Leading Oilfield Services conglomerate Halliburton has recently asked the United States Supreme Court to review a seminal Supreme Court Case, Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton. To clarify, the Erica P. John Fund (the “Fund”) is among the oil company’s shareholders. The EPJ years of legal fight with Halliburton comes from the notion that Halliburton “fudged” some very crucial information involving Halliburton’s shareholder operations, like exaggerating income and understating perceived liabilities. Crucially, the Fund insists on having its legal action against the defense certified as a class action suit – a type of lawsuit that is made on behalf of a specific group of people who have suffered from similar injuries. A class action suit would allow Erica P. John Fund to represent all shareholders of Halliburton stock, which would quickly increase the damages on the table in the lawsuit. The Times recently released an insightful analysis of the Halliburton case, if it agrees to hear the case. The Times piece illustrates how many lawsuits like the Halliburton case rely on the concept of “reliance”, saying that the litigation – or in Halliburton’s case, the shareholders behaved in reliance on the organization’s dubious behavior.
Historically, the US Supreme Court has a expansive interpretations of “reliance”. In order to show reliance, an involved shareholder need not read a prospectus and the fraudulent statements it contains. Instead, the court considers any criminal statement made by a business (and accepted by the public) that impacts the financial value of the business as being incorporated into the total price of the its securities. Courts justify this view based on the ground that markets always price securities with the help of all information that is currently available, an idea that is largely encouraged in the world of finance. Still, although most investors do not critically review prospectuses and financial statements released by the companies in whom they invest; they can still demonstrate “reliance” assuming that they have purchased securities with the corporation. As an increasing number of shareholders come forward and are able to demonstrate reliance, CALs become easier to assemble. In their request to the Supreme Court to review the case, Halliburton has hinted that it will likely contest that the current definition of reliance is far too loose. It will say that the Court should define reliance as requiring shareholders to do more than merely purchase securities; such as requiring shareholders to read a fraudulent prospectus or financial document. Such a proposal could definitely see some enthusiastic backing from the business community.
As a practical matter, especially in personal injury cases, it makes it much easier for plaintiffs to present their proof. The arbitrators never asked me for a copy of my repair estimate. Maybe it’s different on Judge Judy or The Peoples’ Court, but at an arbitration hearing, the parties are responsible for presenting their own case. I believe arbitration is statewide now but, when the program came to Cook County, it was as part of the first expansion of the concept from a pilot program in Winnebago County. I was in the first class of Cook County arbitrators somewhere around 20 years ago; our training materials included a video from Rockford. If I recall correctly, the arbitrators in the videos asked a lot more questions than was ever customary in this jurisdiction. But these questions were meant to clarify or assist the arbitrators’ understanding of the facts presented; there was never a suggestion that arbitrators should ask questions that would lead a party through his or her case-in-chief. A timely rejection of an arbitration award gets a case back on the trial call. There is no second chance at arbitration. The streamlined procedures of Rule 90 will not apply at trial. And if it is difficult for a party to represent himself or herself at an arbitration, it is that much harder to proceed pro se at trial. Conclusion. We live in interesting times.
The first suit, D’Cruz v. BATFE et al, is the one that has garnered all the attention in the media and on blogs. Even the NRA Institute for Legislative Affairs in their release only mentions the suit against BATFE. However, in addition to this lawsuit, the NRA filed a second lawsuit simultaneously that names the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Texas Public Safety Commission as the plaintiffs. That case is D’Cruz v. McCraw et al. These are not the NRA’s first lawsuits that challenge the age-based requirements that discriminate against 18 to 20 year olds with regard to handguns. So what are the new suits challenging and who is the plaintiff. The plaintiff is 18-year old James D’Cruz of Lubbock, Texas. He was a member of his high school Navy Jr. ROTC program for four years where he participated in the unit’s firearms training. In his junior and senior year of high school, he was an award-winning member of the NJROTC shooting team and competed in regional and national competitions. As to what the suits are challenging, I think it is better to discuss each suit individually. In its introduction, this suit makes note that at the age of 18, law-abiding citizens are generally considered adults. They are eligible to serve in the military, male 18-year olds are eligible to be drafted for military service under Selective Service laws, and male 18-year olds are designated members of the unorganized militia.
