SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Claims On Behalf of Investors of Apple Inc. – AAPL

NEW YORK, Jan. 30, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Apple Inc. (“Apple” or the “Company”)

AAPL, -0.59%

   Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980.

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

[Click here to join a class action]

In early 2017, Apple released a software update that slowed the performance of older model iPhones, without disclosing the impact of the update to consumers. When the foregoing conduct came to light, Apple was sued by consumer advocacy groups and individual iPhone users.  On January 30, 2018, media outlets reported that the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities Exchange Commission are investigating whether Apple’s disclosures with respect to the software update at issue violated securities laws.  On this news, Apple’s share price has fallen sharply during intraday trading on January 30, 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.

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

View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-investigates-claims-on-behalf-of-investors-of-apple-inc–aapl-300590607.html

SOURCE Pomerantz LLP

Copyright (C) 2018 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

Go to Source

Tech Firms’ Immigration Bill Targets College-Grad Salaries

U.S. business groups are pushing a Senate bill that would let companies import an unlimited number of government-subsidized, foreign graduates to replace middle-class American employees.

The middle-class outsourcing bill would allow CEOs and investors to cut payroll for American college graduates, then spike their profits and stock options at the lifetime expense of the American middle-class.

Business lobbyists are describing the bill as a fix for a supposed shortage of tech workers, but it would have a much wider impact, says Mark Krikorian, the director of the Center for Immigration Studies. Tech-trained people are “not a hermetically segregated population,” he said.

“I have one kid in computers and another one in medical school … [and] everybody has family members who are involved in [technology] fields, so it affects everybody even if what you are doing is unrelated” to cutting-edge technology, he said. The Americans who are pushed out of technical fields by low salaries will crowd into other sectors, so nudging down more salaries, he said.

The January 25 bill is titled the Immigration Innovation Act of 2018, or I-Squared. It is being fronted by Sen. Orrin Hatch and Sen. Jeff Flake, who are frequently described as “moderate” by the establishment media.

The two Senators may try to attach their outsourcing plan to the pending amnesty and immigration bills, but it will likely complicate politicians’ effort to an unpopular amnesty for at least 1.8 million non-college ‘dreamers.’ However, the bill shows business groups want the next wave of immigrants to help cut the payroll costs of American college graduates.

These business groups’ statements were included in a press release by Flake and Hatch.

“Our future – and the competitiveness of the entire US tech sector – requires that we recruit some of the best and brightest in the world …  ensuring that we can recruit people to fill jobs here in the US,” said a statement from Brad Smith, the president of Microsoft.

“Facebook is pleased … we look forward to working to ensure its passage into law,” said Erin Egan, vice-president for public policy at Facebook.

Immigration lawyers are delighted because the bill is so complex that companies must hire them before getting to the foreign workers. Cyrus Mehta, an N.Y.-based immigration lawyer, wrote:

This bill has all the right ingredients – elimination of per country limits, not counting derivative family members that have till now clogged up the employment-based preferences and increasing the H-1B visa cap. We need I-Squared as much as a fix for DACA recipients.

Those business leaders are often praised for their pro-immigration stance by establishment white-collar reporters, many of whom have siblings, peers, parents, and children who are the targets of white-collar outsourcing bill.

Each year, roughly 800,000 Americans graduate with degrees in medicine, business, architecture, math, science, engineering and computers. The young Americans already face salary-cutting competition from a diverse army of roughly 2 million resident foreign white-collar workers, plus roughly 150,000 new employer-sponsored legal immigrants.

The bill hides its radical goals amid complexity and rhetorical fig leaves.

For example, the bill requires extra paperwork for companies which hire more than half their staff from abroad. It requires companies to pay minor payments so that Americans can be educated for jobs that will be given to the foreign job-seekers, and it sets limits on companies’ use of H-1B foreign workers — although the limits are so high that few companies will ever reach them. The token safeguards also allow advocates to use positive-sound terms in their statements, including “merit-based immigration,” “best and brightest,” and “investing in STEM education.”

