The actress behind 'The Mother' looks back ahead of the series finale.
By Kevin P. Sullivan
Source:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1725093/how-i-met-your-mother-cristin-milioti.jhtml
The deadline for H-1B Visa applications is April 1. In the week after that deadline, a lottery system will determine which high-skilled workers are able to stay and work in the US. NPR's Kelly McEvers talks with Bhavik Bhatt, who has already struck out once before in the lottery, but is taking his chances again.
criminal laws criminal lawyer criminal lawyers cyber law defense attorney
Ashley Parker Angel will not be making a return visit to O-Town, however.
By Brenna Ehrlich
Source:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1725150/o-town-reunite-make-our-liquid-dreams-come-true.jhtml
Gretha Cavazzoni Gwen Stefani Halle Berry Hayden Panettiere Haylie Duff
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/03/turkish-court-rules-against-twitter-ban.php
power of attorney power of attorny private attorney private lawyer pro bono lawyers
Lady Gaga’s new music video, G.U.Y. (Girl Under You) has had its world premiere on NBC’s ‘Dateline’ and is now online, featuring cast members of ‘The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills’ and much, much more to see in what is dubbed an ARTPOP film.
Lady Gaga has chosen an unusual venue to premiere her new music video and an unusual time; Saturday night edition of NBC’s Dateline. It follows her live television interview and exclusive sneak peek of the video on NBC’s Today Show in which she spoke with co-anchor Savannah Guthrie about the video and much more, including the controversial SXSW vomit performance that, for better or worse (many would say the latter) has entered our pop culture ethos.
With this broadcast television fanfare, G.U.Y. has arrived; it is among the songs from Lady Gaga’s ARTPOP album. And we must keep in mind it is an acronym Girl Under You, as she sings, “I want to be that G.U.Y. / Girl Under You.” How much the acronym will proliferate remains to be seen. The music video was shot on location at the legendary Hearst Castle mansion and has some unlikely costars as well; cast members of Bravo’s ‘Real Housewives of Beverly Hills,’ namely Yolanda Foster, Carlton Gebbia, Kyle Richards, Kim Richards and Lisa Vanderpump. They are not mere cameos appearing as themselves, mind you; complete with musical instruments — guitar, cello and tambourine and even a harp — they portray members of Lady Gaga’s band!
With this crossover to reality television there is extravagance and excess, evoking Aphrodite and ancient Greece, with a decidedly contemporary edge — male and female backup dancers scantily clad. And of course, as we come to expect from Lady Gaga there are quite a number of imaginative costumes, some more daring than others, and throughout she is rocking that ultra-long straight white wig. And in the midst of it, those familiar with the movies of the late legendary Esther Williams who brought her signature synchronized swimming to the Technicolor big screen in the 1940s and 1950s will see Lady Gaga’s homage at the very same opulent pool that that was of ‘Million Dollar Mermaid’ and other classics.
At this point, all eyes are on the new video .G.U.Y. which arrives in the absence of the previously anticipated — and perhaps never to be seen? — music video for her single ‘Do What U Want,’ a collaboration with R. Kelly. The song and a few of the performances of same brought about some controversy and so too we would have imagined the music video reportedly directed by Terry Richardson, lately of Miley Cyrus’ ‘Wrecking Ball’ music video fame.
But yes, we have opulence, we have excess, we have the RHOBH, and we have Lady Gaga doing what she does best, living in the costumed world that she says is her art. The full 11-minute music video is below!
Pictures: PR Photos
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/RightCelebrity/~3/1gzTGWbyuFY/
Chelsea Handler Cheryl Burke China Chow Chloë Sevigny Christina Aguilera
As the Affordable Care Act's midnight deadline draws near, there has been a surge in last-minute signups. The heavy traffic has caused both glitches in the website and optimism from some forecasters.
lawyer malpractice attorneys lawyer office lawyers legal legal advice
Hayley Atwell, Chris Evans weigh in on what makes Marvel movies work.
