A Service For Professionals
•
Friday, November 11, 2016
Go to Source
Category: Blog
SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action against Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Certain Officers – TEVA
NEW YORK, Nov 11, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE via COMTEX) —
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (“Teva” or the “Company”)
TEVA, +0.23%
and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 16-cv-08747, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Teva securities between February 10, 2014 and November 2, 2016, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Teva securities during the Class Period, you have until January 5, 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]
Teva develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. Teva is the largest generic drug manufacturer in the world and one of the 15 largest pharmaceutical companies worldwide.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Teva and several of its pharmaceutical industry peers colluded to fix generic drug prices; (ii) the foregoing conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws; (iii) consequently, Teva’s revenues during the Class Period were in part the result of illegal conduct; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Teva’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On November 3, 2016, media outlets reported that U.S. prosecutors might file criminal charges by the end of 2016 against Teva and several other pharmaceutical companies for unlawfully colluding to fix generic drug prices.
On this news, Teva’s ADR price fell $4.13, or 9.53%, to close at $39.20 on November 3, 2016.
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
Copyright (C) 2016 GlobeNewswire, Inc. All rights reserved.
Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action against Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Certain Officers – TEVA
NEW YORK, Nov. 10, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (“Teva” or the “Company”) (NYSE:TEVA) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 16-cv-08747, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Teva securities between February 10, 2014 and November 2, 2016, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Teva securities during the Class Period, you have until January 5, 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]
Teva develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. Teva is the largest generic drug manufacturer in the world and one of the 15 largest pharmaceutical companies worldwide.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Teva and several of its pharmaceutical industry peers colluded to fix generic drug prices; (ii) the foregoing conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws; (iii) consequently, Teva’s revenues during the Class Period were in part the result of illegal conduct; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Teva’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On November 3, 2016, media outlets reported that U.S. prosecutors might file criminal charges by the end of 2016 against Teva and several other pharmaceutical companies for unlawfully colluding to fix generic drug prices.
On this news, Teva’s ADR price fell $4.13, or 9.53%, to close at $39.20 on November 3, 2016.
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
What Does China's New Cybersecurity Law Mean for Chinese Internet Companies?
China passed its first cybersecurity law on November 7, 2016, just a week after its third draft was proposed to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, often referred to as China’s rubber-stamp parliament.
Many China watchers are concerned about the increasing state censorship and control over the Internet and foreign technology firms consider the law an act of protectionism. In contrast, Yang Heqing, spokesman for the NPC’s Legislative Affairs Commission, at a press conference on Monday dismissed these concerns, saying that the law “is to protect the security and credibility of the Internet.”
What effects will China’s Cybersecurity Law have on the industry and domestic Internet companies in particular?
Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.
The first and probably the most predictable effect is that Internet companies will be required to take on an even heavier role of monitoring, managing, and storing content on their platforms. As a consequence, small companies or startups might be forced out of business.
Article 10 of the Cybersecurity Law regulates that:
companies that build, maintain the Internet or provide service through the Internet shall follow laws and administrative regulations as well as mandatory requirements set by the state’s standards. They shall take technical and other necessary measures to ensure the Internet is functioning safely and stably, handle cybersecurity incidents effectively, prevent cyber criminal activities, and maintain the integrity, secrecy and usability of Internet data.
In particular, Internet companies are required to “monitor and log the operational status of the network.” Earlier in April this year, more than 20 companies that provide live-streaming services signed self-disciplinary agreements for content regulation, which require user-generated content be stored for at least 15 days. Under the new cybersecurity law, that is far from enough. According to Article 21, Internet logs and relevant data shall be “stored for at least six months.”
While it is legitimate to ask Internet companies to safeguard Internet users against potential cyber attacks and cybersecurity threats, the data storage requirement puts extra, if not unreasonable, burdens on small-sized companies. This is also especially challenging for multimedia sharing companies or social media platforms with a large amount of users uploading pictures and videos every second. The math is simple: the longer a company needs to store its data and user content, the more bandwidth and storage room it needs, and the more it needs to pay for those products.
Second, according to Article 50, all Internet companies are required to stop the dissemination of illegal content and comply with relevant laws and regulations on online information control.
