The growing trend of divorce is emerging far beyond the metropolitan cities of America. Even in the most rural, conservative communities, marriage separation is rising at alarming rates.
In an eye opening article by the New York Times, the social behaviors amidst a quaint county in Iowa reflect "a fundamental change in the patterns of family life."
A major factor that is taking divorce to the next level is the education gap among couples. Growing opportunities to get a college education is allowing either husband or wife to become more intellectual. As a result, the manner in which couples can relate to each other takes a drastic social shift.
Law professor and co-author of “Red Families v. Blue Families,” June Carbone, pinpoints social class as reliable predictor of family patterns. "College-educated Americans are now more likely to get married and stay married than those with only a high school diploma, a change from 20 years ago", said Carbone.
The growing accessibility of post-high school educational opportunities are shifting American families.
Key trends that are driving divorce are: women are becoming more educated, gaining autonomy, and establishing a presence in the workforce. Additionally, women are changing the values and order among traditional families.
In North Carolina, the Raleigh divorce attorneys of a local law firm offer seminars and counseling to address such issues and help them understand the nature of marriage separation. They better educate couples and families about the complexities of family law in Raleigh, and offer counsel to facilitate issues among the family.
When one individual in a relationship changes his or her way of thinking, it can create a mismatch between expectation and reality. For women, that can result in becoming frustrated with her companion, and eventually leaving.
Divorce trends have been particularly significant for rural communities, which have fallen further behind urban ones with respect to education, according to census data. Just one in six rural residents have college degrees. This is far fewer than in metropolitan areas, where one in three have a college education.
"Sometimes it is quite obvious that a marriage is bound to split. The woman in the relationship no longer has the same connection with her other, and that lack of connection results in a divorce." said a Raleigh family lawyer.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
Union Law Unjust
Wisconsin and Ohio public workers are in fear of new legislation that will take away all their union bargaining rights except for the topic of wages.
The showdown over Wisconsin's law that strips most public workers of nearly all their collective bargaining rights shifted from the Statehouse back to the courts Tuesday, but it remained unclear when or even whether the measure would take effect.
The law strips away workers' rights to collectively bargain for anything except wages. It also requires most public workers to contribute more to their pensions and health insurance.
In Ohio, meanwhile, Republican legislators pushed legislation forward to similarly deny workers bargaining rights.
Wisconsin's Republican lawmakers pushed through passage of the law earlier this month despite three weeks of massive protests that drew up to 85,000 people to the state Capitol and a boycott by Democratic state senators. Opponents immediately filed a series of lawsuits that resulted in further chaos that might not end until the state Supreme Court weighs in.
That appeared even more likely after a hearing on Tuesday, when a county judge again ordered the state to put the law on hold while she considers a broader challenge to its legality. She chastised state officials for ignoring her earlier order to halt the law's publication. She also is considering claims by some officials that the law technically took effect last weekend after a state agency unexpectedly published it online.
The back and forth amplified the often angry debate between new Governor Scott Walker, his Republican allies in the Legislature and the state's public sector unions.
Walker and the Republicans have aggressively pushed forward their effort to remove the bargaining rights of state workers, using a surprise parliamentary maneuver to break a weeks-long stalemate to get it passed and then finding another route to publish the law after the judge’s order blocked the secretary of state from doing so.
The law has been a flash point of controversy since Walker introduced it in February.
The measure requires most public workers to contribute more to their pensions and health insurance. It also strips away their rights to collectively bargain for anything except wages. Walker, who wrote the law, insists the measure is necessary to help close the state's budget deficit. But Democrats see the law as a political move to cripple unions, who are traditionally among their strongest campaign supporters.
Tens of thousands of people staged almost non-stop demonstrations at the state Capitol for nearly three weeks and Senate Democrats fled the state for Illinois to block a vote in that chamber.
Republicans who control the Legislature ended the stalemate by removing what they said were the fiscal elements from the plan on March 9, allowing the Senate to vote without a quorum. The Assembly passed the measure the next day and Walker signed the measure into law on March 11.
In Ohio, a legislative committee approved a measure Tuesday that would limit collective bargaining rights for 350,000 Ohio government workers.
The committee's changes make the measure even tougher on unions, making it more difficult for them to collect certain fees. But the committee also removed jail time as a possible penalty for workers who participate in strikes and made clear that public safety workers could negotiate over equipment.
A vote on the bill in the Republican-controlled Ohio house could come Wednesday. The Senate then will have to agree to the House changes.
Republicans, Democrats, and public employees of Wisconsin and Ohio continue the battle and the outcome is unsure.
The showdown over Wisconsin's law that strips most public workers of nearly all their collective bargaining rights shifted from the Statehouse back to the courts Tuesday, but it remained unclear when or even whether the measure would take effect.
The law strips away workers' rights to collectively bargain for anything except wages. It also requires most public workers to contribute more to their pensions and health insurance.
In Ohio, meanwhile, Republican legislators pushed legislation forward to similarly deny workers bargaining rights.
Wisconsin's Republican lawmakers pushed through passage of the law earlier this month despite three weeks of massive protests that drew up to 85,000 people to the state Capitol and a boycott by Democratic state senators. Opponents immediately filed a series of lawsuits that resulted in further chaos that might not end until the state Supreme Court weighs in.
