Author: Brian Sanchez

According to mental health charity Mind, one-in-four people experience a mental health problem in the UK each year – so the
likelihood is high that someone in your workplace is struggling with stress, anxiety or depression right now.

While several of Manchester’s key entrepreneurs have spoken publicly about their experiences, the reality is that many more workers stay silent.

“It takes a lot to get over the slightly warped, alpha male attitude in business where you have to suck it up and get on with it,” said Professor Vikas Shah, a serial entrepreneur and international business icon, who has spoken freely in the press about his anxiety and depression.

Professor Shah is managing director of the Swiscot Group, a Manchester-based textiles and commodities trading firm, visiting Professor of Entrepreneurship with MIT Sloan and an honorary professor at the Alliance Manchester Business School.

He elaborated: “There’s also the sense that as a business ‘leader’ you shouldn’t show weakness. It’s not that people have said not to talk about these things, it’s just that this attitude has become a dogma within business.”

Professor Shah, who has battled anxiety since his teens, explained that the pressures of being a young business owner caused his stress levels to rocket.

“As I got into the workplace and started my own business in a very high pressured world, I found that these issues became magnified, and instead of just feeling anxious I started to feel depressed and couldn’t function the way I wanted to because of an overwhelming sense of emotion.

“It got so bad that I considered suicide. At that point I decided enough was enough and that I needed to get serious about getting help.

“The issues are very resolvable. People get well and get back to normal, if they seek the proper medical help.”

Although attitudes to mental health are changing, he believes that a huge amount of people in the business community are experiencing related problems, all the while suffering in silence due to the stigma surrounding stress, anxiety, depression and similar conditions.

“A surprising number of people have approached me privately since I opened up about it, revealing that they have gone through similar issues and asking for my recommendations for help.

“In America, everyone by default has a therapist. It’s like having a dentist. In the same way people would think you’re strange for not having a dentist, therapy is very normal.

“The brain is the most complex organ in the body and is likely to fail us occasionally but we still feel somewhat embarrassed about having a specialist to help us look after it.”

Sam Jones, managing director of the innovative digital marketing agency, Tunafish, based in Manchester, is another business leader who has spoken frankly about panic attacks.

Like Professor Shah, Jones said his anxiety started at a young age.

“I am generally an anxious person and this started when I was a kid,” he said.

“It’s something I have always kept to myself because, at first, I didn’t know what it was – I just knew it wasn’t normal.

“Then I got bit of help at university and started to understand what it was and how I could look after myself a bit more and keep an eye on the signs.”

Jones and two friends launched Tunafish in 2011, when Jones was just 22. The business has grown rapidly and achieved widespread acclaim, with Jones receiving a string of awards including Made in Manchester Business Development Professional of the Year in 2014. He kept his panic attacks private until he had a full-blown panic attack in the office in front of his team.

“They thought I was having a heart attack,” he said.

“They wanted to call an ambulance and I had to explain that I’d be ok in about 30 minutes. From there the only real option was to be open about it.”

Panic attacks can last from five to 30 minutes. During an attack, a sufferer experiences sudden attacks of intense anxiety or fear, during which they can feel as if they are going to either die, lose control, or go crazy.

Physical symptoms can include shaking, feeling disorientated, nausea, rapid, irregular heartbeats, dry mouth, breathlessness, sweating and dizziness.

The symptoms of a panic attack are not dangerous, but can be very frightening.

Video Loading

Video Unavailable

Click to play
Tap to play

The video will start in 8Cancel

Jones decided to talk about it publicly when a journalist friend urged him to do so as part of Mental Health Week, in May.

“I now know that it’s something that many business owners go through,” said Jones. “After I spoke about it, loads of people got in touch – people who I’d never have imagined had issues with anxiety, to say that they had problems with it too. There’s still a bit of a stigma, but if people talk about it this stigma will go away.”

Candid discussion about mental health is certainly a step forward, but Professor Shah wants to see businesses using their influence to lobby for real change so that mental health is treated in the same way as our health issues in the workplace.

He urges businesses to look at their HR policy and ensure that it’s flexible enough to make allowances for any mental health issues, and to
prioritise training staff on how to deal with these.