The bill uses complexity to hide from the media the multiple ways in which it would blow the doors off the current limits on white-collar immigration which protect Americans graduates from cheap-labor immigration. Here’s some jargon from a summary:

  • Expanded cap exemptions: The following foreign nationals would be exempt from the employment-based immigrant visa quota: (1) EB-1A extraordinary ability foreign nationals; (2) EB-1B outstanding professors and researchers; (3) holders of U.S. advanced degrees in designated STEM fields; and (4) spouses and children of employment-based immigrants.

What that paragraph means is that any foreigner who gets a low-quality postgraduate degree that includes some science, technology, engineering or math also gets a hugely valuable green card to live in the United States for the rest of his or her life. The number is uncapped; the annual arrivals could be 1,000, 10,000 or 100,000 — so flooding the U.S. marketplace for skilled white-collar labor.

The legislation also offers a huge and hidden federal subsidy for companies which hire foreigners instead of Americans.

The subsidy is the offer of American citizenship to foreign workers who work for an American company. The offer creates a huge incentive for foreign professionals to accept very low wages in hope of getting the deferred bonus of citizenship after a few years. That offer also serves as a hidden subsidy to companies who hire cheap foreigners instead of debt-burdened American students.

The bill’s focus on science, engineering, and technology also “continues the assault on the ability of Americans to make a career in those fields,” Krikorian said, adding:

It will likely deter more young people from going into those kinds of fields, creating even more justifications for lobbyists to say ‘We have to import more foreign workers’ … This is a broad national problem because having an adequate supply of domestic technical workers is an essential part of economic success as well as national security … but we’re importing people into tech fields in very large numbers, not just a handful of truly exceptional talents.

Moreover, many of the so-called “STEM” careers lead people into diverse management, medicine, research, university, teaching, and business jobs in many cities. So Hatch and Flake’s proposed law would invite many employers to exclude many Americans — especially if foreign-born hiring managers also begin to favor their fellow immigrants.

The bill offers several new ways for more foreign graduates to get jobs in the United States:

The legislation would remove the annual 20,000 cap on H-1B visas for foreign students who earn a Master’s degree at U.S.-based colleges. Once the cap is removed, an unlimited number of foreign students could pay tuition to get H-1B work permits for white-collar jobs in the United States. Unlimited really does mean unlimited — so a new industry would likely emerge to match Americans employers with a rapidly growing number of foriegn graduates from post-gadual schools in America.

The bill would allow imported guest-workers to apply for green cards even when the backlog is so great that the workers cannot get card for many years. But the early application allow the imported to get a long-term “Employment Authorzation Document.”

The bill expands the H-1B guest-worker program by giving H-1B visas to 195,000 foreign graduates who do not have master’s degrees, up from 65,000 today, The H-1B visas last up to six years, so the expanded program would allow companies to keep a population of roughly 1 million non-masters H-1B workers in the United States, or roughly 450,000 employees above today’s level. Non-profits, such as universities, are now allowed to hire an unlimited number of H-1Bs.

The bill would bypass the existing 140,000 per year limit on the award of green cards to foreign employees by exempting the spouses and children of imported workers from the cap. That change would provide green cards to roughly 70,000 extra foreign graduates per year.

Companies would be allowed to import 35,000 foreign professionals per year for “conditional permanent residence” at a cost per employee of only $10,000.

The bill would provide a legal foundation for the agency-created “Optional Practical Training” visa, which now provides up to three years of visas for roughly 330,000 foreigners who are either students or graduates of American colleges. The legal foundation would prevent the program from being shut down by a lawsuit.

All foreign students would be declared F-1 “dual intent” students, meaning they could apply for work permits.

The unused visas for foreign workers that were not issued from 1992 to 2013 would be redistributed to employers.

The bill would provide work permits to the spouses of foreign workers who in line for a green card.

The bill eliminates national caps on hiring of employees from particular countries, so allow a huge new influx of employes and India and China.

The bill’s complexity serves several purposes. It maximizes payments to immigration lawyers, it deters and chokes media coverage of the push, and it allows politicians to loudly complain about some aspects preserving other aspects — especially the uncapped, unlimited, unrestricted, unending postgraduate inflow.

