Injury claims 'clustered' in certain towns and law firms


Sought help: Eoghan Murphy. Photo: Tom Burke
Sought help: Eoghan Murphy. Photo: Tom Burke
Charlie Weston

A small number of legal firms are responsible for a huge number of personal injuries actions, the Law Society has been warned.

There are fears that an unusually high number of spurious claims are clustered around a small number of towns, where certain legal firms are based.

The fear is that these firms are “harvesting” claims, which is against the rules.

Barristers and solicitors face stringent advertising regulations aimed at preventing claims harvesting, which is sometimes called ambulance-chasing.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance Eoghan Murphy has sought the help of the Law Society in a bid to clamp down on spurious claims.

The Law Society has the dual role of being the representative body for solicitors and their regulator.

The issue arose after a series of meetings Mr Murphy held with business groups.

Read more: ‘We must tackle compensation culture’ – City councils pay out €63m in five years

Businesses claim a disproportionate number of claims are coming from a small number of legal firms. Some towns have more claims than others, the minister has been told by business groups.

Claims costs meant some SMEs are now self-insuring and handling their own claims. “Businesses feel they are targets for claims. We need the help of the Law Society, which can police it,” said Mr Murphy.

“Some solicitors are too willing to take cases without looking at the merits of the claim.

“Solicitors in certain firms in a small number of towns have a reputation for being too willing to believe their client. I am asking the Law Society how it might deal with this.”

Fraudulent claims are given as a reason by insurers for the huge spikes in the cost of motor insurance in the past three years. It is estimated the cost of fraud to all insurance companies is €200m.

It comes as the Law Society insisted it was clamping down on claims-harvesting websites and lawyers breaking its rules on advertising.

Its director general Ken Murphy confirmed the minister had an informal discussion on claims that a small number of legal firms are responsible for a huge number of personal injuries actions.

“One of the matters discussed was the extravagant allegations made by insurance companies about the level of fraud they face but the abject failure of the same insurers, other than in a tiny number of cases, to challenge these supposedly fraudulent claimants in court and to seek their prosecution,” he said.

The society has no knowledge of how many claims any firm of solicitors takes on behalf of their clients, he added.

“If any firm of solicitors attracts a large volume of cases or transactions of a particular kind it is likely to be because of satisfied clients, who testify to the firm’s special expertise in the area of legal practice in question,” he said.

He insisted the Law Society is stringent against rules being flouted.

Last year, the society admitted up to 20 solicitors suspected of bulk-buying personal injuries actions from claims-harvesting websites were under investigation by it.

“Since 2014, 13 claims-harvesting websites have been taken down as a result of the society’s investigations,” he said.

Solicitors connected with such sites face a range of sanctions, including reprimands and a formal direction that all future advertising is approved by the society for a period of three years.

Referrals have also been made to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the grounds of professional misconduct.

Irish Independent

Go to Source

Injury claims 'clustered' in certain towns and law firms

A tenant who is on the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) scheme was informed by email that the landlord letting a property in north Dublin required an almost €6,000 upfront payment.

The email stated that the landlord wanted a deposit worth two months’ rent and an upfront payment of one month’s rent to secure the apartment.

However, for a tenant in receipt of HAP they wanted a two-month deposit and three months’ rent in advance “to allow enough time for the HAP application to proceed”.

Sinn Féin councillor Noeleen Reilly, who received a copy of the email from a constituent, said it was “discrimination”.

“How would anyone in receipt of HAP be able to pay that upfront? It would be hard enough for someone working full-time,” she said.

Under current regulations landlords are barred from excluding tenants who receive State help with their rent.

But Stephen Large, Dublin services manager with charity Threshold, says it is coming across cases of “indirect discrimination” more and more.

“We are seeing a lot of cases where people are not refusing rent supplement tenants outright but they are putting additional barriers in place, such as additional deposits, a couple of months’ rent or looking for work references,” he said.

Previously properties often appeared in adverts with the caveat that rent allowance, rent supplement or HAP payments would not be accepted.

This was changed by Housing Minister Simon Coveney in January 2016, with a fine of up to €15,000 if the landlord is found to be in breach of the laws.

An estate agent was recently ordered to pay €1,500 for refusing to show a man, who was on the dole, an apartment because the landlord did not wish to accept rent allowance.

