LegalShield Law Index and its Application to Investment Models to Be Featured at Quandl’s Alternative Data Conference

Many attorneys support a proposal that would require legal services ads that lists a phone number or web site to include a name in an effort to improve transparency and consumer protection.

Under the proposal, advertisements such as 1-800-LAW-FIRM or 1-800-DIVORCE would have to include a name or names of lawyers or a law firm.

The Michigan Supreme Court is accepting written comments on the proposed rule until April 1 before which a public hearing also will take place but has not been scheduled yet, said Supreme Court spokesman John Nevin.

The Representative Assembly of the State Bar of Michigan proposed the new rule for the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct.

Advertisement

Heather Atnip, who practices in Rochester, said the proposal would be important to protect the general public. She said a potential consumer of legal services is often experiencing trauma and may be vulnerable to being taken advantage of.

Transparency and accountability are crucial when people are navigating through personal tragedies such as a catastrophic injury to a loved one, she said in an email.

As attorneys, we have an obligation to protect members of the public from predatory marketing practices. One way to prevent predatory marketing practices is to require that law firms identify themselves in their own marketing materials.

Attorney Henry Gornbein, of Lippitt OKeefe Gornbein in Birmingham, said the proposed rule — which received strong support in the Assembly — is aimed at marketing companies that promote a phone number and is actually only a referral service.

Theyre marketing fronts that farm out the work, Gornbein said. You dont know who you are getting the qualify of the representation. In many cases, its deceptive advertising.

Listing the attorney or firm would allow the consumer to research the potential hire.

R. Timothy Kohler, who practices out of Clinton Township, said the rule was originally targeted at ads containing phone numbers or web addresses on billboards.

He said as a potential competitor to those ads, he wants to know who is behind them.

I want to know who the lawyer is trying to undercut me, he said.

Attorney Sheldon Larky said, While I feel lawyer ads serve a great purpose, there should be transparency of the actual people and firms who are advertising. Fancy or catchy names should not hide the people who are doing the advertising.

Jon Midtgard of Bowyer and Midtgard in Southfield, which does business as the American Divorce Association for Men, doesnt believe the proposal will affect his company because his firm is the only one associated with ADAM in Southeast Michigan. He said the proposal is directed at referral services.

When you call ADAM, you get a law firm, he said.

Other firms do business as ADAM in other metro areas of Michigan, such as Flint, he said.

He believe the proposal may be overkill.

I think its hitting a nail with a sledgehammer, he said.

There are two alternatives for the proposals, one more specific than the other.

Justice Bridget McCormack raises many questions in her opinion that concurred with her colleagues to consider the measure.

I hope that the public-comment process will, at a minimum, address and clarify questions, she wrote.

She asks whether the rule should apply only to ads that solely consist or a web address or telephone number or should it apply to all advertisements?

She also questions whether it should apply to a sign on a lawyer or law firms building and raises the questions of whether online ads would be regulated different than those on billboards, signs and TV and radio and for the definition of image or icon used in the language.

She wrote, Will it include third-party media advertising such as Craigslist listings, Facebook places and Google places?

Send written comments to the Office of Administrative Counsel to P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909, or by email to ADMcomment@courts.mi.gov. Refer to ADM File No. 2016-27. Comments will be posted under the chapter affected by this proposal at Proposed & Recently Adopted Orders on Admin Matters page.

Go to Source

Mumbai: Resolution professionals (RPs) appointed to manage companies taken to the bankruptcy court have sought clarity on how to proceed when these companies refuse to cooperate with them, two RPs working on large bankruptcy cases said.

Several companies have turned hostile after a recent law made it tough for promoters to regain control of their companies in bankruptcy auctions, the two said on condition of anonymity. RPs said they had submitted their suggestions on the issue to a government panel formed to address concerns around the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

“The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) requires RPs to comply with all rules and regulations, which a company under normal circumstances also has to comply with. After the code put a near blanket ban on defaulting promoters, preventing them from bidding for their own firms, there have been several instances where the promoters have turned hostile, asking the employees to become non-cooperative,” the first of the two RPs cited above said.

