Buyer Beware: Firms Look Closely at Legal Liabilities of Merger Partners

*

Former Gardner Carton & Douglas partner Steven L. Loren, who pleaded guilty to a criminal felony act over the representation of a firm client, left the firm in advance of its merger with Drinker Biddle & Reath in 2007.

But that didn't stop Drinker Biddle's name from appearing on a lawsuit filed earlier last month against Loren, Gardner Carton and several others who the plaintiffs allege were involved in a kickback scheme to sell property of a Chicago university to members of the scheme despite higher offers coming from the plaintiff.

Rush Oak v. Levine was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County in Illinois Nov. 2. Drinker Biddle's name can only be found within the first three pages of the 50-page complaint, including in the caption. The firm is listed as the merger partner of Gardner Carton and then not mentioned again.

Legal liability due diligence has become part of the merger process for large firms that have to weigh whether the risk is worth the reward. Most analysts said, however, that there are safeguards that can be put in place to protect the surviving entity. But they agree that the process can add to the cost and overall risk of a combination.

According to the complaint, several of the individual defendants have pleaded guilty in federal court to fraud charges related to the real estate deal. Loren pleaded guilty to a felony criminal act arising out of his work for a client who pleaded guilty to fraud in this alleged conspiracy. Loren was not going to be criminally prosecuted for events relating to the deal but admitted in the plea agreement that he was aware of other criminal acts his client was involved with during the same time, according to the complaint.

Rush Oak and co-plaintiffs Brian, Philip, Pamela and Shawn Farley said in the complaint Gardner Carton is vicariously liable for Loren's actions.

Drinker Biddle spokesman John Byrne said, "We don't see any merit in the suit whatsoever."

He wouldn't comment beyond that.

When Drinker Biddle and Gardner Carton confirmed in late 2006 that they would be merging, Drinker Biddle Chairman Alfred W. Putnam Jr. said Drinker Biddle had some of its litigation partners look into the cases against Loren that were pending at the time.

"We don't think they really pose a substantial risk to Gardner Carton," he told The Legal at the time.

Drinker Biddle certainly isn't alone in facing litigation stemming from acquisitions of firms or lateral groups.

Morgan Lewis & Bockius had to fend off a suit by former Brobeck Phleger & Harrison employees who sued the firm for failure to comply with WARN Act filings. The firm had hired dozens of Brobeck lawyers and staff and took over some of the space of the dissolving firm in 2003. The employees lost because they were laid off the same day an agreement became effective for Morgan Lewis to purchase furniture and other equipment from the firm. The judge ruled Brobeck, not Morgan Lewis, was still responsible for complying with WARN Act notices that day.

Morgan Lewis was again brought into a similar situation this year after former Thelen employees sued a number of law firms who picked up some of the attorneys and staff from the dissolved firm.

A recent report by The Recorder, a Legal Intelligencer affiliate, noted that Morgan Lewis was sued in October along with Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, DLA Piper, Nixon Peabody and Howrey over similar WARN Act violations. Staffers were given 30 days' notice, not 60 as required under the act. The employees argue that the acquisition by the defendant firms of Thelen partners equated to a purchase of part of the business. That makes them bound to the same obligations as an employer under WARN, according to the report.

Ward Bower of Altman Weil said firms looking at mergers have to do legal due diligence along with financial and tax due diligence when looking at acquiring another firm. They have to look at current or potential lawsuits and the professional liability history of a firm.

Potential lawsuits can pose a dilemma because firms have to take people at their word that these won't be major issues, he said. The problem in today's market is that with almost any larger firm there is something lurking that could turn into a lawsuit, Bower said. Clients are more eager to sue their law firms and the bigger the firm is, the harder these issues can be to identify. That all makes mergers a bit riskier than they were 10 or 20 years ago, he said.

One litigator familiar with these types of cases said they are similar to most successor liability suits involving other types of corporations and the courts apply various tests to see whether successor liability applies. The only difference, the attorney said, is that law firms don't have assets like the typical corporation does.

The attorney said courts have found successor liability among law firms, but it's more typically when a firm closes down to avoid creditors and opens up under a different name with nearly the same people.

In order to curb potential liability, most firms will include as part of the merger agreement that the acquired firm maintain its own tail, or claims-made insurance, in the event suits are brought from events that occurred before the merger. Other firms may just use their existing professional liability insurance to cover any claims that arise from prior acts of the acquired firm, the attorney said.

This is not to say, however, that the surviving firms don't have to engage in the fight and have an attorney sit at the defense table. That means added time and money even if the risk of a verdict against them is minimal, the attorney said.

Frank D'Amore of Attorney Career Catalysts said many mergers will require an additional insurance policy is purchased.

"In larger-scale mergers, that can become a lot of money," D'Amore said.

And the money is just one factor. If the acquired firm doesn't provide full-disclosure of potential suits or is perceived to have clouded the reality of the risk, that could be a detriment to the culture as the two entities work to integrate. The cultural ramifications for the firm have led firms to dig deeper in their legal due diligence than they have in the past, he said.

ACLU sues for students to wear anti-Islam shirts in Florida schools

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-11-25-aclu-islam_N.htm

The American Civil Liberties Union has sued a north Florida school district, claiming that the Alachua County School District violated students' rights by not allowing them to wear T-shirts with an anti-Islamic message.

The civil rights organization says that while it doesn't agree with the "Islam is of the Devil" message printed on T-shirts distributed by the Dove World Outreach Center, it does support the students' constitutional right to freedom of speech.

In a letter to the ACLU the school board's law firm said that "a school may regulate a student's free speech rights if the exercise of those rights materially and substantially interferes with maintaining appropriate discipline at school, or if the conduct impinges on the rights of other students."

I am all for the comment made by the school board's law firm. Obviously, this kind of material would be a major disruption in school for students and staff.