Local authorities pay landlords directly and landlords receive extra tax relief when taking in HAP tenants.

Go to Source

Company that's taken ownership of Asons controlled by same family that ran the controversial law firm

THE company that has taken over the ownership of Asons Solicitors is controlled by the same family that ran the controversial law firm, it has been confirmed.

Coops Law, which is the trading name of Banks Solicitors, is owned by Irfan Akram – who is also listed as a director of Asons Estates and was one of five brothers involved with the running of Asons.

It was announced on Friday that Asons had ceased trading and that all employees were being transferred to Coops Law.

Asons Solicitors was owned by Dr Imran Akram, who Asons confirmed had left the firm on Friday, and Kamran Akram.

Companies House records show that Banks changed its registered address to Churchgate on Friday, having previously been registered at All Souls in Astley Street.

Banks is an alternative business structure (ABS), which is an entity that allows non-lawyers to own or invest in law firms.

The law firm says that it will honour the terms of a £300,000 grant awarded by Bolton Council last year.

READ MORE: Asons Solicitors promise ‘fresh start’ as sale to Coops Law is announced

A council spokesman said last week that it had not been contacted by Asons about the changes and that it would seek “urgent clarification” on whether the grant conditions had been breached.

In a statement issued on Friday, the firm said: “As of today, Asons Solicitors has ceased trading. All employees have been TUPE’d to Coops Law and there will be no job losses.

“We can confirm that Dr Imran Akram has left the business.

“The new employers will honour the terms and conditions of the grant awarded by Bolton Council.”

The company added that the change of ownership would be “a fresh start for everyone – the employees and the people of Bolton”.

Go to Source

New details on law firm's ownership revealed

THE company that has taken over the ownership of Asons Solicitors is controlled by the same family that ran the controversial law firm, it has been confirmed.

Coops Law, which is the trading name of Banks Solicitors, is owned by Irfan Akram – who is also listed as a director of Asons Estates and was one of five brothers involved with the running of Asons.

It was announced on Friday that Asons had ceased trading and that all employees were being transferred to Coops Law.

Asons Solicitors was owned by Dr Imran Akram, who Asons confirmed had left the firm on Friday, and Kamran Akram.

Companies House records show that Banks changed its registered address to Churchgate on Friday, having previously been registered at All Souls in Astley Street.

Banks is an alternative business structure (ABS), which is an entity that allows non-lawyers to own or invest in law firms.

The law firm says that it will honour the terms of a £300,000 grant awarded by Bolton Council last year.

READ MORE: Asons Solicitors promise ‘fresh start’ as sale to Coops Law is announced

A council spokesman said last week that it had not been contacted by Asons about the changes and that it would seek “urgent clarification” on whether the grant conditions had been breached.

In a statement issued on Friday, the firm said: “As of today, Asons Solicitors has ceased trading. All employees have been TUPE’d to Coops Law and there will be no job losses.

“We can confirm that Dr Imran Akram has left the business.

“The new employers will honour the terms and conditions of the grant awarded by Bolton Council.”

The company added that the change of ownership would be “a fresh start for everyone – the employees and the people of Bolton”.

Go to Source

Four more firms picked for fast-track restructuring program

Four South Korean firms gained government approval to carry out their voluntary corporate restructuring through fast-track legal and administrative procedures, the industry ministry said Wednesday.

The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy said a government panel chose four companies — including Taekyung Heavy Industries Co., a midsized ship materials manufacturer — to endorse their proposed restructuring efforts to boost competitiveness.

(Yonhap)

Mytec Co., a vessel air cooler manufacturing firm, Hyundai Technology & Machinery Co., a construction machinery company, and Usis Co., a offshore plant designing service provider, were also on the list.

With the latest four firms, there are now 24 companies subject to the so-called “one-shot” act, as part of the Seoul government’s efforts to speed up corporate restructuring in struggling industries, including shipbuilding, steel and petrochemicals.

LG Chem, the country’s largest chemicals manufacturer, and Hanwha Chemical have also been included on the government-backed reform list.

The ministry said Taekyung Heavy will sell part of its ship material manufacturing lines and expand its business related to thermonuclear experimental reactor equipment, while Mytec and other selected companies will also make more efforts to diversify their business portfolios.

