Candace Beinecke was named one of the “100 Most Influential Women in NYC Business” by Crain’s New York Business. She was one of only three lawyers on the list (the others are Sheila Birnbaum of Skadden and Faiza Saeed of Cravath), which represents the arts, finance, media, real estate and professional services fields, among others.

To compile the list, Crain’s considered professional biographies and accomplishments, as well as how many people the individuals supervise and how much revenue they generate. “They recognize the extraordinary importance of managing expectations and setting realistic goals,” wrote Jill Kaplan, Crain’s publisher, of the women on the list. “They have chosen paths that have provided them with self fulfillment in whatever way they have defined it.”

The following is the full text of Beinecke’s entry on the list:

BALANCING ACT AT TOP LAW FIRM

Candace Beinecke: Hughes Hubbard & Reed

Long before Candace Beinecke became chair of Hughes Hubbard & Reed, her mother knew that she’d become a lawyer: She argued too much as a kid.

Ms. Beinecke, 60, was a pioneer in her field. She was a corporate lawyer during the 1970s, a time when clients thought nothing of dropping a firm that put “girls” on their legal teams. She was appointed chair of Hughes Hubbard in 1999, making her the first female chair of a major New York law firm.

Throughout her career, she has earned respect from combative and sometimes outright sexist male lawyers, while maintaining her firm’s independence in an era of consolidation. It’s been a balancing act.

“I think my greatest skill is being able to do tough things without breaking a lot of glass,” she says.

During Ms. Beinecke’s tenure, Hughes Hubbard has ranked among the top law firms in the country for its corporate practices and diversity hiring, while profits per partner have increased 19% each year on average.

Ms. Beinecke also serves on a number of boards. She’s chairman of $35 billion investment fund First Eagle Funds, a director of transportation and energy firm Alstom and a vice chair of the Partnership for New York City.

Hughes Hubbard filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of a coalition of Canadian parliamentarians and law professors in consolidated appeals by military detainees at Guantánamo Bay.

The petitioners in the cases assert the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus under the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In particular, they challenge the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which denies alien detainees the right to challenge promptly their detention before a civil court. One of the detainees affected, Omar Khadr, is a Canadian citizen who has been held at Guantánamo Bay since 2002 when he was only 15 years old. Khadr presently is in proceedings before the U.S. Military Commission.

The Canadian lawmakers and law professors who lent their names to the brief expressed a strong interest in promoting a consistent application of international law by allied nations, including the U.S., and in assuring treatment of Canadian citizens that meets internationally recognized standards. The brief argues U.S. constitutional obligations toward alien detainees should be construed in a manner consistent with international legal standards. The brief also argues that the Military Commissions Act violates international law by restricting non-citizen detainees’ meaningful access to any independent and impartial tribunal to challenge their detention.

Thirty-one parliamentarians -- including two former Ministers of Justice and Attorneys General, a former Solicitor General, and former Ministers of Foreign Affairs and National Defence -- and sixty-one professors signed on to the brief supporting the detainees’ right to challenge their confinement. As one parliamentarian noted in signing on to the brief, these cases raise “fundamental legal questions of due process, equality before the law, the application of international law to domestic law, the unfairness of the Guantánamo process, the problems of arbitrary and indefinite detention, the conditions of confinement, the status of child soldiers, and the like.” Another parliamentarian expressed “[c]ongratulations for drafting a well-reasoned document and I am proud to be associated with it.”

The brief has received significant press coverage in Canada. CBC News, the Globe and Mail, and the Toronto Star featured articles on it and quoted the academics who signed on. The CBC news radio program “The Current” began with an interview of Professor Craig Forcese, a Hughes Hubbard alum who also appeared on the brief, about the cases and arguments in the brief.

Bill Stein and Scott Christensen drafted the brief with Hughes Hubbard alum Professor Craig Forcese of the University of Ottawa. They were assisted by Sarah Cave, Kathleen Fones, Anton Skuratovskyy, and summer associate Corrine Lane.

“Beinecke broke new ground in 1999, when Hughes Hubbard & Reed became one of the first major law firms to elect a woman to lead it,” The Journal wrote. “A corporate attorney, she is a pioneer in bringing the expertise of women lawyers into the boardroom.”