More anti-gay, religious-motivated crimes reported - Yahoo! News

More anti-gay, religious-motivated crimes reported - Yahoo! News: "By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writer – Mon Nov 23, 10:14 am ET
WASHINGTON – Reports of hate crimes against gays and religious groups increased sharply in 2008, according to new FBI data released Monday.
Overall, the number of reported hate crimes increased about 2 percent. These same figures show a nearly 11 percent increase in hate crimes based on sexual orientation, and a nearly 9 percent increase in hate crimes based on religion.
The largest category, racially-motivated hate crimes, fell less than 1 percent.
Among all categories of hate crimes, roughly a third are vandalism or property damage. About 30 percent involve intimidation of some kind, and another 30 percent were physical attacks against people.
The FBI does not compare year-to-year trends in hate crimes, saying the number of agencies reporting changes too much. And in fact, the bureau cautioned that the increase reported Monday might well be due to more agencies tracking such incidents.
In 2008, 2,145 different agencies reported hate crimes incidents, while the year before 2,025 agencies did this reporting.
In total, there were 7,783 hate crimes reported to the FBI last year, and seven murders were categorized as hate crimes"

US lawmakers hope to question White House gatecrashers - Yahoo! News

US lawmakers hope to question White House gatecrashers - Yahoo! News: "Mon Nov 30, 12:15 pm ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) – A key US House of Representatives committee said Monday it wanted to question the couple that crashed a formal White House dinner in honor of India last week about the headline-grabbing incident.
The House Homeland Security Committee plans to invite Tareq and Michaele Salahi as well as the head of US President Barack Obama's Secret Service bodyguards, Mark Sullivan, to testify at a Thursday hearing, its chairman said.
'This is a time for answers, recognition of security deficiencies past and present, and remedies to ensure the strength of the Secret Service and the safety of those under its protection,' said Democratic Representative Bennie Thompson, who heads the panel.
'This is not the time for political games or scapegoating to distract our attention from the careful oversight we must apply to the Secret Service and its mission,' Thompson added in a statement.
The Salahis made headlines after they attended the early portion of the November 24 festivities honoring Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh despite apparently lacking either an invitation or proper Secret Service clearance"

Court won't revive student's suit over grad speech - Yahoo! News

Court won't revive student's suit over grad speech - Yahoo! News: "Mon Nov 30, 10:17 am ET
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court won't revive a student's lawsuit against a school that punished her for talking about her religion during her high school graduation speech.
The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Erica Corder. She was punished for her 2006 speech at the Lewis-Palmer High School commencement in Monument, Colo.
School officials screened Corder's speech in advance but she changed her text, urging the audience to consider the Christian faith.
The principal made her to write a letter acknowledging the remarks were her personal views before she was given her diploma.
Corder sued, but federal courts threw out her lawsuit. Judges say the school didn't violate her rights because her remarks were school-sponsored, rather than private speech.
The case is Corder v. Lewis Palmer School District, 09-257."

Judge Cancels $525K in Mortgage Debt, Blasts Bank’s ‘Shocking and Repulsive’ Acts

A judge in New York has completely erased a couple's mortgage debt of $525,000. He argued that the bank, IndyMac Mortgage Services, a division of OneWest Bank F.S.B, had misled him about the amount being disputed and had refused to be reasonable in helping the couple to modify the loan. It is said that the judge's ruling blasted the bank for its dealings with the couple, Diane Yano-Horoski and Greg Horoski. The bank has stated it will appeal the ruling stating, "We believe the Yano-Horoski ruling, if allowed to stand, has sweeping and dangerous implications for the entire mortgage lending industry."

The full article can be found here:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_cancels_525k_in_mortgage_debt_blasts_banks_shocking_and_repulsive_act/

Architecture firm seeks $32 million from university for breach of contract

this article is about a contract that is in dispute between Karlsberger Architecture and Ohio State University. A contract worth 32 million dollars was given to Karlsberger Architecture by Ohio State to build a new cancer center for the school. OSU asked Karlsberger Architecture to voluntarily terminate the contract, no reason was given. The contract had a clause that allowed OSU to terminate the contract without cause but the architecture firm said that that clause was voided because OSU did not exercise good faith. Karlsberger Architecture is asking the full 32 million for the original contract plus interest.

The full link for this article is http://www.thelantern.com/campus/architecture-firm-seeks-32-million-from-university-for-breach-of-contract

The liability of an agent of a disclosed principal in a contractual transaction with third parties
Thursday, 18 June 2009 01:15 OLA BAKARE, ACIArb.

User Rating: / 3 PoorBest
google_protectAndRun("render_ads.js::google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
Samuel Osigwe v. Privatisation Share Purchase Loan Scheme Management Consortium Limited & Ors (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1128) 378- A Review of the Supreme Court’s decision determining the liability of an agent of a disclosed principal in a contractual transaction with third partiesÂ

Modern commercial law practice owes its lifeblood, in part, to the concept of Agency; a concept which has been rightly described as lying “at the very heart of the subject (commercial law) and without it modern commerce would not exist.”  The traditional Common Law of Agency is founded on the maxim qui facit per alium facit per se meaning ‘he who acts through another acts himself’. The full amplitude of the principal/agent relationship arises where one party, the principal, authorises another party, the agent, to act on his behalf and the agent consents to so act. From this authority directly conferred on the agent stems the agent’s power. This may either be actual or apparent authority where the principal has by its conduct given the indication that the agent has authority for such matters.The recent case of Osigwe v. Privatisation Share Purchase Loan Scheme Management Consortium Ltd & Ors is a re-statement of the general principle that an agent acting on behalf of a disclosed principal incurs no personal liability in respect of transactions entered into with third parties which falls within the scope of his authority. This is the law in Nigeria as well as other Common Law jurisdictions of the world.FactsThe Appellant instituted a class action for himself and on behalf of persons who had registered to purchase shares in public companies under the Privatization Share Purchase Loan Scheme (PSPLS) against the Respondent for themselves and as representatives of all financial intermediaries engaged in the PSPLS Scheme. The claim was instituted before the Investment and Securities Tribunal.The allegation of the Appellant at the Tribunal was that he and the parties represented suffered damage as a result of a breach committed by the Respondent in respect of certain provisions of the Investment and Securities Act (ISA) and the rules and regulations issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) pursuant to the ISA 1999 [specifically by not filing the appropriate statements with SEC. The Appellant sought for the suspension of the share acquisition scheme or an order directing the Respondent to comply with the provisions of the ISA and the rules and regulations made under it.Upon a notice of preliminary objection filed by the Respondents challenging the competence of the action against them, the Tribunal in its ruling, held that the Respondents were not necessary parties because they were agents of a disclosed principal and did not fall within the exceptions to the general rule. The Tribunal accordingly struck out the Respondents’ names.The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the decision of the Tribunal, appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal. The appellant consequently appealed to the Supreme Court.Issues before the Supreme Court and judgmentThe main issue for determination by the Supreme Court is whether the lower court was right in upholding the decision of the Tribunal which struck out the Respondents from the proceedings on the ground that as agents of a disclosed principal, they were not necessary parties to the proceedings. The submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant was that the Common Law principle that limits the liability of an agent of a disclosed principal does not apply in a case where the Respondents are accused of breaches of statutory duties and requirements and thus the statutory provision envisaged the responsibility of the respondents regardless of their agency status. On their parts, the Respondents’ counsel submitted that as agents of a disclosed principal, the Respondents are not necessary parties in the suit. Upon consideration of these submissions the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. Musdapher, JSC in his lead judgment succinctly captures the legal position as follows: “Again, it is clear from the appellant’s pleading that each of the respondents herein are merely agents of the BPE solely appointed for the registration of would be purchasers of the shares of the public companies to be privatized. The respondents also by the pleading of the appellant, are unmistakably agents of a revealed principal and as agents, they cannot be liable under all the circumstance of this case. See Okafor v. Ezenwa (supra) ... An agent acting on behalf of a known and disclosed principal incurs no personal liability.…”The above decision is not any way in isolation. The Supreme Court had reached the same conclusion in the case of James v. Mid-Motors (Nig.) Co. Ltd. (1978) 11 N.S.C.C. 536 at 548 where the court per Aniagolu, JSC made a brilliant exposition of the law on the point while His Lordship made reference to the judgment of the House of Lords in Houlsworth v. City of Glasgow Bank (1874-1900) ALL ELR. Page 333 which had being the locus classicus on this Common Law position.CommentsThe reciprocal rights and liabilities of Principal and Agent reflect commercial needs and legal realities. In any sizable business, it is not possible for one person to travel everywhere to negotiate all the transactions necessary to maintain or grow the business. These problems are increased if the business is a corporation, because it is then a fictitious legal person and, as such, it can only act through human agents. Hence, independent people are contracted by businesses to buy and sell goods and services on behalf of those businesses. When agreements are made, the Principal is liable under the contract(s) made by the Agent. So long as the Agent has done what he or she was instructed to do, the result is the same as if the Principal had done it directly.If the Agent has actual or apparent authority, the Agent will not have liability on any transactions agreed within the scope of that authority so long as the Principal was disclosed, i.e. the fact of the agency was revealed and the identity of the Principal revealed. But where the agency is undisclosed or partially disclosed, both the Agent and the Principal are bound. Where the Principal is not bound because the Agent had no actual or apparent authority, the purported Agent is liable to the Third Party for breach of the implied warranty of authority.

