New York Law School is a private law school in the Tribeca neighborhood of Lower Manhattan in New York City, New York, United States. Founded in 1891, it is an ABA-approved law school offering a full-time day program, a part-time evening program, and a two-year accelerated J.D. honors program.Anthony W. Crowell has been Dean and President since May 2012. He previously served as counselor to former New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. In May 2013, Crain’s New York Business included him in its list of “People to Watch in Higher Education.” New York Law School’s faculty includes 77 full-time and 103 adjunct professors. Notable faculty members include Edward A. Purcell Jr., one of the nation’s foremost authorities on the history of the United States Supreme Court, and Nadine Strossen, a constitutional law expert who served as President of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1991 to 2008.Prominent New York Law School alumni include Maurice R. Greenberg, former Chairman and CEO of American International Group Inc. and current Chairman and CEO of C.V. Starr and Co. Inc.; Charles E. Phillips Jr., CEO of Infor and former President of Oracle; and the Honorable Judith Sheindlin, “Judge Judy,” New York family court judge, author, and TV personality. Past graduates included United States Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan II and Wallace Stevens, the Pulitzer Prize-winning poet. Wikipedia.
News Article | February 15, 2017
University of California, Berkeley, scientists have found entirely new classes of Cas proteins, the enzymes responsible for snipping DNA in the CRISPR gene-editing system. The discovery expands the ever-growing CRISPR toolbox and creates a new wrinkle in the ongoing patent dispute between Berkeley and the Broad Institute of Harvard University and MIT over the gene-editing technology. Jillian F. Banfield led the Berkeley team, which scoured 155 million genes from microbes that cannot be grown in labs to find the Cas proteins. These microbes live in places as varied as groundwater, acidic drainage from mines, and the intestines of infants. In addition to finding new versions of traditional Cas9 proteins, the researchers discovered entirely new classes of Cas enzymes, dubbed CasX and CasY (Nature 2016, DOI: 10.1038/nature21059). Because Cas proteins are large, it’s challenging to deliver them into cells for gene-editing purposes. The newly discovered CasX enzymes, however, are among the smallest Cas proteins known, potentially a key advantage over other Cas variants, including the Cas9 class of protein that’s used by almost everyone working with CRISPR today. Cas9 is part of microbial immune systems found in the pathogenic Streptococcus pyogenes and many other species. “There is just an incredible diversity of microbial life out there,” Banfield says. And the CasX and CasY discovery “is a beautiful example of the kinds of valuable things that can be found.” Banfield partnered with Jennifer A. Doudna’s lab at UC Berkeley to demonstrate CasX and CasY’s potential for gene-editing in bacterial cells. Doudna, a cocreator of the CRISPR/Cas tool along with Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology’s Emmanuelle M. Charpentier, is currently embroiled in a patent dispute with the Broad Institute over who holds the licenses to CRISPR systems that use Cas9. The Berkeley researchers recently filed a patent application related to the newly reported CasX and CasY enzymes. Because these variants are different enough from Cas9, they could give Doudna and colleagues a cushion if they lose the ongoing patent fight. The timing of the Berkeley team’s Nature report on CasX and CasY is impeccable. The week before it was published, several companies, including CRISPR Therapeutics, Intellia Therapeutics, and Caribou Biosciences—which are all tied to either Doudna or Charpentier—formalized an alliance to share, protect, and enforce their intellectual property. The Broad-associated Editas Medicine quickly retaliated and announced its own agreement with five universities, licensing “advanced forms of Cas9,” as well as a previously reported Cas9 alternative enzyme named Cpf1. Jacob S. Sherkow of New York Law School says that in retrospect, knowledge of CasX and CasY likely fueled the cross-licensing agreements. “That is the piece of the jigsaw puzzle we were missing” when the deals took place, Sherkow says. “It cannot be coincidence.” “It is possible that all of the companies involved in CRISPR technologies could avoid being ‘losers’ in the patent dispute by just using different versions” of Cas proteins, says Knut J. Egelie of the Norwegian University of Science & Technology. Alternatives to Cas9 “will level out the game and make the patent interference decision less important,” he adds. Banfield says her lab will continue exploring the mysterious genomes of difficult-to-cultivate microbes, while Doudna’s group will carry out gene-editing tests with the new enzymes in cells beyond bacteria. This article has been translated into Spanish by Divulgame.org and can be found here.