By Alex Zalben, with reporting by Josh Horowitz
Amber Brkich Amber Heard Amber Valletta America Ferrera Amerie
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/03/egypt-court-sentences-two-morsi-supporters-to-death.php
immigration lawyer immigration lawyers injury attorney injury attorneys injury lawers
Hayley Atwell, Chris Evans weigh in on what makes Marvel movies work.
By Alex Zalben, with reporting by Josh Horowitz
To be blunt, one of the reasons I’m here is that I fear we may repeat some of the mistakes we made as a country in the years before September 11, 2001. In those years, a Democratic President serving his second term seemed to inspire deepening suspicion of government and a rebirth of enthusiasm for civil liberties not just on the left but also on the right. The Cato Institute criticized the Clinton Administration’s support of warrantless national security searches and expanded government wiretap authority as “dereliction of duty,” saying,“[i]f constitutional report cards were handed out to presidents, Bill Clinton would certainly receive an F–an appalling grade for any president–let alone a former professor of constitutional law.” The criticism rubbed off on the FISA court, whose chief judge felt obliged to give public interviews and speeches defending against the claim that the court was rubber-stamping the Clinton administration’s intercept requests.
This is where I should insert a joke about the movie “Groundhog Day.” But I don’t feel like joking, because I know how this movie ends.
Gratuitous slams at Democrats aside, given that a two-term Republican in the middle didn't do any better, can you guess where Baker is heading?
Rarely does a paragraph so grossly distort cause and effect, correlation and causation, while at the same time trivializing and blaming those darned "civil liberties advocates on both sides of the aisle." Maybe not Jefferson and Madison, but their elected descendants who, at least in Baker's mind, put us at risk for terrorism by the horrors of defending civil liberties, those things that make us who and what we are. And so, when a law enforcement task force of the FBI found out in August of 2001 that al Qaeda had sent two dangerous operatives to the United States, it did … nothing. It was told to stand down; it could not go looking for the two al Qaeda operatives because it was on the wrong side of the wall. I believe that FBI task force would have found the hijackers – who weren’t hiding – and that the attacks could have been stopped if not for a combination of bad judgment by the FISA court (whose minimization rules were later thrown out on appeal) and a climate in which national security concerns were discounted by civil liberties advocates on both sides of the aisle.
This is like a trick for fools, which makes it perfect for congressional testimony. As if the FBI having been on the wrong side of the "wall" before 9/11 was the cause of America's failure to stop the attacks. Because the FBI so effectively stopped others, say, Tsarnaev, when they had no wall to blame it on? Or that there was no other law enforcement apparatus in existence for the FBI to do its job, except to engage in a national secret colonoscopy but be forbidden from telling the patient the results.
There has never been any dispute that law enforcement would be both easier and more effective if we would just let them ignore all those nasty constitutional rights that the citizenry preserved for itself when deciding to let a government exist. Think about how much safer we would be if police could just enter our homes at will and search for whatever they want, or just for fun. You never know what they might stumble on.
That's what Baker considers the right way to go, because he believes that government can be trusted, that government is well-intended and would rarely abuse the vast power he would give it. Not that it would never abuse the power, but in those very rare instances where something went beyond his vision of propriety, government would also be fully capable of policing itself. Ronald Reagan, for all his faults, was elected on the platform that government was the problem. Baker disagrees.
I realize that this story is not widely told, perhaps because it’s not an especially welcome story, not in the mainstream media and not on the Internet. But it is true; the parts of my book that describe it are well-grounded in recently declassified government reports. More importantly, I lived it. And I never want to live through that particular Groundhog Day again. That’s why I’m here. The argument is reminiscent of the mother whose child was tragically killed, and goes before a legislative body to ask that no other child ever again be harmed. There is enormous sympathy for her loss, but whatever killed the child happens a million times without incident, and then once with a terrible outcome. What she is asking is that the million times be eliminated so that the one time never happen. It's understandable, as she speaks from personal grief, but it's an unsound basis to craft law. Baker plays the same cards.