He declined to be named as he is handling the resolution of one of the 12 firms mentioned by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in the first list of entities against which bankruptcy proceedings were launched.

An amendment made to IBC through an ordinance on 23 November nearly banned all defaulting promoters from participating in the resolution process. Later, on 29 December, parliament passed a bill, allowing them in if they repay dues in a month to make their loan account operational, and the resolution happens within the overall time frame specified. Most experts, however, say it will still be very difficult for promoters to take part in resolution proceedings.

Even though they are entitled to seek directions from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in a scenario of non-cooperation, RPs feel the remedy is “practically” ineffective. “In many of these companies, most of the employees remaining are in junior positions and do not have enough understanding about the resolution process. Moreover, it needs to be understood that these employees have not been paid for months. The moment you raise the issue at NCLT, they are willing to resign. Practically, the court order will not work,” the second RP said.

He said it is difficult to retrieve company data and in such a scenario, it is necessary that norms around quarterly filings, stock exchange disclosures and income tax enquiries and assessments are relaxed.

The government panel headed by the corporate affairs ministry secretary has sought suggestions from stakeholders to ensure efficient functioning of IBC. A member of the government panel on condition of anonymity told Mint that members last week had a detailed discussion on the suggestions received. “We have received several suggestions. The panel has decided to form sub-committees to understand and narrow down the concerns of different stakeholders,” he said.

While legal experts handling insolvency cases are of the view that compliance is difficult in companies undergoing the resolution process, complete relaxation of filing and disclosure rules is not possible.

Kumar Saurabh Singh, partner at law firm Khaitan and Co. said, “During insolvency resolution, the powers of the board of directors stand suspended and are exercised by RP. As per applicable laws, there are several disclosures that need to be done by directors, and RPs may not be in a position to confirm such compliances. However, considering RPs are exercising powers of the board and are obligated to run the corporate debtor on a going concern basis, it may be difficult to avoid the obligation to confirm compliance with applicable laws,” even as RP can go to NCLT in case of non-cooperation to seek suitable relief.

Aashit Shah, a partner at law firm J. Sagar Associates said RPs have a host of responsibilities, some prescribed in the code as well as others such as compliance with various laws applicable to the corporate debtor and its business within a stated timeline.

“Given the stringent timelines within which the IBC process has to be completed, there is a justification to provide some leeway to the IRPs, (interim resolution professionals) maybe by allowing additional time periods for compliances or obtaining help from third parties. Otherwise, they could be liable for failure to comply with the laws in a timely fashion. While the committee of creditors gives approval for certain important decisions, it is the IRP who is responsible for running daily operations and managing the company’s affairs. And if the company employees turn non-coperative, his job becomes even tougher. A sensible balance needs to be struck so that persons are not dissuaded from taking on this role,” he said.

Go to Source

Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.

Go to Source

NEW YORK, Jan. 16, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:AMD) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 18-cv-00321, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of AMD between February 21, 2017 and January 11, 2018, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased AMD securities between February 21, 2017, and January 11, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have until March 19, 2018, 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 quantity of shares purchased. 

[Click here to join this class action]

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. manufactures semiconductor products, which includes microprocessors, embedded microprocessors, chipsets, graphics, video and multimedia products. The Company offers its products worldwide.

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) a fundamental security flaw in AMD’s processor chips renders them susceptible to hacking; and (ii) as a result, AMD’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On January 3, 2018, media outlets reported that Google Project Zero’s security team had discovered serious security flaws affecting computer processors built by Intel Corporation, AMD and other chipmakers.  In a blog post, the Project Zero team stated that one of these security flaws—dubbed the “Spectre” vulnerability—allows third parties to gather passwords and other sensitive data from a system’s memory.  In response to the Project Zero team’s announcement, a spokesperson for AMD advised investors that while its own chips were vulnerable to one variant of Spectre, there was “near zero risk” that AMD chips were vulnerable to the second Spectre variant.

