Serves as outside counsel to the South Carolina State Ports Authority (SCSPA), the fourth busiest container port in North America. In that capacity, we have counseled the SCSPA in connection with a variety of matters, including: land use and zoning issues arising out of the construction and operation of containerized and break bulk cargo terminals; land use, right-of-way acquisition, business, finance and political issues relating to the $650 million design and construction of the Cooper River Bridges Replacement Project; environmental impact, permitting, landlord-tenant/licensing issues associated with the SCSPA’s acquisition and use of the former Charleston Naval Base from the United States Government and the South Carolina Redevelopment Authority; nuclear, security and other regulatory issues associated with marine cargo being transported through the Port of Charleston, South Carolina; traditional and alternative methods of project and capital asset finance, state and federal grants, loans and funding mechanisms; local, state and federal governmental regulations; and dispute resolution in connection with procurement challenges and major commercial contract disputes.

Charleston Int'l. Ports, LLC v. S.C. State Ports Authority, No. 02-01973 (D.S.C. filed June 7, 2002).

Experience Center

Match our Experience to Your Needs

Experience Highlights

Boardman Petroleum, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co.
The firm served as lead counsel to Boardman Petroleum in two significant actions resulting in reported decisions. The first action was brought in the more
Internal investigation for board of directors of large community bank
Conducted internal corporate/regulatory investigation for the board of directors of a large New Jersey community bank involving whistle-blower more
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. The Procter & Gamble Co.
Successfully represented Georgia-Pacific in the expedited arbitration of a case involving false advertising more
Sara Lee Corp. v. Kayser-Roth Corp.
Represented the manufacturer of L’eggs® pantyhose in action to enjoin use of LEG LOOKS® mark on re-designed packaging. The Fourth Circuit reversed more