Notice how he ties it to himself personally, as he was there in government service when the government failed to stop a tragic event. Of course, it wasn't the government's fault that it failed, but those "civil liberties advocates" who tied the government's hands from saving us. That's the claim, even though it relies on a logical fallacy that Baker, a smart guy, hopes no one on the committee will see.
Had there been no wall, and the FBI free to break into bedrooms and telephone calls at will, there is no correlation between their putative claim that they would have been able to stop 9/11. There is no basis to claim they would have done anything more than interrogate the two suspected terrorists and let them go. There is no basis to claim that the other terrorists, even if the two were held or expelled, wouldn't have flown planes into buildings. There is no line to be drawn from point A to point Z.
But Stewart Baker will be testifying before the House Judiciary Committee today and will tell them these things. And I won't. And you won't. And the wheels of government will grind on.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/17/the-butcher-the-baker-and-fisa.aspx?ref=rss
estate attorney family law family lawyer federal attorney financial lawyer
Allen Daniel Hicks Sr., 51, was found stopped in his car on the side of Interstate 275 by a sheriff's deputy and a Florida Highway Patrol trooper the morning of May 11, 2012. Passers-by had called 911 after they saw Hicks' Chevy Cavalier swerving west into a guardrail, records of the incident show.
Speaking incoherently and unable to move his left arm, Hicks was arrested on a charge of obstructing a law enforcement officer when he did not respond to commands to exit his car. Just after noon, he was booked into the Orient Road Jail.
As police approached Hicks' car on the side of the interstate, one of two things could have happened. They could have sought to determine if he was okay or the could have acted in a way that enforced the First Rule of Policing without regard to why a car was stopped on the side of the road. They chose the latter.
Police always invoke their "life and death decision-making" as a justification to cut them some slack in the performance of their duties. It's a cop-meme upon which they can rely to rationalize a poor outcome from a wrong choice. The approach to Allen Hicks' car reflects the fallacy of the rationalization.
Hicks wasn't approached because he was thought to be a bad guy, a criminal, a person who threatened anyone, police officer included, with harm. He was there, on the side of the road, where he shouldn't be in the ordinary course of affairs. Something was amiss. What that something was, however, was an unknown.
Dealing with an unknown is very much a part of the police function, but that doesn't turn every unknown into a threat to police safety and a violation of The First Rule. There was nothing about Hicks to suggest any threat to police. Rather, it was the initial choice made, to approach as if a threat existed and issue a command, that gave rise to a hostile and fearful attitude by police.
Lunsford and Guzman became worried when Hicks did not obey commands to show his hands and exit the car. Seeing that Hicks' left hand was drooping into the side pocket of the driver's door, the officers pulled their handguns.
Hicks still acted befuddled, saying to Lunsford, "that's a 9-millimeter semiautomatic gun that you have," the report states. After ascertaining Hicks was unarmed, Lunsford and Guzman pulled him out of the car through the passenger door and handcuffed him.
When an officer commands a deaf man to do something, he won't comply. He can't hear. There is absolutely nothing the deaf man can do about it, as not even the command of a police officer enables a deaf man to hear. He attempts to alert the officer to his inability to hear, which is later characterized as "erratic" or "threatening."
The officer doesn't "know" the man is deaf, and thus assumes the noncompliance to reflect a threat and challenge to the officer's authority, which (as the officer is trained) is an intolerable situation that is most likely to result in harm befalling the officer. The officer acts upon the perceived threat. On a lucky day, the deaf man is merely tased, beaten and cuffed. On a bad day, he ends up like Hicks.
The initial perception that Hicks was, in some inexplicable way, acting criminally pervaded the perception of him in what followed:
Hicks did not receive a medical screening, but was put in a cell where he lay facedown on the floor or tried to crawl using the one working side of his body. On the night of May 12, soaked in his own urine, his brain choked of blood, he was at last taken to Tampa General Hospital and diagnosed with an ischemic stroke. He slipped into a coma and died within three months.