The new inflows of professional workers would come on top of the existing programs which provide work visas for a resident army of roughly 2 million foreign guest-workers who now hold college jobs in Americans business sector. Many of these workers hold H-1B, L-1, J-1, or OPT visas and work permits.

The outsourcing trend is also exacerbated by rules in several states which allow illegals to work as certified professionals, such as lawyers, teachers, doctors, security guards, therapists, and much else. The pro-illegal states include California and New York, both of which also have very high levels of economic inequality, partly because house prices and rents balloon whenever poor migrants crowd into an urban area.

New Jersey’s Democratic Senator, Cory Booker, for example, recently applauded an illegal immigrant who is now allowed to practice laws in the state.

Business has several advantages in their push to pass this nation-changing outsourcing program.

The establishment media does not follow the money in the immigration debate.

The activist left, and the establishment media’s focus on sympathetic groups of foreigners, such as the business-backed ‘dreamers,’ while ignoring the business interests that use immigration to cut Americans’ salaries. The left/media support for migration ensures that public opposition to amnesty — or of mere favoritism towards fellow Americans — is often deemed as racist by many younger left-of-center, urban, white-collar graduates. Ironically, those graduates’ jobs are targeted by the Microsoft/Facebook outsourcing bill.

Business-first GOP legislators tend to be more supportive of outsourcing programs, but their influence is muted by President Donald Trump’s populist pro-American faction.

Four million Americans turn 18 each year and begin looking for good jobs in the free market.

But the federal government inflates the supply of new labor by annually accepting roughly 1.1 million new legal immigrants (including roughly 750,000 working-age migrants), by providing work-permits to roughly 3 million resident foreigners, and by doing little to block the employment of roughly 8 million illegal immigrants.

The Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via mass-immigration floods the market with foreign labor, spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate prices, widens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.

amnesty

The cheap-labor policy has also reduced investment and job creation in many interior states because the coastal cities have a surplus of imported labor. For example, almost 27 percent of zip codes in Missouri had fewer jobs or businesses in 2015 than in 2000, according to a new report by the Economic Innovation Group. In Kansas, almost 29 percent of zip codes had fewer jobs and businesses in 2015 compared to 2000, which was a two-decade period of massive cheap-labor immigration.

Because of the successful cheap-labor strategy, wages for men have remained flat since 1973, and a large percentage of the nation’s annual income has shifted to investors and away from employees.

Go to Source

Newcastle lawyers on UK list of ‘hottest’ people working in the law

The heads of two of Newcastle’s top legal firms have been named as some of the “hottest” lawyers in the country.

Womble Bond Dickinson managing partner Jonathan Blair and Sintons Law managing partner Mark Quigley have both been included in The Lawyer magazine’s Hot 100 list, which celebrates the achievements of the country’s top lawyers.

Both men won spots in the leaders category of the list for their work running their respective firms.

Mr Blair was praised for his work pulling off a transatlantic merger between legacy North East firm Bond Dickinson and Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice in the US. The deal went live in November, creating a £340m firm with more than 1,000 lawyers.

The business then went on to carry out another merger, when it acquired Blakeley Sokoloff Taylor Zafman on the US West Coast.

Bond Dickinson’s transformation into a transatlantic firm is even more impressive considering it was shaken by the financial crisis, when Northern Rock – a major client – collapsed.

Mr Blair said: “It’s very flattering to have been named in the UK Leader category of the Lawyer Hot 100. 2017 was certainly a year of transformational change for our firm. This culminated in the launch of Womble Bond Dickinson in November which fulfilled our vision to be a Top 20 UK law firm by 2020.

“In the months and years ahead, I look forward to working with our people to build on our successes, strengthening our domestic opportunities and delivering on the transatlantic platform we built with the US.”

Mark Quigley, managing partner at Sintons
Mark Quigley, managing partner at Sintons

Mark Quigley made the Hot 100 list for his work as Sintons’ first managing partner.

Since taking up the reins, Mr Quigley has led a major investment in Sintons’ technology and data centres, while simultaneously implementing a firmwide salary review.

The new focus on pay has been designed to help recruit and reward star performers, with Mr Quigley telling The Journal last year that he intends to add 50 lawyers to the firm over the next five years.