News Article | February 15, 2017
The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled today in favor of the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in the initial legal step of a high stakes battle over who will control the valuable intellectual property linked to CRISPR, the powerful genome-editing tool. The decision may be appealed by the University of California (UC), however, which last year requested the “interference” from the patent board because it contends that a team of scientists it represented invented the technology and that the Broad researchers piggybacked on their discovery. The patent board decision declared “Broad has persuaded us that the parties claim patentably distinct subject matter, rebutting the presumption created by declaration of this interference." Jacob Sherkow, an intellectual property attorney at the New York Law School in New York City, says the decision could be “a decisive knock out for the Broad.” He says he now expects UC to take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Jennifer Doudna, a UC Berkeley structural biologist, also still has a patent pending for the CRISPR invention. UC in May 2012 filed a patent for Doudna, Emmanuelle Charpentier (then of Umeå University in Sweden), and their colleagues for their discovery that CRISPR, an immune system used by bacteria, could serve as a genome-editing tool in any type of cell. But the Doudna/Charpentier team, as they reported in a landmark paper published online by on 28 June 2012, at that point had only used CRISPR to cut DNA in test tube studies. In contrast, a team led by the Broad’s Feng Zhang reported in the 3 January 2013 online edition of that it had used CRISPR to cut DNA in human cells, opening the door for the tool to be used in medicine. Broad beginning in December 2012 filed a dozen patents based on the eukaryotic use of CRISPR, and paid the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to do a fast-track review. The first of those patents issued in April 2014, stunning many researchers in the CRISPR field—and some of the companies that had formed around the promising new technology. In a teleconference for the media held by UC, Doudna stressed that today's interference decision means USTPO will now move forward on her patent application and that it “likely” will issue, potentially forcing companies that want to use CRISPR to pay licensing fees to both Broad and UC. “They have a patent on green tennis balls. We [likely] will have a patent on all tennis balls,” says Doudna. “I don’t think it really makes sense.” Lynn Pasahow, an attorney with Fenwick & West in Mountain View, California, who represented the UC in the case said no decision has yet been made about whether there will be an appeal. “At this point we are studying the opinion that came out this morning and the university is considering all of its options,” says Pasahow. When asked whether UC would now seek to cut a deal with the Broad—which was attempted at the start of the interference—Pasahow said “there’s no requirement that the two parties work out a settlement.” Dana Carroll, a biochemist at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City who specializes in ways to cut DNA, testified on behalf of UC in the patent interference, contending that applying the Doudna/Charpentier team’s discovery to human cells was “obvious”—indeed, Doudna’s group published a paper showing that CRISPR could edit eukaryotic cells a few weeks after Zhang published his team’s study. The patent board did not agree, however. “One of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably expected a CRISPR-Cas9 system to be successful in a eukaryotic environment,” it wrote. “I am disappointed that the Patent Office did not agree with what I saw as a clear and compelling perspective on the case,” Carroll says. Broad issued a statement that says the competing patents “are about different subjects and do not interfere with each other.” The statement says Broad has “deep respect” for the contributions made by Doudna and Charpentier, who have already won many prestigious awards for their work. It also notes that USPTO now has issued 50 patents related to CRISPR—14 have gone to Broad—and predicts many more will be issued.
