Issuu on Google+

August 2010

Vol.I, Issue No.2

Page 1

Wa s s e r m a n , C o m d e n , C a s s e l m a n & E s e n s t e n , L L P


arlett, Melissa e Levin, Gregory Sc ss Je s ey rn to At n ass Actio Pictured Above: Cl

Harnett & Jordan



WCC&E’s Class Action Team Tackles The Big Issues (Pages 3 & 7)

Uncle Sam Wants You...

And Your Foreign Bank Accounts Too! Page 2

Worth the Paper They’re Written On? Thinking of Franchising?

The Pros & Cons of Oral Contracts Page 5

Watch Out for Common Pitfalls Page 6 Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten, LLP • 5567 Reseda Blvd., #330 • Tarzana, CA 91357 • 818.705.6800 Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten, LLP • 5567 Reseda Blvd., #330 • Tarzana, CA 91357 • 818.705.6800!

August 2010

Vol.I, Issue No.2

Page 2


A n d Yo u r F o r e i g n B a n k A c c o u n t s To o !

By Monte Silver, Esq.

All U.S. citizens and residents (whether individual or corporate) are not only required to pay taxes on their income, but to disclose information about their foreign bank accounts when filing their tax returns as well. Until recently, many people simply never considered disclosing such accounts to the IRS. Moreover, penalties were relatively low and non-criminal; such violations seemed to take a back seat with IRS enforcers. However, several highly publicized incidents have changed matters considerably.   In June 2008, a banker in Switzerland pled guilty to conspiring to defraud the IRS by helping U.S. taxpayers avoid these foreign account reporting requirements. In so doing, the banker admitted that his bank (UBS) was managing approximately $20 billion in offshore accounts for U.S. taxpayers, and as a result, the settlement forced UBS into disclosing some 4,450 new accounts to the IRS. One month later, LGT Bank of Liechtenstein was accused of promoting tax evasion through the use of fake trusts and shell companies.  This affair was especially embarrassing to the Lichtenstein royal family, who own LGT.   Reports have surfaced of an expanded inquiry by the IRS into Credit Suisse and HSBC for similar transactions.   Seeking to put their hands on money held in foreign banks, the IRS, armed with serious criminal and civil penalties and strengthened foreign bank account reporting requirements ("FBAR"), hired another 400 agents to aggressively pursue the holders of non-disclosed foreign assets and bank accounts, as well as the foreign banks assisting them. These new FBAR regulations require any U.S. person or entity with a financial interest in or authority over a foreign financial account with an aggregate value over $10,000 at any time during the preceding calendar year to disclose that account to the IRS.   The scope of these new FBAR regulations is expansive to say the least. FBAR regulations govern foreign persons or entities doing business in the U.S., and U.S. citizens doing business abroad as well.  Accountants and tax preparers may also face liability from the U.S. government and their own clients, should they fail to use reasonable care and not consider these disclosure provisions in preparing their tax returns. The assets at issue need not be solely comprised of currency; subject financial interests include cash, securities, interests in real property and precious metals such as gold or silver.  FBAR regulations apply to cases in which a U.S. person has power of attorney over the accounts of his or her elderly parents, even if that power is never exercised.   Whether FBAR applies to every account of a foreign company doing business in the U.S., or just to some, remains open to interpretation.   However, the penalties for non-compliance border on draconian.  Anyone with a foreign account who does not disclose it to the IRS can be subject to criminal penalties up to $250,000 in fines, five years in prison, or both. Civil penalties are stunningly expensive as well; they can equal the greater of $100,000 or 50 percent of the entire balance in the account. Seeking to allow taxpayers to come forward voluntarily, the IRS established an amnesty program, under which a taxpayer could have avoided criminal prosecution and civil liability by voluntarily disclosing true and complete information, and making payment, by October 15, 2009. However, the tax consequences of filing for amnesty might have dissuaded foreign account holders from coming forward. For example, in the case of a taxpayer with $1,000,000 in subject assets that has earned $50,000 in interest since 2003, amnesty would have resulted in taxpayer liability to the tune of $386,000, plus interest. In comparison, by failing to apply for amnesty, that taxpayer would have subjected himself or herself to taxes, penalties and interest in excess of $2.3 million. If the IRS determined that the non-reporting was due to fraud, the amount would be much higher, in addition to the taxpayer’s potential criminal liability. Although the deadline for amnesty has passed, it may not be too late to come forward. The IRS recently reported that although some14,700 individuals voluntarily came forward before the amnesty deadline, many of their disclosures were incomplete.   In a recent informal meeting between the IRS and U.S. tax professionals, a senior official with the IRS’ criminal investigation division indicated that taxpayers could still disclose and avoid criminal prosecution if there was no intent to evade the taxes at issue.   Thus, taxpayers may still be able to enjoy amnesty if funds held in foreign bank accounts have their source in gift, inheritance or passive foreign-source income.  In such cases, it is easier to claim that there was no actual intent to evade tax.  However, if the source of the funds is undeclared income earned from a U.S. source, the situation becomes more complex. Monte Silver ( is a practicing attorney in California and Israel with over fifteen years of legal and business experience in the two locales.