The Hillsborough County Sheriff's office didn't deny they blew it, and their failure resulted in Hicks' death. It would have been hard (though not impossible) to do otherwise. They announced a plan to train their deputies better to discern the symptoms of a stroke.
But that covers a tiny aspect of what went horribly wrong here. They can retrain cops to be more aware of a stroke, or of a deaf person, or of mentally ill person, but they will never be capable of providing such exacting training for every ailment, situation, circumstance that life will put in their way. The fault isn't lack of specific training to identify a stroke, but of the approach, the attitude, that every unknown is assumed to be a threat to their safety such that they will shoot first, tase first, beat first, arrest first, under The First Rule of Policing.
But what of their safety, you ask? Is it not reasonable for a police officer to operate under the default assumption that everything they don't know constitutes a potential threat? Is it not reasonable for a police officer to ground his conduct in his desire to make it home that night unharmed?
Yes. And no. It is not unreasonable for a cop to want to live, and not want to risk his life. It is similarly not unreasonable for a deaf man or a stroke victim to want to survive. It is not unreasonable for either to believe that being deaf or suffering a stroke will not result in their execution, whether quickly by bullet or prolonged by subsequent neglect. And if we're forced to make a choice between who bears the risk of death, the risk must fall on the person who deliberately chose to wear a shield with the knowledge that he selected a job that was potentially dangerous.
Yet Allen Daniel Hicks Sr, is dead for nothing. Feeling badly about it afterward isn't a solution. Neither is the money his family will get from the lawsuit. He should have lived.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/16/command-prompt.aspx?ref=rss
government lawyer green card lawyer immigration attorney immigration law immigration lawyer
Josh Charles opens up about ‘The Good Wife’ and his decision to leave the series and the shocking death of his character Will Gardner on ‘Late Show with David Letterman.’ It was his first TV interview since the season finale that has left so many still reeling.
The 42-year old Josh Charles has ironically received more attention and notoriety now that his character was killed of than at any time during his tenure on the series. Perhaps he may parlay that sudden rise in fame into another television role or a turn at the big screen.
But for now, feeling that he had some explaining to do, he opened up about ‘The Good Wife’ and his decision to leave it — and the shocking death of his character. “Shocking” really is an understatement given the reaction that ensued unabated on Twitter and other social media. After four years of Will Gardner who would have imagined he would be suddenly gunned down by a client in a courtroom. It smacks more of a big screen thriller where one has not invested years into knowing the nuances of the life of a character.
So all David Letterman had to do was to start the interview with the burning question, “What the hell happened?!” Which was as much a point of inquiry as it was an acknowledgement of a pop cultural moment of today that is destined to go down in television history much like “Dallas”‘ and “Who shot J.R.?”
To which Josh Charles quipped, “That’s what you’ve got to do to get on the Letterman show.”
Indeed! Some fans would have preferred a bloodless ploy to get on the late night chat fest!
The high drama — and tragedy — had a prosaic reason. Josh Charles said of the program, “It’s been one of the greatest gigs for me in my entire career but at the end of last year, my contract was up and I was ready to move on. It is tough to leave stability and structure, but it was great for the show and also a really proper goodbye to the character.”
He went on talk about how he had approached the showrunners Michelle and Robert King and let them know, and how they began planning his character’s exit. He said, “We’ve been able to keep it a secret for an entire year.”
Surprises in this day and age are an achievement in and of themselves, and when we separate ourselves from the emotional impact, we must concede that it was a brilliant plot twist which has had an impact that will be talked about for quite a long time.
See the replay video below as Josh Charles explains it for us in his own words.