This is nothing new; Rebecca MacKinnon, a prominent U.S.-based Internet researcher, poignantly pointed out and proved in 2009 that all Internet companies in China have to comply with government censorship demands in order to keep their business licenses. As a result, some half-jokingly took Article 50, which codifies such demands, as a positive, commenting that “it is a step forwards toward rule of law.”
Third, and less directly, there will be an added impact on smart device makers, online game operators, and other child-targeted service providers.
In early October, China’s Cyberspace Administration (CAC) proposed strengthening its policies on Internet safety for children, which require smart device makers and importers to either pre-install child-protection software on their products or provide easy guidelines on how to install those software — a measure similar to the country’s (in)famous requirement proposed in 2009 that asked all personal computers sold in the country to include an internet filtering software called Green Dam. CAC also proposed that online game operators lock out anyone under the age of 18 between midnight and 8 a.m.
While the CAC draft rules are still under review and hadn’t triggered too much debate in the country, the new Cybersecurity Law sparked a new round of concerns over the proposal. In fact, Article 13, which talks about child-safety protection, was not included in the first or second draft. It was added, quite last-minute, to the current and final version of the law. As one China-based Internet watcher pointed out, “the timing is weird…[T]he new law certainly lays grounds for CAC to pass its child-safety rules.”
In contrast to all the concerns and doubts, China’s lawmakers are optimistic. They described the law as necessary to bolster China’s data security at a time of increasing cybersecurity threats.
According to Yang, spokesperson at the press conference on Monday, in addition to reinstating China’s long-advocated concept of Internet sovereignty, the newly passed cybersecurity law also has a number of highlights: it is “an important move to enforce the overall national security plans”; it is “a necessity to maintain internet security” since China is a “giant Internet country, which is facing one of the most severe cybersecurity threats”; and it comes in timely fashion to meet the public’s demands and to “purify cyberspace.” The law, which has seven chapters and 79 articles in total, is “comprehensive and encompassing” in that it specifies the responsibilities of relevant government agencies, Internet service providers, and Internet users.
Although the actual short-term or long-term objectives and impacts of the cybersecurity law are yet to unfold, it seems to some that the law is more of a “warning” after all. “Many of the measures are in place already. Your actions and words have been under surveillance already,” Zhang Lifan, a Chinese historian, concluded. “Whether it is national security law or cybersecurity law, they are both an effort to secure the regime and its power.”
Lotus Ruan (@lotus_ruan) holds a Master’s degree in Asia Pacific Policy Studies from the University of British Columbia. She writes on the Internet, social media, and China-related research. Follow her blog here.
Mistry betrayed trust, sought to take control of main firms, Tata Sons accuse
Nigeria Sun Friday 11th November, 2016
• Tata’s debt increased by Rs.69,877 under Mistry
• Mistry will continue his positions in Tata companies through his family share
• Ishaat Hussain will replace Mistry as new interim Chairman
MUMBAI, India – After Tata Sons dismissed Chairman Cyrus Mistry last month alleging misconduct by Mistry, Tatas have now released a nine-page statement explaining the reasons for his ouster.
The statement claimed that Mistry had betrayed their trust and sought to control the group’s main operating companies.
The Mumbai-based conglomerate in an emergency general meeting removed Mistry from his post on October 24.
Following his removal, Mistry sent an email, which was leaked, claiming that he was used as a lame duck and warned the company of a writedown worth $18 billion.
Since then, a response from the Tatas was awaited.
On Thursday, in a statement, Tatas said, “It is unfortunate that Tata Sons, acting in good faith, did not anticipate such devious moves by Mr. Mistry and thereby did not inform the other directors of the operating companies about its dissatisfaction with Mr. Mistry at the level of Tata Sons. However, we will now do whatever is required to deal with this situation.”
“Mistry betrayed trust and had the desire to seek control of the main operating firms of the Tata Group, excluding other representatives. Under Mistry, the Group’s over 100-year-old structure was consciously dismantled. Its firms were drifting away from the promoters and shareholders,” the statement added.
Tata Sons said that under Mistry, the group’s debt increased by Rs.69,877 crore to Rs.225,740 crore during his four-year tenure. The group also accused that despite the huge investments, return were not visible.
“While dividend income was declining, expenses (other than interest on debt) on staff increased from Rs.84 crore to Rs.180 crore and other expenses increased from Rs.220 crore in 2012-13 to Rs.290 crore in 2015 (excluding exceptional expenses),” it said.