Lawyer Under Fire for Using Dud Grenade in Closing

Sheriff's officers are investigating a Kansas attorney for criminal use of explosives after they learned he used a dead grenade as a prop during his closing statements at a trial Monday.

Lawyer Sam Kepfield pulled the dud grenade out to make a point in a forgery and theft case against a Hutchinson, Kan., woman.

The Hutchinson News reports that Kepfield set the grenade on a ledge in front of jurors, then moved it to the prosecutor's table. He reportedly pulled the pin from the grenade and asked jurors, "Are you afraid now?"

"I was trying to demonstrate what's called an imminent threat," Kepfield told the paper.

There was no objection and the presiding judge simply asked that Kepfield remove the grenade from the table. Kepfield's client was convicted following 15 minutes of jury deliberations, according to the Hutchinson News.

And while the jurors reportedly told the judge that the incident didn't scare them, both the judge and local district attorney reported the matter to the Reno County sheriff.

District Attorney Keith Schroeder intends to also alert the Kansas attorney general's office.

"Clearly, I'm concerned about the situation and the safety of my employees, and I'm concerned about the way the jury's treated," Schroeder said.

Canadian Rail Engineers Begin a Strike

OTTAWA — About 1,700 locomotive engineers with the Canadian National Railway went on strike early Saturday morning. The walkout, which may create difficulties for manufacturers and resource companies, followed a decision by Canadian National to impose a new contract on its workers.

Although the strike does not involve engineers for Canadian National’s operations in the United States, it may nevertheless cause problems in both countries. Some American imports from Asia and Europe land at Canadian ports and then are moved to the United States on Canadian National trains.

The railroad, based in Montreal, said in a statement that it would try to maintain service by using managers to operate trains. Given the scale of the walkout, however, it was not clear whether that would be possible.

Automobile manufacturers in Ontario are particularly dependent on Canadian National both for parts shipments and for delivering cars, most of which are destined for the United States. In Western Canada, the strike will make it difficult, if not impossible, for many farmers to ship grain to ports in British Columbia.

After 14 months of labor negotiations came to an impasse, Canadian National imposed a new contract last Monday. According to the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, the railroad wants to increase its members’ wages by 1.5 percent in the contract’s first year. But it would also impose a 500-mile increase in the distance engineers are required to cover each month.


for full article see link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/business/global/29canadian.html?_r=1&ref=business

Supreme Court May Hear 'Cat's Paw' Case

Tresa Baldas 11-30-2009
Employment lawyers are hoping the U.S. Supreme Court will resolve a conflict in the federal circuits over the so-called cat's paw theory. That says an employer is liable for discrimination when a final decision-maker is influenced by a lower-level employee with discriminatory motives to take an adverse action against another worker.
On Nov. 9, the Supreme Court asked the solicitor general for the government's views on the case of Staub v. Proctor Hospital, which raises the cat's paw theory. The Court is considering whether to hear the case.
Vincent Staub, a member of the Army Reserve, alleges that he was fired from his hospital technician job in Illinois because of the influence of a supervisor who was anti-military. Staub claims that the nonbiased, ultimate decision-maker was influenced by the supervisor. A jury awarded him $57,640, but the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the verdict in March.
The federal circuit courts remain split on the concept of holding an employer liable for unlawful discrimination by someone other than the primary decision-maker. The 1st, 3rd, 5th and 9th circuits have all upheld a cat's paw claim where the terminated employee could prove that a biased worker actually influenced the final decision. At the other end of the spectrum, the 4th Circuit has held that if the final decision-maker's motive is pure, an employer cannot be held liable for a subordinate's alleged bias. And the 10th Circuit requires evidence that the biased subordinate caused the firing or demotion through his discriminatory recommendations, reports or actions.
"There is a clear split among the circuits ... and, ultimately, that's what the Supreme Court is there for. It really shouldn't be that you have a different application of federal law because you're in Ohio or you're in California," said Robert Niccolini, a partner in the Washington office of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, who has successfully defended several cat's paw cases on behalf of employers.
For employers' sake, Niccolini hopes that the Supreme Court rules against Staub. "If the final decision-maker does have a clear motive, a legitimate, nondiscriminatory motivation or reason for a decision, then that really should be the end of the analysis as a matter of law," Niccolini said.
But if that were the rule, federal discrimination laws "would be a dead letter for most employers," countered Eric Schnapper, a professor at the University of Washington School of Law who is representing Staub and filed the writ of certiorari at the Supreme Court. He said that at most companies, several individuals are involved in making employment decisions and, too often, the biased opinions and inaccurate information of some are passed along to the final decision-maker.
Employers, he stressed, should not be shielded from liability when someone within the company commits a wrongdoing against another. That, Schnapper said, is what's going on within the 4th and 7th circuits. "The problem is that employers within these circuits simply aren't liable for discrimination because they're not being held legally responsible for the people that work for them," he said.
Hopefully, that will change, said Schnapper, who has three times petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the cat's paw theory. "The court is clearly going to take this at some time," he said. "There's a split in the circuits, and the issue comes up a lot."

