<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Smith, Gambrell &#38; Russell, LLP</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog</link>
	<description>Attorneys at Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 16:09:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>EPA Issues Proposed Guidance for Vapor Intrusion at Cleanup Sites</title>
		<link>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/05/epa-issues-proposed-guidance-for-vapor-intrusion-at-cleanup-sites/</link>
		<comments>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/05/epa-issues-proposed-guidance-for-vapor-intrusion-at-cleanup-sites/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 16:09:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sustainability</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental and Sustainability Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chlorinated solvents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cleanup sites]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[light non-aqueous phase liquid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LNAPL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[petroleum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[petroleum contamination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vapor intrusion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/?p=1598</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On April 16, EPA issued a revised proposed guidance for assessing and mitigating vapor intrusion risks from chlorinated solvents and petroleum at cleanup sites.  The proposed guidance documents revise earlier versions from last year.  The current versions eliminate language from the chlorinated solvents guidance for calculating limits to protect against health hazards from short-term exposure.  [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/05/epa-issues-proposed-guidance-for-vapor-intrusion-at-cleanup-sites/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;There is nothing permanent except change.&#8221;  -Heraclitus</title>
		<link>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/05/there-is-nothing-permanent-except-change-heraclitus/</link>
		<comments>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/05/there-is-nothing-permanent-except-change-heraclitus/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 14:37:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kfrost</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Estate Planning & Wealth Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Estate Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiscal cliff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gift tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GRAT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PSowell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[treasury regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[valuation discounting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wealth transfer planning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/?p=1592</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Authored by: Paul J. Sowell Just when those impacted by the moving target that was the gift and estate tax exemption collectively sighed in relief at the passage of the fiscal cliff deal, it appears the celebration may have been premature.  President Obama recently released his proposed budget for 2014 where he seeks to revisit [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/05/there-is-nothing-permanent-except-change-heraclitus/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Industry and Environmental Groups Challenge New Rules for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators</title>
		<link>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/05/industry-and-environmental-groups-challenge-new-rules-for-commercial-and-industrial-solid-waste-incinerators/</link>
		<comments>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/05/industry-and-environmental-groups-challenge-new-rules-for-commercial-and-industrial-solid-waste-incinerators/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 14:08:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sustainability</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental and Sustainability Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[air pollutants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[incinerators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MACT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solid waste]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/?p=1583</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Petitions have been filed in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, challenging EPA rules, finalized in December, for control of emission of hazardous air pollutants from commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators (CISWI).  The petitions, filed by industry and environmental groups, also challenge a companion EPA rule defining non-hazardous secondary materials [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/05/industry-and-environmental-groups-challenge-new-rules-for-commercial-and-industrial-solid-waste-incinerators/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT REJECTS THE INEVITABLE DISCLOSURE DOCTRINE IN A TRADE SECRET DISPUTE</title>
		<link>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/05/the-georgia-supreme-court-rejects-the-inevitable-disclosure-doctrine-in-a-trade-secret-dispute/</link>
		<comments>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/05/the-georgia-supreme-court-rejects-the-inevitable-disclosure-doctrine-in-a-trade-secret-dispute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 21:59:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>appellate</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Georgia Appellate Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ewasmuth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Georgia Appellate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Holton v. Physician Oncology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inevitable disclosure doctrine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/?p=1580</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The following situation can occur when employees and executives possess a company’s trade secrets and confidential business information.  An employee works for Company A.  The employee signs a confidentiality agreement promising not to disclose certain information after his employment ends.  His employment with Company A ends, and he goes to work for a competitor, Company [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/05/the-georgia-supreme-court-rejects-the-inevitable-disclosure-doctrine-in-a-trade-secret-dispute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Court of Appeals Addresses Superfund Liability of Brownfield Developers</title>
		<link>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/05/federal-court-of-appeals-addresses-superfund-liability-of-brownfield-developers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/05/federal-court-of-appeals-addresses-superfund-liability-of-brownfield-developers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 16:47:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sustainability</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental and Sustainability Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BFPP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brownfield]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CERCLA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hazardous substances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PSC Nitrogen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Superfund]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/?p=1576</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a case of first impression regarding brownfield developer liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 4 decided the issue of whether a current owner of a hazardous waste site can escape liability as a Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser (BFPP) under [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/05/federal-court-of-appeals-addresses-superfund-liability-of-brownfield-developers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>EPA’S AUTHORITY TO VETO PERMITS CHANGES</title>