Then, on January 11, 2018, post-market, AMD issued a press release entitled “An Update on AMD Processor Security,” acknowledging that its chips were, in fact, susceptible to both variants of the Spectre security flaw. 

On this news, AMD’s share price fell $0.12 or 0.99%, to close at $12.02 on January 12, 2018.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, 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.

/EIN News/ — CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com

Go to Source

Bank of America Corp. may not be willing to help customers invest in Bitcoin, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t plowing into the technology underlying the cryptocurrency.

The Charlotte, North Carolina-based lender has applied for or received at least 43 patents for blockchain, the ledger technology used for verifying and recording transactions that’s at the heart of virtual currencies. It is the largest number among major banks and technology companies, according to a study by EnvisionIP, a New York-based law firm that specializes in analyses of intellectual property.

“Based on what’s publicly out there, the technology sector hasn’t embraced blockchain as much as the financial-services industry,” Maulin Shah, managing attorney for EnvisionIP, said in an interview.

International Business Machines Corp., which has targeted blockchain and artificial intelligence for future growth, tied with Mastercard Inc. for second on the list, with 27 each.

Go to Source

NEW YORK –  Bank of America Corp. may not be willing to help customers invest in bitcoin, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t plowing into the technology underlying the cryptocurrency.

The Charlotte, North Carolina-based lender has applied for or received at least 43 patents for blockchain, the ledger technology used for verifying and recording transactions that’s at the heart of virtual currencies. It is the largest number among major banks and technology companies, according to a study by EnvisionIP, a New York-based law firm that specializes in analyses of intellectual property.

“Based on what’s publicly out there, the technology sector hasn’t embraced blockchain as much as the financial-services industry,” Maulin Shah, managing attorney for EnvisionIP, said in an interview.

International Business Machines Corp., which has targeted blockchain and artificial intelligence for future growth, tied with Mastercard Inc. for second on the list, with 27 each.

Bank of America has refrained from offering Bitcoin futures contracts and its Merrill Lynch unit told employees not to offer brokerage clients access to one of the few financial instruments directly holding Bitcoin. Mark Pipitone, a BofA spokesman, said in an email that the bank has 48 blockchain-related patents and applications. He declined to comment further.

Historically less active in pursuing patents, banks in the past two years have become more aggressive, working with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to educate examiners about financial services. One goal was to limit patents that could be used against them; the other was to ensure they’d be able to get the patents they want.

Shah’s study, published last week, identified 1,045 patents or applications related to blockchain filed in the U.S. by 478 owners. Almost 60 percent were filed by what Shah called “blockchain-specific companies,” meaning startups like cryptocurrency exchanges.

FMR LLC’s Fidelity Investments, Toronto-Dominion Bank and Accenture PLC also were in the top 10, as was Coinbase Inc. and Dell Inc. Two of the biggest holders, 405 Technologies SA and World Award Foundation, weren’t easily linked to any known companies, Shah said.

Blockchain’s Impact

Blockchain technology could reshape the global financial system as banks look to use it to speed trading, improve record-keeping and simplify back-end functions. Mastercard, the world’s second-largest payments network behind Visa Inc., is testing the technology, CEO Ajay Banga said on a conference call with analysts in October.

Blockchain is geared toward “manipulation of data, and that’s why it’s really taken off in the payment-processing industry,” Shah said. “This is only going to increase.”

Software companies that deal with large amounts of data, like Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Microsoft Corp. and Oracle Inc., haven’t received many patents related to blockchain. That may change, because applications are made public 18 months after they are filed.

Susan Decker and Jenny Surane are reporters for Bloomberg News.

