alicebogle

Monday, February 24, 2014

SEC Announces 2014 Examination Priorities for Investment Advisers

On January 9, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission released its examination priorities for 2014 (the “2014 Exam Priorities Release”), covering a wide range of issues at financial institutions, including investment advisers and investment companies, hedge funds and private equity funds. The 2014 Exam Priorities Release highlights a number of areas and key risks that the SEC will be monitoring and examining in 2014. The SEC has identified the following core risk areas for investment advisers:

Safety of Assets and Custody—Through the National Exam Program (the “NEP”), the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations has identified the following common failures relating to the custody rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”):
- failures to realize that the investment adviser has custody;
- failures regarding the surprise exam requirement or failures to comply with the audited financials rule;
- failures regarding the qualified custodian requirement; and
- failures regarding the “audit approach”.

Conflicts of Interest Inherent in Certain Investment Adviser Business Models—The SEC notes that non-compliance with the Advisers Act often arises from unaddressed conflicts of interest, identifying the following common types of conflicts related to investment advisers and investment companies:
- Compensation arrangements for the adviser, with a particular focus on undisclosed compensation arrangements and their effect on recommendations made to clients;
- Allocation of investment opportunities;
- Controls and disclosure associated with side-by-side management of performance-based and purely asset-based fee accounts;
- Risk controls and disclosure, particularly for illiquid investments and leveraged investment products and strategies; and
- Higher risk products or strategies targeted to retail (and especially retired or elderly) investors.

Marketing/Performance—The SEC notes that it will review the accuracy and completeness of advisers’ claims about their investment objectives and performance. Of particular note for advisers to hedge funds and private equity funds, the SEC has indicated that it will seek to review the use and disclosure of composite performance figures, performance record keeping and compliance oversight of marketing.

The SEC has also identified new and emerging issues and initiatives and policy topics in this release, including the following that relate to investment advisers:

Presence Exams—The SEC will continue the 2012 initiative to examine a significant percentage of the advisers registered since the effective date of Section 402 of the Dodd-Frank Act. (The vast majority of these new registrants are advisers to hedge funds and private equity funds that were not registered or regulated by the SEC prior to the Dodd-Frank Act and that have never been examined by the SEC.) The five key focus areas of these examinations are:
- marketing,
- portfolio management,
- conflicts of interest,
- safety of client assets, and
- valuation.

Never-Before Examined Advisers—This SEC initiative will address advisers that have never been examined and are not part of the presence exam initiative. The SEC will utilize a number of strategies to conduct focused, risk-based examinations of the adviser population that has been registered for more than three years but has not yet been examined by the NEP.

Wrap Fee Program—The SEC will assess whether advisers are fulfilling their fiduciary and contractual obligations to clients and will review the processes in place for monitoring wrap fee programs recommended to advisory clients, related conflicts of interest, best execution, trading away from the sponsor, and disclosures.

Quantitative Trading Models—The SEC will examine investment advisers with substantial reliance on quantitative portfolio management and trading strategies and assess, among other things, whether these firms have adopted and implemented compliance policies and procedures tailored to the performance and maintenance of their proprietary models, including such procedures as (i) evaluating if any models are used to manipulate the markets, (ii) reasonably review or test the models and their output over time, (iii) maintaining proper documentation within required books and records, and (iv) maintaining a current inventory of all firm-wide proprietary models.

Payments for Distributions in Guise—The SEC will continue its review of the variety of payments made by advisers and funds to distributors and intermediaries, the adequacy of disclosure made to fund boards about these payments, and boards’ oversight of the same. The SEC will assess whether such payments are, in fact, payments for distribution and preferential treatment.

Securities Lending Arrangements—The SEC will examine securities lending arrangements to determine whether they comply with exemptive orders and evaluate consistency with relevant no-action letters.

