy Covington provides insight into the impact a conservative majority on the Supreme Court could have on cases regarding reproductive rights. Covington spoke to Business Insider about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s record on abortion. “Judge Kavanaugh has spoken before about the value of precedent, so it’s impossible to say for sure, but I think the most likely outcome, if he is confirmed, is that we would not see a stark reversal.” Covington says. You may read the full article here.
In the Atlanta Business Chronicle edition published on May 4, 2018, Simon Bloom is featured in the publication’s Executive Profile. Bloom recounts his path from a large law firm to launching his own firm, Bloom Parham, LLP – as well as highlights his active work in the nonprofit space. Hope+Access, which Bloom founded in 2017, aims to serve underprivileged youth in the city by working with community churches. “We are driving generational change to attack poverty where it lives, starting with our kids.” Bloom says. Subscribers to the Atlanta Business Chronicle may read the full article here.
In an article published in the Daily Report’s In-House Georgia section on May 7, 2018, Bloom Parham Managing Partner Steve Parham provides insight into best practices for businesses hiring outside counsel. Parham writes that companies both large and small should make careful considerations before engaging outside counsel, such as making comprehensive engagement management and exit process plans, to ensure the relationship begins and remains on the right track. For the full article, you may click here.
In a recent article published in Construction Executive, Bloom Parham Managing Partner Steve Parham and Counsel Troy Covington provide insight regarding how to handle bankruptcy for an owner of a real estate company or a contractor. Parham and Covington write that the Bankruptcy Code determines how a project will move forward following a bankruptcy. The code allows a bankruptcy trustee (in a Chapter 7 dissolution case) or the debtor-in-possession (in a Chapter 11 reorganization case) either to assume or to reject an executory contract. Then, a debtor-in-possession has until the time of the confirmation of its plan of reorganization to decide if it will assume or reject the contract. In many states the law provides that if the debtor files bankruptcy, the contractor does not have to commence an action against the debtor and instead may bring an action directly against the property owner. For the full article, you may click here.
In an article published on February 11, 2018, in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Simon Bloom, a partner with and the founder of Bloom Parham, LLP, was featured for being appointed to the advisory board of Teach for America Metro-Atlanta, an organization that was founded in 2000. The organization is committed to pursuing educational equity and excellence. Late last year, Bloom, who is dedicated to serving the Atlanta community, founded the nonprofit Hope+Access, which seeks to provide educational opportunities to the communities of two of Atlanta’s historic African-American church communities. In addition to this appointment, he has previously served in several roles for the Boys & Girls Club of Metro Atlanta, on the governing board for the Great Promise Partnership, the advisory council board of the Marcus Autism Center and the board of directors of Project Open Hand. If you are a subscriber to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, you may access the digital edition of the newspaper here.
In a recent article published in Public Now, Shannan Oliver, counsel with Bloom Parham, was mentioned for her recent election to March of Dimes’ Atlanta board. The nonprofit’s mission is to improve the health of mothers and babies by preventing birth defects, premature birth and infant mortality. For the full announcement, you may click here.
On January 8, 2018, the United States Supreme Court denied Bamberger-Rosenheim, Ltd.’s (also known as “Profimex”) petition for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirming the confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of OA Development, Inc. (“OAD”). Profimex asked the Supreme Court to hear the case to consider the Eleventh Circuit’s holding that an arbitrator’s determination of arbitral venue under the parties’ arbitration agreement is entitled to deference.
Profimex had argued that the international character of the arbitration required the court to apply a more rigorous standard of review to the arbitrator’s construction of a venue provision because of alleged substantive consequences that attach to the venue of the arbitration in the international context. The Eleventh Circuit had relied on well-established law that arbitrators are presumed to decide disputes regarding arbitration procedures and agreed with four other circuit courts of appeal that disputes over the interpretation of venue selection clauses raise presumptively arbitrable procedural questions. The Supreme Court’s decision to decline review of the case allows the Eleventh Circuit’s decision and the reasoning behind it to stand.
Represented metro-Atlanta municipality in a suit by a former employee alleging violations of federal law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act, in her termination. Bloom Sugarman moved for summary judgment on all counts, arguing the motion before a magistrate judge in the Northern District of Atlanta. After argument, the magistrate judge recommended granting our motion on all counts. The District judge adopted the recommendation in full, agreeing that the defendant had not violated any laws in the termination and taxing costs to the plaintiff.
On July 17, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Simon Bloom and Troy Covington’s victory at the U.S. District Court where Judge Eleanor Ross confirmed the arbitration award in favor of our client OA Development, Inc. against Bamberger-Rosenheim, Ltd. Bamberger argued that OAD’s claims should not have been arbitrated in Atlanta under the applicable venue provision found in the parties’ arbitration agreement.
The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, holding that the arbitrator’s venue determination was entitled to deference. The court relied on well-established law that courts must defer to arbitrators’ determinations regarding arbitration procedures such as venue. The panel’s published opinion joined four other circuit courts of appeal in concluding that disputes over the interpretation of venue selection clauses are procedural and should be left to the arbitrator to decide as long as it was clear that the arbitrator arguably interpreted the provision in good faith. In this case, because the arbitrator plainly engaged with the language of the agreement and more than arguably interpreted the venue provision at issue, the court deferred to the arbitrator’s interpretation. Depending on further appeals, the District Court will next address OAD’s motion for attorneys fees against Bamberger.
Simon Bloom argued the appeal before the appellate panel on May 17, 2017 and Troy Covington authored the briefing.
On June 6, 2017, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued a decision which clarifies the standard that Georgia courts should apply when examining alleged evidence of undue influence. The opinion almost completely reverses retired Superior Court Judge Wendy Shoob’s order granting summary judgment based on the erroneous conclusion that a fact finder may only look at evidence of undue influence that occurred on the date of execution of challenged documents. Instead, the Court reiterated years of precedential Georgia case law and made clear that a trier of fact in an undue influence case may look at evidence indicative of undue influence before, during and after the date of execution of the challenged documents.
In addition to incorrectly limiting the scope of the evidence, the Court also found that the trial court discredited evidence, adopted the opposing party’s theory of the case, and improperly weighed the evidence. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on our client’s undue influence claims, as well as the opposing parties’ adverse declaratory judgment claims.
Slosberg v. Giller, et al., Case No A17A0091, A17A0092 (Ga. Ct. App. June 6, 2017)