In addition to that, Tata Sons has also accused Mistry of conflict of interest in relation to Shapoorji Pallonji group which Mistry did not fully address.
The Shapoorji Pallonji group, a construction major, is owned by Mistry’s family.
The statement said, “Cyrus P Mistry has been the Executive Vice Chairman (for one year) and Executive Chairman for nearly four years now – a period long enough to show results in Tata Sons itself, which was his primary executive responsibility.”
“After four years, it is unfortunate that hardly any of his (Mistry’s) major views on the management structure (which had impressed the committee favourably) have been implemented,” the statement said.
The company has also announced the replacement of Mistry in Ishaat Hussain as interim Chairman of TCS.
Hussain currently serves as the Chairman of the Voltas and Tata Sky.
He also holds the position of Director in several other companies in the group including Tata Steel.
A source close to Mistry said, “TCS has quoted Article 90 of its Articles of Association to do so. Article 90 only enables Tata Sons to nominate a chairman. The board then has to appoint the person so nominated. Tata Sons had asked TCS on November 9 that it would like Mistry replaced by Hussain — it made a nomination.”
“TCS had to then convene a board meeting and table the nomination at the board at a meeting or through a circular resolution. Nothing of this nature was done. In pre-mediated haste, by a letter of the same date, TCS has directly gone on to announce that Mistry stands replaced. The hasty actions appear to have been done at night and the stock exchange announcement at 8am. A cloak and dagger machination with little regard to due process of law has come to define the angry strategy of the Ratan Tata camp. After Mistry’s replacement, till date no reasons have been forthcoming – just vague statements about ‘culture’ and ‘trust deficit’,” he added.
Despite Mistry’s removal and the ongoing spat between the two parties, Mistry will continue in his positions in other companies under the group as his family controls a 18.41 percent stake in Tata Sons.
Google's Urs Holzle: Moore's Law Is Ending
Gartner’s 10 Tech Predictions That Will Change IT
(Click image for larger view and slideshow.)
The cloud is currently an assembly of commodity technologies organized on a massive scale. However, it is on its way to becoming a mix of commodity and advanced, specialized technologies in order to sustain its ability to offer leading-edge performance.
The cloud needs more advanced, specialized technologies because Moore’s Law is running out of steam, according to Google’s Urs Holzle, the company’s senior vice president for technical infrastructure and Google Fellow. The demise of Moore’s Law, which once decreed that the number of transistors on a chip would double every 18 months, will occur sometime in 2021, according to the IEEE’s Spectrum publication.
The growth in CPU power since Gordon Moore first announced his law in 1965 is what’s allowed Google and other handlers of big data to continually improve performance.
(Image: serg3d/iStockphoto)
However, that free ride cannot be relied upon forever.
If the growth curve of computing begins to level off, neither Google nor enterprise IT can allow data to keep increasing two to five times a year without experiencing increasing costs. If anything, machine learning, artificial intelligence, and business analytics will require a constantly expanding availability of compute without a matching increase in cost.
That was a vision that Holzle tried to convey to an audience at the Structure 2016 event, held Nov. 8 and 9 in San Francisco. Holzle, the first guest speaker at the conference, discussed the issue with Nicole Hemsoth, co-editor of The Next Platform, an online news source about high-performance computing.
“A surprising number of customers have a need for large-scale computation,” he said. Suppliers, such as Google’s Compute Platform, need to evolve to ensure that that capability is available, without the changes proving disruptive to end-users. The cloud supplier is in a better position to weave in new technology than every enterprise that’s trying to solve an issue by itself.
“In the cloud, it’s easier to insert new technology,” he said. Some of the gains Google is considering will increase performance by 30%, instead of the 100% achieved by Moore’s Law. But Holzle said Google must take the gains where it can find them.
“Infrastructure is one of those things, if you do it right, nobody cares about it,” said Holzle. But getting it right, as the significance of Moore’s Law fades, will be increasingly a challenge.
“Moore’s Law is a problem for IT as well,” he noted. IT inevitably has a growing amount of data and workloads. If the bill to process them grows at the same rate as the workloads, it will risk putting many enterprises out of business. “That gets people in trouble.”
Greater use of flash memory and using the data movement within a server allowed by the OpenCAPI standard are two ways by which cloud suppliers will keep expanding the ability to run compute-intensive workloads.