Introduction The concept of Permanent Establishment (PE) is a fundamental idea, which is intrinsic to double taxation agreements. The very existence of a PE, only determines the right of a contracting state to tax the profits of an enterprise of the other contracting state. There are three major types of PE which usually exist in double tax treaties: Fixed PE Agency PE Service PE This article looks at the Service PE concept in the UN Model Convention (MC), OECD MC and Indian tax treaties. UN Approach The concept of Service PE exists in Article 5 of UN MC. This has resulted in spate of tax litigation, especially around the concept of permanent establishment, with the revenue taking a tough stance (fairly or unfairly) to protect and increase its tax coffers. In Linklaters, the services, which were rendered in UK, but utilized in India, were held to be taxable in India. The Tribunal also deviated from the OECD approach on partnership taxation and territorial nexus in the above ruling. OECD has also stipulated, that Service PE should only exist in case of services provided to third parties only, but in the Indian treaties, Service PE is also deemed to exist even in case of services to associated enterprise.
Three girls handed over to a habitual murderer who killed his wife on the pretext of honour killing as compensation! Help stop this barbaric madness! According to the information received, Mr. Sher Dil Jatoi, 62 years old, killed his second wife in an honour killing for allegedly having an illicit relationship with a person named Mr. Shahoo Jatoi. The honour killing occurred in August this year. Several elites of the Jatoi tribe who have remained in power in both the military and civilian governments took part in the Jirga. The decision said Sher Dil Jatoi was the victim of honour and innocent in killing his second wife. When this incident took place, the people in the area were resentful and pressured the police to arrest him as he was known as a habitual killer of his wives. Due to the pressure, the police arrested and kept him in the police custody but released him after 15 days as the people’s feelings settled down after his arrest.
New delhi: property developer lodha group is expecting document month-to-month gross sales of rs1,200 crore in october, when people make excessive-worth purchases ahead of diwali, a top executive mentioned. Lodha codename the solely overview majiwada Big Bang Lodha Kolshet Thane is now witness to one of the biggest prelaunch in the history of thane real property. Lodha builders, the biggest property developer in the nation when it comes to sales, has been making headlines in latest instances of the kind it might want to do with out. Lodha counters this, saying the placement of the land in central mumbai, the monorail and metro rail connectivity at wadala, and the deferred payment possibility will make it enticing for consumers. Lodha developers have been widely engrossed in delivering world class Big Bang Lodha Kolshet Road Thane both within the commercial and the residential realm. After shopping for the 17 acre property from dlf for rs 2,727 crore last yr, mumbai-based lodha group as we speak introduced the launch of its challenge ‘the park’ in worli space of mumbai. Moreover, lodha achieved extra of its annual presale targets than some of its home friends, indicating the relative strength of its merchandise in addition to its marketing and execution capabilities. Property analysts mentioned that consumers right now are trying past price and site, considered to play key roles in shopping for decisions. As an alternative, the company has increased its spend on venture development by rs1,000 crore to a complete of rs4,000 crore, with a view to step up the pace of execution and deliver round 7,000 homes this financial yr. He and lodha are focusing on double-earnings households that earn over rs. 30 lakh a 12 months.
There is no room for blind justice in the legal profession regardless of how independent American lawyers are and according to a Colorado Supreme Court justice, this independence does not translate to renegade lawyers in this line of work. You should not single out trial lawyers when talking about attorney independence since this applies to the entire legal community. Your clients should be able to get objective, sound legal advice from you as their lawyer regardless of the kind of legal professional that you are. With regard to lawyer independence, you might need to consider two notions. Other people cannot control the lawyer who has a duty to his or her client. A lawyer can have all sorts of clients and can work for the government, self-interest, and public opinion. The conflict comes in with the second duty of a lawyer which is to the legal system. In the case of the legal profession, you cannot have only one of these. For those of us who have practiced, we know there is a tremendous amount of tension.
In the case of a lawyer, he or she can act independently on behalf of the client but not be the client. You can say that lawyers are intermediaries. There is no such thing as a shared conscience. The capacity to follow the rule of law allows a lawyer to be independent. Besides helping the client within the framework of the law, the lawyer should be able to provide the client with objective advice about the case as well. A lawyer should always work towards the best interest of the client and they should be the problem solvers for these people as well. Almost always, independent lawyers play very important roles when it comes to political or unpopular cases. For the general public, they are usually opposed to the workings of the criminal defense bar. The legal community is facing difficulty due to this. Here is where there is another issue at hand. Are they a profession or are we a business? In the more recent times, the business seems to be overwhelming the profession in what they do. In such a profession, change is good as it allows the core values to be safe from being compromised. In this line of work, change is not always welcomed no matter how the people want to progress and this is where it gets hard to make an effort. One area where the profession should be open to change is with multidisciplinary practices, although they have to make sure the function of independence and the function of client confidentiality are maintained.
