Hill Wallack LLP Firm News/Blogs Feedhttp://www.hillwallack.com/?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10en-us23 Feb 2017firmwisehttp://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rssHW Attorneys present at the First Annual Bucks County Business Law Institutehttp://www.hillwallack.com/?t=40&an=63613&format=xml&p=555502 Mar 2017Event<p style="text-align: center;"><em><span style="font-size: medium;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></em></p> <table width="632" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td><img src="http://www.hillwallack.com/D444E6/assets/images/Random/image005.jpg" alt="" height="100" width="100" vspace="0" hspace="0" border="0" align="absmiddle" /></td> <td style="text-align: center;"><em><strong><span style="font-size: medium;">The Bucks County Continuing Legal Education Committee, Together with the Business Law Section of the Bucks County Bar Association, <br /> Proudly Presents...</span></strong></em></td> <td style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://www.hillwallack.com/D444E6/assets/images/Random/image006.jpg" alt="" height="97" width="97" vspace="0" hspace="0" border="0" align="absmiddle" /></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p style="text-align: left;"><em><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /> </span></em></p> <p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 51, 102);"><strong>FIRST ANNUAL BUCKS COUNTY BUSINESS LAW INSTITUTE</strong></span></span><br /> <em>Course planners: Jeffrey G. DiAmico, Esq., Hill Wallack LLP and H. Jeffrey Brahin, Esq., Brahin Law Offices</em></p> <p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /> <strong>Thursday, March 2, 2017<br /> 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. </strong><br /> <span style="font-size: smaller;"><em>(Reception to follow. Hosted by Hill Wallack LLP)<br /> </em></span><br /> Bucks County Bar Association<br /> 135 E State Street<br /> Doylestown, PA 18901</span></p> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: medium;">John J. Simkanich will present on the topic of <strong>&quot;Trade Secret Protection Litigation&quot; </strong></span><br /> <br /> <img src="http://www.hillwallack.com/D444E6/assets/images/Attorneys/John_Simkanich_10172016.jpg" alt="" height="219" width="146" vspace="0" hspace="0" border="0" align="absmiddle" /><br /> <a href="http://www.hillwallack.com/john-j-simkanich"><span style="color: rgb(0, 51, 102);">John J. Simkanich</span></a> is of counsel in the Yardley, Pa. office of Hill Wallack LLP where he is the attorney in charge of the firm's Intellectual Property practice group.<br /> <br /> <img src="http://www.hillwallack.com/D444E6/assets/images/Attorneys/Jeffrey_DiAmico_06122013.jpg" alt="" height="222" width="148" vspace="0" hspace="0" border="0" align="absmiddle" /><br /> <a href="http://www.hillwallack.com/jeffrey-g-diamico"><span style="color: rgb(0, 51, 102);">Jeffrey G. DiAmico</span></a> is a partner in the Yardley, Pa. office of Hill Wallack LLP where he is a member of the firm&rsquo;s Business &amp; Commercial, Real Estate, Community Association Law and Trusts &amp; Estates practice groups.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the full program agenda, click <a href="http://wiseadmin.net/assets/files/Documents/AGENDA.pdf"><span style="color: rgb(0, 51, 102);">here</span></a>.<br /> <br /> <br />http://www.hillwallack.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Hill Wallack LLP Partner Thomas F. Carroll, III to speak at 2017 New Jersey Planning Conferencehttp://www.hillwallack.com/?t=40&an=62643&format=xml&p=555526 Jan 2017EventThe 2017 New Jersey Planning Conference will be held on Thursday, January 26 and Friday, January 27 at the Hyatt Regency in New Brunswick. Hill Wallack LLP will be a corporate sponsor of this event.<br /> <br /> Partner <a href="http://www.hillwallack.com/thomas-f-carroll-iii"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">Thomas F. Carroll, III</span></a> will be a panelist at the session entitled:<br /> <br /> <strong>Mount Laurel: A Status Update</strong><br /> <br /> Where are we now? The State Supreme Court's direction that we should have it all resolved in 90 days has turned into something else - a trial that moves sequentially from vicinage to vicinage. Many municipalities have entered into settlements, we are in the midst of a trial in Mercer County, and the Supreme Court issued its recent ruling that towns are responsible for meeting most of their so-called gap period obligations. Hear from the State's leading advocates on where things stand, where they are headed, the emerging issues in assessment and allocation of need and, now that we have numerous settlements, the road to compliance. <br /> <br /> For further information on the 2017 New Jersey Planning Conference please click <a href="http://www.conference-njplanning.org/"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">here</span></a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">.