We also note that OCIE and the Asset Management Unit of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement will conduct a compliance outreach program for chief compliance officers and other senior personnel of investment advisers and investment companies on January 30, 2014 at the offices of SEC’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. The agenda for the day-long program will cover OCIE’s examining priorities for 2014, private fund advisers, registered investment companies, the role of the chief compliance officer (“CCO”), and asset valuation issues. In person attendance is limited to 500 persons, but others may view the webcast at www.sec.gov. Investment adviser and investment company CCOs will be given priority for in person attendance if the program exceeds its 500 in person cap. You can obtain additional information about the outreach program through ComplianceOutreach@sec.gov.

For further information regarding the foregoing, please contact either Thomas Devaney at (212) 634-3042 or Jung Yeon Son at (650) 815-2676.

Source: http://www.corporatesecuritieslawblog.com/2014/01/sec-announces-2014-examination-priorities-for-investment-advisers/

attorney law attorney lawyer attorneys bankruptcy attorney bankruptcy lawyer

Acrobat Tips and Tricks for Lawyers

In this edition of The Digital Edge, hosts Sharon Nelson and Jim Calloway invite Ernie Svenson, commonly known as "Ernie the Attorney," to discuss his recently published ABA book Acrobat in One Hour for Lawyers and unveil all the abilities, outside of just viewing, that PDFs offer. Topics include the benefits of the professional version versus the standard version, specific features for lawyers such as bookmarking, Bates stamping, redaction, quick tips, and more.
Svenson started his career at mid-sized New Orleans law firm where he learned how to do more with less, and at less cost. This made an easy transition to a solo firm where he continued working on the same kinds of commercial litigation cases he handled at his former firm. He then started PaperlessChase.com to help share what he learned from using technology in his law practice.

Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/digital-edge/2014/01/acrobat-tips-tricks-lawyers

divorce lawyers download power of attorney dui attorney dui lawyer dumb laws

Obesity can be a disability, at least in Montana

Obesity can be a disability, at least in Montana.

Full decision: BNSF Railway v. Feit (Montana 07/06/2012)

Feit got a ruling from the Montana Department of Labor that BNSF Railway discriminated against him by refusing to hire him because BNSF regarded him as being disabled due to his obesity.

BNSF then went to federal court to get a review of whether it violated the Montana Human Rights Act (MHRA) by refusing to hire Feit because of his obesity.

The federal court then asked the Supreme Court of Montana to decide how to rule, asking this question: Is obesity that is not the symptom of a physiological condition a "physical or mental impairment" as it is used in Montana Code Annotated section 49-2-101(19)(a)?

The Montana Supreme Court answered with a qualified yes. The court answered: Obesity that is not the symptom of a physiological disorder or condition may constitute a "physical or mental impairment" within the meaning of Montana Code Annotated section 49-2-101(19)(a) if the individual's weight is outside the "normal range" and affects "one or more body systems" as defined in 29 CFR 1630.2(h)(1)(2011).

The federal court laid out these facts:

1. BNSF offered Eric Feit a conditional offer of employment as a conductor trainee. The employment was conditioned upon successful completion of a physical examination, drug screening, background investigation, proof of employment eligibility, and BNSF’s Medical History Questionnaire.
2. On February 6, 2008, BNSF informed Feit he was not qualified for his “safety sensitive” position because of the “significant health and safety risks associated with extreme obesity.”

3. BNSF told Feit he would not be considered for the job unless he either lost 10% of his body weight, or successfully completed additional physical examinations at his own expense. Regardless of the test results, BNSF did not guarantee Feit a job.

4. With the exception of a sleep study test, Feit successfully completed the additional physical exams BNSF requested. The sleep test cost at least $1,800, and Feit could not afford the test.

5. Because BNSF informed Feit that it would not consider him for the conductor trainee position unless he completed the sleep study, Feit set out to lose 10% of his weight.