To compile its list, The Journal asked for nominations of women “who have had a national impact on their fields and beyond during the last five years.”  The publication “looked for women with the demonstrated power to change the legal landscape, shape public affairs, launch industries and do big things.”

Other women who made the list include Rachel Robbins, general counsel of the New York Stock Exchange and former General Counsel of JP Morgan; Elena Kagan, the first woman dean at Harvard Law School; Patricia Wald, former Chief Judge of the DC Circuit who sits on the subcommittee of the Board of Directors of George Soros's Justice Initiative; and Mary Jo White, the only woman to have held the position of U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. 

The Journal noted that women, more than men, still face the challenge of balancing the demands of a family and a career. Still, “In the end,” The Journal noted, “the list reflects not just some of the most influential women lawyers, but some of the most influential lawyers, period.”

The firm’s Criminal Trial Program is growing.  Less than a year after launching last September, the program now includes more than 30 associates, 10 clients, and 13 cases.

In early June, one of those cases, involving a young man accused of robbery, is set to go to trial, marking a first for the program.  So far, about half of the cases in the program have been settled with plea bargains.  The other half is pending.

Summer associates are getting a chance to participate, too.  Marisa Darden and Gaurav Reddy are working on the robbery case that will be going to trial this summer alongside associates Mike Tiger and Christine Stecura.  Jason Zakai is working with Marc Weinstein and Jason Masimore in another case likely to go to trial by the end of summer.  And last week, Charley Huberty, accompanied by David Liston and Gabrielle Marshall, stood in court and spoke on behalf of a client charged with attempted murder.

The White Collar Group’s Ed Little and Liston, both of whom are former prosecutors, are supervising the program, with the associates expected to do all of the speaking on the record at each court appearance, take the lead on client and witness meetings, and to handle hearings and trials on their own.  Liston explained that firm attorneys have, through motion practice, discovery requests and advocacy with the prosecutors and the judge, obtained very favorable plea bargain offers for several clients who have, as a result, chosen not to go to trial.  Meanwhile, other attorneys are preparing for hearings and trial for those clients who have chosen to go to trial.

Liston emphasized that Hughes Hubbard is one of only two major New York law firms that offers a criminal trial program such as this and that the response from attorneys at the firm has been overwhelmingly positive, with a long list of people eager to represent future clients.  As Liston put it, “the program provides top notch pro bono criminal defense services while providing attorneys and summer associates with an arena in which to develop the confidence and sharpen the instincts and skills that will serve them well in any area of the firm’s practice.” 

Trade Finance magazine singled out two Hughes Hubbard deals as “Deals of the Year” in its March cover story. The article includes “the best transactions of 2006.”

“Hybrid structure proves a landmark,” Trade Finance wrote of the $1.2-billion Votorantim deal in which Hughes Hubbard served as counsel to a group of lead arrangers and bookrunners, including ABN AMRO, BBVA, BNP Paribas, Citigroup and Santander. “The transaction stands out as the largest credit facility arranged for a Brazilian group at the time it closed and the longest tenor widely syndicated ever,” the magazine reports. The Hughes Hubbard team included Amy Dulin and Federico Goudie.

Also on the list is the $80-million HSBC financing for the Noble Group, which, the magazine reported, “proved to be the largest portfolio based soybeans export prepayment programme in Brazil,” and was distinguished by its “innovative structure allowing the lenders to grant the pre-payment umbrella facility to a significant number of Brazilian soybean suppliers.”  The team representing HSBC included Amy Dulin, Freddie Goudie and Ana Spiguel.

In what the Wall Street Journal called "a stunning reversal," the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering and circumvention of internal corporate controls convictions of client Douglas Lake, former Westar Energy executive vice president and member of its board of directors.  The Court also reversed the convictions of co-defendant David Wittig, the Kansas utility’s former chairman, president and chief executive, in a highly publicized case widely dubbed the "Enron of Kansas."

A major setback for the government, the ruling leans heavily on arguments made by Hughes Hubbard in its defense of Mr. Lake over the course of two lengthy jury trials. The first of those trials ended in a deadlock, with U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson declaring a mistrial. The second found Mr. Lake guilty of 30 counts for his part in an alleged conspiracy to loot Westar and he was sentenced 15 years in prison.

“The prosecution hung by a thin legal thread,” the judges wrote in their unanimous ruling. “Despite the scope of the alleged fraudulent scheme, all counts of the indictment depended on proving the efforts of the defendants to conceal from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission their personal use of corporate aircraft.”