Pictures: PR Photos
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/RightCelebrity/~3/beGBGdAtzEA/
Amy Cobb Amy Smart Ana Beatriz Barros Ana Hickmann Ana Ivanovi
#SELFIE is a hot new a video by Drew and Alex, New York-based DJs and music producers, also known as The Chainsmokers. In just under six weeks, their celebration of the selfie has been watched more than 9.3 million times on YouTube – and more than 1 million times since yesterday alone! This techno track hits all the sweet spots for the selfie-obsessed. A dance floor packed with beautiful people having fun, pretty girls gossiping in the bathroom at the club—classic settings for taking a selfie.
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/03/27/northwestern-labor-decision-what-happens-next/?mod=WSJBlog
criminal law criminal law cases criminal laws criminal lawyer criminal lawyers
An ABA task force recently found that only 56% of recent law school graduates achieve full-time employment as an attorney within twelve months of graduation, over the last five years, applicants to law schools have declined by roughly 50% from approximately 100,000 to approximately 50,000 per year.
This will have a dramatic impact on the availability of lawyers for the American public. And couple this statistic with the more than 400,000 lawyers who will retire in the next 10 years, and you will see a dramatic change in the legal landscape.
For those who complain that there are too many lawyers, this should satisfy their desire to thin the ranks of lawyers. For those who want to better serve those currently under-served Americans, this will add yet another challenge to the system. And for lawyers, the likelihood increases that the Bar will add yet another requirement of pro bono service and added cost to doing business as a lawyer.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/0jN9qNjPgRk/
financial lawyer find a lawyer find an attorney find attorney find lawyer
Gai Scott, was arrested and charged with intent to murder after shooting rapper Benzino on the way to his mother's funeral on Saturday.
By Rob Markman
A CEO receives an anonymous call claiming that someone is stealing company trade secrets or that an employee is taking kickbacks from a vendor. A GC gets a call from the HR director who has an employee accusing the company of submitting false bills to a government agency. You are served by a government agency with a subpoena seeking records indicating a criminal investigation is underway for violations of environmental laws, insider trading, tax laws or fraud. Your company receives a credible threat of litigation. These are all real scenarios that occur daily in companies of all sizes all over the world. They trigger critical internal investigations that require substantial time and resources. Regardless of the nature of the investigation, it is vital that it be conducted efficiently, with clear direction and attention to preservation of the attorney-client privilege. This article sets out best practices for doing so.
Internal investigations are very complex, and organization and planning is crucial. Preserving privilege is critical and employee interviews must be handled with care. Companies often grapple with whether to conduct the investigation internally or retain outside counsel, recognizing that disclosure decisions are complex. The possibility of future criminal or civil litigation must be continually assessed. When initiating the investigation, companies should consider the advisability of conducting the investigation in house, or whether it would be more beneficial to conduct the investigation through outside counsel. Experience dictates that there is a much greater likelihood of maintaining the confidentiality of the investigation if conducted through outside counsel.
It is critical to develop a plan defining both the scope and objectives. In most cases, outside counsel should take the lead to preserve the attorney-client and work product privileges. Non-attorneys (management, human resources, internal audit, security, internal/external experts) also play a role. Separate representation issues should be addressed and a protocol and lines of reporting and supervision established. Key is anticipating possible problems.
Preservation of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine are key considerations. Only attorney-client communications are protected, not the underlying facts themselves. A common mistake made by many employees is that they believe that copying an attorney on an email or memo transforms it into a privileged communication. This is not the case. The communication itself must be confidential and for the purpose of obtaining the attorney’s legal advice. Alternatively, if a communication contains an attorney’s mental thoughts, impressions or opinion, then it is protected attorney work product. Care must be given to distinguish between opinion as opposed to factual work product. Additionally, documents prepared in anticipation of litigation may be protected. Materials prepared by corporate employees for an attorney may enjoy a qualified immunity, but again, there are pitfalls that must be considered and avoided. For example, care must be taken to avoid an inadvertent disclosure/waiver of the privilege. Where a company relies on advice of counsel as a defense, then the communication is placed at issue and is discoverable. Voluntary disclosure and disclosure to government authorities also operates as a waiver.