6. A genuine dispute exists regarding whether BNSF received documentation of Feit’s weight loss.

The Montana Supreme Court noted that the EEOC Interpretive Guidance distinguished between conditions that were impairments and conditions that were simply physical characteristics, which suggested that a person with normal weight required a physical condition to qualify as an impairment. The court referred to the ADAAA which instructed courts that they were interpreting the statute too restrictively and expressed its specific intent that determination of disability not demand extensive analysis (122 Stat. at 3553-54).

The DISSENT noted that the definition of a "physical and mental impairment" included "any physiological disorder, or condition" that affects a major system of the human body (29 CFR 1630.2(h)(1)), and argued that the plain meaning required a physiological condition be present before an impairment existed.

28 Day Free Trial

Custom Alerts

Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/07/obesity_can_be.html

criminal defense attorneys criminal defense lawyer criminal injury lawyers

Hey, How Did That Get In My Underwear?

It’s fair to say that people generally know what’s in their underwear, and where it came from, right? An Italian gentleman with a wad of a cash in his skivvies couldn’t answer the “where it came from” part, putting him in the soup. As reported at www.couriermail.com.au:

British border control officials caught an Italian man trying to smuggle £10,000 ($17,330) out of Northern Ireland in his underwear. The man was stopped by border control officials on July 23 as he boarded a flight to Rome from Belfast International Airport.

The cash – consisted of British Pound Sterling and Euro notes – was discovered in the man’s underwear, pockets and wallet.

The UK Border Agency said today the man was not able to provide a “reasonable explanation” for why he was carrying such a large amount of cash.

No explanation, no cash.

“The money was detained under the Proceeds of Crime Act and will only be returned if he can provide proof to a court that the money came from a legitimate source.”

The man chose not to travel on the flight, the agency said.

Hmm. Perhaps he wouldn’t be so welcomed without all that cashish. Here’s the source.

Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/uhu-DI6GvpM/asdf-8.html

mold attorney need a lawyer patent lawyer personal injury personal injury attorney

Lawyer Scams and How to Avoid Them

In this edition of The Digital Edge, hosts Sharon Nelson and Jim Calloway discuss check fraud with expert Dan Pinnington. Together, they reveal how lawyers are repeatedly falling into the trap of check fraudsters and what can be done to avoid it. Tune in for tips on how to spot a check fraudster in your practice or law firm.
Pinnington is the Vice President of Claims Prevention and Stakeholder Relations at Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company (LAWPRO). He is a prolific writer, speaker, and blogger on topics including practice management, risk management, and legal technology. He is also a contributor to AvoidAClaim.com which is blog by LAWPRO that, among many things, helps attorneys prevent malpractice claims.

Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/digital-edge/2014/02/lawyer-scams-avoid/

local attorney local lawyer local solicitors mold attorney need a lawyer

Nebraska judge strikes down state law that allowed Keystone XL pipeline

[JURIST] A judge for the Third Judicial District Court of Nebraska [official website] on Wednesday struck down [decision, PDF] a law that allowed the controversial Keystone XL pipeline to pass through the state. The law, LB 1161 [text, PDF] was passed by the Nebraska legislature in 2012 and amended the Major Oil Pipeline Siting Act (MOPSA) allowing an alternative method for oil pipeline carriers to seek review and approval of a proposed pipeline route through Nebraska, effectively granting [WP report]...

Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/02/nebraska-judge-strikes-down-state-law-that-allowed-keystone-xl-pipeline.php

legal news legal services lemon law letter of attorney litigation attorney

Obesity can be a disability, at least in Montana

Obesity can be a disability, at least in Montana.

Full decision: BNSF Railway v. Feit (Montana 07/06/2012)

Feit got a ruling from the Montana Department of Labor that BNSF Railway discriminated against him by refusing to hire him because BNSF regarded him as being disabled due to his obesity.

BNSF then went to federal court to get a review of whether it violated the Montana Human Rights Act (MHRA) by refusing to hire Feit because of his obesity.