Go to Source

The government on Tuesday said it has decided to strike off the names of 120,000 more companies from the official records for various non-compliances as part of its continuing fight against the black money menace. Nearly 226,000 companies have already been deregistered and around 309,000 directors associated with these entities have been disqualified. The latest decision to strike off more 120,000 companies from official records came after a review meeting of the actions taken with respect to deregistered firms last week. Minister of State for Corporate Affairs P P Chaudhary, who chaired the review meeting, has directed officials to expedite action against the companies that are to be struck off the records. For various non-compliances, around 1,20,000 more companies have been identified for striking-off, the corporate affairs ministry said in a release. Until the end of December 2017, over 226,000 companies were deregistered for various non-compliances and being inactive for long. These moves are part of larger efforts to curb illicit fund flows. According to the release, 1,157 cases had been filed with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for the restoration of deregistered companies. “Out of these cases, NCLT had given orders for considering restoration of 180 companies, of which 128 companies have already been restored by the concerned Registrars of Companies (ROCs) after completion of the requisite compliance formalities,” it said. With respect to 992 court cases pertaining to disqualification of directors that are pending with various high courts, the ministry said around 190 cases have been disposed of. Besides, the minister has asked for handling cases under the Condonation of Delay Scheme on a priority basis in order to ensure that eligible companies can avail the benefit. The scheme, which would be operational till March 31, 2018, provides an opportunity for defaulting companies to submit their filings. The ministry also said there is now a trend of increasing compliance after the striking-off and disqualification exercise.

More and more companies are coming forward to file their annual returns and statements on the MCA21, it added. All filings under the Companies Act are to be made through the MCA21 portal. The minister emphasised that message should be sent out to company secretaries and directors of all companies to ensure that filings are made on time, which would also help prevent unnecessary litigation and prosecution. Chaudhary said the ministry ensures that principles of good corporate governance are followed in letter and spirit and an atmosphere of trust prevails for the investors. “Similarly, it is important to ensure that unscrupulous elements do not misuse the corporate governance channels to defraud innocent investors. A fair, transparent and accountable corporate governance ecosystem shall form the bedrock of sustained high economic growth in new India,” he said.

Go to Source

New Delhi: The government on Tuesday said it has decided to strike off the names of 1.20 lakh more companies from the official records for various non-compliances as part of its continuing crackdown on “shell companies” to tackle the black money menace.

Nearly 2.26 lakh companies have already been deregistered and around 3.09 lakh directors associated with these entities have been disqualified. The latest decision to strike off more 1.20 lakh companies from official records came after a review meeting of the actions taken with respect to deregistered firms last week.

Minister of State for Corporate Affairs P.P. Chaudhary, who chaired the review meeting, has directed officials to expedite action against the companies that are to be struck off the records.

For various non-compliances, around 1,20,000 more companies have been identified for striking-off, the corporate affairs ministry said in a release.

Till the end of December 2017, over 2.26 lakh companies were deregistered for various non-compliances and being inactive for long. These moves are part of larger efforts to curb illicit fund flows.

According to the release, 1,157 cases had been filed with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for restoration of deregistered companies. “Out of these cases, NCLT had given orders for considering restoration of 180 companies, of which 128 companies have already been restored by the concerned Registrars of Companies (ROCs) after completion of the requisite compliance formalities,” it said.

With respect to 992 court cases pertaining to disqualification of directors that are pending with various high courts, the ministry said around 190 cases have been disposed of.

Besides, the minister has asked for handling cases under the Condonation of Delay Scheme on a priority basis in order to ensure that eligible companies can avail the benefit.

The scheme, which would be operational till 31 March 2018, provides an opportunity for defaulting companies to submit their filings. The ministry also said there is now a trend of increasing compliance after the striking-off and disqualification exercise. More and more companies are coming forward to file their annual returns and statements on the MCA21, it added.

All filings under the Companies Act are to be made through the MCA21 portal. The minister emphasised that message should be sent out to company secretaries and directors of all companies to ensure that filings are made on time, which would also help prevent unnecessary litigation and prosecution.

Chaudhary said the ministry ensures that principles of good corporate governance are followed in letter and spirit and an atmosphere of trust prevails for the investors.

“Similarly, it is important to ensure that unscrupulous elements do not misuse the corporate governance channels to defraud innocent investors. A fair, transparent and accountable corporate governance ecosystem shall form the bedrock of sustained high economic growth in new India,” he said.

Go to Source