</span>http://www.hillwallack.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Thomas F. Carroll, III Quoted in the New Jersey Law Journal on Affordable Housinghttp://www.hillwallack.com/?t=40&an=63268&format=xml&p=552326 Jan 2017Media MentionClick <a href="http://www.njlawjournal.com/home/id=1202777794803/25"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">here</span></a> to read the full article.http://www.hillwallack.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10SUPREME COURT RELEASES OPINION ON “GAP YEAR” FAIR SHARE ISSUES: WHAT HAPPENS NOW?http://www.hillwallack.com/?t=40&an=62822&format=xml&p=530925 Jan 2017Client Alert<p><em>Written by:<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> Thomas F. Carroll, III</span></em></p> <p>On January 18, 2017, the New Jersey Supreme Court released its opinion in the &ldquo;gap year&rdquo; appeal. The author argued the Supreme Court appeal on behalf of the New Jersey Builders Association.</p> <p>The new opinion resolves the question of whether fair share need numbers must be calculated for the gap years.&nbsp;The gap years, the years 1999-2015, are the years in which the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) failed to adopt lawful regulations and fair share numbers.&nbsp;The Supreme Court&rsquo;s opinion goes a long way toward eliminating uncertainty as to municipalities&rsquo; fair share obligations under the <i>Mount Laurel</i> doctrine.</p> <p><b>THE SUPREME COURT&rsquo;S RULINGS</b></p> <p>The opinion holds that fair share need numbers must be calculated for the gap years.&nbsp;Thus, municipalities will face higher fair share obligations than they were anticipating, and they must adopt fair share plans accordingly, rezoning more properties for affordable housing.</p> <p>Municipalities had argued that the gap year need should simply be ignored.&nbsp;The Court rejected that position, confirming that the need for affordable housing accumulated year-by-year during the gap years.&nbsp;The Court then addressed the question of how the gap year need should be calculated.&nbsp;The opinion directs that trial courts calculate gap year need as an expanded version of &ldquo;present need,&rdquo; as opposed to including gap year need within the category of &ldquo;prospective need.&rdquo;&nbsp;Gap year need numbers when calculated as prospective need are slightly higher than gap year need numbers when calculated as expanded present need, but the latter are still substantial.&nbsp;Further, gap year need will be added to the other components of fair share obligations that municipalities must meet, including &ldquo;prior round&rdquo; need (need numbers calculated by COAH in the past), and prospective need for the period 2015-2025.</p> <p>Experts for the Fair Share Housing Center and the New Jersey Builders Association have already done reports calculating gap year need as an expanded version of present need.&nbsp;It is anticipated that revised reports addressing gap year need in that fashion will now be filed, with the trial courts to hear testimony on the opinions and fair share numbers provided in those reports.</p> <p><b>THE OPINION&rsquo;S EFFECT ON PENDING CASES</b></p> <p>Trial courts throughout the State are now guided by the Supreme Court&rsquo;s opinion.&nbsp;There is an ongoing fair share methodology trial involving Mercer County <i>Mount Laurel</i> cases, and that is likely to be the first case in which the Supreme Court&rsquo;s opinion is applied.</p> <p>That trial, being conducted by Judge Mary Jacobson in the Mercer County <i>Mount Laurel</i> cases, began on January 10, 2017, and trial dates are currently scheduled through early March.&nbsp;Because the gap year issue was before the Supreme Court when the trial commenced, Judge Jacobson has thus far limited the testimony in the trial to fair share numbers for the period 2015-2025.&nbsp;</p> <div style="page-break-after: always;"><span style="DISPLAY:none">&nbsp;</span></div> <p>Now that the Supreme Court has decided that gap year fair share numbers must be added, Judge Jacobson will be directing the parties shortly as to how the gap year need issues will be addressed at trial.