“The first aid approach is very important,” he said. “As much as you have people trained in first aid by law, your business should have people trained in mental first aid. It is really important and there are lots of providers that do that.”

One such provider is Anxiety UK, headquartered in Manchester and the country’s leading anxiety disorders charity.

In addition to supporting individuals, it delivers training and consultancy services to businesses from major blue chip companies to SMEs, health bodies, schools and colleges and other voluntary sector organisations.

According to Anxiety UK, work related stress, anxiety and depression is costing the UK’s economy an estimated £70-100bn annually, and 70m sick days per year. Close to 250,000 new cases of work related stress, depression or anxiety were diagnosed in the UK in 2015 – 668 a day, or one every 2.1 minutes.

“The very first step is to ensure companies understand what stress, anxiety and depression are,” said Nicky Lidbetter, chief executive.

“It’s a two-pronged approach. Employees need to be trained on what stress is and how to manage it, as they don’t always recognise the symptoms themselves. Then managers need to be trained in how to recognise the signs and deal with them.”

The charity also provides tailored Employee Assistant Programmes (EAP) for companies. EAPs are intended to help employees deal with personal problems that might adversely impact their work performance, health and wellbeing.

They generally offer free and confidential assessments, short-term counselling, referrals and follow-up services for employees and their household members.

Beyond this, Lidbetter emphasises that there are many small steps a company can take to foster a culture of openness and support, such as putting up posters displaying information on mental health and where to get help, or appointing wellbeing champions in the workplace.

“It could be as simple as organising running groups, a Pilates class or reminding employees to take breaks from their desks and get outdoors at lunch time,” she said.

“Companies could also run mental health workshops. Employees will show up to these kind of events without thinking there is a stigmatic mental health label on them.”

Lidbetter believes that mental health strategy doesn’t have to be costly and that all employers should have a duty of care to ensure that employees are psychologically safe.

“In years to come, we will be viewing the psychological safety of our staff in the same way we view health and safety legislation around physical safety in the workplace.

“There will be an expectation that employers will see that staff are psychologically safe, and it will no longer be an optional thing as it will become something that’s clearly mandated.”

Companies must take issue seriously

With mental health and wellbeing being such a topical issue, it comes as no surprise that we are experiencing such a significant upturn in enquiries from our employer clients in this area.

Similarly, we have seen a marked increase in the number of tribunal claims where an employee relies on a mental illness, often depression and anxiety to support a disability discrimination claim.

Typically, we are asked about how to approach an employee who discloses they are struggling, for example, with stress, anxiety and depression, strategies to support and manage them and the various risks associated if an employer gets things wrong.

There remains a degree of stigma associated with mental illness and there is clearly still some way to go.

However, what I have found encouraging is how keen our clients are to learn more about managing mental health at work.

Having asked what area of employment law they most wanted JMW to provide training on, mental health and wellbeing came out top.

I would say that employers are now more receptive to the reality that mental illness is a serious issue and just as valid as physical illness in terms of the potential impact for a business not just in terms of absence levels but on productivity generally and risk.

The law protects employees from disability discrimination and both physical and mental impairments can amount to a disability provided the other key ingredients to support disability are present.

Anxiety stress and depression (and related conditions) which are substantial and long term and have an adverse effect on an employee’s day to day activities (for example the ability to concentrate) may amount to a disability giving rise to protection under the Equality Act 2010.

Where someone is protected there is a positive duty to make reasonable adjustments in many cases.

This might mean you need to consider things like extending flexible working policies to allow commuting outside of rush hours, allowing staff to take time off work for appointments, make changes to a working area, home working, temporarily re-allocating tasks they find stressful and difficult.

It is always advisable to maintain clear lines of communication with the employee and for the employer to ask him or her what they feel might help them in their role.

Other potential claims that an employer might face include personal injury, breach of contract, constructive dismissal and Harassment.

I would recommend to all employers that they take a proactive approach, one such step would be to revisit their equality and diversity policy and consider introducing a stress at work policy.

I would also advise employers to offer training to its managers on for example how to recognise the tell-tale warning signs of stress, anxiety and depression, how to respond when an employee discloses that they have depression for example equipping management with skills will not only instil trust between the employee and the manager who is dealing but will mean that any reasonable adjustments that might be needed can be implemented at an early stage.

