Washington, DC, United States
Washington, DC, United States

Time filter

Source Type

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Hunton & Williams LLP today received the U.S. Coast Guard Meritorious Public Service Medal for the firm’s pro bono legal work on behalf of Coast Guard members. Managing Partner Wally Martinez and several lawyers and paralegals who have participated in the project accepted the award on behalf of Hunton & Williams at a ceremony at the firm’s New York office. Presenting the award were Staff Judge Advocate Capt. Christopher Mooradian and Coast Guard Legal Assistance Attorney Benjamin McCarty, who are based at the First Coast Guard District Legal Office in Boston. “While we are honored to receive this prestigious award, it truly has been our privilege to serve the Coast Guard and its families, and we look forward to continuing and expanding our partnership,” said Martinez, a member of the Coast Guard Auxiliary, who helped start the pro bono legal assistance program and is among the program’s most active participants. Martinez also received a Meritorious Public Service award for his personal contributions. Begun in 2012, the Coast Guard partnership has involved about 30 of the firm’s lawyers who have contributed nearly 1,800 volunteer hours in five states. The firm assists Coast Guard members and their families with legal issues involving real estate, estate planning, bankruptcy, immigration and other matters. Lawyers from the firm’s New York, Miami, Norfolk, Richmond, Atlanta and Washington offices have all been involved in the partnership. The Meritorious Public Service Medal is given to recognize substantial contribution to the Coast Guard that produced tangible results and specific individual accomplishments that provide unique benefits to the public. Hunton & Williams continues to lead the way in community service in the United States, and the firm’s tradition of pro bono service is well recognized. Since 2009, 100 percent of the firm’s full-time U.S. lawyers have worked on pro bono projects. The firm has neighborhood offices in Richmond, Charlottesville, Va., and Atlanta dedicated to pro bono services for low-income individuals. Hunton & Williams is a global law firm of more than 750 lawyers serving clients in the United States, Europe, Latin America and Asia. The firm handles transactional, litigation and regulatory matters for a diverse client base, with significant experience in retail and consumer products, energy, financial services, real estate, and privacy and cybersecurity. Visit www.hunton.com and follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube.

News Article | May 22, 2017
Site: www.businesswire.com

MIAMI--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Hunton & Williams LLP announces the expansion of its global banking and corporate practice with the arrival of Juan Azel as counsel in Miami. For nearly 20 years, Azel has represented financial institutions as general counsel or as outside counsel on regulatory and compliance, financial crime risk management, and internal investigations and enforcement matters, with an emphasis on the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), anti-money laundering (AML), and economic sanctions laws and regulations. Fernando C. Alonso, corporate and banking partner and chair of the Latin America practice group, says: “This is a homecoming for Juan, and we wholeheartedly welcome him back to the firm. Since his time with us in the early 2000s, Juan has developed relationships with in-house counsel and executives in the legal, compliance, business, finance, HR and operations arenas. With Juan’s international banking experience and his ability to interact effectively with regulators and law enforcement personnel on behalf of financial institutions, we can further expand our global banking and compliance services.” Peter G. Weinstock, who leads the financial institutions practice, adds: “Juan has been instrumental in formulating corrective action plans, drafting policies and procedures, and crafting and implementing worldwide training programs for addressing BSA/AML/Sanctions. In addition to consulting on issues, Juan also led teams that developed the solutions.” Prior to joining Hunton, Azel led the legal departments of the Standard Chartered Private Bank (Americas) and StanChart Securities International Inc.; served as chief legal counsel of the BBVA Private Bank, Miami; and was senior legal regulatory counsel for Standard Chartered Bank. A graduate of Florida International University, Azel received his law degree from the University of Miami School of Law. He was associated with Hunton from 2001 to 2004. Nearly one-third of the firm’s top clients are financial institutions and other financial services companies, and our lawyers help them address risk management and comply with legislative and regulatory mandates. We are aligned with your business. Hunton & Williams is a global law firm of more than 750 lawyers serving clients in the United States, Europe, Latin America and Asia. The firm handles transactional, litigation and regulatory matters for a diverse client base, with significant experience in retail and consumer products, energy, financial services, real estate, and privacy and cybersecurity. Visit www.hunton.com and follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube.

News Article | May 30, 2017
Site: www.businesswire.com

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Lisa Sotto, who leads the global privacy and cybersecurity practice at Hunton & Williams LLP, recently sat down with DataGuidance to discuss some of the biggest challenges and developments in the privacy world as part of the Thought Leaders in Privacy video series. The following is a Q&A distilled from a discussion about the New York State Department of Financial Services’ (NYDFS) new cybersecurity regulation. DataGuidance: What are the main requirements under the NYDFS Cybersecurity Rule? Lisa Sotto: These are very significant regulations. While they apply only to a narrow segment of a particular industry sector, they are far-reaching in their implications. They are risk-based standards that require the attention of senior leadership. Of course, cybersecurity is an issue that has risen very high on the radar screen of both boards and C-suites, and it really mandates their attention. Generally, the rule requires that companies put in place a cybersecurity program and have a written policy. They need to have rules with respect to service providers, perform due diligence in advance of hiring them and have contractual provisions in place. There is a 72-hour notice requirement for notifying the NYDFS after the identification of a breach, which is very difficult, and there is a data retention provision which looks very much like the language that is used in European rules. Also of note, there is an annual recertification process, so senior leaders of the company or a board member need to annually certify compliance with these regulations. DataGuidance: What will be the greatest challenges of the rules for organizations? Lisa Sotto: There are two provisions that mimic what we’re seeing globally and hew closely to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). (1) The 72-hour-notice requirement is fairly revolutionary in the United States, and extremely difficult to comply with. It requires that covered entities notify the NYDFS if any governmental entity or self-regulatory body needs to be notified of an incident, so this is a very broad standard. (2) The other provision that I think is particularly challenging for US companies is the data retention clause, which requires the disposal of information covered under these regulations if it is no longer needed for business purposes or another legitimate reason. Again, there are similarities here to the language used in the GDPR. DataGuidance: How do the rules fit within the broader cybersecurity landscape? Lisa Sotto: These are highly prescriptive rules. They’re far-reaching and reasonably unique in their coverage. I think the rules will effectively create a de facto national standard because financial institutions that do business in New York and are subject to these rules have interconnected systems. The practical reality is that they can’t possibly comply with this regulatory regime only with respect to their New York systems because those systems aren’t isolated from systems outside of New York. The video discussion from this episode of Thought Leaders in Privacy can be viewed here. Hunton & Williams is a global law firm of more than 750 lawyers serving clients in the United States, Europe, Latin America and Asia. The firm handles transactional, litigation and regulatory matters for a diverse client base, with significant experience in retail and consumer products, energy, financial services, real estate, and privacy and cybersecurity. Visit www.hunton.com and follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube.

