Do law firms come under GST: Delhi HC seeks clarification from Centre

The Delhi High Court has asked the Central Government to clarify whether legal firms and lawyers come under Goods and Services Tax (GST) or not.

In a statement directed towards the Central Government, the High Court has directed that no forcible actions be taken against any lawyer or law firm for non-compliance with any legal requirement under the CGST Act, the IGST Act or the DGST Act till a clarification is issued by the Centre and the Delhi Government.

The Delhi High Court said, “As of date there is no clarity on whether all legal services (not restricted to representational services) provided by legal practitioners and firms would be governed by the reverse charge mechanism.”

The High Court further said that if all legal services are to be governed by the reverse charge mechanism, then there would be no purpose in requiring legal practitioners and law firms to compulsorily get registered under the CGST, IGST and DGST Acts.

It also said, “Those seeking voluntary registration would anyway avail of the facility under Section 25 (3) of the CGST Act (and the corresponding provision of the other two statutes).”

It added that there is prima facie merit in the contention of Mittal that the legal practitioners are under a genuine doubt whether they require to register themselves.

“In the circumstances, the Court directs that no coercive action be taken against any lawyer or law firms for non-compliance with any legal requirement under the CGST Act, the IGST Act or the DGST Act till a clarification is issued by the Central Government and the GNCTD, till orders in that regard by this Court also clarifies that any lawyer or law firm that has been registered under the CGST Act, or the IGST Act or the DGST Act from 1″ July, 2017 onwards will not be denied the benefit of such clarification as and when it is issued,” said the Delhi HC.

The High Court has listed the hearing on the same for July 18.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Go to Source

TODD STARNES: ABC: Christians defending liberty are ‘hate group’ – Southern Poverty Law Center brands some peaceful groups as ‘hate groups’

Alliance Defending Freedom is demanding a retraction and apology from ABC News after reporters smeared one of the nation’s most respected religious liberty law firms as a ‘hate group.’

Click here for a free subscription to Todd’s newsletter: a must-read for Conservatives!

ABC News reporters Pete Madden and Erin Galloway wrote a scathing report on a speech Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivered behind closed doors at the Summit on Religious Liberty at the Ritz-Carlton in Dana Point, California.

“Jeff Sessions addresses ‘anti-LGBT hate group,’ but DOJ won’t release his remarks,” read the explosive headline.

“Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivered a speech to an alleged hate group at an event closed to reporters on Tuesday night, but the Department of Justice is refusing to reveal what he said,” read the lead paragraph of the Madden-Galloway hit piece.

To continue reading at ToddStarnes.com click here. 

Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary. His latest book is “The Deplorables’ Guide to Making America Great Again.” Follow him on Twitter @ToddStarnes and find him on Facebook.

Previous articleAlderson: Deadline a 'pause button' for Mets
Next articleVelasquez, Cesar on track for Miami return

Go to Source

Pashman Stein Walder Hayden Media Law Attorneys Obtain Landmark Supreme Court Ruling in Favor of Police Transparency

HACKENSACK, N.J., July 14, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Supreme Court of New Jersey has issued a landmark ruling in an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) case argued by the Media Law division at Pashman Stein Walder Hayden (PSWH) involving public records relating to a police-involved shooting. In a decision written by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, the Court unanimously ruled that use of force reports, the names of officers involved in the shooting, and dash camera footage of the incident should be released.

“This was a big win for the public’s right to know,” said PSWH’s Sam Samaro, lead counsel on the case. “It was our view that the public’s interest in disclosure of vital information trumps the State’s need for secrecy. Furthermore, nondisclosure of dash cam videos and police records relating to police-involved shootings undermines confidence in law enforcement. It was gratifying to see that the Court agreed.”

The case, titled “North Jersey Media Group Inc. vs. Township of Lyndhurst,” began when reporters of The Record sought to obtain police use of force reports and other records relating to a police chase and fatal shooting of Kashad Ashford in 2014. The OPRA request was denied and the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office took a firm stance that records related to police-involved shootings and the names of officers who shoot suspects are confidential.  While the trial court ruled that the records and information must be released, the Appellate Division reversed the decision and, in doing so, shut down access to nearly all police records.

Eventually, bolstered by the Appellate Division’s ruling in this case, the Attorney General’s Office began denying access to use of force reports and the names of officers who were involved in even very minor uses of force. The Supreme Court’s decision will reverse that policy, as it ruled that use of force reports and the names of officers who use force should generally be accessible in most cases. 

“For three years the public has not been able to monitor which police officers have been using force against citizens,” said CJ Griffin of PSWH, who also worked on this case. This restores transparency,” she added.