The added headcount will aid the firm in achieving its £20m turnover target by 2022.

Go to Source

NOTICE from the Securities Arbitration Law Firm Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A. to TD Ameritrade Customers with Options Trading Losses with Sheaff Brock Investment Advisors, LLC

/EIN News/ — LOS ANGELES, Jan. 30, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The securities arbitration law firm Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A. (“DKR”) (http://www.dkrpa.com) alerts current and former TD Ameritrade customers of a January 19, 2018 securities class action lawsuit filed against TD Ameritrade under case number 1:18-cv-00419 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case involves naked put options investment losses that TD Ameritrade customers suffered. The TD Ameritrade customers used the investment advisory services of Sheaff Brock Investment Advisor, LLC through TD Ameritrade’s AdvisorDirect program and suffered losses in a risky put income options strategy.

Investors Should Consider Filing an Individual FINRA Arbitration Claim
Investors should consider whether to participate in the class action or file an individual FINRA securities arbitration claim. DKR reminds current and former TD Ameritrade customers that investors in securities class action lawsuits often recover only nominal amounts, whereas investors who lost more than $100,000 may benefit more by filing their own case as an individual FINRA securities arbitration claim. Individual FINRA arbitration cases are handled as private proceedings, rather than through the public court system. Such cases must be brought timely or you may be prohibited from pursuing your claims.

TD Ameritrade AdvisorDirect Program
TD Ameritrade introduces customers to third-party investment advisors through its AdvisorDirect program. If a customer enters the program, TD Ameritrade receives a solicitation fee and 25% of the investment advisor’s ongoing investment management fee. TD Ameritrade also collects commissions for all trades that the investment advisor makes in the customer’s TD Ameritrade account. These revenue streams incentivize TD Ameritrade to recommend its AdvisorDirect program to customers.

Many options strategies, including the put income options strategy that is the subject of the class action, are extremely risky and are suitable only for investors who are willing to speculate with their money. The strategy involved selling naked puts, which is among the riskiest forms of options trading. Notwithstanding the risk, Sheaff Brock and TD Ameritrade appear to have represented that the put income strategy was conservative.

TD Ameritrade offices, including those located in Beverly Hills, CA, Chicago, IL, Salt Lake City, UT, Fort Worth, TX, Harrisburg, PA, and Vicksburg, MS are believed to have recommended that customers invest in risky options through investment advisor Sheaff Brock.  FINRA rules required the recommendations to be suitable for the individual customers.  But many TD Ameritrade customers have complained that the recommended options strategies involved far more risk than the customers were willing to take.

Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein Represents TD Ameritrade Customers 
Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein currently represents TD Ameritrade customers who suffered options investment losses with Sheaff Brock. http://www.dkrpa.com/td-ameritrade-sheaff-brock-stock-options-losses/ DKR’s clients used Sheaff Brock’s investment advisory services through TD Ameritrade’s AdvisorDirect program at TD Ameritrade’s recommendation.

Contact Our Investment Fraud Lawyers
Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A. is a nationally recognized stockbroker negligence and investment fraud law firm that has recovered more than $100 million from banks and brokerage firms for their wrongful actions. With offices in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, West Palm Beach, and Bloomfield Hills, MI, our investment fraud attorneys represent clients nationwide and may be able to help you recover your investment losses.

If you are or were a TD Ameritrade customer and you suffered options investment losses of more than $100,000 with investment advisor Sheaff Brock, contact a Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein investment fraud lawyer for a free case evaluation at (888) 578-6255 or info@dkrpa.com. You may have a valid FINRA arbitration claim to recover your TD Ameritrade options losses. You also can visit Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A. on the web at www.dkrpa.com.

Contact:
Jeffrey B. Kaplan, Esq.
jkaplan@dkrpa.com
2029 Century Park East
Century Plaza Tower
Suite 400N
Los Angeles, CA 90067
* Offices in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, West Palm Beach, and Bloomfield Hills, MI
(888) 578-6255                                              
URL http://www.dkrpa.com

 

Primary Logo


Go to Source

Canada’s marijuana mania is giving financial firms a contact high, even before it’s fully legal

INFOR Financial Inc.’s Neil Selfe quickly grasped the significance of what was before him last summer.