Of all the people who work within the legal system, law clerks may have the most misleading job title. You might imagine a law clerk as someone who performs clerical duties like bookkeeping and making legal records, but that’s not what a law clerk does at all. Rather, law clerks are lawyers or people knowledgeable about the law who help judges arrive at their official decisions. Many, many lawyers dream of becoming law clerks, and serving as a clerk to a Supreme Court justice is one of the most coveted positions in the entire legal field. Law clerks help judges out throughout a trial. They will speak with almost everyone involved in a lawsuit or criminal case: the attorneys, the people who work in the courtroom, and members of the general public who come to watch the proceedings. They interview many of these people and try to get a sense of how they feel about a certain case. They review all documents and legal briefs that are filed in connection with a given case. They also research past cases to see how judges have ruled under similar circumstances-in fact, this is one of the most important duties they have.
Many judges will ask their law clerks outright how the clerk feels the judge should rule. To become a law clerk, you almost always have to graduate from college and law school and pass the bar exam. Many law clerks are young; some judges like to employ bright young legal minds for a few years before they go off to practice law, feeling that young people bring a special energy and enthusiasm to the job. Other judges, however, prefer to hire law clerks who are older, people who have been tested in the courtroom and who will bring wisdom and seasoning to the position. And some judges will require a candidate to complete a year-long “clerkship”-a position that’s kind of like being an apprentice law clerk-before that judge will hire the lawyer as a full-time law clerk. Also, many judges will only consider candidates who maintained an outstanding GPA in law school to become their law clerks. Ready to learn more about a career as a court reporter?
The Democrats will pick up a handful of seats in the House and Senate, but not enough to regain control in either body. Regardless, Howard Dean will trumpet this as a major realignment in the body politic causing the Democrats to become even more obstructionist (if such a thing is possible). This will be evident when yet another Supreme Court seat opens up and the Senate Republicans are forced to trigger the “nuclear/constitutional” option to override a filibuster. After some grumblings over a handful of decisions over his long career, Samuel Alito will be confirmed; he’ll receive votes from a single-digit number of Democrats (as opposed to the 22 votes that John Roberts got). The New England Patriots will win the Super Bowl yet again. The astonishing fact that QB Tom Brady has never lost a playoff game will take its place among the greatest sports achievements. The 19th century game of baseball will continue to shed fans while NASCAR ascends.
American high school cliques will re-form based on favorite drivers. Having plumbed the depths of classic TV and video games, Hollywood will turn to television commercials for ideas. That “Yes I Am” guy from the Bud Light commercials gets his own feature film. After (yet another) assassination attempt almost takes the life of president Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan seeks wider coordination with the U.S. Osama Bin Laden is killed by his own men as U.S. Running on his father’s name, Tom Kean Jr. is elected governor of Senator from New Jersey. Israel v. Iran – it’s going to happen and it will be ugly. Despite the fervent wishes of some, there will be no overthrow of the mullahs. An uneasy coalition government forms in Iraq as nationalism (barely) edges out religious factionalism. After a successful re-drafting of the Iraqi constitution, Joe Biden will move the goalposts again about what “success” means. Hugo Chavez will stage a one-week freeze of petroleum exports to the United States, causing another price spike and illuminating America’s overdependence on foreign oil supplies. However, absolutely nothing will be done to increase domestic supplies or refinery capacity. Regretfully, there will be no action on Social Security, Medicare, or tax reform. ESPN will launch an all-Texas Hold’em channel. Air America will fold. General Motors will go through a massive restructuring, more seismic than the breakup of Standard Oil, in an effort to stave off bankruptcy. Another unexpected expense for the Big Dig will rob millions more from Massachusetts citizens. President Bush will settle into a 50-50 approval-disapproval holding pattern, unless some dramatic event in the GWOT pushes him up (e.g. capture of Osama) or down (e.g. another terrorist attack). After a year of dismal ratings, the New York radio station WCBS-FM switches from the insipid “Jack” format back to oldies. Cousin Brucie reboots with “New York, New York” by Frank Sinatra.
