Severna Park, MD
Litigation Lawyer at Severna Park, MD
Practice Areas: Litigation, DUI & DWI ... +2 more
OUTCOME: Affirmed in Part. Reversed and Remanded in Part.
Represented group of property owners in West Virginia in appeal of trial court ruling concerning disputed HOA by-laws. Supreme Court of West Virginia found trial court abused its discretion in certain ... rulings against the property owner clients.
OUTCOME: Case dismissed.
Civil fraud case brought by large Maryland corporation. Represented individual defendants in getting case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in written opinion.
OUTCOME: Acquitted at trial of 13 of 18 counts
Defendant charged with 18 counts of mail and wire fraud related to alleged real estate fraud scheme. In six-week joint trial our client was succesful in defeating most of the charges against her. She ... also received a significantly reduced sentence compared to the co-defendants. Numerous trial errors were raised on appeal but no new trial was granted.
OUTCOME: Permanent Injunction
In 2006, the Maryland General Assembly sought to fire the Public Service Commission. The Plaintiffs brought suit to enjoin the enforcement of the litigation and succeeded before the Court of Appeals. ... The law was found unconstitutional and the members of the Public Service Commission remained on the job. Schisler, et al. v. State of Maryland, 394 Md. 519, 907 A.2d 175 (2006).
OUTCOME: Won Appeal of Beneficial Zoning Decision
A resident who lives nearby an apartment building that houses nine AT & T telephone antennas on its roof has appealed a decision from the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. He claims that the upgrading ... of the equipment on the roof expanded the conditional use of the building. The circuit court held that the Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals did not have to provide notice and a hearing before granting approval of AT & T's action. We affirm that decision. On March 7, 1996, AT & T applied to the Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals to erect rooftop telecommunications radio towers and electronic equipment at Belvedere Towers, an eight-story apartment building located in a residential zoning district. The radio towers provide links in the Baltimore area for AT & T's national wireless telecommunications system. At the hearing thereafter, no one spoke in opposition. In fact, the North Roland Park Improvement Association, Baltimore City Fire Department, and the Baltimore City Department of Transportation all went on record by letters to the Board as being not opposed. The Board subsequently approved the conditional use, which no one appealed, and consequently that decision received no subsequent review. AT & T constructed the towers and enclosed the requisite electronic equipment inside a 350-square-foot rooftop penthouse compartment. None of that electronic equipment is visible from outside the Belvedere Towers. Four years later, in 2000, AT & T determined that it needed to improve the capacity of the materials at the Belvedere Towers to process cellular telephone calls. Cautiously, it sought administrative approval of its intention to upgrade the system, by writing to Susan Williams on the planning staff of the Board. Ms. Williams, by memorandum to the Board, responded that since the changes were not visible, there should be no objection. Also, out of an abundance of caution, AT & T contacted several neighborhood associations about the proposed improvements and succeeded in stopping any organized opposition. Nevertheless, one resident, Hunter Cochrane, appellant, did object, and after the Board, by resolution, approved AT & T's request, he noted an appeal to the circuit court, which upheld the Board, following a hearing. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court’s ruling.
OUTCOME: Settlement of $1.1 Billion
We participated in litigating one of the largest securities fraud class action cases in United States History, In Re Royal Ahold N.V. The case involved allegations of fraudulent accounting practices i ... n violation of federal securities laws by Dutch supermarket conglomerate Royal Ahold, N.V. When the case settled for $1.1 billion dollars, it became one of a handful of “mega-fund†cases. Other “mega-fund†settlements resulted from the high profile accounting scandals at WorldCom and Cendant. The law firm of Entwistle & Cappucci, one of the leading securities fraud firms in the nation, approached Andrew Radding to enlist the Adelberg firm’s support in bringing the case in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. After cases from throughout the country were consolidated in the Maryland Federal Court, the Entwistle/Adelberg team got to work to make the case to be appointed as lead counsel for the Plaintiffs. Andrew Entwistle was appointed by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland to serve as lead counsel for the Plaintiffs and Andrew Radding was appointed by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland as local liaison counsel for the case. The Entwistle/Adelberg team prevailed over a number of the top firms in the nation to gain the Court’s trust to handle the case on behalf of all the Royal Ahold investors defrauded by the company’s conduct. Supporting the efforts of their colleagues in New York, Andrew Radding and Gregory M. Kline brought their knowledge and experience with the Federal court in Baltimore to help their clients survive numerous efforts to dismiss the case and successfully sought information from the Defendants and others which built an overwhelming case for trial. After years of investigation, litigation and the exchange of millions of pages of discovery documents, the parties agreed upon a settlement that would return over a billion dollars to Royal Ahold investors. The settlement, one of the largest of any kind in Maryland legal history, was the culmination of thousands of hours of work and represented a great victory for the clients. The Federal Court made special note of the extraordinary challenges overcome by Plaintiffs’ counsel when it approved the settlement in June of 2006.
OUTCOME: Trial Concluded - Appeal Pending
Multiple defendant federal criminal tax prosecution. I represented one of the professional defendants during the preparation and investigation of the case.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