That appeared even more likely after a hearing on Tuesday, when a county judge again ordered the state to put the law on hold while she considers a broader challenge to its legality. She chastised state officials for ignoring her earlier order to halt the law's publication. She also is considering claims by some officials that the law technically took effect last weekend after a state agency unexpectedly published it online.
The back and forth amplified the often angry debate between new Governor Scott Walker, his Republican allies in the Legislature and the state's public sector unions.
Walker and the Republicans have aggressively pushed forward their effort to remove the bargaining rights of state workers, using a surprise parliamentary maneuver to break a weeks-long stalemate to get it passed and then finding another route to publish the law after the judge’s order blocked the secretary of state from doing so.
The law has been a flash point of controversy since Walker introduced it in February.
The measure requires most public workers to contribute more to their pensions and health insurance. It also strips away their rights to collectively bargain for anything except wages. Walker, who wrote the law, insists the measure is necessary to help close the state's budget deficit. But Democrats see the law as a political move to cripple unions, who are traditionally among their strongest campaign supporters.
Tens of thousands of people staged almost non-stop demonstrations at the state Capitol for nearly three weeks and Senate Democrats fled the state for Illinois to block a vote in that chamber.
Republicans who control the Legislature ended the stalemate by removing what they said were the fiscal elements from the plan on March 9, allowing the Senate to vote without a quorum. The Assembly passed the measure the next day and Walker signed the measure into law on March 11.
In Ohio, a legislative committee approved a measure Tuesday that would limit collective bargaining rights for 350,000 Ohio government workers.
The committee's changes make the measure even tougher on unions, making it more difficult for them to collect certain fees. But the committee also removed jail time as a possible penalty for workers who participate in strikes and made clear that public safety workers could negotiate over equipment.
A vote on the bill in the Republican-controlled Ohio house could come Wednesday. The Senate then will have to agree to the House changes.
Republicans, Democrats, and public employees of Wisconsin and Ohio continue the battle and the outcome is unsure.
Affordable Care Act
Parents whose children have chronic diseases and handicapping injuries report how their children can access health care without rejection by insurance companies because of previously diagnosed conditions. This is thanks to the Affordable Care Act that was signed into law a year ago.
This act allows young adult children with chronic conditions to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26 as the children work to get employment. Parents are no longer in fear about the loss of their children’s health insurance or annual or lifetime caps on their insurance for their children born with birth defects or suffering from the aftermath of prematurity.
Parents and Doctors alike appreciate the legislation and hope that more help is to come. Both express how important health care is for children and want to see more health care reform and are voicing their opinions to legislators to keep the ball rolling.
This act allows young adult children with chronic conditions to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26 as the children work to get employment. Parents are no longer in fear about the loss of their children’s health insurance or annual or lifetime caps on their insurance for their children born with birth defects or suffering from the aftermath of prematurity.
Parents and Doctors alike appreciate the legislation and hope that more help is to come. Both express how important health care is for children and want to see more health care reform and are voicing their opinions to legislators to keep the ball rolling.
Ted Nugent voices opposition to Michigan's Gov. over hunting regulations
Rock n' Roll legend and Michigan hunting advocate Ted Nugent delivered a personal message to Gov. Rick Snyder on Thursday regarding the state's current hunting laws. The thesis to his message: Ditch state regulations that (1) prompt hunters to other states and (2) cost Michigan millions of dollars in business.
Nugent cites a examples like the ban on using bait for hunting deer in the Lower Peninsula, and the requirement of obtaining a license to shoot wild turkeys, which Ted said "are as prolific as mosquitoes."
"Michigan has so many opportunities that are not being utilized because of so many silly, illogical, antiscience regulations that represent a blockade to sportsmen," Nugent claimed to reporters before meeting the governor.
He argued that the state of Michigan should permit more bear-hunting licenses and should also stop trying to ban private preserves - such as the one he owns in Jackson County - that allows wild boar hunts.
"I hunt with hundreds of hunters every year and share intimate campfires where they open up and express stuff," Nugent said. "And it's embarrassing. They laugh at Michigan."
One government official, Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville, agrees with Nugent.
"Cabela's down in Monroe, No. 1 tourist attraction in Michigan, over a million people a year," said Richardville, referring to the outdoor retailer. "They come here, they buy their hunting and fishing equipment and go hunting in Indiana and Illinois."
The governor's spokeswoman Sara Wurfel said on behalf Snyder that he is "always happy to talk with people who are passionate about Michigan."
Nugent is not the only one voicing an opinion over some of the state's hunting rules. One of the top attorneys in Michigan (who prefers to remain anonymous) has sent letters to the state's government regarding licensing restrictions.
Challenging Nugent's statements is the spokeswoman for the state Department of Natural Resources Mary Dettloff. She said the 2008 deer-baiting ban in the Lower Peninsula prevents the spread of chronic wasting disease among white-tail deer, and bovine tuberculosis in northeast lower Michigan. Dettloff said the Natural Resources Commission may lift the broad-based baiting ban.
She also said license fees for turkey hunting pay for wildlife management that maintains healthy wild turkey populations.