Residing in Israel and in charge of WCC&E activity there, Monte represents Israeli real estate

companies and investors active in the U.S., and U.S.-based entities and residents active in Israel. Monte previously worked at the United States Tax Court and for the Internal Revenue Service; he currently specializes in real estate and international taxation law.

Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten, LLP • 5567 Reseda Blvd., #330 • Tarzana, CA 91357 • 818.705.6800!

August 2010

Vol.I, Issue No.2

Page 3

TOTAL (AUTOMOBILE) RECALL By Christopher Warne, Esq. Whether whether your car came from Japan, Germany, or Detroit, you may be worried that it is on a recall list. The recent recall of over six million vehicles by Toyota, along with similar campaigns by Honda, Hyundai and General Motors, have generated a cloud of uncertainty for car owners. Millions of car owners have therefore been left to wonder not only if they are affected, but what their rights are if they have a recalled vehicle sitting in their driveway. Listed below are some of the more common questions encountered by the attorneys at WCC&E regarding these issues, and some general guidelines applicable thereto.

How Do I Know If My Car Has Been Recalled?

By law, manufacturers are required to notify all owners of recalled

vehicles by mail. Manufacturers obtain owner information from state Department of Motor Vehicle ("DMV") records. Unfortunately, this system is not perfect: if you have recently moved, or your car is registered to a company, family member, or an old address, you may not receive notice. If your car is leased or financed by an outside bank (not affiliated with the manufacturer), the finance company is required to forward any notice it receives within seven days. During the massive Toyota recall, media outlets reported that some owners were even told their cars were not on a recall list by their dealer and/or the manufacturer. That said, all recalls are required by law to be filed with the federal government. If you are unsure of whether your car is on a recall list, or if you think your dealer or manufacturer has wrongly determined your call has not been recalled, an attorney at WCC&E can quickly confirm whether a recall has been issued for your vehicle.

What Are My Rights if My Car is Recalled? A recall does not waive your right to bring a lawsuit for damages, including a legal action for personal injury, unreimbursed costs for repairs, depreciated vehicle value, or other damages that you may have incurred. A recall does give you additional rights, but your time to exercise those rights may be limited. The law also provides manufacturers with a reasonable time to design a solution after discovering a problem, and a reasonable time to repair recalled vehicles. If you feel you have been injured, your vehicle was not fixed correctly, or the manufacturer is delaying the repair of your vehicle, contact us immediately to discuss your options.

I own a recalled Toyota. Is it a “Lemon”? Probably not. Recalled vehicles are rarely lemons. California has tough consumer protection laws, including strict “Lemon Laws,” that are designed to protect consumers when a manufacturer cannot provide a solution to a recurring problem. By introducing a recall, the manufacturer has shown that it can provide a remedy. However, if you have a problem that has not been recalled, and the dealer has been unsuccessful at repairing the issue, you may have a lemon. The California Lemon Law applies not only to safety issues, but any problem covered under a manufacturer's warranty. Making a claim under the Lemon Law is complex and limited from the time of purchase. Do not wait to investigate the steps you may need to take to file a Lemon Law claim.

Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten, LLP • 5567 Reseda Blvd., #330 • Tarzana, CA 91357 • 818.705.6800!