Price for not paying your student loans

We all know, or should know, that if you don't pay your student loans there are great repercussions. Your credit report and score is so messed up you can kiss any chance of having good credit goodbye for years to come. But, did you know that if you don't pay your student loans you can also miss out on your social security benefits?

Check out the website:
www.sandiegobusinesslawfirm.com/student_loan_default

Lorus Therapeutics Raises $2.46 Million in Equity Financing
Press Release
Source: Lorus Therapeutics Inc.
On 5:12 pm EST, Friday November 27, 2009
TORONTO, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - Nov. 27, 2009) - Lorus Therapeutics Inc. ("Lorus")(TSX:LOR - News), a biopharmaceutical company specializing in the discovery, research and development of pharmaceutical products and technologies for the management of cancer, announced today that it has completed an equity financing in the amount of $2.46 million by way of a private placement of 41 million units (the "Units"), each Unit consisting of one common share of Lorus and one-half common share purchase warrant (each whole warrant being referred to as a "Warrant"). Each Unit was issued at $0.06, which is based on the current market price of common shares of Lorus. Each Warrant entitles the holder to purchase one common share of Lorus at an exercise price of $0.08 until May 27, 2011. The Toronto Stock Exchange granted its approval with respect to the additional listing of common shares as the total number of shares and warrants issued pursuant to the private placement comprise approximately 25% of the issued capital of Lorus.
Participating agents are being paid a commission of 7% of the value of Units sold, approximately $172,200, and in addition are receiving 7% broker warrants (each whole broker warrant exercisable at the exercise price of a Warrant) based on the number of Units sold, limited to a maximum of 2,152,500 broker warrants to be issued to such agents. Herbert Abramson, a director of Lorus who is thereby a related party of Lorus, participated in the private placement. Concurrent with the closing of the private placement, Lorus repaid an outstanding promissory note owing to Mr. Abramson who in turn used such proceeds towards acquiring 17 million Units at $0.06 per Unit. As a result of the private placement, Mr. Abramson's aggregate holdings in Lorus have increased to 14.4% of the issued and outstanding common shares of Lorus.
Lorus expects to use the proceeds of the private placement towards its clinical and preclinical programs. "We are pleased that this financing enables us to progress our drug development programs", said Aiping Young, President and CEO of Lorus. "The expression of significant interest from an insider as well as other investors indicates a high degree of confidence in Lorus and prospects for the coming year."
About Lorus
Lorus is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, research and development of novel therapeutics in cancer. Lorus' goal is to capitalize on its research, preclinical, clinical and regulatory expertise by developing new drug candidates that can be used, either alone, or in combination with other drugs, to successfully manage cancer. Through its own discovery efforts and an acquisition and in-licensing program, Lorus is building a portfolio of promising anticancer drugs. Lorus is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol 'LOR'.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Canadian and United States securities laws. Such statements include, but are not limited to, statements relating to: financings and corporate reorganizations, the establishment of corporate alliances, Lorus' plans, objectives, expectations and intentions and other statements including words such as "continue", "expect", "intend", "will", "should", "would", "may", and other similar expressions. Such statements reflect our current views with respect to future events and are subject to risks and uncertainties and are necessarily based upon a number of estimates and assumptions that, while considered reasonable by us, are inherently subject to significant business, economic, competitive, political and social uncertainties and contingencies. Many factors could cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements described in this press release. Such expressed or implied forward-looking statements could include, among others: our ability to continue to operate as a going concern; our ability to obtain the capital required for research and operations; the inherent risks in early stage drug development including demonstrating efficacy; development time/cost and the regulatory approval process; the progress of our clinical trials; our ability to find and enter into agreements with potential partners; our ability to attract and retain key personnel; changing market conditions; and other risks detailed from time-to-time in our ongoing quarterly filings, annual information forms, annual reports and annual filings with Canadian securities regulators and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should the assumptions set out in the section entitled "Risk Factors" in our filings with Canadian securities regulators and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission underlying those forward-looking statements prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those described herein. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this press release and we do not intend, and do not assume any obligation, to update these forward-looking statements, except as required by law. We cannot assure you that such statements will prove to be accurate as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Investors are cautioned that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and accordingly investors are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements due to the inherent uncertainty therein.
Lorus Therapeutics Inc.'s recent press releases are available through its website at www.lorusthera.com. For Lorus' regulatory filings on SEDAR, please go to www.sedar.com. For SEDAR filings prior to July 10, 2007, please refer to the company profile for Global Summit Real Estate Inc. (Old Lorus).
Contact:
Dr. Saeid BabaeiLorus Therapeutics Inc.1-416-798-1200 ext. 490ir@lorusthera.com

Employers Wonder If They Have to Chill Out Over Medical Marijuana Use

Medical marijuana laws are having an odd effect on many employers: They're dazed and confused about their obligations to workers who use pot for health reasons.

Employment lawyers say employers are unsure about how far they have to go to accommodate medical marijuana users. Many question whether they're even required to tolerate medical marijuana use, which is now legal in 13 states. Another six additional states, including New York, Illinois and Massachusetts, are considering medical marijuana bills.

Adding to employers' concerns is the U.S. Department of Justice's announcement last month that it would no longer prosecute medical marijuana users, which leaves such matters in the hands of state and local governments.



for full article see link: http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202435589867&Employers_Wonder_If_They_Have_to_Chill_Out_Over_Medical_Marijuana_Use

Babysitter's Custody Win May Be Short-Lived

A mother in Chicago has lost the custody of her child to her babysitter. The judges decision is currently waiting for appeal. According to the mother's lawyer, the babysitter initially lied in court to obtain custody of the child, stating that the father was an unknown and the mother had left without a trace. The babysitter's lawyer has countered by stating that the babysitter is the closest thing to a mother the child has and that the child even calls the babysitter "mom." Many of the parties who are involved in the case are stating that this is the first time they have even heard of a babysitter winning custody over a mother, but some don't necessarily disagree with the decision.