Many Michigan law firms with practices in environmental law and gaming law are taking an interest in the rocker's views.
Nugent cites a examples like the ban on using bait for hunting deer in the Lower Peninsula, and the requirement of obtaining a license to shoot wild turkeys, which Ted said "are as prolific as mosquitoes."
"Michigan has so many opportunities that are not being utilized because of so many silly, illogical, antiscience regulations that represent a blockade to sportsmen," Nugent claimed to reporters before meeting the governor.
He argued that the state of Michigan should permit more bear-hunting licenses and should also stop trying to ban private preserves - such as the one he owns in Jackson County - that allows wild boar hunts.
"I hunt with hundreds of hunters every year and share intimate campfires where they open up and express stuff," Nugent said. "And it's embarrassing. They laugh at Michigan."
One government official, Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville, agrees with Nugent.
"Cabela's down in Monroe, No. 1 tourist attraction in Michigan, over a million people a year," said Richardville, referring to the outdoor retailer. "They come here, they buy their hunting and fishing equipment and go hunting in Indiana and Illinois."
The governor's spokeswoman Sara Wurfel said on behalf Snyder that he is "always happy to talk with people who are passionate about Michigan."
Nugent is not the only one voicing an opinion over some of the state's hunting rules. One of the top attorneys in Michigan (who prefers to remain anonymous) has sent letters to the state's government regarding licensing restrictions.
Challenging Nugent's statements is the spokeswoman for the state Department of Natural Resources Mary Dettloff. She said the 2008 deer-baiting ban in the Lower Peninsula prevents the spread of chronic wasting disease among white-tail deer, and bovine tuberculosis in northeast lower Michigan. Dettloff said the Natural Resources Commission may lift the broad-based baiting ban.
She also said license fees for turkey hunting pay for wildlife management that maintains healthy wild turkey populations.
Many Michigan law firms with practices in environmental law and gaming law are taking an interest in the rocker's views.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wal-Mart Suit Reveals Gender Gap at Supreme Court
Amidst a U.S. Supreme Court discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc., a gender gap dispute resulted between the court’s three female justices and their male colleagues.
Among the three female Supreme Court justices were Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. All had voiced their support for the class-action lawsuit, which claims women employees across the country were victimized by the retail giant’s permittance of allowing local store managers make subjective decisions regarding promotions and compensation. The case marks the first gender-bias suit the Supreme Court has considered with three women on the bench.
The powerful three-some jumped at the lead by questioning Theodore Boutrous, one of Wal-Mart’s top attorneys. Ginsburg mentioned how corporate decision-makers have a tendency to acquire personnel like themselves, while Justice Sotomayor argued the use of statistical analysis in discrimination cases. The newest justice, Elena Kagan, thought otherwise when Boutrous claimed the workers’ case was based on an “incoherent theory.”
“I guess I’m just a little bit confused as to why excessive subjectivity is not a policy that can be alleged” said Kagan, as the basis of a job-discrimination suit.
The questioning brought on by the three women justices did not sit well with Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, who acknowledged whether the victimized women had pointed to a corporate policy that violated their rights under the main federal job-bias law, known as Title VII. The justices are evaluating whether the mass of female employees of Wal-Mart have enough in common to establish a legitimate nationwide suit against the retailer.
Justice Scalia said Wal-Mart established an “announced policy against sex discrimination” and showed signs of disbelief when the attorney representing the victimized women argued that the truth behind the policy was just the opposite.
“Do you think you’ve adequately shown that that policy is a fraud and that what’s really going on is that there is a central policy that promotes discrimination against women?” Justice Scalia said.
Ruth Ginsburg made it clear that she took a different perspective with respect to the pervasiveness of gender bias in the workplace. Ginsburg, who was a prominent anti-discrimination advocate before she became a judge, compared the suit to a successful case in the 1970s against American Telephone and Telegraph Co. over the application of a “total person” test to make promotion decisions.
“The idea wasn’t at all complicated,” Ginsburg said. “It was that most people prefer themselves and so a decision-maker, all other things being equal, would prefer someone that looked like him.”
Injecting during the trial over a dozen times, Sotomayor remained focused on technical questions, suggesting a middle ground that would allow a more narrow class action to go forward.
She counter-argued Boutrous when he made the claim that the plaintiffs hadn’t shown a common pattern of lower pay for women on a nationwide basis. Sotomayor made the argument that the plaintiffs’ expert witness had concluded that the compensation discrepancy between men and women at Wal-Mart stores was much higher than at 10 of its competitors.
The lone male justice, Justice Stephen Breyer, hinted at his agreement with his female colleagues. His opinion aligned with Sotomayor's when she asked Boutrous why the justices couldn’t at least allow a limited class action seeking an injunction against the company.
"The trial has been an entertaining case that should yield a very interesting and potentially ground-breaking outcome." said observing attorney from one of the top law firms in New York.
The case may divide the court along familiar lines, leaving those four justices in dissent.
Among the three female Supreme Court justices were Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. All had voiced their support for the class-action lawsuit, which claims women employees across the country were victimized by the retail giant’s permittance of allowing local store managers make subjective decisions regarding promotions and compensation. The case marks the first gender-bias suit the Supreme Court has considered with three women on the bench.