The problem for the government prosecutors – the judges ruled, echoing arguments made by the Hughes Hubbard team over the lifetime of the two trials – was that they “produced no evidence that the defendants failed to comply with SEC regulations governing the reporting of such personal use and the jury was never instructed regarding the SEC’s reporting requirement.”

The ruling set aside all 30 of Mr. Lake’s convictions and the Tenth Circuit specified that all but a few could not be retried.  Mr. Lake is free on bond. 

Congratulations to Ed Little, Jason Masimore and Vicki Andreadis in the trials, Lisa Cahill, Kevin Clines and Pat O'Gara on all legal briefing and Seth Waxman of Wilmer Hale who argued the appeal.  

Hughes Hubbard client Northwest Airlines, Inc. has agreed to acquire Mesaba Airlines, a wholly owned subsidiary of MAIR Holdings, Inc., following a bankruptcy reorganization of Mesaba. Pursuant to a separate agreement, Northwest has also agreed to sell all of MAIR’s stock back to MAIR. Northwest filed for bankruptcy in Sept. 2005 and Mesaba followed suit that same year.

As part of Northwest’s agreement to sell its MAIR stock, MAIR has agreed to support Northwest’s acquisition of Mesaba. The team representing Northwest included: Ken Lefkowitz, Andy Braiterman, Susan Campbell, Javier Hernandez, Daniel Lubell, Amera Chowhan, Avner Ben-Gera, Arinze Ike, Jeff Margolin, Kristy Pocious and Damon Rowe.

Client Dolphin Direct Equity Partners LP recently closed on its going-private transaction regarding Boston Restaurant Associates, Inc.

The transaction was structured as an all-cash merger and approved by the shareholders of BRAI at a special meeting prior to the closing.

BRAI, which is now nearly wholly owned by Dolphin, owns and operates about a dozen restaurants throughout New England.

New York-based Dolphin specializes in investing in emerging media and marketing services, enterprise services, technology and communications companies operating primarily in the U.S., Canada and the U.K.

Gary Simon and Andy Mendoza represented Dolphin Direct.

Three months after Hughes Hubbard launched its Criminal Trial Program, the firm has been assigned to its fourth pro bono client in New York State Supreme Court, Criminal Term.

The client, a 16-year-old high school student from Manhattan, was arrested for his alleged participation in a three-person “crew” that sold a bag of cocaine to an undercover officer posing as a drug buyer.  Hughes Hubbard was assigned to his case last week after he fired his court-appointed attorney for failing to exercise the client’s right to testify before the grand jury – a measure the client believes would have prevented his indictment.

John Poulos, Sharad Khemani, and Sean Young are representing the client.  They are among 12 associates already taking part in the Criminal Trial Program, the brainchild of N.Y.S. Supreme Court Justice Micki Scherer, Chuck Scherer’s wife, who came up with the idea as a way of providing free legal representation to indigent defendants while affording Hughes Hubbard associates invaluable courtroom experience.

So far, Hughes Hubbard helped negotiate a lenient plea deal for another one of its clients in the program who was charged with possession of stolen property.  A third client, Jose Colon, is charged with attempted murder for allegedly shooting a drug dealer whom he owed money, and if convicted, faces up to twenty years in jail.  His case, like that of Leroy Hayes, the program’s first client, appears likely to go to trial.

While he has been in prison awaiting trial, several jail guards allegedly viciously beat Hayes while his arm was in a sling due to injuries sustained at the hands of members of the Bloods gang, in which other jail guards may have been complicit, and the firm is in the process of bringing a federal civil action on his behalf.  Already, Hughes Hubbard lawyers have succeeded in getting him moved from Rikers, where the abuse took place, to a different facility and have persuaded City officials to conduct an investigation into the allegations.  Lisa Cahill, Elizabeth Simson, and Nkasi Okafor are working on the issues related to Hayes’s abuse in prison.  Jason Masimore, John McGoey, and Elise O’Connell are representing Hayes in the criminal case, in which he is accused of shooting a gun in the air on a crowded street.