August 2010

Vol.I, Issue No.2

Page 4

UNDERSTANDING YOUR RIGHTS Will I Be Notified of All Defects? Probably not. Federal safety law only requires manufacturers to notify owners of safety defects. Safety issues involve defects which pose an immediate risk to the motoring public, and not issues which are merely inconvenient or expensive to repair. Many serious and expensive defects do not fall under this category. Manufacturers are not required to notify owners of recalls relating to other expensive and important equipment. Numerous recalls are made for non-safety issues and/or convenience items such as air conditioners and radios, items that wear prematurely and unexpectedly (like suspension and brakes), or other mechanical annoyances like excess oil consumption or reduced transmission life. Unfortunately, many consumers pay for repairs that should have been covered under a recall campaign. If you took your vehicle to an independent repair shop for maintenance or repairs, that shop may not have known that the parts it replaced were covered by a recall program. Likewise, a consumer may have paid for a repair that was later covered by a recall campaign.

What if I Already Paid to Fix the Problem? By law, a manufacturer is required to reimburse any owner

recalls. Unlike automotive safety defects, consumers frequently are not notified of tire recalls, as tire manufactures do not rely on DMV records. Although automobile manufacturers are required to register the tires sold on new cars, tires are replaced frequently, often with a different brand or style. For this reason, Congress has mandated tire registration as a safety protection. Federal law requires tire dealers to either register tires purchased with the tire manufacturer, or provide the purchaser with a registration card. The dealer must provide every customer with a pre-addressed tire registration form completed with the serial number(s) and brand of tire sold, the selling dealer name and address, and the date of sale. Unfortunately, many non-chain tire dealers merely provide the purchaser with a blank registration card; the burden is then shifted to the consumer to complete and mail the card to the manufacturer. Even worse, there is no process to verify the current owner's information if the vehicle is sold, or the owner moves.

What If I Have A Problem That Hasn't Been Recalled? Every recall starts with one complaint. Toyota built millions of vehicles before its now-infamous accelerator problems were discovered. If you believe you own a vehicle with any issue, your

who paid to repair a problem that was recalled thereafter.

rights may be time-sensitive. Wasserman, Comden, Casselman,

However, your right to collect reimbursement is limited. The

and Esensten, LLP has been successful in numerous automobile

manufacturer is only required to reimburse repairs made for a

related cases. If you have been personally injured, suffered

limited time before the recall is announced, and only for 30 days

property damage, been forced to pay for unnecessary repairs, of

after the last notice was mailed. Therefore, it is crucial you

feel you have discovered a defect in your car, contact an attorney

contact the manufacturer immediately upon discovering that you

immediately to learn more about your rights.

have paid to repair a defect subject to a subsequent recall.

Should I Watch For Any Other Particular Recall Notices? Tires. Tires are one of the most important pieces of safety equipment on your car. The tire manufacturer, not the automobile manufacturer, is responsible to notify you of tire

Licensed in Hawaii and California, Christpher Warne ( came to WCC&E with a background in hedge funds and capital management.

Christopher has

worked on class actions, business and real estate litigation, and federal and state appeals.

Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten, LLP • 5567 Reseda Blvd., #330 • Tarzana, CA 91357 • 818.705.6800!

August 2010

Vol.I, Issue No.2

Page 5

WORTH THE PAPER THEY’RE WRITTEN ON? The Pros and Cons of Oral Contracts Although "getting it in writing" can help keep everyone on the same page, there is no general requirement that a contract be in writing to be enforceable. An oral contract is just as legally binding as a written contract.

By Katherine Winder, Esq.

to a real estate broker must be memorialized in writing. Another type of contract that needs to be in writing is a premarital agreement. Commercial loans of more than $100,000 and sales of goods of $500 or more require a written memorialization as well.

In an oral contract for services, profit-sharing, employment, sales of securities or partnership agreements, there is no Where written memorialization is required, the oral limit to the amount of money that can be agreed to be contract will not be enforceable until the writing is exchanged or shared. A valid contract to do something finalized. However, an oral contract that is for millions of dollars, or more, can be created without unenforceable because it requires a written ever writing down the terms or signing on "the dotted memorialization may become enforceable if the line." Most of these types of contracts do not writing is made later. If the writing has been require any written agreement or written m a d e, t h e c o n t r a c t w i l l n o t b e c o m e “However, memorialization of terms to be enforceable. unenforceable if the writing is lost.