The powerful three-some jumped at the lead by questioning Theodore Boutrous, one of Wal-Mart’s top attorneys. Ginsburg mentioned how corporate decision-makers have a tendency to acquire personnel like themselves, while Justice Sotomayor argued the use of statistical analysis in discrimination cases. The newest justice, Elena Kagan, thought otherwise when Boutrous claimed the workers’ case was based on an “incoherent theory.”
“I guess I’m just a little bit confused as to why excessive subjectivity is not a policy that can be alleged” said Kagan, as the basis of a job-discrimination suit.
The questioning brought on by the three women justices did not sit well with Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, who acknowledged whether the victimized women had pointed to a corporate policy that violated their rights under the main federal job-bias law, known as Title VII. The justices are evaluating whether the mass of female employees of Wal-Mart have enough in common to establish a legitimate nationwide suit against the retailer.
Justice Scalia said Wal-Mart established an “announced policy against sex discrimination” and showed signs of disbelief when the attorney representing the victimized women argued that the truth behind the policy was just the opposite.
“Do you think you’ve adequately shown that that policy is a fraud and that what’s really going on is that there is a central policy that promotes discrimination against women?” Justice Scalia said.
Ruth Ginsburg made it clear that she took a different perspective with respect to the pervasiveness of gender bias in the workplace. Ginsburg, who was a prominent anti-discrimination advocate before she became a judge, compared the suit to a successful case in the 1970s against American Telephone and Telegraph Co. over the application of a “total person” test to make promotion decisions.
“The idea wasn’t at all complicated,” Ginsburg said. “It was that most people prefer themselves and so a decision-maker, all other things being equal, would prefer someone that looked like him.”
Injecting during the trial over a dozen times, Sotomayor remained focused on technical questions, suggesting a middle ground that would allow a more narrow class action to go forward.
She counter-argued Boutrous when he made the claim that the plaintiffs hadn’t shown a common pattern of lower pay for women on a nationwide basis. Sotomayor made the argument that the plaintiffs’ expert witness had concluded that the compensation discrepancy between men and women at Wal-Mart stores was much higher than at 10 of its competitors.
The lone male justice, Justice Stephen Breyer, hinted at his agreement with his female colleagues. His opinion aligned with Sotomayor's when she asked Boutrous why the justices couldn’t at least allow a limited class action seeking an injunction against the company.
"The trial has been an entertaining case that should yield a very interesting and potentially ground-breaking outcome." said observing attorney from one of the top law firms in New York.
The case may divide the court along familiar lines, leaving those four justices in dissent.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
PATENT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUITS BEGIN OVER E-READER
Barnes & Noble and two manufacturers are being sued by Microsoft over the Android-based Nook e-reader. Microsoft said it is seeking triple damages based on willful patent infringement of five patents, plus legal costs and an injunction against further infringement. Microsoft said it also filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission, which has the power to bar imports of infringing products.
Barnes & Noble's Nook and Nook Color devices, which compete with Amazon.com's Kindle e-reader and various Sony devices, are based on Android, system software developed by Google first for smartphones and then for tablet computers. Microsoft also sued Motorola, a maker of Android-based smartphones, for patent infringement in October 2010. Motorola countersued in November.
Microsoft's lawsuits don't go after Google directly, but they could still hurt the Web search leader if device makers decide they don't want to pay to license Microsoft's technology or risk a legal tussle with the software maker.
Microsoft said in the complaint that the Nook e-reader devices and software step on patented technology for showing a Web page's content before loading background images, allowing users to read the page faster. It also pointed to technology around the way "apps," or small programs, indicate the status of a download, and technology for opening a separate window on the screen that makes navigating through content easier.
The other two patents are related to selecting and annotating text in documents.
The suit also named Taiwanese manufacturers Inventec and Foxconn International Holdings.
On a company blog, Microsoft said that after a year of discussions, Barnes & Noble, Inventec and Foxconn, part of Hon Hai Precision Industry, have been unwilling to sign a license.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Firms more motivated to blow the whistle
The investigation currently taking place at Renault signals a sign of caution for certain U.S. businesses to be more aggressive in pursuing tip-offs from whistleblowers.
There are two major takeaway points from the investigation: internal investigations take time and patience, and don't hesitate to consult with the top lawyers to help.
"Renault is the poster child for why you want to approach these situations with a sense of balance, and not have people rush to judgment," said the chief legal officer at logistics and auto transport provider Ryder System Inc.
The epic story involving the Euro automaker started after several top Renault managers were given an anonymous tip that pointed the finger at a senior executive for bribe negotiations.
Proceed a lengthy investigation, Renault let go of the executive as well as two other supervisors. The dismissed employees stressed their innocence, yet the CEO of Renault, Carlos Ghosn, announced that the company had legitimate evidence against their plea.
However, over the past couple months, Renault has been unsuccessful in obtaining any evidence against the trio.
The COO of the company said Renault may have been "tricked" into filing the allegations against the employees. Individuals who are familiar with the matter said French police took the two managers from company's security department into questioning. The two employees were currently overseeing Renault's internal corporate-espionage probe. The company is now preparing to exonerate the three managers for lack of evidence.