N.Y. Judge Censured for Helping Arrest Motorist

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435858284&NY_Judge_Censured_for_Helping_Arrest_Motorist

A judge in New York was censured after unlawfully using his position to issue a driver a traffic citation. As the story goes, the judge was driving behind the citationed driver. After seeing him fail to stop for a pedestrian at a cross walk, the judge decidedly pull the man over and coerced the man into turning himself into the police for the minor traffic crime. The total sum of the fines paid by the man were $25. The judge's behavior was taken into question and came down to a 6-3 vote by the State Commission of Judaical Conduct, 6 voting to censure him and 3 voting to remove him from the bench.

Uniform Commerical Code

Selected Works of Leon E Trakman Dean
Author Home
Browse Subjects
Browse Article Types
Join My Mailing List

Leon E Trakman Dean
The University of New South Wales
Search the Selected Works of Leon E Trakman Dean

Search All Sites
RSS Feed
Print this page
addthis_pub = '[selectedworks]';
Bookmark

Unpublished Papers «Previous Next»
Declaring Force Majeure: Veracity or Sham?
Leon E. Trakman, Un. of New South Wales
Abstract
The widespread practice by large scale producers, like Exxon Mobil and BP of declaring force majeure has created enormous legal and contractual problems. The practice is used, not only to respond to devastating disasters like Hurricane Katrina, but also to defects in pipelines amounting to little more than wear and tear The result is that customers are left waiting for goods or forced to pay higher prices until their suppliers decide to lift their declarations and resume performance. This article challenges such declarations, arguing that they often fail to comply with both the law set out in article 2-615 of the Uniform Commercial Code and the applicable contract of supply. Presenting alternatives to declarations of force majeure, the article argues that these alternatives are not only fairer, but also more commercially sustainable.

Vice Chairman Strikes Back at Client through Twitter

Cassidy & Associates vice chairman Gregg Hartley didn't like a critical New York Times story this week on one of the firm's biggest clients, Equatorial Guinea.

So he's hitting back against the reporter, Ian Urbina, using an unusual vehicle: His personal twitter feed.

"How does NY Times manage its reporter's conflicts of interest?" Hartley tweeted indignantly on Tuesday. "Not well. Re: Equatorial Guinea, father was judge in controversial case."

Naturally, Twitter isn't the best way to give all the context here. Urbina's father, U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo Urbina, indeed presided over a high-profile case involving Equatorial Guinea. In 2005, Washington, D.C., stalwart Riggs Bank pleaded guilty to failing to report suspicious transactions. The bank accounts involved included some held by leaders of Equatorial Guinea, and others belonging to onetime Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

When asked why he took to Twitter instead of sticking to more traditional lobbying tools such as meetings with lawmakers, Hartley said the firm -- which hosts a blog on its Web site -- is "trying to find if it gives us another round of ammunition."

The article link:

http://www.law.com/jsp/PubArticle.jsp?id=1202435723340

Madoff Trustee and Firm Seek $22.1 Million in Fees

The cost of unwinding Bernard L. Madoff’s estate for the benefit of his victims is climbing, with a total of almost $25 million in new fee requests filed on Monday with the federal bankruptcy court in Manhattan.

If the new bills are approved and added to those approved last summer, the legal tab for the first 10 months of the liquidation will rise to almost $40 million.

All the approved bills will be paid by the Securities Investors Protection Corporation, an industry-financed agency that oversees brokerage firm bankruptcies.

“Contrary to what has mistakenly been reported by the news media and on blogs,” none of these expenses will be paid with money that would otherwise go to reimburse victims, the primary fee application emphasized.

Therefore, it continued, the expenses will have “absolutely no impact” on the amount victims ultimately receive.

The fee applications were from Irving H. Picard, the court-appointed trustee for the Madoff estate; Baker & Hostetler, his lawyers; AlixPartners, the consultant handling claims; a law firm handling Mr. Madoff’s personal bankruptcy; and eight foreign law firms tracking assets overseas. The consultant and law firms also applied for $400,000 in out-of-pocket expenses.



for full article see link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/business/24trustee.html?_r=1&ref=business

Army Corp of Engineers Liablei New Orleans

Last week in New Orlean US District Justice Stanwood Duvall ruled that the cause of the breach of the levies in New Orleans was poor maintenance by the Corp of Engineers - not primarily Katrina. His ruling stated that the Army Corp of Engineers is responsible for "monumental negligence and a manmade disaster".

This ruling implicates the federal government as responsible for the damages to the Chalmette section of New Orleans which could have "possibly been avoided if something more had been done to sure up and maintain the levee system protecting the city". This marks the "first time ever that the Army Corps of Engineers has been held liable for damages for a major catastrophe that it caused".

The Corps argued that it is imune from liability because the channel is part of the New Orleans flood control system, and that the 1960's built shipping channel breaches were partially caused by Katrina. The government is expected to appeal.

As a flood victim, on the Delaware River I can remember back to when the Army Corp of Engineers was said to have been responsible for an ice dam flood in 1996. They were said to have not blasted an enormous ice dam in Narrowsburg, which later started to melt and breakup and caused a wall of water and a surge which flooded my home and many others. Those in government swept these kinds of alligations under the carpet because that would mean that they are not doing their jobs. In this respect, it is good that the people of New Orleans are being heard. One would wonder, however if a New Orleans judge can truely be impartial.

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/f/1310/11-19-2009/20091119065008_59.html

Plaintiffs Lawyer in Philip Morris Suit Explains $300 Million Verdict

The record, so far, hasn't been very good for the tobacco companies in the so-called Engle progeny smoker suits. They've won, by our count, just two of the 10 cases to go to trial, and the damages awards have been climbing. The first Engle progeny trial resulted in an $8 million verdict against Philip Morris in February. In August, R.J. Reynolds lost a $30 million verdict. And on Thursday, a Broward County, Fla., jury ordered Philip Morris to pay a whopping $300 million -- $56 million in compensatory damages and $244 million in punitives -- to Cindy Naugle, a former smoker who claimed the company's negligence was to blame for her emphysema. Here's Bloomberg's story on the jury verdict.

The Litigation Daily spoke with Naugle's attorney, Robert Kelley of Kelley and Uustal, on Friday. We wanted to know, first of all, why this award was so much larger than those in previous Engle trials. One reason, he said, was that this was the first trial in which the jury heard about the "real financial resources" of Philip Morris. The company, he said, claimed that it was worth only $1.7 billion. But he presented witnesses who said that in just the first three quarters of 2009, Philip Morris paid $3.1 billion in dividends to Altria, its parent company. "We broke it down and it was about $10 million a day," he said. "The jury was impressed by the numbers."