&nbsp;</p> <p><b>SETTLEMENT ISSUES</b></p> <p>Many <i>Mount Laurel </i>declaratory judgment (DJ) cases throughout the State have already settled, with municipalities having received &ldquo;settlement discounts&rdquo; toward their fair share obligations.&nbsp;Some of those settlements have been concluded, with municipalities having received final judgments declaring their compliance with their <i>Mount Laurel</i> obligations.&nbsp;It is doubtful that the gap year opinion will have any effect on already-concluded settlements, but that remains to be seen.</p> <p>Other settlements are only proposed at this stage.&nbsp;To be accepted by the trial courts, fair share plans proposed through settlements must be publicly noticed and then undergo a &ldquo;fairness hearing&rdquo; in court, with the trial court judges ruling upon whether the settlements should be accepted.&nbsp;Some proposed settlements are being challenged by builders who contend that the settlements are deficient, and that municipalities proposing the settlements have wrongfully failed to propose a rezoning of the objecting builders&rsquo; sites.&nbsp;The Supreme Court&rsquo;s gap year opinion should boost the prospects of builders in that category.</p> <p>Even when builders do not have a current interest in providing affordable housing in given municipalities, proposed settlements should still be reviewed in towns in which builders have an interest in properties.&nbsp;Certain settlements are proposing terms that are unfavorable to property owners generally, such as &ldquo;growth share&rdquo; type ordinances that impose affordable housing obligations on all properties without providing any density bonuses or other compensatory benefits.&nbsp;Such terms may be unlawful.&nbsp;Public notices of proposed settlements must be carefully reviewed, and vigilance is required to guard against the application of such ordinances to properties of interest.</p> <p><b>CONCLUSION</b></p> <p>The Supreme Court&rsquo;s gap year opinion provides good news to builders and other affordable housing advocates.&nbsp;It removes a significant element of uncertainty that has plagued the process for well over a year.&nbsp;The trial courts must still manage the <i>Mount Laurel</i> cases to conclusion, but the gap year opinion will no doubt bring about more settlements and speedier resolution of the cases involving towns that choose not to settle.</p> <p><i>About the Author: The author, partner-in-charge of the Land Use Division of Hill Wallack LLP, and Land Use Counsel to the New Jersey Builders Association (NJBA), argued the Supreme Court gap year appeal on behalf of the NJBA.&nbsp;Hill Wallack LLP, based in Princeton, also served as counsel to the NJBA when playing a lead role in the COAH regulation litigation, and has also represented the NJBA and individual builders in many of the Mount Laurel actions discussed in this article.&nbsp;Hill Wallack LLP keeps records on the filings and status of all New Jersey towns.&nbsp;Please contact the author should you have questions about the status of any particular towns, or any other questions.</i></p>http://www.hillwallack.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Supreme Court Releases Opinion on "Gap Year" Fair Share Issueshttp://www.hillwallack.com/?t=40&an=62297&format=xml&p=531019 Jan 2017News Release<p><b>Princeton, N.J.</b> --- On January 18, 2017, the New Jersey Supreme Court released its opinion in the &ldquo;gap year&rdquo; appeal. Hill Wallack LLP, through partners <a href="http://www.hillwallack.com/thomas-f-carroll-iii">Thomas F. Carroll, III,</a> and <a href="http://www.hillwallack.com/stephen-m-eisdorfer">Stephen Eisdorfer</a>, represented the New Jersey Builders Association in the appeal.&nbsp;</p> <p>The gap years, the years 1999-2015, are the years in which the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) failed to adopt lawful regulations and fair share numbers.&nbsp; The opinion holds that fair share need numbers must be calculated for the gap years.&nbsp; Thus, municipalities will face higher fair share obligations, and they must adopt fair share plans accordingly, rezoning more properties for affordable housing.</p> <p>Municipalities had argued that the gap year need should simply be ignored.&nbsp; The Court rejected that position, and then addressed the question of how the gap year need should be calculated.