		<link>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/04/epas-authority-to-veto-permits-changes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/04/epas-authority-to-veto-permits-changes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:10:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sustainability</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental and Sustainability Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corps]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unacceptable adverse effect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[veto permits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/?p=1557</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On 23 April 2013, the DC Circuit reversed the district court in Mingo Logan Coal co. v. EPA, which deals with the scope of EPA&#8217;s authority to veto permits issued by the Corps.  In relevant part the court held the following (using a straightforward statutory interpretation): Section 404 imposes no temporal limit on the Administrator&#8217;s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/04/epas-authority-to-veto-permits-changes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Global Solar Photovoltaic Industry is Likely Now a Net Energy Producer, Stanford Researchers Find</title>
		<link>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/04/global-solar-photovoltaic-industry-is-likely-now-a-net-energy-producer-stanford-researchers-find/</link>
		<comments>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/04/global-solar-photovoltaic-industry-is-likely-now-a-net-energy-producer-stanford-researchers-find/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:36:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sustainability</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental and Sustainability Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clean electricity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fossil fuel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[photovoltaic power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/?p=1549</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The construction of the photovoltaic power industry since 2000 has required an enormous amount of energy, mostly from fossil fuels. The good news is that the clean electricity from all the installed solar panels has likely just surpassed the energy going into the industry&#8217;s continued growth, Stanford researchers find.  To read the complete article, click [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/04/global-solar-photovoltaic-industry-is-likely-now-a-net-energy-producer-stanford-researchers-find/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>You Are Not Finished With Your 2012 Gifting Until You File Your Gift Tax Return</title>
		<link>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/04/you-are-not-finished-with-your-2012-gifting-until-you-file-your-gift-tax-return/</link>
		<comments>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/04/you-are-not-finished-with-your-2012-gifting-until-you-file-your-gift-tax-return/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:57:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kfrost</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Estate Planning & Wealth Protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Estate Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gift tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gift tax return]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NShah]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/?p=1538</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Authored by: Neeli G. Shah Many opportunistic taxpayers rushed to make year-end gifts during 2012. As a result, a record number of 2012 gift tax returns are expected to be filed in 2013. These returns were due yesterday, April 15, 2013, although the due date can be automatically extended by six months.  The importance of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/04/you-are-not-finished-with-your-2012-gifting-until-you-file-your-gift-tax-return/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Green Chamber of the South:  Greenhouse Accelerator</title>
		<link>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/04/green-chamber-of-the-south-greenhouse-accelerator/</link>
		<comments>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/04/green-chamber-of-the-south-greenhouse-accelerator/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:54:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sustainability</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental and Sustainability Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company evaluation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Green Chamber of the South]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Greenhouse Accelerator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sustainable]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/?p=1524</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Steve O’Day is a Mentor for the Greenhouse Accelerator of the Green Chamber of the South.  The Accelerator’s purpose is to help green entrepreneurs create local, sustainable jobs, providing management support through mentors, and financial support through loans.  After two years of operation, the Accelerator has evaluated 28 companies, screened out 11 companies, and accepted [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/04/green-chamber-of-the-south-greenhouse-accelerator/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When Is a Published Decision Not Binding Precedent?</title>
		<link>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/04/when-is-a-published-decision-not-binding-precedent/</link>
		<comments>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/04/when-is-a-published-decision-not-binding-precedent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2013 20:26:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>appellate</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Georgia Appellate Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appellate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ewasmuth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Georgia Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physical precedent]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://64.131.71.171/blog/?p=1513</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A practitioner might expect that a published decision appearing in the official reports of the Georgia Court of Appeals is binding precedent.  However, Georgia practice contains a wrinkle that affects the ability of a practitioner to cite a published decision as precedent.  It may be a wrinkle to which practitioners need to pay closer attention. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.sgrlaw.com/blog/2013/04/when-is-a-published-decision-not-binding-precedent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