The Engle progeny trials resulted from a controversial 2006 ruling by the Florida Supreme Court that decertified the enormous Engle nationwide class action, but held that individual plaintiffs could rely on the class action jury's liability findings against the tobacco companies. The defendants have consistently blamed the state supreme court's res judicata ruling for adverse results in the progeny trials.

Naugle is no exception. "From the beginning, this case was marked by a fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional trial plan that allowed the jury to rely on findings by a prior jury," said Murray Garnick, associate general counsel for Altria, in a statement on Friday. Philip Morris, which was represented at trial by Thomas Quigley of Winston & Strawn and Jennifer Brown of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, said it will "seek further review" of the Naugle jury verdict.

Plaintiffs lawyer Kelley, though, disputed the significance of the state supreme court's res judicata ruling. "The findings are worth very little," he said. "We still have to prove that it was the addiction that caused the disease, while [defense lawyers] are saying that it was the choice that caused the disease."

Class Action Target Sues Law Firm for Defamation

Soon after filing a class action last spring against the maker of a dietary supplement called Procera AVH, Thomas Clarke Jr., a partner in the San Francisco office of Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley, uploaded a video on YouTube about the class action and talked to a television reporter for a news story about the litigation.

Now, Brain Research Labs, the defendant in that class action, has sued Clarke and his law firm, as well as the plaintiff named in the complaint, saying their comments on TV and the Internet are defamatory and have hurt the company's business. In a Friday hearing on a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the company's lawyers painted Clarke as an attorney who'd gone too far.

"We're here in a court of law to provide justice, to understand when a lawyer crosses the line," John Younesi, of Los Angeles firm Younesi & Yoss, told San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn.

The line Clarke crossed, Younesi argued in court, was to accuse his client of being a thief and a killer, and to say that human trials have proven Procera ineffective.

But one of Clarke's lawyers said it's "shocking" that Brain Research Labs would try to chill a valid filing of a lawsuit by suing the lawyer involved. "It's a rather remarkable use of litigation in an attempt to thwart a lawyer and his client's efforts to pursue a class action," said James Wagstaffe, of San Francisco firm Kerr & Wagstaffe, who was there arguing for Clarke as well as for Ropers Majeski.

The motion to strike the complaint as a SLAPP, or a strategic lawsuit against public participation, was argued primarily by Jacqueline Scott Corley, who joined Kerr & Wagstaffe as a partner at the end of September after clerking for 12 years for Judge Charles Breyer in the Northern District. Zachary Rothenberg, of Santa Monica, Calif., firm Grodsky & Olecki, argued on behalf of the name plaintiff from the underlying suit.

Interviewed by phone, Clarke said he was surprised that Brain Research Labs thought the "tactic" of suing him would work. "I think that their attorneys have, unfortunately, done them a great disservice by letting them think they had a chance at this," he said.

But Younesi said the only way to "promote justice" in this case is to give his client its day in court: "Otherwise, a lawyer could be able to say virtually anything he wants to say and hide behind a statute."

The complaint (.pdf) against Clarke argues that Clarke defamed the company on TV and in his nine-minute YouTube video. The complaint in Brain Research Labs LLC v. Clarke, 491932, quotes at length from the video, in which Clarke broadly uses words like "scam artists," and says the makers of Procera sell unsuspecting customers a product that doesn't work.

"In 25 years of practice, I've never seen a lawyer go on record to mock somebody in the way that he did," Younesi said, adding that Clarke's audience for the video, which had been viewed about a thousand times as of Friday, goes beyond potential litigants.

While Kahn said at the beginning of the hearing that he was still "not sure" which way to rule, toward the end, most of his tough questions were for Brain Research Labs' lawyers.

For instance, he asked whether Clarke might have been within bounds in trying to reach class members: "Why isn't this Mr. Clarke a little artfully, maybe a lot rudely, shaking the trees?"

Younesi & Yoss seemed to argue that Clarke's chosen medium was at the heart of the problem: "To do it in the way that Mr. Clarke did it was very insidious, because he reached across continents," Younesi said.

Wagstaffe said the law regardless protects a lawyer's ability to reach out to witnesses and litigants.

"The law doesn't change simply because there's a new communication technique used," he said.

While Yoss argued that the anti-SLAPP motion should be denied because Clarke's statements went "beyond any purpose that is in the class action," her partner made a loftier argument that Clarke shouldn't be able to make statements that damaged the supplement maker with impunity. Later Younesi said Clarke "picked on a particularly vulnerable industry -- the supplement industry," adding that it's unfair "when you deep-sea fish for clients and you scam people by saying things that aren't true."

But Clarke's defense lawyers argued in their motion that the lawsuit is a "quintessential" SLAPP lawsuit and a "meritless" defamation suit.

"Ropers, Majeski is one of the most prominent and highly regarded law firms in the country," Wagstaffe said after the hearing. "They are being sued for what presumably would be for millions of dollars because they described a lawsuit to a television reporter in a news story about it, and for going on YouTube.... That's shocking to us."

Kahn commended the lawyers on both sides for well-prepared arguments and said he'd rule "as soon as I'm able to do so."

McKesson Chairman Guilty, GC Acquitted Securities Fraud

In another Securities Fraud Lawsuit a former McKesson Chairman and General Counsel were tried for Securities Fraud. The Chairman Charles McCall was found guilty, and the General Counsel was acquitted. The below mentioned article details the thoughts of one of the jurors.

During voir dire the defense debated about an attorney juror. In the end if was thought that the perspective of an attorney might help the overall jury.

The attorney became the foreperson who later, to the author, recants some of the thoughts and feelings of the jury. The article goes through some of the strategy for why the prosecution did not call the former CEO cooperator to the stand. Instead the defense used him as a witness in the case, and it did not go well. He came across as a thug. This helped the prosecuters. The article describes the attorneys in the case and how the personas played in the courtroom.

Allegedly McCall circumvented accounting controls by falsifying the books and record counts. Sales would be made to certain customers with contracts that would allow them to pull out of the contracts. These contracts would be hidden for internal auditors. This in effect cooked the books. No publicly held company is permitted by the SEC to file financial information other then using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The above article was very transparent about thought processes and proceedures in a courtroom. Even though the material of the trial might be repetitious, the personal thoughts and motives of the attorneys and jurors was interesting.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435683122&Guilty_Verdict_for_McKesson_...

mentally incompetent

Teen in school-gun case deemed mentally incompetent

Mar. 14--A state psychologist has evaluated Joplin school-gun case defendant Thomas White as permanently unfit to assist in his own defense.

