CHICAGO – LAWFUEL – Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, one of the largest intellectual property law firms in the United States, is pleased to announce that seven attorneys have been elected shareholders of the firm effective January 1, 2007.

“These attorneys epitomize the depth of talent, knowledge, experience and dedication that has enabled Brinks to protect our clients’ intellectual property interests, from prosecuting applications to resolving the most complex litigation matters,” said Gary M. Ropski, president of Brinks. “We are proud of their accomplishments, commitment to their clients and contributions to pro bono and civic activities.”

The new shareholders in alphabetical order are:

Lawrence G. Almeda (Ann Arbor, Michigan) focuses his practice on patent opinions and prosecution in the medical, chemical, nanotechnology and mechanical arts. His practice has an emphasis on medical devices, nanomaterials, micro- and nano-devices, petroleum and chemical processes, polymers, fuel cells, hybrid engines and polycarbonate glazing systems. Mr. Almeda also has significant experience in counseling clients on patent infringement and validity evaluations. Mr. Almeda is president of the Michigan Asian Pacific American Bar Association and chair of the Business Law Section of the Washtenaw County Bar Association. He is an active member of the State Bar of Michigan, American Intellectual Property Law Association and the American Bar Association. A leader in the community, he was recently selected to participate in Leadership Detroit, a regional leadership program sponsored by the Detroit Regional Chamber Foundation. Mr. Almeda received his LL.M. in intellectual property from The John Marshall Law School, his J.D. from the University of Detroit Mercy Law School, where he was a published member of the Law Review, and his B.S. in chemical engineering from Purdue University.

David H. Bluestone focuses on intellectual property litigation with an emphasis in the electrical and mechanical arts. He has experience in a range of technologies, including biomedical devices, signal processing, Internet-based applications, valves, navigation systems, plastics and electronic monitoring systems. His practice also includes counseling clients in the areas of patent and unfair competition law and he has experience in copyright matters, including a successful appeal in the United States Copyright Office. Mr. Bluestone received his J.D. from Northwestern University School of Law and his B.S. in electrical engineering, with honors, from the University of Illinois.
– MORE –

Vincent J. Gnoffo practices intellectual property law with a focus on patent prosecution and opinions in the electrical, computer and mechanical arts. He has significant experience in technologies including the Internet, computer software and networks, digital encoding, electronic circuitry, telecommunications, semiconductors, business methods, medical devices and mechanical equipment. His practice includes both U.S. and foreign prosecution. Mr. Gnoffo is a member of the firm’s Pro Bono and Docket Oversight Committees. He received his J.D., cum laude, from The John Marshall Law School and his B.S. in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Howard S. Michael practices intellectual property law with an emphasis on trademark, unfair competition, trade dress, false advertising, copyright, trade secret and licensing matters. His particular areas of expertise include implementing trademark enforcement programs, global trademark dispute resolution, trademark litigation and proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Mr. Michael received his J.D. from the Boston University School of Law and his B.A. in political science from the University of Michigan.

John F. Nethery focuses his practice on patent prosecution and patent opinions. Mr. Nethery has experience with a wide range of technologies, including computer hardware and software, LCD displays, network load balancers, digital signal processor architectures, filter design, satellite antenna design, analog and digital signal coding and transmission, audio signal processing, cellular communications, satellite computer system design and medical diagnostic X-ray and ultrasound imaging. Mr. Nethery received his J.D. from the University of Illinois College of Law, his M.S. in computer engineering from the University of Illinois and his B.S. in computer engineering and his B.S. in computer science, with distinction, from Iowa State University.

Jeffry M. Nichols focuses his intellectual property practice on patent litigation, counseling and prosecution. Mr. Nichols is active in several civic organizations, including the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society and the American Cancer Society, as well as legal organizations such as the American Intellectual Property Law Association, Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago and Licensing Executives Society. Mr. Nichols also regularly works on pro bono matters referred by the Lawyers for the Creative Arts and the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago. He received his J.D., with honors, from the University of Connecticut School of Law and his B.S. in chemistry from Truman State University (formerly known as Northeast Missouri State University).

Richard E. Stanley Jr. focuses his practice on patent prosecution and litigation in the mechanical, electrical and computer arts. Prior to joining Brinks, Mr. Stanley was a mechanical, design, quality and manufacturing engineer at John Deere. He received his J.D. from Baylor University Law School and his B.S. in mechanical engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. Mr. Stanley also holds an M.B.A. from the University of Northern Iowa.