Canopy Growth Corp., one of Canada’s largest licensed producer of medical marijuana, had sought INFOR’s advice on a possible deal with U.S. alcoholic beverage giant Constellation Brands Inc.

“And we unequivocally said ‘if you can make that deal work, from a financial standpoint, it is such a game-changer that you have to do it,’” Selfe, Infor’s CEO and managing principal, said in an interview.

It is kind of this opportunity to create a global champion or two

The transaction was announced on Oct. 30. Constellation, a Fortune 500 company that sells Corona beer, would pay approximately $245 million for a 9.9-per-cent stake in Canopy, a Smiths Falls, Ont.-based outfit whose growing facilities include the site of a former Hershey chocolate factory.

“We realized that it was going to be hugely meaningful for the sector because, prior to that point in time, very few large institutional investors were invested in the cannabis space,” Selfe said of INFOR, which acted as financial adviser to Canopy on the deal.

“Having a global leading brand company come in and invest $250 million, after having conducted the extensive due diligence they had, we knew would be a real… endorsement, not just for Canopy and its strategy, but for the space overall,” Selfe said.

In the run-up to Canada’s planned legalization of recreational pot this summer, cannabis companies such as Canopy have been on a fundraising tear, trying to raise the money they need to gain an advantage on the competition. Canadian financial institutions helped raise $1.68 billion in 56 marijuana deals last year, according to Financial Post Data. Canaccord Genuity Corp. led the way, raising nearly $719 million from 22 deals.

“Like mining, perhaps, it’s kind of this opportunity to create a global champion or two,” said Simon Romano, partner in the capital markets and mergers and acquisitions groups at law firm Stikeman Elliott LLP.

One obstacle in the way of growth is the current illegal status of marijuana at the federal level in the United States, a cloud that continues to hang over the entire cannabis sector. Canopy and some other companies, however, have stressed that they will only conduct their business in places where it is federally legal.

And even with rumblings coming from south of the border, dealmaking in the Canadian cannabis sector has still continued apace — and in unique ways. Stikeman acted as Canadian legal counsel late last year for what ended up being a $135-million initial public offering of Cannabis Strategies Acquisition Corp., a company specifically formed to buy marijuana-related businesses.

“I think that’s just telling for where the sector is going,” Romano said of raising that much money to sniff out cannabis-connected opportunities.

On the finance side, the Cannabis Strategies IPO was underwritten by Canaccord Genuity Group Inc. Graham Saunders, head of capital markets origination at Canaccord Genuity Corp., one of the biggest underwriters of cannabis deals in Canada, called it “a very busy year for financings in the cannabis sector.”

“M&A started to show up as well,” Saunders added in an email. “The cannabis business requires lots of capital to be developed. The market has been very accommodating and functional for capital raises for these companies.”

The scale of dealmaking could be set to increase, as until recently, dealmaking in the Canadian cannabis industry had been chiefly left up to independents like Canaccord. The entrance of bigger banks could pave the way for bigger deals, with some interest already evident.

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, along with Farm Credit Canada, extended a $20-million credit facility last April to Markham, Ont.-based MedReleaf Corp., the medical marijuana company chief executive officer Neil Closner confirmed. Meanwhile, this month Bank of Montreal became the first major Canadian bank to help lead an equity financing for a medical cannabis company, joining other underwriters in a potentially $230.8-million share sale by Canopy.

As the list of licensed pot producers continues to grow longer, the stage is being set for further financing and mergers and acquisitions. “We don’t see any changes in the momentum of either activity,” Saunders said.

Or, as Romano put it, there is a “remarkable interest in people not wanting to get left behind in this race to legalization.”

In January, Alberta-based Aurora Cannabis Inc. agreed to buy Saskatoon’s CanniMed Therapeutics Inc. for $1.1 billion in a hostile-turned-friendly deal after months of negotiations.

“There will be a maturing and some people will make money and some people will lose money in the next two, three years, I would expect,” Romano said. “But, right now, it’s just fear of missing out.”