The federal court laid out these facts:

1. BNSF offered Eric Feit a conditional offer of employment as a conductor trainee. The employment was conditioned upon successful completion of a physical examination, drug screening, background investigation, proof of employment eligibility, and BNSF’s Medical History Questionnaire.
2. On February 6, 2008, BNSF informed Feit he was not qualified for his “safety sensitive” position because of the “significant health and safety risks associated with extreme obesity.”

3. BNSF told Feit he would not be considered for the job unless he either lost 10% of his body weight, or successfully completed additional physical examinations at his own expense. Regardless of the test results, BNSF did not guarantee Feit a job.

4. With the exception of a sleep study test, Feit successfully completed the additional physical exams BNSF requested. The sleep test cost at least $1,800, and Feit could not afford the test.

5. Because BNSF informed Feit that it would not consider him for the conductor trainee position unless he completed the sleep study, Feit set out to lose 10% of his weight.

6. A genuine dispute exists regarding whether BNSF received documentation of Feit’s weight loss.

28 Day Free Trial

Custom Alerts

Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/07/obesity_can_be.html

district attorney divorce atterney divorce attorney

Mark Woods: In the State of Florida vs. Michael David Dunn there are no winners (Florida Times-Union)

Share With Friends:

| Law - Video News, RSS Feeds and Widgets via Feedzilla.

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/law/video/359108921?client_source=feed&format=rss

criminal law criminal law cases criminal laws criminal lawyer criminal lawyers

The Best of the Plaintiffs Bar

These 19 firms are at the cutting edge of plaintiffs' work -- and are giving defense players a run for their money.

Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202624154645&rss=rss_nlj

need a lawyer patent lawyer personal injury personal injury attorney personal injury attorneys

South Dakota House passes bill prohibiting gender-based abortions

[JURIST] The South Dakota House of Representatives [official website] passed a bill on Wednesday that would prohibit individuals from having abortions based on the gender of the fetus. Representative Jenna Haggar [personal website] is the lead sponsor of the bill, which opponents argue [AP report] will be impossible to enforce. The bill would make gender-based abortion a Class 6 felony, carrying a maximum penalty of two years in prison and a $4,000 fine, for doctors that knowingly perform the abortion....

Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/02/south-dakota-house-passes-bill-prohibiting-gender-based-abortions.php

civil attorney colleges for lawyers colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Plaintiffs Seek to Consolidate Target Data Breach Suits

Attorneys who filed class actions against Target Corp. over its security breach last month have moved to coordinate the swelling tide of litigation, estimated at nearly 50 lawsuits.

Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202637342683&rss=rss_nlj

corporate law corporate lawyer criminal attorney

Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Short-Swing Profit Claim Against Goldman Sachs Arising from Six-Month Call Options

In Roth v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., No. 12-2509-cv, 2014 WL 305094 (2d Cir. Jan. 29, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the short-swing profits rule imposed by Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78p(b), requiring corporate insiders (including ten-percent stockholders) to disgorge profits earned from certain purchases and sales of their company’s securities that take place within a six month period, does not apply where the purchaser was an insider when it wrote call options, but was no longer an insider by the time that the same options expired less than six months later. This decision, which adopts the views expressed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in an amicus curiae brief, also clarifies that the expiration of a call option within six months is considered a “purchase” within the meaning of Section 16(b), and that “purchase” is paired with the “sale” which is deemed to occur at the time when the option was originally written.

Plaintiff was a stockholder of Leap Wireless International, Inc. (“Leap”). Plaintiff sued The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co. (collectively, “Goldman”) derivatively on behalf of Leap for alleged violations of Section 16(b). Plaintiff alleged that Goldman owned more than ten percent of Leap’s equity securities at the time it wrote certain call options with respect to Leap stock (the “Options”). Plaintiffs alleged that the Options were written to expire less than six months later, and acknowledged that at the time that the Options expired Goldman no longer owned ten percent or more of Leap’s shares.