– MORE –

Founded in 1917, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione is based in Chicago with four additional offices across the country serving the intellectual property needs of clients from around the world. The firm is one of the largest IP law firms in the country, with more than 150 attorneys, scientific
advisors and patent agents specializing in intellectual property litigation and all aspects of patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, unfair competition, intellectual asset management, and technology and licensing agreements. Brinks routinely handles assignments in fields as diverse as electrical, chemical, mechanical, biotechnology, pharmaceutical, nanotechnology, Internet and computer technology, as well as in trademarks and brand names for a wide variety of products and services. For more information, visit www.usebrinks.com.

# # #

Truth in Corporate Justice LLC: Lead Plaintiff in Halliburton Securities Litigation Sends Attorneys Packing

As Lead Plaintiff attempts to maintain dignity to all, facts continue to mount justifying substitution of counsel.

Distributed by Worldwide Free Release Press™
of the Worldwide Tree Group

Oakland, CA – January 3, 2007–Truth in Corporate Justice LLC (“TCJ”)(www.worldwidetree.org) issues this press release to advise shareholders and the public that the Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. (“AMS Fund”), Lead Plaintiff in the Halliburton Securities Litigation matter, is seeking to substitute lead counsel.

On December 27, 2006, AMS Fund filed its Reply Brief on its Motion to Substitute Counsel. The brief cites numerous reasons for AMS Fund’s request to remove the firms of Scott + Scott and Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins as lead counsel in this matter.

Three of the most important reasons are the failure of lead counsel to keep AMS Fund fully informed about the status of the case, which violates the Court’s pre-trial order number 2 and both federal and state law. Next, the potentially negative impact on the litigation as a result of the proliferation of media attention surrounding William S. Lerach and the Department of Justice’s ongoing criminal investigation of him and his former firm, Milberg, Weiss, Bershad , Hynes & Lerach which has lead to the indictment of two of Lerach’s former partners and his predecessor firm, and insurmountable conflicts of interest which continue to mount as Scott + Scott and Lerach Coughlin try to hold on to their lead counsel position.

The AMS Fund is requesting the court to substitute the firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner as lead counsel. The Court has not yet ruled on the motion. Neil Rothstein, founder of TCJ, says that it is unfortunate that this has grown to a level lead plaintiff did not desire. However, the flow of undisclosed information that it receives clearly does not comport with what is in the best interest of the client or the class. “While all the Lead Plaintiff sought was to have this transition maintain the dignities of those involved, the realities amount to far more than the loss of dignity”, stated Rothstein. “This is not about guilt or innocence; it is about appearance, conflicts of interest and ethical behavior.” This case is entitled : Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc., et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al. (Master Docket No. 3:02-CV-1152-M), a consolidated class action pending in the Northern District of Texas before U.S. District Judge M.G. Barbara Lynn.

To read more about this situation, please visit www.halliburtonsecuritieslitigation.com
Truth in Corporate Justice can be reached at 800/610-4998.
Mr. Rothstein can also be reached at 619/251-0887.

Truth in Corporate Justice LLC: Lead Plaintiff Will Substitute Counsel in Halliburton Litigation (NYSE:HAL) Securities Litigation

This is an update concerning the Halliburton Securities Litigation. Truth in Corporate Justice LLC is Special Counsel to the AMS Fund, Inc. on Securities Matters

This article is to keep those who desire to know more about this litigation up to date and it does not speak for any party to this action except to the extent that it has been authorized or that is qualified to explain. It states representations and facts in this ongoing case.

On November 22, 2006, the Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. (“AMS Fund”) moved for an order substituting counsel in a consolidated class action against Halliburton, Inc., where AMS Fund serves as sole Lead Plaintiff representing more than 800,000 absent class members. After months of attempting to amicably resolve its differences with the law firms of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP (“Lerach Coughlin”), of San Diego, California, and Scott + Scott, LLC (“Scott + Scott”), of Colchester, Connecticut (collectively referred to as “Co-Lead Counsel”), AMS Fund was forced to seek the replacement of these firms as lead counsel in this case. Truth in Corporate Justice LLC, Special Counsel to the AMS Fund, stated this is an unfortunate but necessary change that was unexpected at the time Mr. Lerach’s firm first intervened in this case.

AMS Fund’s Special Counsel and former lead counsel, Neil Rothstein, tried to handle this in a most professional and ethical manner so as to not impede direct, productive contact between Lead Plaintiff and its Co-Lead Counsel. Over the last few months, AMS Fund asked Scott + Scott several times for copies of all correspondence, but Scott + Scott refused. AMS Fund also advised Scott + Scott of its concerns about Lerach Coughlin continuing as lead counsel while the Department of Justice is concurrently investigating both Halliburton and Mr. Lerach (a fact which Mr. Lerach did not disclose to AMS Fund, and which AMS Fund only learned through the press). AMS Fund requested Lerach Coughlin withdraw quietly, and only requested the Court’s substitution of counsel when Lerach Coughlin refused.