&nbsp; The opinion directs that trial courts calculate gap year need as an expanded version of &ldquo;present need,&rdquo; as opposed to including gap year need within the category of &ldquo;prospective need.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p> <p>The Supreme Court&rsquo;s opinion goes a long way toward eliminating uncertainty as to municipalities&rsquo; fair share obligations under the Mount Laurel doctrine.&nbsp; Trial courts throughout the State are now guided by the Supreme Court&rsquo;s opinion.&nbsp; There is an ongoing fair share methodology trial involving Mercer County Mount Laurel cases, and that is likely to be the first case in which the Supreme Court&rsquo;s opinion is applied.&nbsp; The Court&rsquo;s opinion should also assist in bringing about speedier settlements of Mount Laurel cases.</p> <p><b>About Hill Wallack LLP </b></p> <p>Founded in 1978, Hill Wallack LLP is a leading law firm with offices in Princeton, New Jersey and Yardley, Pennsylvania. Our regional strength places us in an ideal position in today&rsquo;s market. With over 60 lawyers, our mid-market size allows us to provide sophisticated, high-level service to clients in a cost-efficient, responsive manner.</p> <p>Our attorneys are called upon to tackle some of the toughest legal and business challenges. The firm represents businesses, nonprofit and government entities, and individuals in litigation, transactional and regulatory issues. The firm also includes those skilled in family law, trusts &amp; estates, tax liability and other areas of individual service. For more information, please visit <a href="www.hillwallack.com">www.hillwallack.com</a>.</p> <p>About the Author: The author, partner-in-charge of the Land Use Division of Hill Wallack LLP, and Land Use Counsel to the NJBA, argued the Supreme Court appeal on behalf of the NJBA.</p> <p align="center">###</p>http://www.hillwallack.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Hill Wallack LLP Attorney Rocky L. Peterson to speak at NJSBA seminarhttp://www.hillwallack.com/?t=40&an=62166&format=xml&p=555517 Jan 2017Event<br /> On January 17, 2017, the Minorities in the Profession Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association will have a panel discussion entitled:<strong> &quot;How to avoid common mistakes that lead to disciplinary charges.&quot;</strong><br /> <a href="http://www.hillwallack.com/rocky-l-peterson"><br /> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">Rocky L. Peterson, Esq.</span></a> and Anna Maria Tejada, Esq. are the featured speakers. Dean Burrell, Esq. will serve as the moderator.<br /> <br /> About the speaker:<br /> <img src="http://www.hillwallack.com/D444E6/assets/images/Attorneys/Rocky_Peterson_03182013.jpg" alt="" align="absmiddle" width="167" vspace="0" hspace="0" height="250" border="0" /><br /> <p>Rocky L. Peterson is senior counsel&nbsp;in the Princeton, N.J. office of Hill Wallack LLP and a member of the firms&rsquo; Litigation Division.</p> <p>Mr. Peterson is administrative head of the firm&rsquo;s School Law and Municipal Law Practice Groups. He concentrates his practice in general litigation, municipal law, school law and labor and employment issues. He represents municipalities, district boards of education, community colleges and other public entities.</p> <br /> <br type="_moz" />http://www.hillwallack.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Court Holds Asia-Based Pharma Company Cannot Be Sued in New Jersey Despite Presence of Subsidiaryhttp://www.hillwallack.com/?t=40&an=62082&format=xml&p=530912 Jan 2017Client Alert<p><em>Written by: <a href="http://www.hillwallack.com/henry-t-chou">Henry T. Chou, Esq.</a> and <a href="http://www.hillwallack.com/quinn-k-zhao">Quinn K. Zhao, Esq.</a></em></p> <p>An India-based pharmaceutical company, Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals, Inc. (&ldquo;Dishman&rdquo;), won a significant victory on December 29, 2016, when the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court held that Dishman could not be sued in state court even though one of its subsidiaries, Dishman USA, Inc., is located in New Jersey.</p> <p>The litigation arose from the failed sale of a Chinese manufacturing facility owned by a Dishman subsidiary in China to FDASmart, Inc., a New York-based company. The Memorandum of Understanding (&ldquo;MOU&rdquo;) between Dishman and FDASmart provided that FDASmart would be paid certain consulting fees in connection with the transaction. It also stated that the deal was to governed by the laws of India, a non-disclosure agreement was to be signed in India, and fees were to be paid with applicable Indian taxes. When the deal fell through, FDASmart filed suit against Dishman and Dishman USA in the Law Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, alleging Dishman breached the MOU by failing to pay consulting fees to FDASmart.