News Article | February 23, 2017
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif., Feb. 23, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- TOMI™ Environmental Solutions, Inc. (TOMI) (OTCQX:TOMZ), a global bacteria decontamination and infection prevention company, and its board of directors announced the formation and approval of TOMI’s scientific advisory board. “We are honored William, Miguel and Helene – experts in intellectual property law, biosafety and infection prevention, respectively – have agreed to join our scientific advisory board,” stated Dr. Halden Shane, TOMI’s Chief Executive Officer. “We believe their support validates TOMI’s groundbreaking SteraMist™, and their guidance will help TOMI in "Innovating for a Safer World.” The team is charged with constructively challenging management to help develop strategy; ensuring the necessary resources are in place to enable us to achieve objectives in scientific research and development; and monitoring technological and regulatory trends that could impact our business as well as our performance against our goals. We believe their insight will be invaluable.” William M. Brown, PhD, MBA, JD William M. Brown, PhD, MBA, JD is a consultant and advisor to a series of biotech and life sciences companies. Dr. Brown is a seasoned attorney in intellectual property with deep experience in healthcare-related matters. He is licensed to practice law in several states and is a registered patent attorney. His consulting experience includes intellectual property portfolio management, clinical trial contracts, and patent/business development matters. He holds a PhD from the University of Southampton, England, an MBA from Fairleigh Dickinson University, and a JD from New York Law School. Dr. Brown conducted postdoctoral research at Harvard, Johnson & Johnson, NIH, and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Miguel A. Grimaldo, MEng Miguel A. Grimaldo, MEng is an Assistant Professor for the Department of Pathology, Director of Institutional Biocontainment Resources at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) and the Director of the Biocontainment Engineering Division for the Galveston National Laboratory. His responsibilities include the review of all design, construction, commissioning and operation of High and Maximum containment laboratories as well as to ensure regulatory compliance and to conduct ongoing evaluation and recertification on all critical containment features, equipment and operations for Biosafety Level 3 (BSL‐3), Animal Biosafety Level 3 (ABSL3) and Biosafety Level 4 (BSL4) laboratory facilities at UTMB. He is also a member of the UTMB Institutional Biosafety Committee. He has served as Committee Member for development of the ANSI Z9.14‐2014 Standard ‐ Testing and Performance‐Verification Methodologies for Ventilation Systems for Biosafety Level 3 (BSL‐3) and Animal Biosafety Level 3 (ABSL‐3) facilities as well as for the 2016 Edition of the National Institute of Health (NIH) ‐ Design Requirements Manual (DRM) for Biomedical Laboratories and Animal Research Facilities. Miguel routinely serves as Biocontainment Advisor for containment laboratories nationally and internationally on design, construction and operations and also routinely contributes to a technical column in the American Biological Safety Association (ABSA) journal, Applied Biosafety entitled, “Containment Talk”. Mr. Grimaldo obtained his Masters of Engineering from the University of Louisville and Bachelor of Science degrees in Agricultural Engineering and Agricultural Economics from Texas A&M University. Dr. Helene Paxton, MS, MT(ASCP), PhD, CIC Dr. Helene Paxton, MS, MT(ASCP), PhD, CIC, is an Infection Preventionist, owner of Bio Guidance, LLC, adjunct biology professor at Rowan University and Director of Infection Prevention at Saint Francis Healthcare. She is Infection Control Certified (CIC), board certified as an International Medical Laboratory Scientist and holds a PhD in Epidemiology. Dr. Paxton has 40 plus years’ experience in medical devices and infectious disease consulting. Dr. Paxton obtained her PhD from Kennedy Western University and her MS from Bowling Green State University. Scientific Advisory Board Provisions and criteria have been set in the company's bylaws and scientific advisory board charter. TOMI’s scientific advisory board will always observe in the letter and spirit the duties, rights and role as a member of the company's board as stipulated in the relevant listing standards. About TOMI™ Environmental Solutions, Inc. TOMI™ Environmental Solutions, Inc. (OTCQX:TOMZ) is a global bacteria decontamination and infectious disease control company, providing eco-friendly environmental solutions for indoor surface disinfection through manufacturing, sales and licensing of its premier platform of Hydrogen Peroxide based product that uses Binary Ionization Technology® (BIT™) , a state of the art technology for the production of its Activated Ionized Hydrogen Peroxide mist represented by the TOMI™ SteraMist™ brand. TOMI’s products are designed to service a broad spectrum of commercial structures including hospitals and medical facilities, cruise ships, office buildings, hotel and motel rooms, schools, restaurants, for non-food safety in meat and produce processing facilities, military barracks, and athletic facilities. TOMI’s products and services have also been used in single-family homes and multi-unit residences. TOMI also develops training programs and application protocols for its clients and is a member in good standing with The American Biological Safety Association, The American Association of Tissue Banks, Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, The Restoration Industry Association, Indoor Air Quality Association, and The International Ozone Association. For additional product information, visit www.tomimist.com or contact us at email@example.com. Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 Certain written and oral statements made by us may constitute “forward-looking statements” as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “Reform Act”). Forward-looking statements are identified by such words and phrases as “we expect,” “expected to,” “estimates,” “estimated,” “current outlook,” “we look forward to,” “would equate to,” “projects,” “projections,” “projected to be,” “anticipates,” “anticipated,” “we believe,” “could be,” and other similar phrases. All statements addressing operating performance, events, or developments that we expect or anticipate will occur in the future, including statements relating to revenue growth, earnings, earnings-per-share growth, or similar projections, are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Reform Act. They are forward-looking, and they should be evaluated in light of important risk factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from our anticipated results. The information provided in this document is based upon the facts and circumstances known at this time. We undertake no obligation to update these forward-looking statements after the date of this release.
News Article | February 16, 2017
In a highly anticipated decision that could sway the fortunes of a handful of biotechnology companies, the federal patent office has turned back a challenge to patents covering a widely used method for editing genes. The office's board of appeals ruled Wednesday that the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard can keep patents it had been awarded for a technique called CRISPR that lets scientists alter DNA within cells. It turned back a challenge from the University of California, Berkeley. The school had filed its own CRISPR patent application in 2012 a few months before the Broad institute, but the Broad got its patents approved while Berkeley's application is pending. The financial implications are huge, since CRISPR may lead to many lucrative products in medicine, agriculture and elsewhere. One company that has licensed Broad's technology, Editas Medicine Inc., saw its shares jump by 29 percent Wednesday. In a statement, Berkeley said it respects the ruling, but that it will "carefully consider all options for possible next steps in this legal process, including the possibility of an appeal." The patent dispute involved work led by Feng Zhang of the Broad Institute and Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier at Berkeley. Lawyers for Berkeley maintained that Doudna and Charpentier were the first to invent CRISPR for use in all settings. They said the work at Broad, which showed how to use CRISPR in the relatively complex cells of plants, people and other animals, wasn't enough of an advance beyond the Berkeley work to warrant its own patents. The appeals board, however, concluded that the Broad work was not simply an obvious extension of the research described in the Berkeley patent application. So Broad's patent coverage is different from Berkeley's, the board ruled. Jacob Sherkow, who specializes in patent law for matters of biological sciences at the New York Law School, said he thinks it would be worthwhile for Berkeley to take the matter to a federal appeals court.
News Article | February 24, 2017
Facing off are the top international experts in the fast-growing field of gene-editing—pitting an American of Chinese origin, Feng Zhang, against the French-American duo of Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna. The US Patent and Trademark Office ruled last Wednesday in favor of Zhang, who is a researcher at the Broad Institute, a collaboration between Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After that decision, which stunned many scientific observers, Editas Medicine, a start-up linked to Broad, saw its stock soar. Meanwhile, shares plummeted for companies that believed the patent rights would go to Charpentier and Doudna. The dispute mingles science and economics, with billions of dollars in contracts hanging in the balance. Charpentier and Doudna "would be crazy not to appeal. The cost-benefit ratio demands it," said Jorge Contreras, an expert in genetics and intellectual property at the University of Utah. Charpentier, who is affiliated with the Max Planck Institute of Berlin, and Doudna of the University of California, Berkeley, have already won a $3 million US Breakthrough Prize for their work and are widely believed to be in line for a Nobel Prize someday. They developed a tool called CRISPR-Cas9, which experts say is revolutionizing the field of genetics the way word processors did for typewriters. Their discovery, published in the prestigious journal Science in June 2012, sent shockwaves through scientific community. Much like a surgical scalpel, the technique allows the genome to be edited by clipping out a specific area of DNA and in some cases replacing it with new instructions. The breakthrough has opened up countless