The law came into effect in August last year to help businesses conduct intracorporate mergers and spinoffs through simplified procedures that included exemptions from strict antitrust laws and financial market regulations. They will also be given tax benefits, and subsidies for research and development on corporate restructuring.

Under the new law, the companies that want to benefit from the fast-track corporate restructuring procedures are required to win government approval. (Yonhap)

Go to Source

Iowa regulator keeps busy private law practice

A powerful Iowa regulator has maintained a busy and profitable private legal practice even though a law mandates she devote her “whole time” to state business, a review by The Associated Press shows.

Iowa Utilities Board Chairwoman Geri Huser has been involved in 50 cases as an attorney during her two-year tenure, signing scores of filings and occasionally appearing at hearings during normal workhours. Judges have awarded her firm at least $177,000 in fees for her cases during that period.

An appointee of Gov. Terry Branstad and former Democratic state representative, Huser holds a job that includes regulating the service and rates of electric and gas utilities and reviewing plans for pipelines and transmission lines. As chairwoman of the three-member board, Huser has extra administrative duties and earns a $128,900 salary.

Under Huser, the board has approved eminent domain for the Dakota Access pipeline, major wind energy developments and rules on how utilities charge for customer-owned solar installations. She’s also managed to handle a variety of legal cases through a family firm, Skinner Law Office, an Altoona business she had distanced herself from when facing a potential conflict over the pipeline.

Clients have included a widow who claims her stepchildren are mismanaging a $4.5 million estate, the brother of an incapacitated man seeking to become his guardian, and a mobile home park who filed a small claims action against tenants. Most of her cases have involved administering estates, which includes distributing assets among heirs and takes months to complete.

State spokesmen denied that Huser’s work conflicted with the law specifying that regulators “shall devote the member’s whole time to the duties of the office.”

But prior members who were lawyers, such as Sheila Tipton, have left their firms. And Richard Lozier, Branstad’s appointee for a term beginning May 1, said Monday he would withdraw from his law firm if confirmed.

State government observers said Huser’s extensive outside work was unusual and potentially problematic. The arrangement raises questions about whether Huser can be working full-time and “creates real potential for conflicts of interest,” said colleges’ lobbyist Gary Steinke, who opposed Huser’s decision to withhold funding from university research centers.

“Wow,” he said of AP’s findings.

Huser, 53, declined an interview request. But board spokesman Don Tormey said she works full-time and that her legal work is allowed. Branstad appreciates Huser’s leadership and is aware of her outside employment, spokesman Ben Hammes said.

Tormey said members can engage in outside activities that don’t conflict with board work, noting that past regulators have farmed and driven taxis. He said Huser’s court filings — 500 since joining the board May 1, 2015— are made by assistants and that she handles time off for hearings through “flex scheduling, vacation and unpaid leave.”

Huser has appeared in at least five hearings, including March 9 at the Dallas County courthouse in Adel, representing a farm widow who alleges that her late husband’s children improperly sought to evict her, removed a truck by gunpoint and locked her out of buildings. Huser asked a judge to appoint a neutral party to manage the estate. Another hearing’s expected to be set soon.

Huser’s firm has been awarded $177,244 in attorneys’ fees in cases on which she’s been a primary attorney since joining the board and expects to be awarded $20,000 more in four pending estates, filings show. Fee information isn’t available in several other cases.

Estate lawyers are often awarded 2 percent of the assets, the most allowed by law. But they can also petition judges to award “extraordinary fees” for additional services such as real estate and tax issues — compensation Huser received in two recent cases. Fees vary based on estate size, and Huser’s awards have ranged from $1,300 to $30,000.

Huser has disclosed her outside work as required but downplayed her ties to Skinner Law Office when facing a potential conflict of interest with the pipeline.

Attorney Bradley Skinner, her brother, filed an objection on behalf of landowners weeks before Huser joined the board, on letterhead that listed Huser as a firm attorney. Huser and Skinner said the letterhead was outdated and that Huser no longer worked there, having sold her ownership interest in 2011. “I don’t get any income and am not paid by them,” Huser said, saying her work was done through a separate firm she owns.

Huser declined to recuse, saying it wasn’t a conflict after her brother stopped representing the landowners. She later voted to approve the pipeline. Today, she calls herself a partner in the firm.