This will hopefully translate into fewer absences and a more engaged workforce.

It is also worth noting that if an employer does end up having to defend a discrimination claim they are in a better position to rebut a claim where they can satisfy a tribunal that as an organisation there is a culture of equality and diversity led from the most senior management and that discrimination will not be tolerated.

Liz Cotton, partner and head of employment at JMW Solicitors LLP

Go to Source

NEW YORK, Sept. 18, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. (“Equifax” or the “Company”) (NYSE:EFX) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-07082, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Equifax securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Equifax securities between February 25, 2016, and September 7, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until November 13, 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]

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers.

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:  (1) the Company failed to maintain adequate measures to protect its data systems; (2) the Company failed to maintain adequate monitoring systems to detect security breaches; (3) the Company failed to maintain proper security systems, controls and monitoring systems in place; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 7, 2017, Equifax disclosed a cyber security incident involving consumer information impacting 143 million U.S. consumers.

On release of the news, the Company’s share price fell $24.09 per share, from a closing price on September 7, 2017, of $142.72 per share to a low of $118.63 per share on September 8, 2017, a drop of approximately 16.8%.

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

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

Go to Source

NEW YORK, Sept. 18, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. (“Equifax” or the “Company”) (NYSE:EFX) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-07082, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Equifax securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Equifax securities between February 25, 2016, and September 7, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until November 13, 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]

Equifax is a global provider of information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers.

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:  (1) the Company failed to maintain adequate measures to protect its data systems; (2) the Company failed to maintain adequate monitoring systems to detect security breaches; (3) the Company failed to maintain proper security systems, controls and monitoring systems in place; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 7, 2017, Equifax disclosed a cyber security incident involving consumer information impacting 143 million U.S. consumers.

On release of the news, the Company’s share price fell $24.09 per share, from a closing price on September 7, 2017, of $142.72 per share to a low of $118.63 per share on September 8, 2017, a drop of approximately 16.8%.

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

By

Reuters

Published:
08:35 EDT, 18 September 2017

|
Updated:
08:35 EDT, 18 September 2017

Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.

Go to Source

Go to Source

Chinese company losing millions as disgruntled SMMEs shut down factory

Go to Source

The story of the Harris family highlights the fact that the development of wind farms is subject to few planning checks, writes Michael Clifford.

Some nights, Sean Harris is sitting watching the TV and he thinks he hears the fridge humming. On other occasions, he has been out on the road around his home in Ballyduff in West Waterford, and the engine sounds as if it’s a car approaching him from behind.

Those are the more benign effects of the Barnafaddock Wind Farm, as he sees it. He is not alone, but neither are his problems shared with huge numbers in his rural community.

In most people’s view, the wind farm is in the mountains and its developer has compensated the community with funds for social and sporting clubs. They, however, don’t live on its

doorstep, as Mr Harris and some of his neighbours do.

“It’s been there since it started up,” Harris says. “It depends on the weather. If you get wind coming from the west, it can be very noisy and it’s worse in the winter. But it’s there all the time. It’s worst of all at night, or at least most noticeable because you don’t have noise coming from anything else at that time.”

Mr Harris and his wife Catherine and some of their neighbours are at their wits’ end. They are at the frontline of the battle in rural Ireland over whether too high a price is being extracted from some people in order to harvest renewable energy.

Their story is not unique. But it highlights a scenario in which the development of wind farms is subjected to precious little rigorous checking by planning authorities.

The Harrises and their neighbours believe that noise limits stipulated in planning are being breached. But they also believe they have evidence that the wind farm has been constructed much bigger than allowed by planning, making it noisier, more obstructive, and, from the owner’s point of view, more productive.

Their complaints have delivered a major headache to Waterford City and County Council, and raise questions that are applicable right across the country.

Barnafaddock Wind Farm began to get off the ground more than a decade ago. Somebody saw the potential for harvesting wind in the mountains above Ballyduff Upper, a picturesque village that nestles at the foot of the Knockmealdown Mountains.

Landowners were brought on a day trip to a wind farm in Wexford, and were suitably impressed. The local community was informed, meetings called, and promises made about a fund for local clubs, which have been fulfilled.