an oral The same criteria must be met to create an There is a rule that applies to all oral contract that is enforceable contract whether it is oral or contracts, providing that a unenforceable written. The contracting parties must be memorialization in writing is required if because it requires a at least eighteen years old and of sound there is not the slightest possibility it mind capable of understanding the can be performed within a year. This written memorialization may undertaking. is a very narrow rule. If it is highly become enforceable if the unlikely or indefinite, but not To form a contract, there must writing is made later. If the writing impossible that the contract be an offer and an acceptance. could be performed within a has been made, the contract will not Each person must agree to year, no writing is required. become unenforceable if the writing is lost.” give the other something of value. The parties must agree to the terms, and the terms must be clear enough to understand what each is required to do. There are some specific exceptions to the general rule that writings are not necessary. Oral contracts falling into certain categories do need to be memorialized in writing to be enforceable, if the contract has not already been fully performed. However, even for these types of contracts, a signed note or memo containing the essential terms will suffice. The written memorialization of the oral contract in such cases makes the oral contract enforceable. One category of oral contract that does require a memorialization in writing involves real estate. An agreement to sell or lease real property or pay commissions

Fo r e x a m p l e , a n agreement to refrain from doing something always and forever could never be performed within a year. However, if a service provider or employee has already performed, the service provider or employee may enforce the contract regardless of this rule. A lifetime employment contract where either party has the right to terminate could be performed within a year if the employee quits or is fired. Therefore, such a contract does not require a writing to be enforceable. Katherine Winder ( is an associate in WCC&E’s litigation department. She represents individuals and businesses involved in complex business litigation, tort litigation, contract disputes and inverse condemnation actions.

Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten, LLP • 5567 Reseda Blvd., #330 • Tarzana, CA 91357 • 818.705.6800!

August 2010

Vol.I, Issue No.2

Page 6


By Jordan Esensten, Esq.

Investing money into a franchised business can be very lucrative. However, it can also be very costly, not only to you, but to your family members as well. Before deciding whether to invest in a franchise-model business, either as a franchisee or franchisor, it is important to consider issues that typically arise in two major categories: business and legal. For example, one considering becoming a franchisee should ask the following business-related questions: ✤

What is the product or service and how does it work?

Have previous franchisees been successful?

How unique is the business and how easy is it to duplicate?

Who is the competition?

Are they selling the same products or services and, if so, how successful have they been?

What are the financial resources of the franchisor?

What does the franchisor offer that I cannot obtain elsewhere?

Has the franchisor already made a name for itself ? If not, will it be able to do so in the future?

Only after a potential franchisee reviews these issues and decides that the business will likely be profitable should he or she consider the legal issues that typically concern franchisees. Of course, the franchisee should always read the franchise agreement before signing, as it will typically outline many things the franchisee will need to know on an ongoing basis. For example, the franchisee should consider whether the franchise agreement calls for him or her to be held personally liable for performance thereunder. If this is the case, the franchisee may want to consider creating a legal entity through which he or she does business (such as a corporation or limited liability company), which will help shield the franchisee and his family from liability, should there be bumps in the road ahead. To the extent possible, the franchisee may also want to consider whether the franchisor would be willing to allow him or her to assign liability under the franchise agreement to that corporate entity. Unfortunately, such assignment options are not typically granted by franchisors, who ordinarily require personal guaranties prior to engaging in business with prospective franchisees. A franchisee that is personally liable places his personal assets, and possibly those of his family in jeopardy, should certain criteria not be met. In such an instance, the franchisee will not be able to hide behind his or her corporate “shield” or “veil.” Moreover, even if a franchisee uses an incorporated business to sign the agreement, doing so does not necessarily preclude them from being held personally liable under that contract. If the franchisee abuses the corporate form and/or uses the corporation as a mere “shell corporation,” the franchisor (or anyone else with whom the corporation does business) may be able to “pierce the corporate veil” and sue the franchisee for damages in his or her personal capacity. The franchisee that consults his or her attorney prior to signing any legal paperwork is placing himself or herself in the best position to succeed, as doing so ensures his or her legal interests are protected to the maximum extent possible. Indeed, the old adage “the person who represents himself has a fool for a client” applies just as forcefully to franchisees as litigants. One of the most important reasons to hire a lawyer is to allow someone with legal expertise to review the franchise agreement, as in many instances, what the franchise agreement omits is more important than what it affirmatively represents. For example, the franchisor’s oral representations to the franchisee may not be included in the contract language, and additional clauses may make such representations inadmissible in court, should the parties find themselves engaged in litigation concerning the requirements of that contract, and whether or not it has been breached. (Please see page five of this newsletter for more information about oral contracts) Attorneys are also useful in assisting the franchisee in determining whether certain events give rise to the franchisee’s right to terminate the agreement once it has been signed. The lack of an express termination clause in a franchise agreement may mean that the franchisee’s full performance is required regardless of the success or failure of the business. However, the presence of a termination clause may also subject the franchisee to monetary penalties that serve to deter franchisees from exercising such termination rights. In other situations, a termination clause may not only apply to the franchisee, but the franchisor as well. A termination clause may also dictate what happens to the assets of the business should the franchisee or the franchisor terminate the agreement. All of these facts can have a significant impact on the future of the franchisee’s business. Jordan Esensten ( is a junior associate in WCC&E’s class action and business litigation departments.