This fact pattern left the Court with two fundamental questions to answer: (1) was the expiration of the Options within six months a “purchase” within the meaning of Section 16(b) to match the “sale” that is deemed under SEC Rule 16b-6(a), 17 C.F.R. § 240.16b-6(a), to have occurred at the time the Options were written; and (2) even if the expiration is deemed a “purchase,” whether the fact that Goldman was no longer a ten-percent stockholder at the time of expiration took Goldman outside the disgorgement requirement of Section 16(b). (It should also be noted that derivatives, such as the Options, are considered “securities” within the meaning of Section 16(b).)

The Second Circuit held that “for purposes of Section 16(b), the expiration of a call option within six months of its writing is to be deemed a ‘purchase’ by the option writer to be matched against the ‘sale’ deemed to occur when that option was written.” The rationale for this ruling, which was also endorsed by the SEC, is simple: “When an insider sells a call option, and that same option expires unexercised less than six months later, the writer’s opportunity to profit on the underlying stock is realized.” Therefore, the expiration of the call option is considered a “purchase” under Rule 16(b).

However, the Court also held that because Goldman was no longer a statutory insider by the time the “purchase” occurred (because Goldman no longer owned ten percent or more of Leap’s shares), Goldman was not obligated under Section 16(b) to disgorge the profits it made on the transaction.

Going forward, statutory insiders writing six-month options can avoid Section 16(b) liability by making sure they relinquish insider status before the six-month period ends.

Source: http://www.corporatesecuritieslawblog.com/2014/02/second-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-short-swing-profit-claim-against-goldman-sachs-arising-from-six-month-call-options/

lawyer directory lawyer fees lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys lawyer office

Handling Liability Cases Where Medicare is Involved

When is a Medicare Set Aside a good choice in a liability case? Ringler Radio host, Larry Cohen along with colleagues, Tom Blackwell, Vice President and Program Director of Ringler Medicare Solutions, Inc. (RMS), and Peter Early, talk about the complexities of liability cases where Medicare is involved and recent developments involving Medicare Set Asides as a settlement tool.

Source: http://ringlerradio.com/podcasts/ringler-radio/2013/11/handling-liability-cases-where-medicare-is-involved/

criminal justice lawyer criminal law criminal law cases criminal laws criminal lawyer

Court Enters Owners’ Draft Order

A Richmond Circuit Court will enter a dismissed agreed order submitted by defendant owners, in this dispute over whether a money judgment order should be entered or a dismissed agreed order due to the payment of the amount the court has said is due from defendants to plaintiff. The matter of the American Institute of ...

Source: http://valawyersweekly.com/2014/01/02/court-enters-owners-draft-order/

federal attorney financial lawyer find a lawyer find an attorney find attorney

Comparing the New iPads for Lawyers

As we approach the gift-giving season, the new iPads are here. Will you be purchasing the newest model for yourself or as a gift, or are you still wondering what’s different and new? In this edition of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell discuss the new iPad Air and iPad Mini with retina display, how the newest iPads reflect how we use technology, and which model makes the most sense for lawyers. The second half of the show will cover the findings of the Am Law Tech Survey 2013.

Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2013/11/comparing-the-new-ipads-for-lawyers

personal injury attorney personal injury attorneys personal injury lawyer

Judge: $764M May Not Be Enough in NFL Concussion Case (Wall Street Journal)

Share With Friends:

| Law - Video News, News Feeds and News via Feedzilla.

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/law/video/359796030?client_source=feed&format=rss

lawyers legal legal advice legal advice online legal aid

California Court of Appeal Clarifies Rights of Dissenting Minority Shareholders Under California Corporation Code § 1312(b)

In Busse v. United Panam Fin. Corp., No. G046805, 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 11 (Cal. App. Jan. 8, 2014), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held that when parties to a buyout are under common control, dissenting minority shareholders have the right to set aside or rescind an invalid corporate buyout under Section 1312(b) of the California Corporations Code. The Court also held that dissenting minority shareholders may not seek monetary damages under Section 1312(b). This decision clarifies that Section 1312(b) acts as a limited exception to Section 1312(a) of the California Corporations Code by providing dissenting shareholders not only with the general remedy of appraisal, but also with the right to stop or rescind a buyout if the transaction is invalid. Furthermore, Busse emphasizes that dissenting shareholders may not seek damages arising out of a buyout, even in common control situations.