“The community in general is happy enough,” Catherine Harris says. “They are going to be getting money for the lifetime of the windfarm, to be divided among all the clubs. But we’re the ones living next to it.”

The initial plan for the farm, to be located between Ballyduff Upper and the village of Araglin on the Cork border, was for 32 turbines.

As part of the plan, more than a dozen landowners agreed to sign option agreements to the value of €1,000 per annum for seven years.

As it was to turn out, planning permission was only granted for 11 turbines. This included three on Coillte lands, which are more remote from those sited in farms.

This left a number of landowners in dispute with the developer over how much money they were entitled to.

The issue was relatively minor, but it certainly soured relations between some of the local farmers and the developer. There was also an issue over a right of way.

Initially, the wind farm was developed by a company called Barnafaddock Sustainable Electricity Ltd. However, by the time construction began in 2014, it had been sold to Element Power, which specialises in renewable energy. In February 2014, during the construction phase, Element Power sold Barnafaddock to US giant GE Electric. It completed the construction phase and sold the farm on again last year, this time to Blackrock, a joint venture between a major US fund and Irish businesspeople.

In an environment where subsidies are plentiful and the landscape changing rapidly, the flipping of wind farms is not uncommon.

Once the farm became operational in 2015, some of the locals began to notice the imposition of noise in particular.

Kenneth Geary, who has rented out his family home which borders land where the turbines are sited, says that sleep is a major problem.

“My tenants simply can’t get a night’s sleep,” he says. “One of them had to resort to sleeping tablets at one point.”

A condition of the planning permission was that a noise monitoring report would be conducted within a year of operations commencing.

The owner has responsibility for commissioning the report, giving rise to a question as to how independent any such report can be. The system arguably compromises the perception of independence at the very least.

In the case of Barnafaddock, GE Electric hired reputable engineering consultant Fehily Timoney. The survey was carried out between March and May 2016, and the report found that the noise limits were largely in line with design criteria.

Some of the locals living next to the turbines found this difficult to believe. Roland Krikke, a Dutchman who has been living in Ballyduff Upper for 12 years, began investigating.

He commissioned his own noise report. “That found that at a number of different moments the noise level exceeded what is allowable,” he says.

“I have informed the council but they have done nothing about it.”

The work of consultants often differs, but Mr Krikke also made a startling discovery. He found that despite planning permission having been granted for turbines with a 90m diameter — for eight of the 11 turbines — there was no mention anywhere of the specific model that was to be used at Ballyduff.

“It wasn’t even in the Environmental Impact Statement,” he said. “Or the planning permission, and I talked to the neighbours and nobody seemed to know what was going on.”

Mr Krikke got his hands on the Fehily Timoney report into the noise and saw a reference to the GE 2.85-103 model. Further research led to the discovery that this was a model that, as it says on the tin, includes a blade diameter of 103m.

This is 15% bigger than the 90m allowed for, with the potential to generate a lot more energy.

It also has the potential to generate a lot more noise, and is certainly not what the planning authority gave permission for.

Later, the model was confirmed through examining a release from GE at the time it bought Barnafaddock, where it stated that the farm, and another purchased at the same time in Donegal, would be “powered by GE’s 2.85 megawatt turbines with 103m rotors.”

Mr Krikke wanted to be sure to be sure. Armed with a range finder, which can measure distances, he approached the turbines one evening when they were turned off.

The results, he claims, were that the one he measured showed up a diameter of over 100m. The only available model that could answer for that length is the 103m model, previously advertised by GE Electric.

Mr Krikke had already been in correspondence with Waterford City and County Council over what he saw as the noise problem. Now, he informed them of this discovery.

When he received no response initially, he persisted with it.

“The shocking main issue here is that the 13 metre increase (15%) in blade diameter is a big deviation from the planning conditions that has not been signalled by your office, and

whereupon no action has been taken,” he wrote.

“Whatever the reasoning for not doing so, it should be remedied and acted upon immediately by your office.

“Hence, I request that your office will do an immediate check on the compliance regarding the material conditions for blade diameter.”

His request for action and response to his queries has yet to be met (see panel).