possibilities in the fields of health and agriculture. The French-American team filed for a patent in May 2012, describing how they used CRISPR with a simple type of bacteria. Zhang applied CRISPR to cells with a nucleus, known as eukaryotes, an innovation that had the potential to broaden genetic editing to human cells. He published his research months after Charpentier and Doudna. Zhang also applied for a patent—following a fast-track procedure that was more costly than the route taken by Doudna and Charpentier—and won. Enter the legal battle, as UC Berkeley and the Broad Institute face off over the patent rights to a technology that has aroused both vast hopes and deep ethical concerns about its potential to forever alter species and ecosystems. After a hearing in December, the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the USPTO announced last Wednesday that the patent application by the Broad Institute caused no "interference" with the larger patent request by Berkeley, and Charpentier and Doudna. But the two women have not conceded defeat. Their Broad patent is "sufficiently distinct as to be separately patentable from the claims of the Doudna/Charpentier group's patent application, which cover the use of CRISPR-Cas9 in any setting, including eukaryotic cells and other cell types," said a statement from UC Berkeley. Doudna used a sports metaphor to put Zhang's victory in context with what her group intends to seek. "They have a patent on green tennis balls; we will have a patent on all tennis balls," she told a press conference. Experts say that this outcome is a plausible one. "It is entirely possible that Berkeley will get broad claims covering all uses of CRISPR, while Broad's are limited to eukaryotes," said Contreras. "Thus, anyone wishing to use CRISPR (e.g., including agro uses), will need a license from Berkeley, while only uses involving eukaryotes will require both Berkeley and Broad." But Jacob Sherkow, an associate professor of law at the New York Law School, said in his view, Broad has obtained rights to the technology that are potentially very profitable and would exclude other competitors from the field when it comes to using CRISPR. Even if Berkeley did manage to receive broader rights to CRISPR, "the patent would be weak and wouldn't likely stand up to later challenges in court," he told AFP.
News Article | February 16, 2017
The U.S. patent office has delivered a potentially lucrative victory to bioengineer Feng Zhang of the Broad Institute in Massachusetts, regarding patents for an extraordinarily useful gene-editing tool. CRISPR, a technology that's already worth billions of dollars, is shaping up to play a big role in medicine and medical research because it can edit DNA with unprecedented accuracy. But exactly who has the right to profit from the technology has been up for debate. Wednesday the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office said patents issued to the Broad Institute in 2014, and then challenged by the University of California, Berkeley, are in fact valid. "It's a pretty monumental decision here," said Jacob Sherkow, an associate professor at the New York Law School, who has been tracking the dispute closely. "It seems to reward the most valuable aspect of CRISPR to the Broad Institute," Sherkow told Shots. The proceedings aren't entirely settled, but as Sherkow sees the situation, the Broad Institute — a joint venture of Harvard University and MIT — will hold the patent for using CRISPR in human beings, other animals, and plants. Sherkow told Shots he believes Cal's patent, which has not yet been issued, could be limited to bacteria. "Obviously the patents covering the application of this technology in human cells ... are going to be much more financially valuable than using the same technology in bacteria," Sherkow says, "because one can develop drugs and other therapies from them." Investors Wednesday seemed to agree with this assessment. The value of companies that were spun off to license the Broad patents rose sharply, while the company based on the Berkeley patent lost value. Potentially, tens of billions of dollars are at stake here, both for the companies and for the universities. Biochemist Jennifer Doudna, of U.C. Berkeley and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, discovered the biology that underlies this technology along with a European colleague, Emmanuelle Charpentier, who is now director of the Institute for Infection Biology at the Max Planck Institute in Berlin. Doudna told Shots she isn't convinced that Berkeley is the big loser here. She said the ruling paves the way for her patent application to move forward. "We're looking forward to having our patent issued," she said. "And our patent is a very broad patent that covers the composition and the use of this technology in all cell types." If the patent office rules the way Doudna hopes it will, people wanting to use CRISPR in higher organisms will have get licenses from both Berkeley and the Broad Institute. "That's the thing that I think is a bit crazy about the way the decision comes down," Doudna said. "It leaves the field — the situation — where a license would be necessary from both parties. There's not further clarity at this stage." There's yet another possibility: Berkeley could appeal Wednesday's ruling, and once again challenge the Broad Institute's patents. Doudna said the university hasn't decided what to do just yet.