Several companies are adopting workplace compliance training programs to overcome such issues in the workplace.
The incident has served as a major wake-up call for corporate-compliance officers. Experts claim that the case will further increase the scrutiny among corporate America and how it handles anonymous tips from whistleblowers.
"More U.S. companies will take a closer look at their internal investigation and compliance systems," predicted CEO of Boundless LLC, an internal auditing and risk-advisory company.
Over the past decade, such companies have taken advantage of workplace management software to improve oversight over such issues.
Set in 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley law required publicly held companies to establish, for the first time, processes to deal with matters of whistleblowers. Last year Congress passed the Dodd-Frank law, which offers incentives for employees to whistle-blow on actions involving securities fraud and other wrongdoing. As a result, employers and others in recent years have generated millions of dollars in rewards for blowing the whistle on fraudulent activity by the U.S. government.
Some top attorneys keeping a close eye on the investigation claim that in some circumstances the incentives can be taken to far. More and more "companies are getting paranoid," said an Tuscon employment defense lawyer.
Many experts believe the risks associated with taking action too soon can outweigh the risks to of delaying action. "By ending an investigation prematurely, you run the risk of a frivolous issue going public too soon," said Ryder's Mr. Fatovic. "The stock gets hit, you invite shareholder lawsuits, you put out more disclosures. It's a tripwire."
Also in agreement is the chief ethics officer at Best Buy Co. She said the retailer is currently diving into allegations of financial fraud among one of its employees overseas. Because of the nature of the allegations, Best Buy Co. can afford to take its time and conduct the investigation thoroughly.
At the same time, the Best Buy ethics officer mentioned that following up on a whistleblower tip is more of an art than a science. "When do you keep going and when do you pull the plug [on an investigation]?" she asked. "It's very hard to know a lot of the time."
There are two major takeaway points from the investigation: internal investigations take time and patience, and don't hesitate to consult with the top lawyers to help.
"Renault is the poster child for why you want to approach these situations with a sense of balance, and not have people rush to judgment," said the chief legal officer at logistics and auto transport provider Ryder System Inc.
The epic story involving the Euro automaker started after several top Renault managers were given an anonymous tip that pointed the finger at a senior executive for bribe negotiations.
Proceed a lengthy investigation, Renault let go of the executive as well as two other supervisors. The dismissed employees stressed their innocence, yet the CEO of Renault, Carlos Ghosn, announced that the company had legitimate evidence against their plea.
However, over the past couple months, Renault has been unsuccessful in obtaining any evidence against the trio.
The COO of the company said Renault may have been "tricked" into filing the allegations against the employees. Individuals who are familiar with the matter said French police took the two managers from company's security department into questioning. The two employees were currently overseeing Renault's internal corporate-espionage probe. The company is now preparing to exonerate the three managers for lack of evidence.
Several companies are adopting workplace compliance training programs to overcome such issues in the workplace.
The incident has served as a major wake-up call for corporate-compliance officers. Experts claim that the case will further increase the scrutiny among corporate America and how it handles anonymous tips from whistleblowers.
"More U.S. companies will take a closer look at their internal investigation and compliance systems," predicted CEO of Boundless LLC, an internal auditing and risk-advisory company.
Over the past decade, such companies have taken advantage of workplace management software to improve oversight over such issues.
Set in 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley law required publicly held companies to establish, for the first time, processes to deal with matters of whistleblowers. Last year Congress passed the Dodd-Frank law, which offers incentives for employees to whistle-blow on actions involving securities fraud and other wrongdoing. As a result, employers and others in recent years have generated millions of dollars in rewards for blowing the whistle on fraudulent activity by the U.S. government.
Some top attorneys keeping a close eye on the investigation claim that in some circumstances the incentives can be taken to far. More and more "companies are getting paranoid," said an Tuscon employment defense lawyer.
Many experts believe the risks associated with taking action too soon can outweigh the risks to of delaying action. "By ending an investigation prematurely, you run the risk of a frivolous issue going public too soon," said Ryder's Mr. Fatovic. "The stock gets hit, you invite shareholder lawsuits, you put out more disclosures. It's a tripwire."
Also in agreement is the chief ethics officer at Best Buy Co. She said the retailer is currently diving into allegations of financial fraud among one of its employees overseas. Because of the nature of the allegations, Best Buy Co. can afford to take its time and conduct the investigation thoroughly.
At the same time, the Best Buy ethics officer mentioned that following up on a whistleblower tip is more of an art than a science. "When do you keep going and when do you pull the plug [on an investigation]?" she asked. "It's very hard to know a lot of the time."
Mexican Movie Goes To Court
Mexico's Court Case May Continue
A judge ruled Monday, March 14, 2011 that a hit documentary that shines an unflattering light on Mexico's secretive legal system can continue to be shown in theaters as long as the identity of a man who appears in the film is protected.
"Presumed Guilty" opened across Mexico on Feb. 18 to wide acclaim, but a judge ordered its suspension last week after a key figure in the movie filed a complaint saying the film violated his right to privacy. An appeals court stayed the judge's order two days later, allowing the film to return to cinemas at least temporarily.