A spokesman for the owner, Blackrock, told the Irish Examiner that the company had no comment to make on the matter at this time.

Questions on the matter to Waterford City and County Council eventually received a response, in which it is claimed that the noise monitoring report was “conditioned” on the three 103m turbines on the Coillte lands.

However, in response to this newspaper or the local residents, the council has not stated whether or not it is satisfied that the blade size is as per planning permission.

Nearly six months on from when the council was initially informed that there may be a problem with the blade diameter, local people have been left entirely in the dark.

There are other issues also to consider.

Is the site properly insured?

If Barnafaddock is an unauthorised development, as alleged, then there could be issues over whether insurance policies such as public and workplace liability are valid.

Undertakings given to financiers such as banks may also come under

review. Through it all, it would appear that Waterford City and County Council is keeping the head down and hoping that the matter will go away.

“The big issue is that rights of people are being squashed,” Mr Krikke says.

“For an individual it is impossible to take on the big wind farm companies; no individual has the money to battle through the courts. So it is my opinion you must rely on the council to protect the interests of people.”

Sean Harris agrees. “What happened has happened, if we are right,” he says. “They built it wrong; it was the council’s job to check, but it’s up now.

“It would be like saying I got permission for a bungalow and I built a two-storey house.

“If I did that they’d come after me. We live under one law, or so we’re told.”

Waterford Council is duty bound on any planning irregularities

The response of the authority charged with granting planning permission, and inspecting the development to allegations of planning irregularities raises more questions than answers.

Waterford City and County Council (WCCC) granted planning for Barranafaddock wind farm. It was also charged with ensuring that the development was built according to the planning conditions.

Since last April, WCCC has been aware of the allegation that the diameter of the wind turbines is longer by 15% than was granted in planning. Nothing to clarity or rectify the situation appears to have been done since then. If the engagement with both the media and the public on the issue is anything to go by, the strategy employed by the council appears to be to keep the head down and hope things will blow over.

On August 25, I emailed an inquiry to a spokeswoman for the council. The following was the text: “Allegations have been made from local people that the size of the blades on the wind turbines exceeds that for which planning permission was granted.

The blades are alleged to have a span of 103m while permission was granted for eight of the 11 turbines for a span of 90m. Waterford City and County Council has been in possession of this allegation since last April.

I submitted a number of questions:

• What steps has the council taken to determine whether the operator is complying with planning permission in this regard?
• What course of action is open to the council if planning permission is not being complied with?
• Is the council in receipt of rates or fees from the operator, and if so what is the annual figure?
• What system of building inspection for wind farms exists in the local authority?
• Why has the council not signed off on a noise monitoring report which was required for planning permission and completed over a year ago?
• There was no response. I emailed again on August 28, enquiring as to when a reply might be expected. This time the response informed me that a response would be forthcoming on September 4, a week away. When I questioned the delay, the response was: “I’m sorry it can’t be earlier but the query crosses a number of sections and is complex in nature.”

In any event, come September 4, I emailed to inquire at what time I could expect a response and there was no reply. A statement, which only partially addressed the query, was finally issued another week later on September 10.

The statement said: “The developer was permitted to construct three turbines with a rotor diameter of 103m and eight turbines at 90m. A noise monitoring survey was conditioned in relation to the three turbines of 103m diameter.

“The noise monitoring survey was carried out. Subsequent to this, we received a complaint about the conditions under which the noise monitoring was undertaken. As a result of which we sought clarification from the noise monitoring consultant, and the council is now satisfied that the noise survey report has been undertaken in accordance with best practice guidelines and is in accordance with the condition of planning permission.

“In terms of your general query, where a developer is not in compliance with planning, enforcement action can be taken.

“In terms of rates income, the wind farm is currently undergoing a valuation process. Council is not in receipt of rates in respect of the wind farm.”

Ronald Krikke first informed the council about his belief that the blade diameter was 103m rather than 90m, rendering the farm an unauthorised development. He received a reply after further requests on April 24. A senior planner emailed him that his correspondence had been forwarded to the district planner “for follow up and we will respond back to you once we have reached a decision on the matter. We will also re-direct your correspondence to the windfarm company for clarification of the issues raised. Once we have sufficient information on the matter we will consider whether there is a compliance issue with permission conditions and take whatever action is appropriate at that time.”