About Pashman Stein Walder Hayden

Pashman Stein Walder Hayden is a full service business law firm offering a wide range of corporate and personal legal services. Headquartered in Hackensack, New Jersey, the firm serves a diverse client base including regional Fortune 500 companies, emerging growth entities and individuals, as well as out-of-state corporate counsel, law firms and individuals with interests in the New York metropolitan region. For more information, go to www.pashmanstein.com.

Contact: Karen Geisel	
Princeton Strategic Communications
518-421-3435


Go to Source

Appellate Division Confirms Reorg Research Journalists Have Benefit of Shield Law in Unanimous Ruling

NEW YORK, Jul 14, 2017 (BUSINESS WIRE) —
Reorg Research, the leading provider of real-time news, commentary, and
analysis on the distressed debt and leveraged finance markets, welcomed
a unanimous 5-0 decision from the First Department Appellate Division of
the New York Supreme Court finding that Reorg Research’s editorial team
is protected by New York’s Shield Law from being compelled to disclose
the identities of its confidential sources.

Kent Collier, Founder and CEO of Reorg Research, said, “We are extremely
pleased by the court’s decision. In this evolving media landscape, it
sends a powerful message that journalistic freedom is important and
worth protecting. I could not be prouder of our entire team here at
Reorg, and I look forward to continuing to provide our subscribers with
the very best news and analysis in the industry.”

The ruling was in response to a pre-action petition filed by Murray
Energy seeking to force Reorg to divulge the identities of confidential
sources who contributed to stories on Murray’s financial results and an
agreement between the company and one of its labor unions. While Murray
had argued that Reorg’s limited subscriber base, restrictions on further
dissemination of its stories and relatively high fees precluded it from
being protected by the Shield Law, the court found that such features
are “not uncommon” in today’s media landscape. The court added that the
result of ruling in Murray’s favor “is not broader coverage but no
coverage at all.”

Not only did the court find that Reorg was protected by the Shield Law,
but it also noted that the holding “is consistent with New York’s ‘long
tradition…of providing the utmost protection of freedom of the press’”
and “[t]o condition coverage on a fact-intensive inquiry analyzing a
publication’s number of subscribers, subscription fees, and the extent
to which it allows further dissemination of information is unworkable
and would create substantial prospective uncertainty, leading to a
potential ‘chilling’ effect.”

The full ruling can be found here.

About Reorg Research

Reorg Research is an industry-leading provider of real-time news,
analysis and commentary on issues affecting the distressed debt,
event-driven and leveraged finance markets. The company’s mission is to
provide independent, insightful and timely market intelligence and
analysis to subscribers–which include leading asset managers, hedge
funds, investment banks, law firms and financial advisors–so they can
make better business and investment decisions. Reorg Research consists
of a dedicated team of journalists and legal, financial and policy
analysts that leverage the firm’s proprietary technology to provide a
comprehensive view of the situations that are important to its
subscribers.

View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170714005523/en/

SOURCE: Reorg Research

Prosek Partners
Josh Clarkson, 212-279-3115 x259
jclarkson@prosek.com

Copyright Business Wire 2017

Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Claims On Behalf of Investors of FleetCor Technologies, Inc. – FLT

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / July 14, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of FleetCor Technologies, Inc. (“FleetCor” or the “Company”) (NYSE: FLT). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980.

The investigation concerns whether FleetCor and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.

[Click here to join a class action]

On December 19, 2016, Chevron Corporation (“Chevron”), FleetCor’s largest U.S. partner, announced that it had terminated its relationship with the Company and signed a long-term contract with FleetCor’s primary competitor. On this news, FleetCor’s share price fell $5.08, or 3.43%, to close at $142.96 on December 19, 2016.

On March 1, 2017, the investigative news and legal analysis company Capitol Forum published an article, based on interviews with numerous former FleetCor employees and FleetCor customers, describing how FleetCor’s business model relies on overcharging customers and padding fee income through improperly assessing late fees. On this news, the Company’s share price fell $5.25, or 3.09%, to close at $164.75 on March 1, 2017.

On April 4, 2017, Citron Research (“Citron”) published a report similarly accusing FleetCor of being a “predatory company by design, whose cores strategy is to methodically rip off its customers, using business practices and fees that are designed to deceive.” On this news, FleetCor’s share price fell $8.55, or 5.69%, to close at $141.60 on April 4, 2017.

On April 27, 2017, Citron published a follow-up report describing FleetCor’s development of a scheme to categorize its partners based on the level of improper fees the Company could charge without the customers complaining. On this news, FleetCor’s share price fell $5.73, or 3.79%, to close at $145.65 on April 27, 2017. On May 1, 2017, Chevron sued FleetCor for breach of contract. Following the filing of Chevron’s complaint, FleetCor’s share price fell $10.18, or 6.87%, to close at $138.00 on May 2, 2017.