• Email: gzochodne@nationalpost.com | Twitter: GeoffZochodne

Go to Source

Firms try cashing in on #MeToo with settlement advances

Sex misconduct allegations against Kevin Spacey, Louis CK cost Netflix $38 million

The settlement-advance firms get paid back only if a plaintiff collects money from a lawsuit. They make money by charging interest rates as high as 100 per cent, which they are able to do because technically the money is considered an advance — not a loan — and therefore is not subject to state usury laws.

Consumer groups call the industry predatory. The companies counter that they are providing a vital service to people without other options.

Legal and business experts said there are scores of firms providing advances to tens of thousands of plaintiffs each year. The largest firms make cash advances totalling up to $40 million (U.S.) a year, according to an unpublished 2014 report by Diligence, a business intelligence firm.

Legal Bay of Fairfield, N.J., is one of the settlement-advance firms trawling for sexual-harassment clients.

In one October news release, Christopher R. Janish, its chief executive, said he had “set aside a large portion of their pre-settlement cash advance funding specifically for plaintiffs of sexual harassment cases.” The next month, the firm trumpeted its “special focus for victims of unwanted sexual advances.”

Janish said he did not know if the pitches had landed any clients. “It just really is more of a public awareness and branding thing,” he said.

The firms advertise on television and include hot-button search terms on their websites to lure traffic. That was how Heather Rothermund of Redding, Calif., learned of Nova Legal Funding in Los Angeles last summer. She had sued her employer, an adult care facility, for failing to discipline a co-worker who she said had groped her breasts and forced his hands down her jeans. Along with a state civil rights agency, she sought $250,000 in damages. The facility’s owner did not respond to a request for comment.

Rothermund, 41, said the alleged assault left her with bills for therapy and anxiety medications that she could not afford. Her car was about to be repossessed when she came across Nova’s online advertisement. The company advanced her $2,000 against an anticipated future legal settlement, she said.

The money got her out of a financial hole and helped her avoid having to accept a lowball settlement offer. She said that if the case settled within the year she might owe $4,000 — double what she borrowed. If the case drags on, she will owe more.

“It is expensive, but it does help and it is available,” Rothermund said.

For the past two decades, settlement-advance companies have been chasing the hottest — and most lucrative — trends in litigation. They have provided advances to victims of surgical vaginal mesh products; those suffering from ailments related to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks; and former National Football League players with brain injuries.

“There are some companies that are trying to ride that ‘Me Too’ thing, and we are not doing that,” said T. Thomas Colwell, chief executive of TriMark Legal Funding in Oregon. “That is just opportunistic.”

Colwell said his firm had been providing cash advances to women with sexual-harassment claims for 15 years. He said many clients worked in less glamorous industries than Hollywood and needed money to cover basic living expenses.

Only a handful of states regulate or license the settlement-advance firms, and little more than a website is necessary to get into the business.

Janish formed Legal Bay in 2014, a few years after getting out of state prison in New York for orchestrating a $13-million stock manipulation scheme.

Legal Bay’s promotional materials do not mention Janish’s past. He said his legal history was not relevant to customers. “My only obligation is to disclose to them the terms of the money they seek,” he said.

Last year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the New York attorney general sued R.D. Legal, claiming the New Jersey firm took advantage of former NFL players who expected to receive money in the league’s landmark concussion settlement. Authorities claimed that R.D. Legal had tricked the players “into costly advances on settlement payouts.”

Just last week, Colorado’s attorney general announced a $2-million settlement with LawCash and another settlement-advance firm, Oasis Financial, saying they charged personal injury plaintiffs “predatory interest rates.”

The industry says it charges high fees to compensate for the risk of not being repaid.

But the industry’s lucrative model has attracted mainstream financial institutions. The D.E. Shaw hedge fund, the private equity firms Parthenon Capital and Victory Park Capital, and Germany’s DZ Bank have either bought stakes in or lent money to settlement-advance firms. D.E. Shaw has sold its stake in Oasis Financial.

In addition to providing cash upfront to sexual-harassment plaintiffs, some firms are pursuing the more traditional form of litigation finance, providing money to law firms in exchange for a cut of potential settlements.