Ed Fallon, a pipeline opponent, said Huser’s outside work raised questions.

“The chairmanship of the utilities board is a full-time position,” he said. “Some of us would argue it pays too much. But you wouldn’t think it would allow you time for a second job.”

Go to Source

AP Exclusive: Iowa regulator keeps busy private law practice


Updated 5:35 pm, Tuesday, March 28, 2017

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — A powerful Iowa regulator has maintained a busy and profitable private legal practice even though a law mandates she devote her “whole time” to state business, a review by The Associated Press shows.

Iowa Utilities Board Chairwoman Geri Huser has been involved in 50 cases as an attorney during her two-year tenure, signing scores of filings and occasionally appearing at hearings during normal workhours. Judges have awarded her firm at least $177,000 in fees for her cases during that period.


An appointee of Gov. Terry Branstad and former Democratic state representative, Huser holds a job that includes regulating the service and rates of electric and gas utilities and reviewing plans for pipelines and transmission lines. As chairwoman of the three-member board, Huser has extra administrative duties and earns a $128,900 salary.

Under Huser, the board has approved eminent domain for the Dakota Access pipeline, major wind energy developments and rules on how utilities charge for customer-owned solar installations. She’s also managed to handle a variety of legal cases through a family firm, Skinner Law Office, an Altoona business she had distanced herself from when facing a potential conflict over the pipeline.

Clients have included a widow who claims her stepchildren are mismanaging a $4.5 million estate, the brother of an incapacitated man seeking to become his guardian, and a mobile home park who filed a small claims action against tenants. Most of her cases have involved administering estates, which includes distributing assets among heirs and takes months to complete.

State spokesmen denied that Huser’s work conflicted with the law specifying that regulators “shall devote the member’s whole time to the duties of the office.”

But prior members who were lawyers, such as Sheila Tipton, have left their firms. And Richard Lozier, Branstad’s appointee for a term beginning May 1, said Monday he would withdraw from his law firm if confirmed.

State government observers said Huser’s extensive outside work was unusual and potentially problematic. The arrangement raises questions about whether Huser can be working full-time and “creates real potential for conflicts of interest,” said colleges’ lobbyist Gary Steinke, who opposed Huser’s decision to withhold funding from university research centers.

“Wow,” he said of AP’s findings.

Huser, 53, declined an interview request. But board spokesman Don Tormey said she works full-time and that her legal work is allowed. Branstad appreciates Huser’s leadership and is aware of her outside employment, spokesman Ben Hammes said.

Tormey said members can engage in outside activities that don’t conflict with board work, noting that past regulators have farmed and driven taxis. He said Huser’s court filings — 500 since joining the board May 1, 2015— are made by assistants and that she handles time off for hearings through “flex scheduling, vacation and unpaid leave.”

Huser has appeared in at least five hearings, including March 9 at the Dallas County courthouse in Adel, representing a farm widow who alleges that her late husband’s children improperly sought to evict her, removed a truck by gunpoint and locked her out of buildings. Huser asked a judge to appoint a neutral party to manage the estate. Another hearing’s expected to be set soon.

Huser’s firm has been awarded $177,244 in attorneys’ fees in cases on which she’s been a primary attorney since joining the board and expects to be awarded $20,000 more in four pending estates, filings show. Fee information isn’t available in several other cases.

Estate lawyers are often awarded 2 percent of the assets, the most allowed by law. But they can also petition judges to award “extraordinary fees” for additional services such as real estate and tax issues — compensation Huser received in two recent cases. Fees vary based on estate size, and Huser’s awards have ranged from $1,300 to $30,000.

Huser has disclosed her outside work as required but downplayed her ties to Skinner Law Office when facing a potential conflict of interest with the pipeline.

Attorney Bradley Skinner, her brother, filed an objection on behalf of landowners weeks before Huser joined the board, on letterhead that listed Huser as a firm attorney. Huser and Skinner said the letterhead was outdated and that Huser no longer worked there, having sold her ownership interest in 2011. “I don’t get any income and am not paid by them,” Huser said, saying her work was done through a separate firm she owns.

Huser declined to recuse, saying it wasn’t a conflict after her brother stopped representing the landowners. She later voted to approve the pipeline. Today, she calls herself a partner in the firm.

Ed Fallon, a pipeline opponent, said Huser’s outside work raised questions.