The process of gathering and organizing documents is another key consideration. First, the company should be able to show that documents have been preserved, collected and controlled. Critical is the issuance and timing of a “Do Not Destroy” notice. Document retention policies and destruction timing will be at issue. Companies often find themselves receiving the ire of investigating authorities and courts for failure to preserve potential evidence. Next, the sources of the documents must be identified and procedures established for identifying and tracking documents. It is not uncommon for an outside vendor to be retained to process and manage documents. Consideration should be given to whether relevant documents may be in the hands of third parties. Documents must be reviewed and analyzed in a coherent, methodological manner and indexed and coded for easy retrieval/incorporation into issue outlines. Categories such as chronologies are usually critical, as are key documents.
Witness interviews can be particularly tricky. First, in the preliminary statement to the witness, the investigator must make it clear that he represents the company and not the employee. The purpose of the investigation should be described (i.e., to obtain factual information in order to provide the company with legal advice). The attorney-client privilege and work product doctrines should be explained in layman’s terms and the employee informed that under certain circumstances, federal rules impose an obligation on the company to inform the government if the company has discovered credible evidence of intentional or reckless conduct. The employee should also be informed that the company may choose to disclose to anyone any information obtained from the investigation. Employees must be given an opportunity to ask questions about the process. The admonition given to the employee should be clearly memorialized in the interview memorandum.
Thought should be given to preparation and organization of the interviews including who should be interviewed, in what sequence, and the location. Questions should be set forth in an outline to determine: the date, location, and time of each incident; exactly who was present, what was said or done; subsequent actions; and documentation in the witness’ possession or in possession of others. Generally, it is best to move from general to specific lines of questions. The interview should be conducted using open-ended questions. This permits the interviewer to evaluate credibility and not influence the employees’ answers. Sometimes it is appropriate to record an interview or obtain a signed witness statement. There should always be two people present for the company during the interview.
Interview notes and summaries of the interview should be prepared and maintained. The employee should be informed about the potential for contact by government investigators.
Planning for potential issues and pitfalls that sometimes arise during the interview process should be given thorough consideration, including, for example:
The company’s and employees’ rights and duties also require detailed consideration. The employee may be entitled to certain contractual rights, as well as legal rights, such as the right to privacy, privilege against self-incrimination and certain “whistleblower” and Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., protections. In given situations, an employee also may have the right to counsel. The company, on the other hand, will need to be apprised of its options and any limitations against seeking to terminate employees for being a whistleblower, for failure to cooperate with the investigation, or while asserting rights against self-incrimination. Each situation brings unique circumstances that require careful analysis in conjunction with applicable laws. The company also may have a duty to pay the fees of certain employee’s counsel. Joint defense or common interest privileges also may apply.
The report of the internal investigation is critically important and its discoverability should be thoughtfully assessed. Not only does the decision about whether to prepare a written report as opposed to providing an oral report require careful consideration, but in the event a written report is drafted, one must determine whether to produce an interim draft prior to a final report. A written report should contain a privilege legend, an executive summary, an explanation of the origin of the investigation, a summary of relevant facts and any relevant, unknown factual issues, application of the law to the facts, an analysis of the company’s and the subject employee’s potential liability and/or disclosure obligations, and should identify any corrective action or preventive measures that have been taken, or that management should consider taking.
In dealing with the government, there are a number of factors to consider. If the government investigation already has begun, it is important that the company’s investigation stay a step or two ahead. Define the scope of cooperation with the government and develop a strategy for dealing with the government. Consider the need for retaining separate counsel for certain employees. Determine how to deal with third parties and former employees. This is all part of the careful planning that should take place at the outset.