Nova — the same company that advanced money to Rothermund — plans to announce that it will provide financing for lawyers pursuing Hollywood sexual-harassment cases.

“We’re trying to level the playing field in cases against big Hollywood players,” said Ron Sinai, Nova’s founder.

And Legalist, a San Francisco litigation finance startup, said that a Weinstein-related marketing pitch had attracted new clients, and that the company was now bankrolling three lawsuits against alleged sexual abusers.

The practices used by the settlement-advance industry have proved particularly controversial, uniting consumer groups and big business in opposition. Consumer activists argue that recipients do not understand how quickly the costs accumulate. Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argue that cash advances artificially drive up litigation costs.

“I would never recommend an individual finance his or her recovery,” said Robert Kraus, a New York employment lawyer. “It is inconsistent for a lawyer, if he believes in a client’s case, to recommend that he or she should limit their recovery.”

Some of the larger settlement-advance firms use lawyers to drum up business. The firms recruit lawyers in much the same way that pharmaceutical companies woo doctors: with perks such as holiday gift baskets and invitations to year-end parties.

At Oasis, one of the industry’s biggest players, employees who got a lawyer to send at least three clients in a year were celebrated as “hunters,” according to court documents in an employment dispute.

Oasis, which spends millions of dollars each year on TV advertising, said it had provided funds to 200,000 customers since it opened in 2003.

Michael Gibson, a former case manager at Oasis, said he had worked on up to 70 cases a day. The typical customer, he said, borrowed less than $2,000 but paid a fee that was the equivalent of an 80-per-cent annual interest rate.

“My personal opinion is that legal financings are predatory loans,” Gibson said.

Some customers say the cost is worth it.

Nickie Burdick, 28, had been unable to work for two years after she was injured in a car accident. Burdick, of Batavia, N.Y., said her attorney had suggested she take out a loan against a potential settlement in her case.

She knew the rates were steep, but she did not see another viable option, she said. She recently has been borrowing $2,000 a month from Oasis, accruing $220 in fees each time.

“It was either that or I lose my house and be homeless,” she said.

Go to Source

CORRECTED-Business booms for privacy experts as landmark data law looms

(This version of the story was corrected to remove the extra word “not” in paragraph 27)

By Salvador Rodriguez

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Business is booming for software and privacy experts as companies across the globe spend millions of dollars to comply with a landmark European data protection law, even as many uncertainties remain about how the rules will be enforced.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which goes into effect in May, is the biggest shake-up of personal data privacy rules since the birth of the internet. It is intended to give European citizens more control over their online information and applies to all companies that do business with Europeans.

The industries most deeply affected will be those that collect large amounts of customer data and include technology companies, retailers, healthcare providers, insurers and banks.

The law has a slew of technically complex requirements, and threatens fines of as much as 4 percent of a company’s annual revenue for those who fail to comply. Companies must be able to provide European customers with a copy of their personal data and under some circumstances delete it at their behest. They will also be required to report data breaches within 72 hours.

The cottage industry that’s developed around GDPR includes lawyers who advise on compliance, cyber security consultants, and software developers that help firms conduct painstaking inventories of vast amounts of data to identify and index information so it can be made available to Europeans at their request.

New York legal services firm Axiom, for example, told Reuters it had more than 200 data privacy lawyers working on GDPR projects – about a sixth of all its lawyers.

It said it would hire over 100 more staff this year to deal with GDPR and also create training programs so that more of its lawyers would be qualified to work on those types of projects.

Wim Remes, a cyber security consultant in Brussels, said he was fielding about a dozen GDPR-related calls per week. His clients are based in Europe and the Americas and include retailers and technology firms.

He said American companies had been slower off the mark to respond to GDPR than their European counterparts and were now scrambling to catch up. “In the last two or three months, the demand has mostly been from U.S. organizations,” he added.

COMPANIES SPEND MILLIONS

The costs are substantial: among 300 big companies in the process of becoming GDPR compliant, 40 percent said they had spent more than $10 million, and 88 percent said they had spent more than $1 million, according to a PwC survey of American, British and Japanese executives published in September.