News Article | February 16, 2017
NEW YORK, NY--(Marketwired - February 16, 2017) - Immigrant Justice Corps (IJC), the country's first fellowship program wholly dedicated to meeting immigrants' need for high-quality legal assistance, announced today its 2017 fellowship class, a select group of talented and promising new lawyers who will represent immigrants fighting deportation and seeking lawful status and citizenship. Twenty-five graduates from top law schools from around the country were chosen for the prestigious fellowship at IJC, which was conceived of by Robert A. Katzmann, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and incubated by Robin Hood in 2013. "These remarkable advocates will inject the whole system of immigrant justice with new energy," said Judge Katzmann. "The thousands they will serve will be represented by a good lawyer, well-trained and well-supervised, and will not be prey to those who take advantage of immigrants." The new class of fellows brings a wealth of immigration experience. As befits a national program, they are graduates of the leading law schools with top immigration programs, including: Harvard, NYU, Berkeley, Georgetown, Fordham, Cardozo, Brooklyn Law, New York Law School, and Pace. All of the new Justice Fellows are bilingual --92% of the class speak Spanish; in addition, members of the 2017 class speak Cantonese, Czech, French, Korean, Mandarin and Polish. Approximately half of them are first-generation immigrants themselves. The fellows will serve for two years in and around New York City -- including the lower Hudson Valley, and on Long Island, and northern New Jersey -- as well as in New Haven, Connecticut and Karnes, Texas. They will be placed at top legal services agencies, where they will join the 2016 class of 25 Justice Fellows already in the field. In August 2016, IJC graduated its inaugural class of 25 Justice Fellows and 96% secured employment in the immigration field. "The 2017 Fellows will be joining the immigration bar at a moment in time of immense crisis in immigration and their work will make a tremendous difference between an immigrant remaining in the United States with family and deportation," said Jojo Annobil, the Executive Director of the Program. Immigrant Justice Corps also employs Community Fellows, college graduates who perform immigration screening and assist with simpler application preparation. Applications for the next class of Community Fellows are being accepted now at justicecorps.org. The full list of 2017 Justice Fellows is as follows: The Fellows will begin their intensive training course on September 1, 2017 and be deployed to agencies around the region at the end of that month. Launched in 2014, Immigrant Justice Corps is the country's first fellowship program dedicated to meeting the unprecedented need for high-quality legal assistance for immigrants. Since then, IJC has served 28,000 immigrants and their families, and has had a success rate of 93% in its cases -- nearly seven times the success rate of those without lawyers. IJC dedicated funders include the Robin Hood Foundation, JPB Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, Anne and Bernard Spitzer Foundation, Leon Levy Foundation, New York Community Trust, J.M. Kaplan Fund, Oak Foundation, Open Society Foundation, and Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation. Immigrant Justice Corps board includes -- William Zabel (chair), founding partner of Schulte, Roth & Zabel; Judge Robert Katzmann, Robert Morgenthau, former District Attorney of New York County, Professor Alina Das of NYU School of Law, former Immigration Judge Sarah Burr, Steve Kuhn, Co-Founder and President of the Ask Foundation, and Stephanie Khurana, Managing Director of Draper Richards Kaplan.
Agency: NSF | Branch: Standard Grant | Program: | Phase: LAW AND SOCIAL SCIENCES | Award Amount: 49.89K | Year: 2014
This workshop will bring together a diverse international and interdisciplinary group of practitioners, scholars in both law and social science, and innovative law teachers with expertise in the processes of transition to democracy; globalization and law; the role of constitutional courts; law and social movements; legal pluralism and customary law; economic and social rights; and the impact of legal education on legal professions and law. Its broader impacts include fostering deeper connections between American and South African scholars, assisting South African lawyers and social scientists in protecting human rights, and building awareness in the United States both of the challenges South Africa faces and of the contributions to democratic and legal thinking that it is making.