The ruling denied a petition that the film be pulled entirely from Mexican screens.
Theater chain Cinepolis said in a statement that it will continue showing the film in more than 70 Mexican cities, but it did not say if it will alter the movie to conceal any identities or whether it intends to appeal the decision. A message requesting comment from Cinepolis was not immediately returned.
"Presumed Guilty" centers on the case of Antonio Zuniga, a street vendor who was sentenced to 20 years for murder in 2005 on the basis of scant evidence.
Zuniga's conviction was eventually overturned, a process documented by his lawyers, who filmed the hearings with the permission of the trail judge.
The man filing the petition is a cousin of the murder victim, and the case is largely based on his testimony.
Other relatives of the victim also filed a separate complaint, but the judge who handled that case did not order the movie's suspension and on Monday also ruled it could continue to be shown.
"Presumed Guilty" - "Presunto Culpable" in its original Spanish - won the audience award for best international feature at the 2010 Los Angeles Film Festival.
A central message of the film is that greater transparency and openness can improve a system in which most convictions are not based on physical evidence and defendants are vulnerable to unfounded claims.
A message in the credits advises viewers to demand their legal hearings be recorded.
It has been seen by more than 1.2 million people in Mexico, according to Cinepolis.
A judge ruled Monday, March 14, 2011 that a hit documentary that shines an unflattering light on Mexico's secretive legal system can continue to be shown in theaters as long as the identity of a man who appears in the film is protected.
"Presumed Guilty" opened across Mexico on Feb. 18 to wide acclaim, but a judge ordered its suspension last week after a key figure in the movie filed a complaint saying the film violated his right to privacy. An appeals court stayed the judge's order two days later, allowing the film to return to cinemas at least temporarily.
The ruling denied a petition that the film be pulled entirely from Mexican screens.
Theater chain Cinepolis said in a statement that it will continue showing the film in more than 70 Mexican cities, but it did not say if it will alter the movie to conceal any identities or whether it intends to appeal the decision. A message requesting comment from Cinepolis was not immediately returned.
"Presumed Guilty" centers on the case of Antonio Zuniga, a street vendor who was sentenced to 20 years for murder in 2005 on the basis of scant evidence.
Zuniga's conviction was eventually overturned, a process documented by his lawyers, who filmed the hearings with the permission of the trail judge.
The man filing the petition is a cousin of the murder victim, and the case is largely based on his testimony.
Other relatives of the victim also filed a separate complaint, but the judge who handled that case did not order the movie's suspension and on Monday also ruled it could continue to be shown.
"Presumed Guilty" - "Presunto Culpable" in its original Spanish - won the audience award for best international feature at the 2010 Los Angeles Film Festival.
A central message of the film is that greater transparency and openness can improve a system in which most convictions are not based on physical evidence and defendants are vulnerable to unfounded claims.
A message in the credits advises viewers to demand their legal hearings be recorded.
It has been seen by more than 1.2 million people in Mexico, according to Cinepolis.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Republican lawmakers question head of SEC over ties to Madoff account
Mary Schapiro, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), did not think the financial connection between the agency's former general counsel and Bernard Madoff posed a matter of concern.
In a letter to lawmakers, the head of the SEC told lawmakers that she did not see a conflict of interest when David Becker explained to her that David's mother owned an account tied to Madoff, who was found guilty after generating billions of dollars through a Ponzi scheme in 2009.
During two Capitol Hill hearings this week, Schapiro is expected to reveal why she permitted her general counsel to contribute in shaping the SEC's policy on how victims of Madoff's scheme should be compensated.
David Becker is facing a lawsuit because a federal court-appointed trustee claimed Becker inherited monies which were generated from the illegal work of Madoff.
The questionable judgments Schapiro made are under evaluation amidst a challenging time for the SEC. The agency is currently seeking additional funding from Congress to establish new financial regulations. The head of the SEC will propose the agency's $1.4 billion need to hire more staff and invest in technology for the budget year that begins Oct. 1.
Many companies use employee stock ownership plans, or ESOPs, as an alternative to 401k plans or other types of employee investment program.
Not helping the SEC's cause is overwhelming criticism due to the agency's enduring failure to discover Madoff's scheme despite several hints of his activity.
Testifying before a Senate Banking Committee panel and a joint hearing of two House Oversight subcommittees, Schapiro will face questions by Republican lawmakers who not only see opposition the rules the SEC created, but also who voted against the financial overhaul law.
In addition, Republican lawmakers and the SEC inspector general are investigating Schapiro's actions with Becker.
Becker's connection to Madoff was unveiled to the public late last month after a court-appointed trustee sued Becker and his brothers, announcing that they profited over $1.5 million from their deceased mother's investments with Madoff. Becker left the SEC last month.
"Becker is caught in an interesting legal dispute. Although he his in possession of lots of money currently under question, his position his bordering innocence." said a securities lawyer who chose not to state his name.
In the letter to the lawmakers, Schapiro claimed that Becker brought the account to her attention shortly after he was appointed into the SEC. She added that she does not recall asking Becker for any additional information during his admission.
"The issue did not appear to me to present a financial conflict of interest," Schapiro stated in the letter to the lawmakers. "However, I relied on Mr. Becker to present any ethics-related issues" to the SEC's ethics officer, Schapiro added.