represents individuals and businesses involved in real estate, intellectual property, contract, employment, corporate and complex business disputes, in both the trial and appellate contexts.

Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten, LLP • 5567 Reseda Blvd., #330 • Tarzana, CA 91357 • 818.705.6800!

August 2010

Vol.I, Issue No.2

Page 7

MORE THAN WORDS By Jesse Levin, Esq.

New FTC Guidelines Protect Consumers Against Deceptive Adver tising Practices The FTC issues guidelines to the private sector that set forth what does and does not constitute lawful advertising. These guidelines apply to all sorts of advertising, including what you see on television, the internet and in print everyday. For consumers, including those that seek out and employ the services of WCCE's Class Action Department, these guidelines can serve as legal protections against unscrupulous advertisers and endorsers. In December 2009, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) adopted several new and important guidelines for advertising. The most significant changes added by the FTC apply to product endorsements and testimonials; Celebrities who receive major endorsement deals will need to take heed of the FTC's changes because they significantly alter the legal ramifications of statements made to the public. Now, whenever a celebrity makes a representation about a product in an advertisement or in a public interview, he or she can be held personally liable for any false or unsubstantiated statements. In other words, your favorite movie star or sports figure can no longer safely claim a particular cell phone picks up the strongest signal, a particular diet product can cause instant weight loss, or an herbal pill can result in increased libido without proof those claims are, in fact, true. These guidelines do not just extend to traditional advertising; they apply to seemingly-spontaneous public endorsements as well. If a particular celebrity makes a statement in support of a product in any public way, (e.g. on their blog, through, on a late night talk show, or to passing paparazzi), they are now required to reveal any material

relationship they have with the company that sells that product. This means that a singing idol cannot simply heap praise on a particular brand of sneakers if she has secretly been paid by the shoe company to do so. That celebrity will have to spill more than just the latest gossip to the tabloids; she will have to reveal that the company gave her those shoes for free! These mandatory disclosure rules do not just apply to celebrities, but to all sorts of individuals who publish reviews or make public positive commentary for merchandise. The FTC employs many teaching examples of how normal everyday bloggers, message board posters, or even radio and concert "street team" members fall under the purview of these laws when they give ringing endorsements of products to their readers/friends/ audiences. If any of these people receive free merchandise, redeemable points for product discounts, or any other perks or forms of payment, they must disclose this

connection to the company they endorse. If they don’t, not only can their objectivity and credibility be questioned, but they can be held directly liable for any sales resulting from their deceptions by omission. Consumer testimonials, a very common advertiser mechanism which infomercials regularly employ, are also now directly regulated by the FTC. Before the most recent guideline changes, advertisers could broadcast an array of video testimonials in a commercial or infomercial, showing average consumers claiming a particular diet pill made them lose spectacular amounts of weight and inches of their waistline. Even if these testimonials claimed results that were scientifically impossible or even just uncommon, the advertisers could save themselves by placing a small white lettered disclaimer at the bottom of the screen saying "results not typical" or "results may vary." Now, deceptive

Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten, LLP • 5567 Reseda Blvd., #330 • Tarzana, CA 91357 • 818.705.6800!