The opinion of Dr. Patricia Carter with the Missouri Department of Mental Health concerning the mental competence of 16-year-old White prompted the Jasper County prosecutor's office to ask a judge for permission to seek a second expert opinion. Circuit Judge David Mouton granted that request at a hearing Friday in Jasper County Circuit Court in Joplin.

White is accused of firing an assault rifle into the ceiling of a hallway at Memorial Middle School on Oct. 9, 2006, and repeatedly attempting to shoot the school's principal as he was ushering White out of the building.

White was 13 at the time of the incident, but was certified to stand trial as an adult. He faces two counts of first-degree assault and single counts of armed criminal action, discharging a firearm in a school building and attempted escape.

Carter evaluated White in recent months at the order of the judge. Her report was filed with the court on Feb. 25 and remains a closed portion of the case file.

Motions filed by the prosecutor's office and White's public defender since then indicate that the psychologist found White mentally incompetent to assist in his defense and likely to remain so "for the foreseeable future," in the language of a statute governing mental competence in court proceedings. State law allows either side to seek a second opinion and the Jasper County prosecutor's made that request.

"In a case such as this, I think you need to be absolutely sure," Prosecutor Dean Dankelson said following Friday's hearing. "In the medical community, people often seek a second opinion and I think it's appropriate that we do so in this case."

White's public defender, Brett Meeker, filed a motion of opposition. She told the judge at the hearing that the prosecutor's office should not be allowed to seek the opinion of another expert in the Department of Mental Health simply because it does not agree with the first state expert. The prosecutor's office was seeking an order that White be evaluated this time at the Western Missouri Mental Health Center in Kansas City.

"They need to pick a doctor that's not a DMH doctor to do it," Meeker said.

The judge agreed and ordered that an "outside" expert's opinion be sought and paid for by the state. Mouton said the second expert will have 30 days to evaluate White and submit a report to the court unless they can show good cause for needing more time. He also ordered that White in the meantime continue to receive treatment at Hawthorn Children's Psychiatric Hospital in St. Louis.

The mental-competency issue must be decided before a trial date can be set in the case. If the court decides he's not competent to assist in his defense, usually the state attorney general's office will step in and initiate guardianship proceedings. The proceedings would consider an array of placement options for the juvenile.

Meeker said she could not say if placement back in the community in the custody of his parents would be an option. She said that it would be up to the Department of Mental Health to make that determination. But, she said, the boy's parents are "obviously not going to be cut out of the picture, or anything like that."

To see more of The Joplin Globe or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.joplinglobe.com/. Copyright (c) 2009, The Joplin Globe, Mo. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

© Copyright 2009 LexisNexis. All rights reserved.

Insurer Must Defend 'Douche' Defamation Suit, Judge Says

Daniel Wise

11-23-2009

Calling someone a "douche" may be bad manners but it does not give an insurance company grounds to disavow a policy protecting against defamation claims, a state judge has ruled. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Judith J. Gische ruled that because calling someone a "douche" or "douche bag" is an opinion, not a statement of provable fact, the Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Co. must pay the legal costs of public relations firm owner Drew Kerr, who was sued by a rival.

The insurance coverage dispute arose after Kerr, according to an affidavit he submitted, sought to criticize a technique used by a competitor, Ronn Torossian. Mimicking Torossian's practice of purchasing domain names containing the names of competitors, Kerr purchased the domain "www.ronntorossianpr." On the site was posted a photo of a package of "Summer's Eve Douche." Torossian's company, 5W Public Relations, according to its Web site, is the 21st largest public relations firm in the nation.

"To the extent that Mr. Kerr's action implied a statement that Mr. Torossian was "a 'douche' or 'douche bag,'" Gische wrote in Four Corners Communications Inc. v. Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company, 601166/09, it is an opinion which "is not capable of being proven false." Based on that finding, Gische found that the insurance company could not rely on a provision of the policy exempting defamation coverage of statements made "with knowledge of falsity."

Air Marshal Claims Assault by Flight Attendant

A flight attendant is being sued by a former air marshal for injuring the air marshal's knee with her beverage cart. According to the air marshal, on a previous flight, the flight attendant came up to him and another officer and stated that she didn't like air marshals being on her flight and telling them to stay out of her way. As well, during the previous flight, the flight attendant continually rammed her cart into the air marshal's leg with increasing force. On the air marshal's second and last flight with the flight attendant, she rammed her beverage cart into the air marshal's knee so hard that the cart came off the floor. The injury was so bad that the air marshal had to be assisted in existing the plane, had to have surgery done on his knee, and since, had to take a lower paying desk job, being unable to perform his previous duties.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435729332&Air_Marshal_Claims_Assault_by_Flight_Attendant

Supreme Court Turns Down Commencement Speaker

A high school graduation commencement speaker (McComb v. Crehan, 08-1566) requested a writ of certiorari to bring a her case before the Supreme Court. The case was based on the facts that as a commencement speaker in 2006 with an approved script, Britttany McComb purposfully revised and improvised the speach with direct religious comments. Her microphone was turned off. She claimed a violation of constitutional rights.

A federal appeals court ruled against her. The Supreme Court turned down her request on Monday November 16, 2009. http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1154/11-16-2009/20091116072009_28.html

Custodian fired for Facebook comments

A custodian was fired for posting two negative comments on his personal Facebook page regarding occurrences at his place of employment.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/courier_times/courier_times_news_details/article/28/2009/november/20/custodian-fired-for-facebook-comments-1.html

As the article states, the union will not defend the custodian as he was not a tenured employee however I do believe that we have not heard the last of this case. I suspect a lawsuit will arise.

Is a Facebook page or any other social networking site page private information and do individuals utilizing these sites have the right to privacy?

Again we explore privacy rights and issues and this time, as they relate to the workplace.

If the custodian had signed a contract specifying that he not publish nor verbally demean in any way his employer, I can see a possible case arising. However, there comes into play a case of ethics. Albeit, the custodian was not an agent of the school district and was solely an employee but if the postings were performed during work hours as the article states, there is definite reason for the firing as personal phone calls, or surfing the net or any other activity performed solely for a personal nature during work hours is in fact a form of theft and/or deception. The time for the job to be performed is being used for personal affairs as the person is still getting paid for job performance.

I will be interested to read if any other articles appear out of this one and if a lawsuit gets instituted.