Plaintiffs were minority shareholders of United Panam Financial Corporation (“Panam”), a publicly traded company that made subprime loans on used cars. Defendant Guillermo Bron (“Bron”) owned 38% of Panam’s stock and generally had power over the corporation’s affairs. Bron allegedly developed a buyout scheme in which he and his partner would acquire Panam’s stock at a bargain price. In furtherance of this plan, Bron allegedly had Panam’s directors set up an independent committee that valued the stock far below book value. Later, Panam’s shareholders approved the buyout by Bron’s group, and the transaction was completed sometime after February 24, 2011.

Plaintiffs filed a class action for breach of fiduciary duty and sought either to rescind the buyout or to receive rescissory damages under Section 1312 of the California Corporations Code. Section 1312 governs the rights of minority shareholders who dissent from corporate buyouts or mergers. Section 1312(a) limits the rights of dissenting minority shareholders exclusively to an independent appraisal of their shares’ value. Consequently, under Section 1312(a), dissenting shareholders do not have a right at law or in equity to attack the validity of a buyout or merger. Section 1312(b), however, provides that, if the parties to a merger or buyout are under common control:

[Section 1312(a)] does not apply to any shareholder . . . who has not demanded payment of cash for that shareholder’s shares pursuant to [chapter 13]; but if the shareholder institutes any action to attack the validity of the reorganization or short-form merger or to have the reorganization or short-form merger set aside or rescinded, the shareholder shall not thereafter have any right to demand payment of cash for the shareholder’s shares pursuant to [chapter 13].

The primary question presented in Busse was whether Section 1312(b) provided dissenting minority shareholders with the right to sue for rescissory damages (i.e., monetary damages).

The trial court sustained Bron’s demurrer, reasoning that (1) plaintiffs’ complaint did not sufficiently allege Bron’s common control and Section 1312(b) was therefore inapplicable and (2) rescissory damages are not available under Section 1312(b). Plaintiffs appealed.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision that plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts showing Bron held common control. Common control — which occurs if one party is directly or indirectly controlled by, or under common control with, another party to a transaction — must exist for Section 1312(b) to apply. The Court of Appeal determined Bron held at least indirect control over Panam because Bron possessed 38% of the voting power of Panam’s shareholders, Bron was chairman of the board of directors, and Bron acknowledged he possessed substantial influence over the company’s affairs. Thus, the Court of Appeal concluded that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged facts showing Bron held common control.

Next, the Court of Appeal addressed whether under Section 1312(b) Panam’s dissenting minority shareholders possessed the right to rescind the buyout or, in the alternative, to receive “rescissory damages.” The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment that under Section 1312(b) Panam’s dissenting minority shareholders possessed the right to rescind or set aside the buyout. Furthermore, the court affirmed that under Section 1312(b) Panam’s dissenting shareholders were barred from seeking rescissory damages.

The Court of Appeal began its discussion of shareholders’ rights under Section 1312(b) with a review of the legislative and judicial history of Section 1312. The history of Section 1312 made clear that courts and the legislature intended to limit dissenting shareholders’ remedies to an appraisal of their shares. With this limitation in mind, the legislature recognized the potential for abuse in transactions where parties to a buyout are under common control. Indeed, in these transactions the controlling party is, in effect, dealing with itself. To protect minority shareholders from abuse in common control situations, the Court of Appeal determined Section 1312(b) provides a dissenting minority shareholder not only with an appraisal remedy, but also with the remedy of setting aside or rescinding a buyout. However, the Court found this was the only additional remedy available to shareholders, and the courts and legislature never intended to provide minority shareholders with the right to seek monetary damages under Section 1312(b).