Becker did that. According to the questions posed to Schapiro, the ethics officer told him that "a reasonable person with knowledge of all of these facts would not question (his) impartiality."
John Nester, spokesperson for the SEC, said that Becker sought and followed the advice of the ethics officer.
In a letter to lawmakers, the head of the SEC told lawmakers that she did not see a conflict of interest when David Becker explained to her that David's mother owned an account tied to Madoff, who was found guilty after generating billions of dollars through a Ponzi scheme in 2009.
During two Capitol Hill hearings this week, Schapiro is expected to reveal why she permitted her general counsel to contribute in shaping the SEC's policy on how victims of Madoff's scheme should be compensated.
David Becker is facing a lawsuit because a federal court-appointed trustee claimed Becker inherited monies which were generated from the illegal work of Madoff.
The questionable judgments Schapiro made are under evaluation amidst a challenging time for the SEC. The agency is currently seeking additional funding from Congress to establish new financial regulations. The head of the SEC will propose the agency's $1.4 billion need to hire more staff and invest in technology for the budget year that begins Oct. 1.
Many companies use employee stock ownership plans, or ESOPs, as an alternative to 401k plans or other types of employee investment program.
Not helping the SEC's cause is overwhelming criticism due to the agency's enduring failure to discover Madoff's scheme despite several hints of his activity.
Testifying before a Senate Banking Committee panel and a joint hearing of two House Oversight subcommittees, Schapiro will face questions by Republican lawmakers who not only see opposition the rules the SEC created, but also who voted against the financial overhaul law.
In addition, Republican lawmakers and the SEC inspector general are investigating Schapiro's actions with Becker.
Becker's connection to Madoff was unveiled to the public late last month after a court-appointed trustee sued Becker and his brothers, announcing that they profited over $1.5 million from their deceased mother's investments with Madoff. Becker left the SEC last month.
"Becker is caught in an interesting legal dispute. Although he his in possession of lots of money currently under question, his position his bordering innocence." said a securities lawyer who chose not to state his name.
In the letter to the lawmakers, Schapiro claimed that Becker brought the account to her attention shortly after he was appointed into the SEC. She added that she does not recall asking Becker for any additional information during his admission.
"The issue did not appear to me to present a financial conflict of interest," Schapiro stated in the letter to the lawmakers. "However, I relied on Mr. Becker to present any ethics-related issues" to the SEC's ethics officer, Schapiro added.
Becker did that. According to the questions posed to Schapiro, the ethics officer told him that "a reasonable person with knowledge of all of these facts would not question (his) impartiality."
John Nester, spokesperson for the SEC, said that Becker sought and followed the advice of the ethics officer.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Attorneys make opening statements during high-volume insider trading case
Raj Rajaratnam, founder of Galleon Group, is facing legal charges after generating millions of dollars in illicit profits. According a U.S. prosecutor, Rajaratnam used a "corrupt network" of consultants and company insiders to retrieve information that helped him obtain his fortune currently under question.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Streeter said in New York federal court that the case is centered on "greed and corruption." He added that Rajaratnam used corrupt insiders to get "tomorrow's business news today."
Defending attorney John Dowd countered Streeter's comments by claiming Rajaratnam's actions were of no violation or crime, and that he traded only on publicly available information and research conducted by Galleon. Dowd pointed out to the jury that the government has it wrong and "failed to do its homework."
The dispute unveiled what many foresee being a drama-packed, ten-week legal battle touching on, among other things, allegations of sex, lies and audiotapes. Top lawyers observing the case emphasized that the opening statement is critical during criminal trials, and jurors are often won over by the initial argument or not at all.
Prior to the opening statements, a 12-member jury of New Yorkers was swore in, each over the age of 45 years old. A majority of the jury told the judge that they were unfamiliar with Rajaratnam's Galleon Group or any of the company insiders who are destined for the stand.
The case against Rajaratnam is significant battle with something at stake for both sides. Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara emphasizes the legal implications of insider trading a focus, and how the outcome could influence other related investigations conducted by his office.
Mr. Rajaratnam, if convicted, could face up to 20 years in prison on 14 counts of conspiracy and securities fraud.
One Roanoke business lawyer with experience handling cases of insider-trading pointed out that such cases can be "a challenge to argue", and that the success of the prosecutors will hinge on their ability to sustain jurors' focus on the evidence.
The Galleon case is the first trail involving insider-trading where the core evidence lies in almost 90 hours of telephone conversations. The government's intercepted recordings, which will drive a roster of witnesses to the stand for questioning, defense lawyers say.
The crux for prosecutors is ensuring that jurors do not become overwhelmed with evidence and to argue their case in the clearest manner possible.
The prosecution's opening statement was an underscore to the issues involving insider trading and the related challenges the government faces in regulating such fraudulent activity.
Attorney Jonathan Streeter stated his allegations in clear terms to the court: "People at Galleon did their homework, but they cheated, too. And that cheating is called inside information."
Mr. Streeter repeatedly alleged that the defendant purchased and sold shares based on inside information and made an effort to "cover his tracks." He added that Rajaratnam would most likely counter the allegations with emails, making it seem as if his actions were based on legitimate research.