Ex-Rep. Jefferson Sentenced to 13 Years for Bribery - FOXNews.com

Ex-Rep. Jefferson Sentenced to 13 Years for Bribery - FOXNews.com: "The former Louisiana congressman who famously hid $90,000 cash in his freezer following an FBI bribery sting was sentenced to 13 years in prison Friday, the longest term ever imposed on a congressman convicted of bribery.
Prosecutors wanted the 62-year-old William Jefferson, a Democrat who represented parts of New Orleans, to serve at least 27 years in prison. The defense wanted less than 10 years and hoped Jefferson could remain free on bond while he appeals his conviction.
Jefferson said nothing in court after he was sentenced. He was convicted in August of 11 counts, including bribery and racketeering. Prosecutors at his two-month trial said he took roughly $500,000 in bribes and sought millions more. He was acquitted of five other charges, including the one most closely associated with the money in his freezer.
The investigation started in March 2005. In August of that year, FBI agents searched Jefferson's Washington home and found the cash. Prosecutors said he had planned to use the money to pay a bribe to the then-vice president of Nigeria to secure a multimillion-dollar telecommunications deal there, an accusation Jefferson denied.
The money ended up in the freezer after a disgruntled businesswoman, Lori Mody, agreed to wear a wire after telling the FBI she had been cheated out of $3.5 million in deals brokered by Jefferson. The jury saw videotape of Mody handing over a suitcase filled with $100,000 cash outside an Arlington hotel. Most of that money was recovered from the freezer"

Missouri Girl Allegedly Killed 'to Know What It Felt Like' - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

Missouri Girl Allegedly Killed 'to Know What It Felt Like' - Local News News Articles National News US News - FOXNews.com: "AP


Nov. 18: This picture provided by the Cole County Sheriff's Department shows Alyssa Bustamante.Nov. 18: This picture provided by the Cole County Sheriff's Department shows Alyssa Bustamante.
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Blessed with a Friday off school, 15-year-old Alyssa Bustamante dug two holes in the ground to be used as a grave, authorities said. For the next week, she attended classes, all the while plotting the right time for a murder, they said.
That time arrived the evening of Oct. 21, when Bustamante strangled 9-year-old neighbor Elizabeth Olten without provocation, cut the girl's throat and stabbed her, prosecutors said. Why?
'Ultimately, she stated she wanted to know what it felt like,' Missouri State Highway Patrol Sgt. David Rice testified Wednesday during a court hearing over the slaying.
Rice, who interviewed Bustamante in the days after Elizabeth's disappearance, said she confessed to investigators and led them to the fourth grader's well-concealed body in a wooded area near their neighborhood in St. Martins, a small town west of Jefferson City.
A Cole County judge ruled Wednesday that Bustamante, who has been held in Missouri's juvenile justice system, should be tried as an adult."

Gift Cards vs. Cash

So, now that the joyous Christmas season is just about here, I thought this article was a good one to cover. I must admit that when it comes time to the gift giving I am often torn between my decision on whether to give a gift card or to just give cash(which often seems impersonal). This article brings to light a couple facts to consider when trying to decide between the two. It puts emphasis on the fact of how better off you are to give cash, due to the fees associated when redeeming the gift card and a lot of companies also charge a monthly fee for not having used the gift card, as well as the fact that a small percentage of gift cards are mever in fact redeemed at all ! That's free money not being used ! Initially, that did shock me however, then I thought about it and realized that had happened to me a couple of times. Think about how easy it is to be all excited at Christmas and lose track of a couple of cards that may have the gift card inside of them, and then before you realize it, you lost the gift card ! The positives about the gift card are that alot of them today can be used anywhere, which is definitely a convenient plus. They also come in all different designs and can be used for just about any occassion one can think of. The consumer is now coming to the realization that the gifts they purchase for someone as a gift often goes unused and even unopened. So, as an alternative of having to spend their time and energy thinking of a good gift the person would actually enjoy, many people are now giving gift cards in lieu of an actual present. Personally, this holiday I will be ensuring that I know each of my loved one's favorite places to shop and giving out gift cards, simply due to the fact that I feel it shows the gift of giving a bit more than cash, but you decide for yourself ! To read the full article, here's the link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703811604574530041007151468.html

European Ombudsman Criticizes Inquiry Into Intel

The European Union’s ombudsman on Wednesday criticized the antitrust inquiry that led to a 1.06 billion euro ($1.45 billion) fine against Intel, saying investigators failed to note statements that might have been relevant to the chip maker’s case.

The ombudsman, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, said investigators for the European Commission failed to record in their official minutes a meeting they held in August 2006 with a senior executive for Dell, the computer maker, even though the meeting focused on the central allegations in the case. “This constituted maladministration,” he said.

But Mr. Diamandouros said the oversight did not prevent Intel from mounting its defense.

After a nine-year investigation, the commission ruled in May that Intel, the world’s largest chip maker, had used improper rebates and incentives to persuade computer makers to use its processors over those of Advanced Micro Devices.

The commission, in a statement, said it “does not agree with the ombudsman’s position that a formal, agreed minute should have been prepared.” It added that its practices were in accordance with European legal principles and rules of procedure.




for full article see link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/technology/companies/19chip.html?_r=1&ref=business

Court to consider Mich. affirmative action ban

A federal appeals court in Michigan is set to hear a case against a 2006 ballot measure which banned Michigan public university's and government agencies from using racial preferences in admissions and hiring decisions. Civil rights groups and students from the University of Michigan are arguing that the ballot measure is unconstitutional. Supporters of the ban say "the law reflects the will of the people." I would be surprised if the ban is upheld, but if it were to be upheld it would set a huge precedent for other states to enact similar bans.


The article can be found here:
http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/5972

AMD and Intel Announce Settlement of All Antitrust and IP Disputes

i believe i posted about this issue when it first arrose or i discussed it in another business class, and Ive been staying up to date with it because these companies obviously have a huge inpact on consumers especially students and people who use technology in home or work life. I figured some of you may be interested. Intel who originally claimed to have no direct fault in the legal disputes against them is now settling...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/technology/amd-intel-announce-settlement-antitrust-ip-disputes/

declare war on war

wow. this video really opened my eyes to the way the goverment does things. And he didnt make a great point.


Watch CBS News Videos Online

imagrants.

thoguht this video definitly proved a significant point in the immagration problems we are having today. I didnt even know some of those answers!!!

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Iraq

Taught it would be a great video to help people see the dangers these soldiers are placing thier lives in . God Bless Them!


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Obama's Next steps.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Hardships on the economy.

This Video really hit home! The economy really is at its worse.

Medical advice.