The Open Coherent Processor Interface sits atop the PCI Express bus and moves data within the server at a speed of 25 Gbps. Its privileged position allows it to operate at the speed of random access memory, so expanding the capacity and speed of operation of the server.
Dell, HP Enterprise, IBM, and Google are all backers of the new standard. Google and Rackspace have expressed interest in buying next-generation Power9 chips that support the OpenCAPI standard for their cloud operations. Servers equipped with graphical processing units and CPUs could sit on the PCI Express bus and move data around the server at high rates of speed.
Google Fellow Urs Holzle
(Image: Google)
Whether Google and Rackspace would use them for general purpose infrastructure or for data-intensive workloads isn’t known at this time.
IBM is designing servers around Power9 that are due out sometime in 2017. It sold its Power chipmaking business to GlobalFoundries in 2014.
[Want to see how AWS relies on software-defined networking? Read Google’s Infrastructure Chief Talks SDN.]
Also at Structure 2016, Facebook’s Jay Parikh said the social media company has contributed the plans for its Backpack switch to the Open Compute Project. Backpack is a modular design that combines switch “elements” to scales from 40 Gbs up to 100 Gbs. It is considered a second generation in Open Compute’s switch-creation effort.
“The Open Compute Foundation has received the Backpack specification,” said Jay Parikh, Facebook’s vice president of engineering, at the event Nov. 9. Facebook has used its Wedge and other switch designs in the construction of its own data centers. Equinix has also started adopting OpenCompute switches in its carrier-neutral cloud data centers.
The Open Compute Project makes hardware specifications available for anyone to use. Several large financial services firms, such as Goldman Sachs and CapitalOne, have been equipping their data centers with servers, racks, and switches that follow its specifications.
Charles Babcock is an editor-at-large for InformationWeek and author of Management Strategies for the Cloud Revolution, a McGraw-Hill book. He is the former editor-in-chief of Digital News, former software editor of Computerworld and former technology editor of Interactive … View Full Bio
More Insights
LinkedIn 'blocked in Russia' under controversial data law
Russia is set to block the website of the LinkedIn social network after a Moscow court found it had failed to comply with a controversial law requiring it to move servers into Russia.
The Moscow city court on Thursday upheld an earlier finding by Roskomnadzor, Russia’s media and telecoms regulator, that LinkedIn had failed to keep information about Russian citizens inside Russia.
LinkedIn can appeal Thursday’s ruling, a court spokesman said.
The US-based company said the finding would hurt its users and requested a meeting with the agency responsible.
“‘LinkedIn’s vision is to create economic opportunity for the entire global workforce,” the company said in a statement.
“The Russian court’s decision has the potential to deny access to LinkedIn for the millions of members we have in Russia and the companies that use LinkedIn to grow their businesses. We remain interested in a meeting with Roskomnadzor to discuss their data localization request,” it said.
The professional networking website was still accessible on Moscow internet connections as of Thursday afternoon.
However, Vadim Ampelons, a Roskomnadzor representative, told the Interfax news agency that LinkedIn would be blocked as soon as the agency received the full text of the court’s ruling, likely next week.
LinkedIn is the first major internet firm to fall foul of controversial 2015 legislation that demands companies store data about Russian citizens on Russian territory.
Critics have described the data localization law as an attempt to make it easier for the Russian security services to access citizens’ personal information.
Some foreign firms, including Apple, have agreed to comply with the law. Russian authorities have so far postponed a potential show down with holdouts including Facebook and Twitter.
Roskomnadzor has so far audited 1500 companies for compliance with the new law.
Tech company that is bringing law firms 'out of the dark ages'
Nottingham-based Peppermint Technology works with law firms across the UK and abroad … as an example of how law firms have traditionally worked.
Claimants would … forms and send them to law firms, with settlements only agreed after … 40 mid-sized and large UK law firms – a 25 percent increase from …
Go to Source
SA firms call for retaliatory measures
Mr Moyo
Business Reporter
SOUTH African businesses are piling pressure on the authorities to impose retaliatory trade measures on Zimbabwe following the promulgation of the law restricting imports of goods that can be manufactured locally, The Herald Business can reveal.However, the Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries said it would be “reckless” for Zimbabwe “to back down” given how the restrictions have helped resuscitate companies. It said while the measures were temporary, Government should not “immediately” reverse the policy considering the benefits already accrued from imports restrictions.