"Both sides are making valid, persuasive arguments. This case should keep us (the audience in the courtroom) on the edge of our seats." said an observing Dayton business lawyer
According to Rajaratnam's attorney, he operated a sound business that used a "mosaic" of research to make trading decisions about companies and "built his success on shoe-leather research."
Mr. Dowd also added: "In the real world, there's nothing wrong with talking about stocks or researching stocks."
Galleon spends roughly $300 million a year on research and traded millions of shares every year, and the alleged trades only accounted for a fraction of the trades Rajaratnam's company made annually, Mr. Dowd said.
Prosecutors plan to sharpen their case strategy by focusing on a select group of witnesses, who claim were involved in the alleged trading as well as the telephone recording with Mr. Rajaratnam in which he discussed improper trades. In the upcoming proceedings, Mr. Streeter and the team of top attorneys will play two of the recordings from 2008 during which the defendant allegedly told his staff at Galleon that he had received tips regarding Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
The inside information being pressed on Rajaratnam included a $5 billion investment by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in Goldman at the peak of the economic meltdown, Mr. Streeter said.
Just minutes of receiving the Berkshire tip, Rajaratnam ordered a stock purchase worth $43 million of Goldman shares, Mr. Streeter said. Only $27 million of the order was fulfilled in the short time before the New York Stock Exchange closed, Mr. Streeter said. He also said that after the close and the Berkshire investment was announced, Rajaratnam profited a quick $1 million on the trade.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Streeter said in New York federal court that the case is centered on "greed and corruption." He added that Rajaratnam used corrupt insiders to get "tomorrow's business news today."
Defending attorney John Dowd countered Streeter's comments by claiming Rajaratnam's actions were of no violation or crime, and that he traded only on publicly available information and research conducted by Galleon. Dowd pointed out to the jury that the government has it wrong and "failed to do its homework."
The dispute unveiled what many foresee being a drama-packed, ten-week legal battle touching on, among other things, allegations of sex, lies and audiotapes. Top lawyers observing the case emphasized that the opening statement is critical during criminal trials, and jurors are often won over by the initial argument or not at all.
Prior to the opening statements, a 12-member jury of New Yorkers was swore in, each over the age of 45 years old. A majority of the jury told the judge that they were unfamiliar with Rajaratnam's Galleon Group or any of the company insiders who are destined for the stand.
The case against Rajaratnam is significant battle with something at stake for both sides. Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara emphasizes the legal implications of insider trading a focus, and how the outcome could influence other related investigations conducted by his office.
Mr. Rajaratnam, if convicted, could face up to 20 years in prison on 14 counts of conspiracy and securities fraud.
One Roanoke business lawyer with experience handling cases of insider-trading pointed out that such cases can be "a challenge to argue", and that the success of the prosecutors will hinge on their ability to sustain jurors' focus on the evidence.
The Galleon case is the first trail involving insider-trading where the core evidence lies in almost 90 hours of telephone conversations. The government's intercepted recordings, which will drive a roster of witnesses to the stand for questioning, defense lawyers say.
The crux for prosecutors is ensuring that jurors do not become overwhelmed with evidence and to argue their case in the clearest manner possible.
The prosecution's opening statement was an underscore to the issues involving insider trading and the related challenges the government faces in regulating such fraudulent activity.
Attorney Jonathan Streeter stated his allegations in clear terms to the court: "People at Galleon did their homework, but they cheated, too. And that cheating is called inside information."
Mr. Streeter repeatedly alleged that the defendant purchased and sold shares based on inside information and made an effort to "cover his tracks." He added that Rajaratnam would most likely counter the allegations with emails, making it seem as if his actions were based on legitimate research.
"Both sides are making valid, persuasive arguments. This case should keep us (the audience in the courtroom) on the edge of our seats." said an observing Dayton business lawyer
According to Rajaratnam's attorney, he operated a sound business that used a "mosaic" of research to make trading decisions about companies and "built his success on shoe-leather research."
Mr. Dowd also added: "In the real world, there's nothing wrong with talking about stocks or researching stocks."
Galleon spends roughly $300 million a year on research and traded millions of shares every year, and the alleged trades only accounted for a fraction of the trades Rajaratnam's company made annually, Mr. Dowd said.
Prosecutors plan to sharpen their case strategy by focusing on a select group of witnesses, who claim were involved in the alleged trading as well as the telephone recording with Mr. Rajaratnam in which he discussed improper trades. In the upcoming proceedings, Mr. Streeter and the team of top attorneys will play two of the recordings from 2008 during which the defendant allegedly told his staff at Galleon that he had received tips regarding Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
The inside information being pressed on Rajaratnam included a $5 billion investment by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in Goldman at the peak of the economic meltdown, Mr. Streeter said.
Just minutes of receiving the Berkshire tip, Rajaratnam ordered a stock purchase worth $43 million of Goldman shares, Mr. Streeter said. Only $27 million of the order was fulfilled in the short time before the New York Stock Exchange closed, Mr. Streeter said. He also said that after the close and the Berkshire investment was announced, Rajaratnam profited a quick $1 million on the trade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
