Pierce Atwood has handled thousands of matters in its 130-year history. If you know what you’re looking for, feel free to use the search field above. If you know the attorney or area of expertise most relevant to your needs, use the drop down menus. Or, if your search is not that specific at this point, select a practice area that is most relevant to your interests.
Firm client Calpine Corporation has acquired Granite Ridge Energy Center, a natural gas-fired, combined cycle plant in Londonderry, NH from Granite Ridge Holdings for $500 million. The plant provides about 2,000 MW of clean, flexible, and reliable energy to the region.
Pierce Atwood represented Cambridge Trust Company in closing on its $110 million commitment to the Massachusetts Housing Partnership (MHP). MHP will use the funds to finance multifamily rental housing, with a focus on supporting low- and moderate-income households and nonprofit developers in the communities that Cambridge Trust serves. MHP estimates that the bank’s new initiative will help finance the construction of 1,400 rental apartments over the next 10 years.
Represented Casella Waste Systems in connection with the acquisition of waste hauling and handling company, Oceanside Rubbish, Inc., based in Sanford, Maine.
Pierce Atwood represented Casella Waste Systems in the acquisition of Complete Disposal Company, Inc. and its subsidiary, United Material Management of Holyoke, Inc., owner and operator of a solid waste transfer station in Holyoke, Massachusetts.
Represented Casella Waste Systems, Inc. in connection with the acquisition of waste hauling company Central Maine Disposal Corporation based in Fairfield, Maine.
Represented Cate Street Capital, Inc. in connection with acquisition, disposition, and financing of their portfolio of companies, including private placements, structured finance, tax advantaged finance, and traditional M&A activity. The Cate Street portfolio includes Red Desert (water reclamation facility); Sunlight Partners (solar technology development); Thermogen Industries (biocoal manufacturing); Purified Plastics (recycling and manufacturing facility); Burgess Biopower (75 MW renewable power generation facility) and Organic Nutrition Industries (renewable proteins).
Served as chair of arbitration panel addressing claims by public owner against Design Builder of waste-to-energy generating equipment. Following issuance of award against Design Builder, at the request of the Design Builder, successfully mediated a resolution in a follow-up dispute with its vendors/subcontractors and consultants.
Pierce Atwood represented Portland Pipe Line Corp. in legislative opposition to, and in litigation challenging, an ordinance that prevents the use of its pipeline for transporting certain types of crude oil from Canada to tankers in Portland Harbor. Portland Pipe Line Corp. withdrew the lawsuit in July 2021.
For the forest products industry, and especially for paper mills, Pierce Atwood’s environmental attorneys have addressed chemical safety and products regulation issues under a range of federal and state laws, including packaging laws. Among the requirements the firm has advised on are those under the Toxic Substances Control Act, pesticide laws, OSHA information and safety standards, the Federal Trade Commission’s “Green Advertising” guidance, and California’s Proposition 65. Among other related matters, we have advised clients on manufacture, storage requirements, shipping and transportation in interstate and international commerce, labeling and advertising, and multistate product recalls.
We obtained dismissal of a complaint filed by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) alleging that our client, Cherryfield Foods, failed to comply with I-9 requirements making it illegal for an employer to hire an individual for employment in the United States unless the employer has complied with rules relating to verification of employment authorization and recordkeeping. Count I alleged there were 147 Cherryfield employees with I-9s containing substantive paperwork violations. Count II alleged there were 160 employees for whom Cherryfield failed to produce and/or never prepared an I-9. The complaint sought a total proposed civil penalty in the aggregate amounting to over $330,000. In response to the complaint, we filed a motion to dismiss, accompanied by substantial supporting documentation, arguing that Count I should be dismissed because ICE conducted the inspection in a manner that effectively precluded Cherryfield from correcting technical paperwork violations and completely disregarded its own internal guidelines, and that Count II should be dismissed because the employees identified in Count II were hired before 2006 and after 2007, or were grandfathered under the statute, and Cherryfield did not provide I-9s for the vast majority of these employees only because the ICE I-9 inspection request was limited to I-9s for 2006-2007. In response to our motion, ICE moved to dismiss the complaint and its motion was granted, relieving Cherryfield completely from any liability for the proposed penalties.