At some point, the company must decide whether disclosure of investigation results to third parties is required. There are legal mandatory disclosure requirements such as the FAR Mandatory Disclosure Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. 67064. Under the FAR, the company must “timely” disclose, in writing, “credible evidence” of (1) any violation of the civil False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733, and (2) any violation of Title 18 of the United States Code involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery or the gratuity laws, in connection with the award, performance or closeout of a government contract. The company risks suspension and debarment for a “knowing failure” by a “principal” of a government contractor to timely disclose credible evidence of a covered violation or a “significant overpayment.” In addition, other legal bases, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7201, et seq., or the Anti-Kickback Act, 18 U.S.C. § 874, as well as administrative agreements also may require mandatory disclosure. In addition, there are times when a voluntary disclosure is appropriate. The company should be sure to coordinate disclosure with all relevant players, such as the Department of Justice, Department of Defense, contracting officers and other customer representatives. The company must consider the effects of disclosure on attorney-client and work product protections.
All of these issues highlight the complex nature of internal investigations and demonstrate how crucial organization and careful planning are throughout. Detailed efforts must be made to preserve privileges, and employee interviews must be handled with care and precision. Disclosure decisions are complex and the possibility of future criminal or civil litigation must continually be assessed.
Source: http://www.corporatesecuritieslawblog.com/2014/02/corporate-internal-investigations-best-practices/
immigration law immigration lawyer immigration lawyers injury attorney injury attorneys
Dark Knight celebrates 75th anniversary this year, but the exact date isn't quite as clear.
By Alex Zalben
Source:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1725027/batman-75th-anniversary-birthday-date.jhtml
Bridget Moynahan Britney Spears Brittany Daniel Brittany Lee Brittany Murphy
In SEC v. Contorinis, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2927 (2d Cir. Feb. 18, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to obtain “disgorgement” from a money manager profits earned by another party from trades based material nonpublic information known to the money manager, even though the manager did not receive any of those profits. Citing the intangible benefits received by the manager and the underlying misuse of inside information, the appellate panel’s decision upheld a broad view of insider trading liability in civil enforcement actions brought by the SEC.
In October 2010, Joseph Contorinis was convicted of trading on inside information about the acquisition of supermarket chain Albertson’s Inc. In a subsequent civil action, the SEC alleged that the former Jefferies Group portfolio manager used that inside information to generate a profit for the Jefferies Paragon Fund (the “Fund’). The SEC sought to recover from Contorinis $7.26 million in profit earned by the Fund, plus an additional $2.5 million in interest. Following Contorinis’ criminal conviction, the SEC moved for summary judgment in the civil case. Contorinis acknowledged that the criminal conviction had a preclusive effect that required a finding of liability in the civil action. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the SEC’s summary judgment motion, ordering the defendant to disgorge all of the profits made by the insider trades and pay prejudgment interest on the disgorgement amount. Notably, Contorinis did not directly receive or control that $7.26 million. Instead, the profit went to the Fund. Contorinis appealed.
By a 2-1 majority, a panel of the Second Circuit affirmed. The appellate panel held that Contorinis could be required to disgorge the profit that he did not personally realize because he gave the Fund the benefit of his inside information, just as a tipper “can be required to disgorge profits realized by their tippees’ illegal insider trading.” In fact, the majority reasoned, Contorinis had greater control over the fund’s trades and profit than a tipper does over a tippee, as he obtained the information, executed the trades, and was “entirely responsible for the size of the Paragon Fund’s gains.”
Although Contorinis did not receive the direct profits from the trading activity, the panel explained that other, more intangible benefits conferred on him by the insider trades justified the disgorgement amount. According to the majority decision, “[w]hether the defendant’s motive is direct economic profit, self-aggrandizement, psychic satisfaction from benefitting a loved one, or future profits by enhancing one’s reputation as a successful fund manager, the insider trader who trades for another’s account has engaged in a fraud, secured a benefit thereby, and directed the profits of the fraud where he has chosen them to go.” The majority reasoned further that prior case law supported this outcome, specifically precedent holding that “an insider trader may be ordered to disgorge not only the unlawful gains that accrue to the wrongdoer directly, but also the benefit that accrues to third parties whose gains can be attributed to the wrongdoer’s conduct.”