“The chairmanship of the utilities board is a full-time position,” he said. “Some of us would argue it pays too much. But you wouldn’t think it would allow you time for a second job.”

___

Follow Ryan J. Foley on Twitter at twitter.com/rjfoley

Go to Source

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action against U.S. Concrete, Inc. and Certain Officers – USCR

NEW YORK, March 28, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Concrete, Inc. (“U.S. Concrete” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:USCR) and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, and docketed under 17-cv-00266 is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired U.S Concrete securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased U.S. Concrete securities between March 6, 2015 and March 23, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until May 29, 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 number of shares purchased.

[Click here to join this class action]

U.S. Concrete, Inc. produces and sells ready-mixed concrete, aggregates, and concrete-related products and services for the construction industry in the United States. It operates through two segments, Ready-Mixed Concrete and Aggregate Products.

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) the Company lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, U.S. Concrete’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 24, 2017, U.S. Concrete filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission, announcing the resignation of the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, Joseph Tusa, and advising investors that the Company had dismissed its previous auditor, Grant Thornton LLP, and engaged Ernst & Young LLP as its new public accounting firm.

On this news, U.S. Concrete’s share price fell $5.90, or 8.84%, to close at $60.80 on March 24, 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

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


Go to Source

Proxy access by law: a U.S. feature that’s coming to a Canadian bank in the near term

A little history will be made at Thursday’s annual meeting of the Toronto Dominion Bank when the first shareholder proposal on so-called “proxy access” is voted on by the company’s owners.

And in the following week that history will be repeated when shareholders of Royal Bank will give their assessment on a similar proposal that has, been part of the U.S. institutional framework for the past seven years, and which affects more that half the companies in the S&P 500 index.

The proposals – that are meant to allow shareholder-nominated director candidates to stand for election provided the shareholders meet certain criteria – have something else in common: both are the work of Lowell Weir, a Halifax-based accountant who over the years has been very active as a bank shareholder.

We were unable to reach Weir but in TD’s bank circular, he said he believes “proxy access is a fundamental shareholder right that will make directors more accountable and enhance shareholder value.”

If the proposal is passed at both meetings, then the two banks in their proxy material will be required to publish the names of those shareholder nominated directors who want to stand and become a board member.

Their names will be included, provided, of course, that the particular shareholders put their name forward. In this way the shareholder will, in effect, be part of a rival directors list. Each nominee is allowed 500 words to support their case.

But only particular shareholders (or a group of them) can apply: For starters the individual shareholder has to own three per cent of the bank and to have owned it or the past three years. And that’s a lot of stock: TD’s market cap is $121 billion, which means a holding of $3.6 billion; RBC’s market cap of $142 billion requires a stake of $4.26 billion.

And guess what: the money management arms of the banks are the largest shareholders of other banks. TD’s largest shareholder is RBC Global Asset Management while Royal’s largest owner is TD Asset Management. Indeed the top five shareholders at both banks are other bank-owned money managers. According to Bloomberg, Vanguard and Fidelity are the largest non-bank shareholders of TD and Royal.

In material mailed to shareholders, both banks oppose the proposal. TD said it didn’t support the proposal “because it mirrors the evolving approach to proxy access in the U.S. without taking into account rights already available to the bank’s shareholders in Canada.” Those rights fall under the Bank Act.

“Given that the proposal is non-compliant with the Bank Act, it cannot be implemented as proposed,” said TD, adding that its “not necessary or in the best interests of the bank.”

Maybe but at least six institutional shareholders, five of which are non-Canadian are planning their support, as is the CPP Investment Board.

And maybe more shareholders would be on side if the two proxy advisory firms. ISS and Glass Lewis had a similar view. ISS supported both proposals whereas Glass Lewis went the other way. ISS argued the board’s “control over the process” means the lack of an even playing field for shareholders to nominate directors.

And the argument from the two banks in 2017 may not hold sway in the future. In a report, Kingsdale Advisors said, after noting recent corporate governance developments (the separation of chair and CEO positions, majority voting, and say on pay,) the largest Canadian banks will be the first to hoist their sails with the rest of corporate Canada to follow, resulting in a “proxy access” inevitability in the near future.”

Financial Post

bcritchley@postmedia.com

Go to Source