On November 21, 2006, in response to AMS Fund’s concerns, Lerach and Scott “invited” Paula N. John, the President-Elect of the AMS Fund (effective January 1, 2007), to meet with them at such convenient locations and times as “November 28, 2006, in the early morning or late afternoon—preferably at the Minneapolis Airport” or more interestingly, “…Friday, December 1, 1006,” in San Diego. Ms. John found flight reservations to San Diego on the latter date impossible to find. Co-Lead Counsel never even suggested meeting in AMS Fund’s boardroom in Milwaukee.

AMS Fund and others were alarmed that Lerach and Scott stated in this letter they would “arrange the presence of retired Federal Judge Lawrence Irving” who had joined Lerach’s firm as an attorney and Joe Kendall, “a retired federal judge and local counsel in this case who knows Judge Lynn and the Dallas federal courthouse quite well.” This statement demonstrates a course of disturbing behavior and veiled threats, as Judge Irving had or still does serve as Guardian Ad Litem for the Court and Class, and Judge Kendall acted as AMS Fund’s liaison counsel earlier in the litigation. Please note that it was Co-Lead Counsel, Lerach and Scott, which put the correspondence regarding the Court and Judges Irving and Kendall into the record, thus making the statement public. AMS Fund had no intention of making any of this public.

AMS Fund does not accept this comment by Lerach as a reflection upon the Court It has great faith, deference and knows the independence of the Honorable Barbara M.G. Lynn. AMS Fund believes it to be an insult to the Court and the Lead Plaintiff. Therefore, Lerach and Scott must depart this case for having such disrespect. Further, while unfortunate, Judges Kendall and Irving should withdraw as they were not only mentioned in this light, but they were copied on the letter, and have never stated their opposition to such a comment. AMS Fund now understands their conflicts, as both former judges work either for or with Lerach’s law firm. Mr. Lerach had an obligation to disclose this to the Court. While no harm has come upon the class, it would become impossible for any independent lead plaintiff to fully protect the due process rights of all absent class members, if such behavior continues.

As stated in its Reply Brief filed recently, and as summarized in the Fortune.com article published recently (available at http://money.cnn.com/blogs/legalpad/index.html), the firms of Lerach Coughlin and Scott + Scott face d insurmountable conflicts of interest and/or breaches of important fiduciary duties to AMS Fund and the Class, which make it impossible for these firms to continue to serve as Co-Lead Counsel or to continue to litigate this action.

Co-Lead Counsel’s conflicts are further amplified by Mr. Lerach seeking the spotlight and acting self-servingly in the Enron Securities Litigation where the AMS Fund is a Certified Class Representative for the Debt Bondholders. In the news recently, the Honorable Melinda Harmon ordered Lerach, in an unprecedented situation, to pay the costs and legal fees of a defendant bank for continuing to prosecute claims against that defendant after the point they were shown to be without merit. Lerach went to defendant’s attorneys and brokered a deal that served only his self-interest: he would not appeal Judge Harmon’s decision as long as he did not have to pay these fees or costs as ordered by that Court.

AMS Fund will not allow any attorney that represents it to usurp the power of the Court; it also has no intention of leaving the Enron case. Enron is different than Halliburton: in the case of Halliburton, the conflict exists that the U.S. Government is investigating Lerach and investigating a company where the sitting Vice President was Chief Executive Officer during the class period. This situation, which raises a conflict, will probably never occur again.

AMS Fund was the only investor to oppose the previous inadequate settlement of the Halliburton action and it has always acted to promote the best interests of the Class. It will not waiver from this course under any circumstances. AMS Fund has taken these necessary measures to protect and preserve the interest of the Class and is seeking the substitution of Boies Schiller & Flexner as Lead Counsel in this action.

As with all actions taken by AMS Fund in prosecuting this class action, the substitution of counsel was not made in haste and only after consultation with various experts. Contrary to current Co-Lead Counsel’s position, this necessary change will serve to promote the best interests of the Class by limiting costs, expenses and ultimate delay. As admitted by current Co-Lead Counsel, the case has not progressed lately (On November 10, 2006, Mr. Scott characterized the case as being in “limbo”). Therefore, Lead Plaintiff finds this the perfect time to change counsel, especially as current Co-Lead Counsel continue to violate Pre-Trial Order No. 2 by failing to turn over documentation and take direction from the Lead Plaintiff. The requested substitution will provide the Class with counsel who face no conflicts of interest, who are attentive to Lead Plaintiff’s direction, and who are diligent in responding to requests of Lead Plaintiff.

For further information please contact:

Neil Rothstein
Truth in Corporate Justice LLC
(800) 610-4998