Case updates and commentary for insolvency professionals in Texas and beyond. Supreme Court watchers have noted that the Court’s bankruptcy decisions tend to swing between strict textual analysis and a functional approach. If the Court goes with the textual approach, it will be likely (though not guaranteed) to uphold the Fifth Circuit, while a functional approach would support Baker Botts. The Court will be required to address the meaning of likely to benefit the estate and necessary to case administration. Because these terms are critical to interpretation of section 330, the court’s opinion will provide valuable guidance on awarding fees. While the Fifth Circuit’s view that defending a fee application was for the benefit of counsel is plausible, I believe that the better answer is that it is part of the process of administering the estate. The Fifth Circuit’s opinion relied on one of the multiple rationales of the Pro-Snax case.
If you have an eDiscovery issue, tell your judge to call Judge Holderman. Even though he was considerably older than his fellow panelists, he has worked through these issues extensively and is happy to discuss them with other judges. The Seventh Circuit is very proud of this site and it is the current judicial state of the art. If the case is going to involve eDiscovery, have your client designate an eDiscovery Liason and have her work with an eDiscovery Liason from your firm. Make sure that your firm understands all there is to know about how your client collects, maintains and preserves electronically stored information (ESI). The ABA has a Best Practices Report on Electronic Discovery (ESI) Issues in Bankruptcy Cases. Before ESI issues arise in the case, develop an ESI Protocol with opposing counsel. If opposing counsel won’t agree, file a motion to establish one. However, don’t make it a first day motion. An ESI Protocol can deal with issues such as clawback of privileged documents and parameters for searching documents. For example, the parties could agree to a protocol that accepts that 80% accuracy in searching is acceptable.
The decision was handed down this morning, and can be read here. In summary, the Supreme Court dismissed Warner-Lambert’s appeal that the patent was sufficiently disclosed, and upheld Actavis and Mylan’s appeal that the disputed claims were not even partially sufficient. The Supreme Court also unanimously held that, if the claims had been found valid, they would not have infringed. The Supreme Court was also unanimous on construction and found that the post-trial amendment sought by Warner-Lambert was an abuse of process. IPKat’s full analysis of the decision will follow shortly. Whilst we digest the decision in full, this Kat provides some context to some of key issues of the case. Today’s Supreme Court case is the latest installment in a long-running dispute between Pfizer (parent company of Warner-Lambert) and Actavis et al. Warner-Lambert’s Lyrica® patent. The patent claims pregabalin (marketed as Lyrica®) for the treatment of pain using the Swiss-type style.
Dependent claim 2 is limited to the treatment of inflammatory pain. Dependent claim 3 is limited to the treatment of neuropathic pain. Actavis manufactures Lecaent, a pregabalin generic. Mylan and Actavis brought separate claims for revocation of the patent in 2014, on the ground that the claims were insufficiently disclosed. Warner-Lambert brought an infringement action against Actavis later the same year. Even if valid, the claims were deemed not infringed. In 2015, the Court of Appeal upheld these findings, and ruled that a post-trial amendment filed by Warner-Lambert after the High Court decision that limited the claims to valid and infringed subject-matter, was an abuse of process. The substantive issues for the Supreme Court to consider was the role to be played by plausibility in the statutory test for insufficiency and how infringement by Swiss-style claims should be determined. First some background on insufficiency. The concept of sufficiency (and the related concepts of enablement and plausibility) have predominately been raised in the pharmaceutical and biotech arena. The sufficiency requirement is designed to ensure a patentee satisfies their side of the bargain with the state by providing a full public disclosure of their invention in exchange for the granted patent.
Legal basis for sufficiency in the UK can be found in Section 72(1)(c) of the UK Patents Act 1977 (UKPA). This states that a patent may be revoked on the grounds that “the specification of the patent does not disclose the invention clearly enough and completely enough for it to be performed by a person skilled in the art”. In other words, a patent may be found invalid on the grounds that the invention is insufficiently disclosed. A patent may be insufficient because a skilled person would not be able carry out the invention, i.e. the invention is not enabled. Lack of enablement may be due to the lack of the necessary experimental details. The UK Court of Appeal has recently re-confirmed what is considered an enabling disclosure. In Regeneron v Kymab (IPKat post here), a patent was found enabled and thus sufficiently disclosed despite the example methods provided in the specification being unworkable at the time of the invention. The Court of Appeal afforded the theoretical skilled person considerable time and expertise in order to find a workable method.