McKENNON LAW GROUP PC.

Insurance Bad Faith, ERISA and Business Litigation Attorneys

McKennon Law Group PC has offices throughout California, and handles cases all over the State, including the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, San Francisco and the Central Valley.

When you need an attorney, choosing the right law firm is the most important decision you will make. We founded McKennon Law Group PC for one purpose: to provide our clients targeted, effective representation geared to get the best possible results. Our single-minded focus is to achieve our clients’ objectives in an aggressive yet professional manner.

We are counted among California’s leading insurance, ERISA, business, and consumer attorneys. We have arbitrated, tried, appealed, and resolved hundreds of disputes on all lines of insurance - life, health, disability, property/casualty, commercial general liability, professional liability, officers and directors liability, employment practices liability, homeowners and business owners property and liability. We have also litigated disputes involving insurance and real estate agent/broker liability, class actions, serious injury and wrongful death, and other consumer and general business matters, and we have recovered millions of dollars in judgments and settlements for our clients.

Office

20321 SW Birch St., Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92660

UN court: Australia cannot use seized documents

The United Nations' highest court on Monday banned Australia from making any use of documents it seized from a lawyer working for East Timor in an arbitration case over a multibillion-dollar oil and gas deal between the two nations.

The International Court of Justice also ordered Canberra not to "interfere in any way in communications" between East Timor and its legal advisers in the arbitration or future negotiations on a maritime boundary between resources-rich Australia and its tiny, impoverished northern neighbor.

Australian agents in December raided the Canberra office of a legal adviser to East Timor and seized documents and data. That followed claims by a former Australian spy that his country bugged the East Timorese government ahead of negotiations on the Timor Sea Treaty that carves up revenue from oil and gas under the sea between the two countries.

East Timor wants to renegotiate the treaty, arguing that it is invalid because of the alleged bugging.

It went to the world court arguing the seizure was illegal. Monday's orders did not address that claim, which will be litigated later.

Court: Broad protection for whistleblowers

The Supreme Court says whistleblower protections in a federal law passed in response to the Enron financial scandal apply broadly to employees of publicly traded companies and contractors hired by the companies.

The justices ruled 6-3 Tuesday in favor of two former employees of companies that administer the Fidelity family of mutual funds. The workers claimed they faced retaliation after they reported allegations of fraud affecting Fidelity funds.

The case involved the reach of a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed in 2002 in response to the Enron scandal, that protects whistleblower activity. The measure was intended to protect people who expose the kind of corporate misdeeds that arose at Enron.

High court sides with parent who fled with child

The Supreme Court has made it harder for a parent in a custody dispute to seek the immediate return of a child under an international treaty to deter child abduction.

The justices ruled unanimously Wednesday that a one-year clock begins ticking when a child is taken out of its country of residence, even if the parent left behind cannot determine where the child is living. In the one-year period, the Hague Convention on child abduction gives judges little option but to return the child to its home country.

After a year, judges have more discretion and must take account of evidence that the child is settled in its new home.

Fla. high court: Immigrant can't get law license

The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that immigrants in the country illegally can't be given a license to practice law.

The question was raised when a man who moved here from Mexico when he was 9 years old sought a license in Florida. The court said Thursday that federal law prohibits people who are unlawfully in the country from obtaining professional licenses. The justices said state law can override the federal ban, but Florida has taken no action to do so.

Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court granted a law license to Sergio Garcia, who arrived in the U.S. from Mexico as a teenager with his father. But that ruling was only after the state approved a law that allows immigrants in the country illegally to obtain the license.

Court weighs securities fraud class-action cases

The Supreme Court is considering whether to abandon a quarter-century of precedent and make it tougher for investors to band together to sue corporations for securities fraud.

The justices hear arguments Wednesday in an appeal by Halliburton Co. that seeks to block a class-action lawsuit claiming the energy services company inflated its stock price.

A group of investors says it lost money when Halliburton's stock price dropped after revelations the company misrepresented revenues, understated its liability in asbestos litigation and overstated the benefits of a merger.

Justices threw out the company's first attempt to block the lawsuit in 2011. But Halliburton is now urging the court to overturn a 25-year-old decision that sparked a tidal wave of securities-related, class-action lawsuits against publicly traded companies and has led to billions in settlements.

The court's 1988 decision in Basic v. Levinson says shareholders who claim they were defrauded by false statements in securities filings don't have to prove they actually relied on the statements. Rather, the court reasoned that any misrepresentation would be reflected in the current stock price. Even if investors are not aware of the misstatements, they are presumed to be aware of them because they affect the stock price.

This presumption, known as the "fraud-on-the-market theory," has become the driving force for modern class-action securities cases. But some economists have questioned whether this theory makes sense anymore, saying it doesn't account for the sometimes random and arbitrary nature of stock trading.