Field A.B.,Hunton And Williams
Proceedings of the Air and Waste Management Association's Annual Conference and Exhibition, AWMA | Year: 2012

In enacting the modern Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1970, and subsequently amending it, the Congress created a partnership between the states and federal government. Under the partnership, the federal government, through EPA, determines the air quality-related ends. A discussion covers the CAA's federal-state partnership and how it worked for 40 yr; court support for the partnership; the partnership between 1970 and 2010; erosion of the partnership in the past 2 yr; EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) SIP call and GHG FIP; implementation of the 1-hr SO2 NAAQS; use of CAA § 126 to limit a state's role in implementing the CAA; the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule; and BART determinations. This is an abstract of a paper presented at the 105th AWMA Annual Conference and Exhibition (San Antonio, TX 6/19-22/2012).

Bergkamp L.,Hunton And Williams | Herbatschek N.,Hunton And Williams
Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law | Year: 2014

The REACH Regulation establishes several chemical regulatory regimes, which operate, by and large, as stand-alone, but ostensibly complementary programmes. The two key REACH programmes for direct 'command and control' regulation of chemical risk are 'restriction' and 'authorization'. In the case of substances of very high concern, both restriction and authorization are available as risk management measures. Because REACH fails to establish an independent, coherent and unbiased framework for chemical risk assessment and policy analysis of these alternative regulatory options, their deployment has been fraught with difficulties. This article reviews the REACH provisions governing the restriction and authorization programmes, and the differences, similarities and interrelations between them. In the second part, the problems arising in the application of the two regimes are illustrated with reference to the case of dipolar aprotic solvents. This case study demonstrates that the most appropriate regulatory instrument may be a regime other than REACH. The third part sets forth some recommendations to improve current practice and move towards a predictable, reasonable and balanced REACH application. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

By leaving the field open to states to set prices, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may be allowing states to fulfill their own individual policy goals at the expense of national goals. States do not necessarily share FERC's 'national vision and perspective' under PURPA, as Congress intended. © 2015 Elsevier Inc.

Beck’s risk society has become a highly influential theory in sociology and has begun to influence risk policy-making and regulation. The theory has been given too much credit, however. This article identifies and analyzes the troubling features of risk society, and demonstrates that it is a loose set of vague ideas, feelings, and hunches, rather than a theory. Risk society, as distinguished from modern industrial society, is a risk management society concerned with the identification and distribution of risks arising from industrial activities, while downplaying natural and other risks. Devoid of empirical content and analytical tools, it promotes a simplistic precautionary anti-industrial environmental and safety ethic. Risk society involves politicization of science and self-interested activism in risk management decision-making. Due to its unrealistic dogmas, ambitions, and side effects, risk society is unable to manage risks effectively and efficiently, and poses a threat to constitutional democracy. Policy-makers and risk managers, therefore, should not rely on risk society theory in designing and implementing risk management structures and regulations. © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Langworthy L.M.,Hunton And Williams | Flynn A.M.,Hunton And Williams
EM: Air and Waste Management Association's Magazine for Environmental Managers | Year: 2015

The proposed revisions to the ozone standards, if they are adopted as proposed, may present new grounds for a judicial challenge. © 2015, Air and Waste Management Association. All rights reserved.

Bergkamp L.,Hunton And Williams
Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law | Year: 2015

The latest move in the environmentalists' fight against climate change involves judicial proceedings against states. In these proceedings, climate action groups seek court orders to force governments to impose more stringent measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A recent judgment by a Dutch court has given this strategy momentum. In the Urgenda case, the court ruled that the Dutch government owes a duty of care to its citizens to provide protection against the risks posed by climate change. On this basis, the court ordered the government to revise its current policies to ensure that by 2020 carbon dioxide emissions are reduced by at least 25% compared to 1990 levels. As this article demonstrates, this kind of litigation raises constitutional issues, because courts may not infringe on the legislature's prerogatives. Climate policy-making requires a series of value judgments and policy choices, and the state has non-justiciable discretion as to how it meets its duties of care. © 2015 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Bruening P.J.,Hunton And Williams | Waterman K.K.,Massachusetts Institute of Technology
IEEE Security and Privacy | Year: 2010

The ubiquitous collection, use, and flow of data challenge existing frameworks for data protection and management. Organizations collect and derive data from myriad sources and use it for various purposes, so that the rules that apply to their data holdings vary. The authors describe data governance in this complex and dynamic environment, where the rules and obligations that govern how organizations use and protect information attach to the data and must be met wherever or by whomever collects, processes, or stores it. They suggest data tagging to facilitate such an approach. © 2006 IEEE.

Loading Hunton And Williams collaborators
Loading Hunton And Williams collaborators