</p> <p>After the Law Division initially found that it had general jurisdiction over the dispute due to the presence of Dishman&rsquo;s subsidiary in New Jersey, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that Dishman lacked &ldquo;continuous and systematic contacts&rdquo; with New Jersey to justify it being &ldquo;haled&rdquo; into its courts. The Appellate Division refused to assert jurisdiction based solely on the technicality of ownership of the subsidiary by the parent company and held that FDASmart needed to demonstrate the &ldquo;dominance&rdquo; of Dishman USA by Dishman via other factors such as &ldquo;common ownership, financial dependency, interference with a subsidiary&rsquo;s selection of personnel, disregard of corporate formalities, and control over a subsidiary&rsquo;s marketing and operational policies.&rdquo; Since the evidence in the record showed Dishman USA operated independently of and was not financially dependent on Dishman, the Appellate Division determined that the New Jersey courts lacked general jurisdiction over Dishman and dismissed it as a defendant.</p> <p>While this decision is generally favorable to foreign pharmaceutical companies with subsidiaries in New Jersey, it is a fact-specific outcome that may not be repeated in situations where parent-subsidiary operations are intertwined and subsidiaries are dependent on parent companies for decision-making and financial matters. Careful analysis and restructuring may be required to operate within the confines of the court&rsquo;s decision and avoid imputation of liabilities upon the parent company.</p> <p>Hill Wallack LLP represents over 20 companies in the life sciences sector, including biotechnology, therapeutic, diagnostic, pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical, biomedical and biosynthesis companies. The firm assists these clients in connection with intellectual property, technology transfer, university spin-outs, venture capital and finance, employment, regulatory and mergers and acquisition issues.</p> <p>This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion.</p>http://www.hillwallack.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Hill Wallack LLP Partner, David J. Truelove Elected to President of Bucks County Bar Associationhttp://www.hillwallack.com/?t=40&an=63177&format=xml&p=531001 Jan 2017News Release<p>Hill Wallack LLP partner <a href="http://www.hillwallack.com/?t=3&amp;A=5064&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5306"><span>David J. Truelove</span></a> was recently elected to the position of President by the Board of Directors of the Bucks County Bar Association. His appointment became effective January 1, 2017. Mr. Truelove is chair of Hill Wallack LLP&rsquo;s Employment &amp; Labor practice group. His areas of concentration include municipal and school law, labor law, employment matters and complex litigation.<br /> <br /> <b>About Bucks County Bar Association</b></p> <p>Located in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, the Bucks County Bar Association (BCBA) is one of the oldest and most active Bar Associations in the United States. The BCBA is dedicated to providing its members, potential members and all persons and organizations connected with the law, support and fellowship for the advancement of the legal profession. They strive to accomplish these goals through their numerous active committees, sections and divisions and community programs as well as many continuing legal education opportunities.&nbsp;<br /> &nbsp;</p> <p><b>About Hill Wallack LLP</b></p> <p>Founded in 1978, Hill Wallack LLP is a leading law firm with offices in Yardley, Pennsylvania and Princeton and Morristown, New Jersey. Our regional strength places us in an ideal position in today&rsquo;s market. With 70 lawyers, our mid-market size allows us to provide sophisticated, high-level service to clients in a cost-efficient, responsive manner.</p> <p>Our attorneys are called upon to tackle some of the toughest legal and business challenges. The firm represents businesses, nonprofit and government entities, and individuals in litigation, transactional and regulatory issues. The firm also includes those skilled in family law, trusts &amp; estates, tax liability and other areas of individual service. For more information, please visit <a href="http://www.hillwallack.com/"><span>www.hillwallack.com</span></a>.