Mr Krikke took exception to the actions being taken by the council.

“I did not give your office permission to redirect my correspondence to the windfarm. If clarification is needed on certain issues, your planning office should make its own queries with the windfarm — supposedly after first researching its own planning files, where most of the information wanted can be found.”

The responses from the council to the public and the media reflects poorly on its legal obligations as a planning authority. The fact that the current owner did not develop the farm is not the issue. Inquiries by this newspaper to the previous owner GE Electric were redirected to the current owner Blackrock. The current owner is now responsible for its asset. The council is duty bound to pursue the owner rigorously to either rectify the alleged planning irregularity or face court proceedings. The frustration of local residents to the council’s attitude towards their concerns was encapsulated by a letter sent on September 8 to the council by Kenneth Geary.

“I am following up on a request for a response from the Planning Authority based on the community’s concerns pertaining to Barranafaddock windfarm,” he wrote.

“To date there have been numerous correspondences from several members of the Ballyduff Upper community. There have been consistent delays by the Planning Council in responding to members of the community. In many cases concerns and facts which have been brought to your attention have been ignored.

“At this stage we are demanding a comprehensive and immediate response to matters which have been raised and not responded to. These issues are pertaining to on-going noise complaints as well as the material deviation from the authorised plans.”

As of today, Mr Geary has not received any response to the latest missive from residents concerned about whether or not planning laws are being applied to all.

This story first appeared in the Irish Examiner.

Go to Source

According to the ET report, while Hardcastle Restaurants, which runs McDonald’s outlets in the West and the South, was seen as the sole contender for the chain’s North and East India markets till some time back, Speciality Restaurants, which owns Mainland China and Oh! Calcutta, Jubilant FoodWorks, which operates the Domino’s Pizza and Dunkin Donuts brands, Moon Beverages, which is Coca-Cola’s largest Indian franchise bottler, and Lite Bite Foods, the promoter of Punjab Grill and Asia Seven, have also thrown their hats into the ring.  

At stake are over 160 McDonald’s outlets. As reported earlier, CPRL, a joint-venture between Bakshi and McDonald’s India Pvt Lt (MIPL), the Indian subsidiary of McDonald’s Corporation, operates 169 McDonald’s restaurants in north and east India. Of these, 43 outlets operating in Delhi are shut due to non-renewal of eating house licences.

As part of the licence termination, CPRL was asked to stop using McDonald’s name, system, trademark, designs and its associated intellectual property, among others, with effect from September 6.

Bakshi studying arbitration panel ruling, legal options

Stressing that his side would “look to the rule of law to protect investment” of various parties involved in the fast food chain business, Bakshi also said his side was ready “to collaborate with anyone in order to achieve a positive outcome for all stakeholders”.

The international arbitration tribunal in London rejected Bakshi’s claim that McDonald’s India did not validly terminate the joint-venture.

Bakshi has said: “We are carefully considering the partial award given by the tribunal, its implications as well as our legal options.”

However, reiterating the July 13 National Company Law Tribunal verdict, which reinstated him as the managing director of CPRL, Bakshi said the order “speaks for itself”.

Go to Source

Regulators want tour operators and travel agents to increase their contributions to a fund used to compensate consumers for failures such as Lowcostholidays.

Industry figures warn such a move will drive up the cost of sun holidays.

The Commission for Aviation Regulation (CAR), which oversees travel agents and tour operators, wants to top up its depleted Travellers’ Protection Fund.

The regulator estimates that this would cost a typical travel agent, with a €2.5 million turnover, an extra €600 to €800 a-year, while it would cost tour operators €1,500 to €2,000 annually.

Payments such as the €3.5 million given to Irish people stranded by last year’s collapse of Lowcostholidays have cut the amount in the fund from a high of €7.5 million in 2007/08 to €1.8 million.

The CAR, led by commissioner Cathy Mannion, fears it will not have enough cash to cover the cost of another similar failure and it has been in talks with the travel industry about increasing contributions to replenish the fund.

Industry groups have already warned that increases in their contributions could hit smaller operators and will also make sun holidays more expensive, as the extra costs will be passed on to consumers.