In a strong dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Chin described the underlying district court order as “inconsistent with both the nature and purpose of disgorgement.” Judge Chin emphasized that disgorgement is an equitable remedy designed to “deprive violators of their ill-gotten gains,” not a punitive measure. Here, according to Judge Chin, the district court’s order was an abuse of discretion, as it “penalized” Contorinis by requiring him “to pay an amount substantially above what he acquired through his wrongdoing.” Additionally, Judge Chin noted that the appellate panel had previously held that Contorinis “could not be required to forfeit profits that the Fund earned through his illegal use of inside information” in the related criminal case. Criminal forfeiture and civil disgorgement are “largely the same” conceptually, Judge Chin argued, and therefore any differences between the two remedies do not justify opposite results in cases with “the same defendant, the same investment fund, and the same proceeds.” The dissenting opinion also distinguished the situation of a tipper and tippee as involving “concerted actors,” whereas Contorinis’ trading activity involved proceeds that went “directly to an innocent third party and [were] never possessed by the defendant.”
This decision upholds an expansive view of civil liability to the SEC for insider trading and boosts the SEC’s power to deter that activity. As the profits in these cases are oftentimes substantial, concern regarding potential disgorgement orders for the full profit amount — instead of just the portion of the profit that a trader personally receives — may curb future trading on inside information. Further, the issue may not yet be settled in the Second Circuit, as Contorinis could petition for en banc review based upon the panel’s split decision and Judge Chin’s strong dissent in a case involving a novel issue of federal securities law enforcement.
injury lawyers international law international law schools internet lawyer labor attorney
family lawyer federal attorney financial lawyer find a lawyer find an attorney
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/03/cuba-legislature-approves-law-to-attract-foreign-investment.php
legal news legal services lemon law letter of attorney litigation attorney
'Dead's' fourth season ends Sunday, and we know who would make our Group.
By James Montgomery, with additional reporting by Alex Zalben
Source:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1725056/walking-dead-season-four-finale-celebrity-terminus.jhtml
Source: http://www.pinkisthenewblog.com/2014-03-30/hey-girl-whatcha-watchin
Cat Power Catherine Bell Chandra West Charisma Carpenter Charli Baltimore
The British singer delivered two powerful performances as musical guest with comic host Louis C.K.
By Kelci Shipley
Source:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1725070/sam-smith-louis-ck-saturday-night-live.jhtml
Anna Friel Anna Kournikova Anna Paquin AnnaLynne McCord Anne Marie Kortright
criminal defence lawyer criminal defense criminal defense attorney criminal defense attorneys criminal defense lawyer
Source: http://www.pinkisthenewblog.com/2014-03-29/same-sex-marriage-begins-in-great-britain
Hilary Duff Hilary Swank Isla Fisher Ivana Bozilovic Ivanka Trump
This week the Supreme Court heard arguments that test an important part of the Affordable Care Act. NPR's Scott Simon speaks with NPR's legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg.
injury lawyer injury lawyers international law international law schools internet lawyer
Well that was just FUN!
The 2014 Kids' Choice Awards just kicked off with some incredible talent!
Todrick Hall, Austin Mahone, Cody Simpsonand more made the stage look like a wonderful world of color while paying tribute to some of your favorite songs!
Covering Miley Cyrus while riding a wrecking ball? CHECK!! Pharrell in the front row in his green hat?! DOUBLE CHECK!! Life is beautiful!
Ch-ch-check out the awesome opening (above)!
immigration lawyers injury attorney injury attorneys injury lawers injury lawyer
'Glow in the Dark' video looks back on their five years together before the guys go on a hiatus.
By Christina Garibaldi
Source:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1725036/wanted-goodbye-now-new-video-watch.jhtml
Amanda Bynes Amanda Detmer Amanda Marcum Amanda Peet Amanda Righetti
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/03/28/martin-lipton-names-some-activists-he-respects/?mod=WSJBlog
find attorney find lawyer free attorney consultation free lawyer free lawyer advice