The workshop will be a sustained series of structured discussions around five core themes: judicial independence; the potential, limits and pitfalls of judicial intervention; culture, tradition, public resistance and elite pressure in the assertion of rights; public interest law; and socioeconomic rights and restitution. Papers will be submitted in advance and made available to other presenters on a workshop website, which will also serve as a resource for additional relevant readings and materials. Each theme will be introduced with a plenary session, followed by small-group meetings around particular issues bearing on that theme, and culminating in a report-back session. Summaries of each sessions discussions will be posted on the workshop website. Panels will be designed to bring together socio-legal and legal scholars, legal educators, and practitioners. It will include participants who are from under-represented groups and who are early-career scholars and students.
News Article | February 24, 2017
— Renowned New York-based real estate authority, Jacob Frydman is delighted to be part of the city’s major community development initiatives by constantly helping the National Committee for the Furtherance of Jewish Education (NCFJE) in its various charity programs. The avid philanthropist is deeply involved with the foundation, working closely with its Orphan, Poor and Sick Fund, Released Time Program, and Toys for Hospitalized Children initiatives among many others. Rabbi Yosef Yitzchok Schneerson founded NCFJE in the midst of WWII with the principle mission of providing Jewish public school students with a free Jewish education. Shortly after its conception, the institution noticed that many of the children lived in households experiencing a variety of social and economic hardships, and implemented a multitude of educational, community outreach, and humanitarian services that still provide imperative aid to New York’s citizens today. Rabbi Hannoch Hecht of the Rhinebeck Jewish Center introduced Jacob Frydman to the committee, and the businessman was immediately enthralled by their generosity, “I saw from their past work that the NCFJE has made countless positive lasting effects on individual families and the entire community.” Created in 1941, the Released Time Program educates Jewish youth about the history, customs and prayers of Judaism, and has inspired more than a quarter million boys and girls in the greater New York area to be proud of their faith. Each Wednesday students are dismissed an hour early from school and transported to a nearby synagogue, where dedicated instructors create a welcoming religious atmosphere and teach the children about their heritage. The classes are free of charge, and are now available in over 125 public schools. Another longstanding NCFJE charity, Toys for Hospitalized Children, distributes over 10,000 toys and gifts to hospitals, special needs facilities, and destitute children each year. In an effort to share joy with the city’s elderly as well, the 50-year project has recently expanded to servicing senior residences on an as-need basis. The Orphan, Poor and Sick Fund aids underprivileged families in accessing necessary resources through grocery and clothing vouchers, rent and utility assistance, school and camp scholarships, and weekly food disbursements. Rabbi Hecht considers Frydman’s constant assistance with these initiatives as a sign of greater understanding, “He knows that the foundation of the Jewish community is the Jewish family, and he believes that by helping needy families we can all look forward to a stronger Jewish community as a whole.” Jacob Frydman is a native New Yorker, real estate investor, and private equities expert. Over his 30-year career, he has structured, financed, and executed highly complex real estate transactions. He often discusses business, law, and ethics at Columbia University and in the Master’s Lecturer series at New York Law School. A passionate and vocal member of the Jewish faith, Frydman has been an active supporter of the NCFJE for many years, and assists other charitable committees including The Chabad of Dutchess County and Washington, DC-based The Brem Foundation. For more information, please visit http://www.JacobFrydmanNews.com
News Article | February 28, 2017
NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / February 27, 2017 / Encouraged by the rapid growth in the U.S. real estate prices by more than 25% since 2012, a lot of business-minded individuals who are relatively new in the housing industry have made an informed decision to become property investment experts. Paired with record-breaking low interest rates, the opportunity to make a considerable profit is an alluring one. Of course, like any new venture, it pays – literally – to learn as much about the art and strategy of buying real estate as possible. Renowned New York-based property expert and investment consultant Jacob Frydman has spent more than thirty years honing his successful business and has discussed a few tips that will help new investors who are entering the market. There are a multitude of factors that determine real estate value, and the investors who consistently see returns are the ones who take time to educate