Thus, while the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment that plaintiffs were precluded from seeking “rescissory damages,” it reversed the trial court’s judgment that plaintiffs did not allege sufficient facts to demonstrate Bron’s common control and found that Section 1312(b) applied. Consequently, the Court of Appeal remanded for the resolution of whether the minority shareholders of Panam may rescind Bron’s buyout under Section 1312(b).

Busse clarifies what remedies are available to dissenting minority shareholders under Section 1312(b). Shareholders have the general right to an appraisal of their shares’ value. Additionally, Section 1312(b) gives dissenting shareholders the right to rescind or set aside a merger or buyout. This additional remedy helps protect minority shareholders in common control situations, which are particularly susceptible to fraud and abuse. However, minority shareholders are still barred from seeking monetary damages or, as stated in Busse, rescissory damages under Section 1312(b).

Source: http://www.corporatesecuritieslawblog.com/2014/01/california-court-of-appeal-clarifies-rights-of-dissenting-minority-shareholders-under-california-corporation-code-%c2%a7-1312b/

attorneys bankruptcy attorney bankruptcy lawyer bankruptcy lawyers best attorney

A State Judge’s Perspective On E-Discovery

The Honorable John M. Tran uses the terms digital natives and digital immigrants when referring to judges. Coined by author Marc Prensky, digital natives are those born into technology and digital immigrants are learning the field as they go. It’s not uncommon for judges to be digital immigrants, forcing them to confront issues on the bench that they have never experienced. In this edition of Digital Detectives, hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq. and John W. Simek invite long-time friend Judge Tran to discuss how his colleagues keep up to date on technology, his views on cooperative discovery as both a judge and a past litigator, and what he’s seen as the best way to address discovery in the courtroom.

Judge John M. Tran started his career at a boutique litigation law firm in Virginia where he had extensive experience in e-discovery matters, in both the state and federal court. Now he is a state judge in the Fairfax Circuit Court, in the 19th judicial circuit of Virginia. He is a graduate of the George Washington University and the George Washington University Law School.

Special thanks to our sponsor, Digital WarRoom.

Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/digital-detectives/2013/11/a-state-judges-perspective-on-e-discovery

corporate law corporate lawyer criminal attorney criminal defence lawyer criminal defense

Attorneys and Billing: The Art of Getting Paid

Nearly every firm has clients who are difficult to collect from. Most lawyers are not trained to deal with that. On this episode of the Un-Billable Hour, host Chris Anderson interviews experts Loretta Ruppert and Jeff Krause. Together, they explore ways to effectively track and manage client billing.
Loretta Ruppert is the current Senior Director of Marketing for the SaaS Product Platform at LexisNexis. She is the subject matter expert for billing and accounting software solutions, including Time Matters, and has been involved in developing software products for law firms for nearly twelve years. She is a current member of the American Society of Women Accountants and the former Controller for the Bliss Riordan Law Offices.
Jeff Krause is a Wisconsin attorney who founded Krause Practice Management, LLC and is a founding partner at Solfecta, LLC. He is a Certified Independent Consultant for software solution Time Matters and a frequent author and speaker on legal technology.

Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/un-billable-hour/2014/02/attorneys-billing-art-getting-paid

legal advice online legal aid legal aid eugene oregon

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Lawyers may question Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, judge says

[JURIST] A US District Judge on Wednesday said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [BBC profile, JURIST news archive], who is being held at a detention facility at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST backgrounder] can answer written questions from the lawyers preparing to defend Sulaiman Abu Ghaith [JURIST news archive], Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, at his New York City terrorism trial in March. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan [official profile] gave his approval [AP report] in a written order for hundreds of written questions to...

Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/02/lawyers-may-question-khalid-sheik-mohammed-judge-says.php

free legal advice free legal aid getting power of attorney government lawyer green card lawyer