On May 3, 2017, Citron reported on the Chevron lawsuit, stating that the lawsuit indicates that Chevron’s termination of the FleetCor contract was due to the Company’s mistreatment of its customers. On this news, FleetCor’s share price fell $6.74, or 4.88%, to close at $131.26.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

ReleaseID: 468247

Go to Source

Australia to Compel Tech Firms to Crack Suspects’ Encrypted Messages

The Australian government said it plans to force technology companies to crack encrypted messages sent by people suspected of terrorism and other organized crime.

The proposed legislation would force internet firms and device makers to release communications to law-enforcement agencies that have secured a warrant or court order, lawmakers said Friday. The law would also extend to federal police the ability given to the Australian…

Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Arconic, Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – ARNC

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / July 14, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Arconic, Inc. (“Arconic” or the “Company”) (NYSE: ARNC) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-05312, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Arconic securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Arconic securities between February 28, 2017, and June 26, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until September 11, 2017, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

[Click here to join this class action]

Arconic Inc. is a global provider of lightweight multi-material solutions, focused on the aerospace market in addition to serving the automotive, industrial gas turbine, commercial transportation, and building and construction markets. The Company also provides titanium, aluminum, nickel-based super alloy, and specialty alloy solutions.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Arconic knowingly supplied its highly flammable Reynobond PE (polyethylene) cladding panels for use in construction; (ii) the foregoing conduct significantly increased the risk of property damage, injury and/or death in buildings constructed with Arconic’s Reynobond PE panels; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Arconic’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 14, 2017, a fire broke out at the 24-story Grenfell Tower apartment block in London. The fire burned for roughly 60 hours, destroying the building and causing at least 80 deaths and over 70 injuries.

On June 24, 2017, The New York Times published an article entitled, “Why Grenfell Tower Burned: Regulators Put Cost Before Safety,” describing the causes of the Grenfell Tower fire and attributing the rapid spread of the fire to highly flammable Reynobond PE cladding panels manufactured by Arconic and used in the building’s construction.

On that same day, Reuters published an article entitled, “Arconic knowingly supplied flammable panels for use in tower: emails,” revealing that Arconic sales managers were aware that flammable panels would be distributed for use at Grenfell Tower.

On June 26, 2017, Arconic issued a press release announcing it would discontinue global sales of Reynobond PE for use in high-rise buildings after the material was suspected to have contributed to the spread of the deadly fire at the Grenfell Tower apartment complex in London.

On these disclosures, Arconic’s common share price fell $3.70, or 14.49%, to close at $21.84 on June 27, 2017.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

ReleaseID: 468246

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / July 14, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Arconic, Inc. (“Arconic” or the “Company”) (NYSE: ARNC) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-05312, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Arconic securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Arconic securities between February 28, 2017, and June 26, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until September 11, 2017, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

[Click here to join this class action]

Arconic Inc. is a global provider of lightweight multi-material solutions, focused on the aerospace market in addition to serving the automotive, industrial gas turbine, commercial transportation, and building and construction markets. The Company also provides titanium, aluminum, nickel-based super alloy, and specialty alloy solutions.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Arconic knowingly supplied its highly flammable Reynobond PE (polyethylene) cladding panels for use in construction; (ii) the foregoing conduct significantly increased the risk of property damage, injury and/or death in buildings constructed with Arconic’s Reynobond PE panels; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Arconic’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 14, 2017, a fire broke out at the 24-story Grenfell Tower apartment block in London. The fire burned for roughly 60 hours, destroying the building and causing at least 80 deaths and over 70 injuries.

On June 24, 2017, The New York Times published an article entitled, “Why Grenfell Tower Burned: Regulators Put Cost Before Safety,” describing the causes of the Grenfell Tower fire and attributing the rapid spread of the fire to highly flammable Reynobond PE cladding panels manufactured by Arconic and used in the building’s construction.

On that same day, Reuters published an article entitled, “Arconic knowingly supplied flammable panels for use in tower: emails,” revealing that Arconic sales managers were aware that flammable panels would be distributed for use at Grenfell Tower.

On June 26, 2017, Arconic issued a press release announcing it would discontinue global sales of Reynobond PE for use in high-rise buildings after the material was suspected to have contributed to the spread of the deadly fire at the Grenfell Tower apartment complex in London.

On these disclosures, Arconic’s common share price fell $3.70, or 14.49%, to close at $21.84 on June 27, 2017.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

ReleaseID: 468246

Source URL: http://marketersmedia.com/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-reminds-shareholders-with-losses-on-their-investment-in-arconic-inc-of-class-action-lawsuit-and-upcoming-deadline-arnc/217796

Source: AccessWire

Release ID: 217796

Go to Source

GST: Delhi HC seeks clarification on reverse charge mechanism for lawyers, law firms

New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Thursday sought a clarification from the central and state governments on whether all legal services provided by legal practitioners and firms will be governed by the reverse charge mechanism under the goods and services tax (GST) regime.