The other associates involved in the program include: Beatriz Biscardi, Sarah Loomis Cave, Daniel Doeschner, Hagit Elul, Joseph LoPiccolo, and Neil Oxford.  The White Collar Group’s Ed Little and David Liston, both of who are former prosecutors, are supervising the program, which is designed to give primary responsibility to the lawyers assigned to the actual cases.  Those lawyers are expected to do all of the speaking on the record at each court appearance, take the lead at client and witness meetings, and handle the hearings and trials on their own (with Little, Liston or another experienced trial attorney present for advice only), as Liston explained.  Justice Michael Obus, who presided over several high profile criminal cases including one against Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski and former chief financial officer Mark Swartz, and who presides over the Criminal Trial Program cases, has praised the work of the firm on these four cases, and indicated that he wants to appoint the firm to represent more clients in the near future. 

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the dismissal of an antitrust suit alleging a conspiracy among nine major drug manufacturers, , to discourage the illegal importation of prescription drugs from Canada. The firm argued the case on behalf of all nine companies.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Minnesota in 2004 by a group of consumers and organizations in Minnesota who charged the drug companies with anti-competitive practices designed to prevent lower-priced versions of U.S. drugs sold in Canada from being available to U.S. consumers, including consumers who drove across the border to buy drugs in Canada.

The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing the that importation of drugs is illegal under the Federal, Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and that the antitrust laws could not be used to protect and promote this illegal trade. The district court agreed, and dismissed the suit.

In an important ruling for both food and drug law and antitrust law, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The court of appeals provided the most definitive statement to date about the illegality of drug imports, holding that they were inconsistent with the “closed system” of drug regulation that ensures the safety of the U.S. drug supply. The court also found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because the alleged loss of access to drugs illegally imported into the country was not an injury that the federal antitrust laws were intended to address.

Rob Reznick argued the case on behalf of the drug companies. Also working on this case were John Townsend, Scott Christensen, Kathryne Love, and James Graffam.

In a victory for Hughes Hubbard, the Delaware Chancery Court recently granted client Christie’s motion for summary judgment in a suit filed by a Wilmington couple looking for their money back on a forgery.

At the center of the case was an oil painting of a young woman beside a table in a dusky light and believed to have been executed by Frank Weston Benson in 1912. Johannes and Betty Krahmer, a retired tax partner at the Morris Nichols firm and his wife, a former economic analyst for the CIA, purchased the painting for $38,500 through Christie’s in 1986. A six-year limited warranty of authenticity governed the sale.

The painting had been put up for auction by the Detroit Club, which provided Christie’s with records tracing its provenance back to 1914 when, a club representative told Christie’s, the club acquired the painting, Interior, from Benson himself. The club’s records also showed Interior had been independently appraised as a Benson at least three times between 1925 and 1985 – an assessment Christie’s employees shared after examining the painting, its subject matter, style and signature, in person.

In 1999, in the process of trying to authenticate the painting with the Catalogue Raisonee Committee for F.W. Benson at the Vose Galleries in Boston, the Krahmers learned of a painting surprisingly similar to Interior at the New Britain Art Museum in Connecticut. Three years later, Sotheby’s auction house rejected Interior after a restorer there said the painting might be a fake. When the Benson Committee concluded that Interior was in fact a forgery, the Krahmers asked Christie’s to rescind the sale. Christie’s refused, pointing out that the six-year warranty of authenticity had long expired.

In 2004, the Krahmers petitioned for rescission, alleging Christie’s had defrauded them, covering up the painting’s flaws and upping later appraisals in attempts to perpetuate the misperception the painting was an original – thus causing the statute of limitations to toll. Christie’s held that the Krahmers’ had no basis for their theory of fraud – that its handling of the painting was proper and had found no reason to believe it was not authentic. Christie’s also argued the Krahmers had known since 1999 the painting might not be an original, a fact that ran against their argument for tolling the limitations period.

Vice Chancellor Stephen Lamb agreed with Christie’s, writing in an Oct. 17 decision the Krahmers failed to provide any evidence to undermine Christie’s due diligence or prove Christie’s knowingly misled them. In fact, the Vice Chancellor faulted the Krahmers for not attempting to authenticate the painting sooner. At any rate, he concluded, Delaware’s three-year statute of limitations would bar the claim, writing: "This is precisely the type of case which the statue of limitations, considering its underlying objective of fairness, seeks to prevent." Michael Salzman and Russell Jacobs represented Christie’s.