In June, Government invoked SI 64 of 2016, which temporarily regulates importation of certain products that can be produced locally to boost capacity of local firms. Some of the products, which were removed from Open General Import Licence include mayonnaise, salad cream, peanut butter, jams, maheu, canned fruits, vegetables, pizza, yoghurts, flavoured milks, dairy juice blends, ice creams, cultured milk, cheese, coffee creamers, camphor creams, white petroleum jellies, body creams and plastic pipes.
The legislation also controls importation of second-hand tyres, urea and ammonium nitrate fertilisers, tile adhesives and tylon, shoe polish and synthetic hair products. Goods categorised as builder-ware products including wheelbarrows (flat pan and concrete pan wheelbarrows), roofing frameworks, pillars, columns, balustrade, shutters, towers, masts, roofs and roofing framework are also part of the restricted
list.
Following the promulgation of the law, some companies have significantly increased capacity utilisation, with some operating at full capacity. Zimra also recorded a marginal increase in tax collections resulting from increased production.
While the SI 64 conforms to SADC trade rules, the South African businesses affected by the regulations are piling pressure on its government to impose retaliatory measures. SA is Zimbabwe’s largest trading partner and imports most of the goods from its neighbour.
The matter dominated preparatory meetings of the launch of the Bi-National Commission, a high level forum of co-operation between Zimbabwe and SA, aimed at fostering economic development and uplifting livelihoods of people in the respective nations.
The Bi-National Commission, signed by President Mugabe and his South African counterpart Jacob Zuma last week, is an elevated instrument through which political and economic relations between the countries would be monitored at presidential level.
CZI president Mr Busisa Moyo said there had been some reactions from South Africa and Zambia after the Government imposed import restrictions on certain commodities.
“There had been a lot of pressure but we have seen the gains of the restriction. They are temporary but we don’t expect an immediate action (by the Government) to reverse the policy. We will be reckless to do that. Companies have invested on the back of the SI 64, companies have raised capacity and jobs have been created. As you are aware, we have so many Zimbabweans living outside the country because there are not enough jobs. So if we want to create jobs, we have to increase production,” said Mr Moyo.
“We are not so sure what kind of retaliatory measures they are pushing for, but it is a subject that dominated the meetings prior to the signing of the Bi-National Commission,” well placed sources told The Herald Business.
Lancashire law firm’s faith in Preston’s future
A Lancashire law firm has given its seal of approval to Preston’s future.
A law firm is putting its faith in Preston and Lancashire as it targets becoming the dominant force outside Manchester and Liverpool.
Napthens employs 240 people at its six offices.
It is recognised as being in the top 200 legal firms in the country – an achievement considering it is not a “big hitter” giant based in a major city.
And its CEO, John Whittingslow, has his eye on further growth.
“We want our firm to be the best outside of Manchester and Liverpool,” says John. “Lancashire is important to us.”
Its Preston base in Winckley Square employs 43 per cent of the firm’s total staff, and John sees no reason to move out.
The area’s ongoing facelift and the arrival of new businesses gives John cause for optimism.
He said: “The area is on the up. You will see a major difference next summer when all the work is complete.
“We like it here and we have decided to stay put. We are looking to grow. We want to do well – and do well in Preston.
“We have full confidence in Preston – we are in the heart of the city and we are well placed to grow on the back of it,.”
Napthens provides legal services to businesses and individuals.
Structured into specialist departments, it has 29 Partners and operate from offices in Preston, Blackburn, Blackpool Penrith, Kendal and Southport.
The legal landscape is rapildy changing. Napthens provides services to many businesses – and sees its corporate side growing.
John said: “There is so much choice out there – you have to be able to raise your game. The opportunities, though, are fantastic. There is a lot of potential in the area that is still untapped.”
One of the main growth areas is employment law – and the implications on legislation following the UK’s decision to leave the EU are yet to sink in.
John said that was one area where Napthens could score and had an advantage over the big city firms. Its Lancashire base and its local knowledge gives it an advantage when dealing with clients.
Previously head of Napthens’ Commercial Division, John is also a highly experienced commercial lawyer with many years’ experience working with businesses at board level.
Educated at King Edward VII School, Lytham, John went on to read law at Leeds Metropolitan University before returning to the North West to complete his training in Preston.