August 2010

Vol.I, Issue No.2

Page 8

advertisers can no longer find safe harbor in barely-visible disclaimers. The FTC has created new guidelines to eliminate this kind semantic chicanery. Today, if a consumer testimonial makes a claim of massive success, it must be a statistically common result of using the product that the advertiser can back up with real proof. If not, the advertisers can be held liable. Additionally, to avoid violating FTC’s new guidelines, all product testimonials the advertiser claims are from actual purchasers must actually come from actual purchasers, not actors playing a role. By enacting these consequential guidelines, the FTC is doing a public good and keeping the free market fair, but you, as a consumer, do not have to rely on the federal government to protect your own interests. You can take your grievance to the companies and celebrities yourself whenever a product they sell or endorse does not live up to the claims they make. Our class action attorneys are highly experienced and successful at enforcing these and other consumer laws in order to make consumer purchasing decisions safe and informed. In a marketplace where consumers are actively pursuing honesty in advertising, caveat venditor, or "seller beware," can replace old norms where consumers were at the mercy of unregulated advertising. Jesse Levin ( is an associate in WCC&E’s class action department.

He advocates on behalf of his clients in

consumer protection, wage and hour, business, intellectual property and entertainment litigation. After graduating suma cum laude from the University of Southern California, Jesse obtained his law degree from the UCLA School of Law, where he worked as Vice Editor-In-Chief of the UCLA Entertainment Law Review.

WC C & E L E G A L E X A M I N E R E D I TO RI A L B O A RD Editor-In-Chief

Michael Kline, Esq.

Managing Editor

Reid Dammann, Esq.

Columns Editor

Jordan Esensten, Esq.

Comments/Questions? WCC&E Legal Examiner 5567 Reseda Boulevard, Suite 330 Tarzana, CA 91357 (818) 705-6800

Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten, LLP • 5567 Reseda Blvd., #330 • Tarzana, CA 91357 • 818.705.6800!

ABOUT WCC&E Founded in 1976, Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten, L.L.P. is a leading law firm in the greater Los Angeles area, with forty attorneys and offices in Tarzana, Alhambra, and Oxnard, California. For over 32 years, the firm has established a superior reputation providing innovative solutions, responsive communication, cost-effective service, and successful results to a wide range of domestic and international clients. WCC&E takes great pride in its history of simultaneously maintaining long-term client relationships and establishing new ones. That history was established by a collection of skilled attorneys who have remained true to the vision of the firm's partners of what the practice of law should be - the satisfaction of each client's unique needs and the aggressive pursuit to resolve complex legal issues. The firm's core practice areas include transaction, litigation and appellate work in areas such as business and corporate law, class actions, personal injury matters, public entity liability, and issues specific to clients located in the Pacific Rim. WCC&E has obtained verdicts for its clients in high-profile civil jury trials involving the litigation of these issues and others, including inverse condemnation, landslides, public works construction contracts, and complex business litigation. WCC&E maintains the highest standard of attorneys, with many being named Super Lawyers ™ and Rising Stars,an honor given to only a small fraction of practicing attorneys. For additional information about WCC&E and its attorneys, please visit

Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten LLP 5567 Reseda Boulevard, Suite 330 Tarzana, California 91357

Leading the firm are its four senior partners‌ Steve K. Wasserman serves as general counsel to a wide variety of business, drawing on his substantial experience in finance, banking, factoring, garment and textile manufacturing, and import and export distribution. Mr. Wasserman specializes in representing clients in the apparel industry, and with international trade issues with China. Leonard J. Comden specializes in real estate, family law, intellectual property and general business litigation. His experience includes successful representation of WCC&E clients before the United States and California Supreme Courts, Courts of Appeal, and trial courts across the country. David B. Casselman specializes in the prosecution and defense of complex litigation matters. Amongst his many achievements, he obtained the second and tenth largest monetary verdicts in the State of California in 2001. He is currently the President of the California chapter of the American Board ofTrial Advocates. Robert L. Esensten has served as litigation counsel for small and medium-size businesses and individuals, including pharmaceutical companies, certified public accounting firms, real estate developers, and those in the telecommunications industry. With a wealth of jury trial and arbitration successes on his resume, he is an active member of the American Board of Trial Advocates.

Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten Legal Examiner Newsletter - August 2010