&nbsp;</p>http://www.hillwallack.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Hill Wallack LLP Family Law Attorney, Supti Bhattacharya appointed as a Trustee of the New Jersey Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protectionhttp://www.hillwallack.com/?t=40&an=61757&format=xml&p=531023 Dec 2016News Release<p><b>Princeton, NJ December 23, 2016 </b>--- Hill Wallack family law attorney, <a href="http://www.hillwallack.com/?t=3&amp;A=9689&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5306">Supti Bhattacharya</a> has been appointed as a Trustee of the New Jersey Lawyers&rsquo; Fund for Client Protection for a five-year term starting January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2021.</p> <p>Supti Bhattacharya is Chairperson of the firm&rsquo;s New Jersey Family Law practice group. Ms. Bhattacharya represents clients exclusively in the areas of family law and matrimonial law, including: Divorce; Separation; Domestic Custody and International Custody; Child Support; Alimony; College Tuition and College Expense Contribution; Child Emancipation; Equitable Distribution of Assets; Domestic Violence; Pre-Nuptial Agreements; and Mid-Marriage Agreements</p> <p><b>About New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection</b></p> <p>The New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, an entity of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, exists under the authority of Rule 1:28. It was established to reimburse clients who have suffered a loss due to dishonest conduct of a member of the New Jersey Bar. The New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection was created as a Committee of the New Jersey State Bar Association in 1961. At the request of the Bar, the New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection took its present form in 1969 and has served as a national leader. Formerly known as the Clients' Security Fund of the Bar of New Jersey, the New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection's nature and purpose were not affected by the 1991 name change. The New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection handles the payment and registration process for lawyers admitted to practice.</p> <p><b>About Hill Wallack LLP</b></p> <p>Founded in 1978, Hill Wallack LLP is a leading law firm with offices in Princeton and Morristown, New Jersey and Yardley, Pennsylvania. Our regional strength places us in an ideal position in today&rsquo;s market. With nearly 70 lawyers, our mid-market size allows us to provide sophisticated, high-level service to clients in a cost-efficient, responsive manner. Our attorneys are called upon to tackle some of the toughest legal and business challenges. The firm represents businesses, nonprofit and government entities, and individuals in litigation, transactional and regulatory issues. The firm also includes those skilled in family law, trusts &amp; estates, tax liability and other areas of individual service. For more information, please visit <a href="file:///\\hwfs1\data\wdox\docs\099999\00017\www.hillwallack.com">www.hillwallack.com</a>.</p>http://www.hillwallack.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Hill Wallack LLP Attorneys to speak at the Annual SAIF, Regional Safety Committee Meetinghttp://www.hillwallack.com/?t=40&an=61296&format=xml&p=555508 Dec 2016Event<p>Partner <a href="http://www.hillwallack.com/?t=3&amp;A=5057&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5306">Jeffrey L. Shanaberger</a> and counsel <a href="http://www.hillwallack.com/?t=3&amp;A=5043&amp;format=xml&amp;p=5306">Cherylee O. Melcher</a> will be speaking at the Regional Safety Committee of the School Alliance Insurance Fund on Thursday, December 8, 2016.&nbsp;</p> <p>They will be addressing current topics in school liability such as claims of sexual harassment, bullying and bodily injury claims arising out of student participation in physical education, varsity athletics and other extra-curricular activities.</p> <p>The Regional Safety Committee is comprised of school business administrators, risk managers and general district administrative officers.</p> <p>Location: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Rue Insurance<br /> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;3812 Quakerbridge Road <br /> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Suite 201, Trenton, NJ&nbsp;</p>http://www.hillwallack.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10