The reverse charge mechanism puts the onus for payment of tax on the recipient of services, as opposed to the supplier.

More From Livemint »

“If in fact all legal services are to be governed by the reverse charge mechanism, then there would be no purpose in requiring legal practitioners and law firms to compulsorily get registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST), Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and/or Delhi Goods and Services Tax (DGST) Acts,” the court observed.

The court’s order was in response to a petition filed by one J.K.Mittal, challenging the constitutional validity of notifications issued by the central and Delhi governments.

First Published: Fri, Jul 14 2017. 12 51 AM IST

Go to Source

Companies Spend More than $225 Million in 2016 on Minority- and Women-Owned Law Firms

The Inclusion Initiative, a collaborative program among law departments
at major corporations across the country, announced today that member
companies spent over $226 million in 2016 with minority- and women-owned
(MWBE) law firms.

This Smart News Release features multimedia. View the full release here:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170713005572/en/

In the initial year of the Inclusion Initiative, members together spent
$42 million with MWBE law firms. Since then, the total amount of money
participating law departments have spent on MWBE firms has grown
significantly and has exceeded $200 million every year since 2012, as
illustrated in the chart.

Over the life of the program, the participating companies have generated
over $1.24 billion in expenditures on minority and women owned law firms.

“The Inclusion Initiative is a significant success story in the movement
to build and sustain diversity and inclusion in the legal profession,”
said Rick Meade, Vice President and Chief Legal Officer for
International Businesses at Prudential Financial, Inc. and Chairperson
of the Inclusion Initiative. “The commitment made by the participating
companies to support MWBE law firms has proven to be meaningful and
sustained, enabling many of our target firms to thrive in an
increasingly competitive market.”

In 2010, the law departments at 11 large corporations spanning various
industries launched the Inclusion Initiative to help increase diversity
in the legal profession. At the heart of the Initiative is the belief
that MWBE firms play a vital role in providing opportunity to diverse
attorneys, and excellent, cost effective legal services that meet the
needs of corporate America. Inclusion Initiative members believe that
MWBE firms provide a reliable pathway into the legal profession for law
students and young lawyers of diverse backgrounds and an attractive
career path for experienced diverse attorneys who seek an alternative to
majority-owned law firms.

Participation in the Inclusion Initiative has nearly tripled to 32
members since its founding in 2010. The current roster of participating
companies includes: 3M, Accenture, Allstate, American Airlines, AT&T,
Bank of America, The Coca-Cola Company, Comcast, Exelon, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, General Mills, GlaxoSmithKline, Google, JPMorgan
Chase, McDonald’s Corporation, Macy’s, Merck, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley,
Nationwide, NBCUniversal, Prudential Financial, Sempra Energy, Shell Oil
Company, State Farm, Target, Toyota Financial Services, UPS, Verizon,
Walmart, Wells Fargo, and Xerox.

In 2016, the Inclusion Initiative welcomed State Farm to its ranks.
“Through the Inclusion Initiative, we are proud to join with other
leading companies from across the country in giving voice to these
important principles and in helping to increase diversity in the legal
profession,” said Steve McManus, Senior Vice President and General
Counsel, State Farm.

And, in 2017, Target and Toyota Financial Services joined the group. “At
Target, we believe that diversity and inclusion make teams better. We’re
committed across every part of our business, including our legal team,
to working with diverse partners and suppliers,” said Don Liu, Executive
Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary, Target.
“I’ve worked with the Inclusion Initiative for a number of years and
have been impressed by their work in bringing organizations together
around a shared commitment to increasing spending with minority-owned
law firms. With Target as the newest member, we’re proud to reaffirm our
commitment to building and working with diverse teams.”

“Diversity and Inclusion are crucial parts of Toyota Financial Services’
core values, embraced by every aspect of our business, including the
legal team,” said Katherine Adkins, Toyota Financial Services Group Vice
President, General Counsel, and Secretary. “We’ve learned firsthand that
engaging lawyers at minority and women-owned law firms not only furthers
our goal of having a diverse supplier base, it also makes good business
sense. Toyota Financial Services is committed to sending more high-level
legal work to NAMWOLF firms, enhancing our relationships with these
firms, and providing them with further exposure to the business needs of
our company.”

The Inclusion Initiative is administered by the National Association of
Minority and Women Owned Law firms (NAMWOLF), which comprises 172
certified MWBE law firms in 42 states. “Corporate members of the
Inclusion Initiative are a testament to the adage of putting thought
into action, said William Delgado, Inclusion Initiative Task Force
Co-Chair and Board Member of NAMWOLF. “The commitment exhibited by each
company helps ensure the success of minority- and women-owned law firms
and furthers the important mission of diversifying the legal profession.
NAMWOLF is excited about its continued collaboration with the Inclusion
Initiative for years to come.”


Go to Source