themselves about all aspects, says Jacob Frydman. They know the location and the history of the place, because understanding what drove the early development or the area is a key way to find potential neighborhoods that may have been forgotten and potentially undervalued here in the present. Evaluating the overall local economy and assessing current growth trends is a vital component to successful property investing. Is the population growing, and in which parts of town? What new developments are planned that will likely spur additional growth and boost land values? What are the transportation issues in the area? Is there substantial infrastructure for the future population or will the local government need to expand roads or add rail lines – which usually means increasing real estate taxes and tends to make neighborhoods outside those municipal boundaries more attractive to residents and businesses. The most important piece of advice which ultimately guides everything else, says Jacob Frydman, is "to always treat your business like a business, and not a hobby. Real estate investing is a matter of cash flow, balances and long-term planning, it is not an emotional transaction, the way buying your primary residence may have been." It is essential to write a business plan that covers one, three, five and ten years. Create systems, process and rules that guide you like clockwork, objectively rather than subjectively. Jacob Frydman is a New York-based real estate consultant who sources and identifies value-added investment opportunities. For more than 30 years, he has successfully executed highly complex real estate transactions valued at over $2 billion and spanning over 5 million square feet. In addition to lecturing on real estate finance at Columbia University and New York Law School, Frydman is a frequent guest on CNBC, Bloomberg TV, Fox News and other major TV news outlets. An avid philanthropist, Jacob Frydman devotes much of his time and capital to various charitable organizations, including the National Committee for Furtherance of Jewish Education (NCFJE), Chabad of Dutchess County, and the Brem Foundation of Washington, DC. NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / February 27, 2017 / Encouraged by the rapid growth in the U.S. real estate prices by more than 25% since 2012, a lot of business-minded individuals who are relatively new in the housing industry have made an informed decision to become property investment experts. Paired with record-breaking low interest rates, the opportunity to make a considerable profit is an alluring one. Of course, like any new venture, it pays – literally – to learn as much about the art and strategy of buying real estate as possible. Renowned New York-based property expert and investment consultant Jacob Frydman has spent more than thirty years honing his successful business and has discussed a few tips that will help new investors who are entering the market. There are a multitude of factors that determine real estate value, and the investors who consistently see returns are the ones who take time to educate themselves about all aspects, says Jacob Frydman. They know the location and the history of the place, because understanding what drove the early development or the area is a key way to find potential neighborhoods that may have been forgotten and potentially undervalued here in the present. Evaluating the overall local economy and assessing current growth trends is a vital component to successful property investing. Is the population growing, and in which parts of town? What new developments are planned that will likely spur additional growth and boost land values? What are the transportation issues in the area? Is there substantial infrastructure for the future population or will the local government need to expand roads or add rail lines – which usually means increasing real estate taxes and tends to make neighborhoods outside those municipal boundaries more attractive to residents and businesses. The most important piece of advice which ultimately guides everything else, says Jacob Frydman, is "to always treat your business like a business, and not a hobby. Real estate investing is a matter of cash flow, balances and long-term planning, it is not an emotional transaction, the way buying your primary residence may have been." It is essential to write a business plan that covers one, three, five and ten years. Create systems, process and rules that guide you like clockwork, objectively rather than subjectively. Jacob Frydman is a New York-based real estate consultant who sources and identifies value-added investment opportunities. For more than 30 years, he has successfully executed highly complex real estate transactions valued at over $2 billion and spanning over 5 million square feet. In addition to lecturing on real estate finance at Columbia University and New York Law School, Frydman is a frequent guest on CNBC, Bloomberg TV, Fox News and other major TV news outlets. An avid philanthropist, Jacob Frydman devotes much of his time and capital to various charitable organizations, including the National Committee for Furtherance of Jewish Education (NCFJE), Chabad of Dutchess County, and the Brem Foundation of Washington, DC.