“People really aren’t picking up the phone for less than $1.5 million to $2 million,” Gant Redmon, program director of cyber security and privacy at IBM Resilient, said of legal and software consultancy firms advising on GDPR.

The work will not end on May 25, when GDPR kicks in, as companies will be required to provide regular data audits for EU authorities to prove they are compliant. Companies that handle especially sensitive information will have to hire a data protection officer.

Lingesh Palaniappan, CEO of Grit Software Systems, described the work he’s doing on GDPR compliance for a mid-sized software company as a grueling manual process.

His staff has to go through every software application and database and record details such as the exact type of data they contain – whether it be names and addresses, or more personal information like medical records – and who has access to it. The team builds charts to keep top management informed on how far along the company is in its GDPR compliance process.

“Currently, we are literally taking an Excel sheet, going to the (clients’) teams, filling out the data and then consolidating the data into another Excel sheet,” said Palaniappan, who left Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) last year.

The aim is to make personally identifiable data easily available, so these companies can provide copies of the information to customers who request them, or to erase the data when required.

The big worry is that, due to the manual nature of the work, errors that could make companies non-compliant could creep in, added Palaniappan.

“We’re always worried – did we miss anything? Are there any datasets that no one is aware of that we’re still using? That’s a concern.”

‘EVERYONE IS SCRAMBLING’

Still, it’s unclear just how strictly GDPR, which EU nations adopted in 2016, will be enforced at the start.

Many observers expect regulators to take a forgiving approach and give companies time to get their systems in order, reserving harsh penalties for large firms that egregiously fail to comply.

Some also warn that companies need to be careful in their rush to comply with the new rules.

“Everyone is claiming now to be a GDPR expert because they can see that there is very strong demand and everyone is scrambling,” said Paul Lanois, an attorney with a large publicly traded international bank in Europe, adding that he checks consultants’ resumes for experience dealing with European regulators before bringing them on board.

“You have to vet them otherwise you get any Tom, Dick or Harry saying they’re a GDPR expert,” Lanois said.

Once data is properly classified, there is then a great deal of interpretation involved in how the company is required to handle it. The text of the law is replete with words like “reasonable”; one requirement, for example, says that companies take “every reasonable step … to ensure that personal data which are inaccurate are rectified”.

Those steps, however, are not defined. That’s where the lawyers come in.

There is little consensus on whether most companies will be ready by May. Among firms that have begun preparing for GDPR, 78 percent say they are confident they will be fully compliant by the deadline, according to a survey by Microsoft late last year.

But Gartner, the research firm, has a less optimistic forecast, predicting less than half of all companies affected by GDPR will be in full compliance by the end of 2018.

Lanois said there was an “overwhelming amount” of companies that were completely unprepared for the new regulations.

”They’ve just noticed GDPR and are now freaking out,“ he added. ”Those who are already fully compliant, and there’s a few of them, those are the lucky few.”

Reporting by Salvador Rodriguez; Editing by Jonathan Weber and Pravin Char

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Go to Source

Privacy experts clean up as firms scramble to meet data protection laws

Business is booming for software and privacy experts as companies across the globe spend millions of dollars to comply with a landmark European data protection law, even as many uncertainties remain about how the rules will be enforced.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which goes into effect in May, is the biggest shake-up of personal data privacy rules since the birth of the internet. It is intended to give European citizens more control over their online information and applies to all companies that do business with Europeans.

The industries most deeply affected will be those that collect large amounts of customer data and include technology companies, retailers, healthcare providers, insurers and banks.

The law has a slew of technically complex requirements, and threatens fines of as much as 4 percent of a company’s annual revenue for those who fail to comply.

Companies must be able to provide European customers with a copy of their personal data and under some circumstances delete it at their behest. They will also be required to report data breaches within 72 hours.

The cottage industry that’s developed around GDPR includes lawyers who advise on compliance, cyber security consultants, and software developers that help firms conduct painstaking inventories of vast amounts of data to identify and index information so it can be made available to Europeans at their request.

New York legal services firm Axiom, for example, told Reuters it had more than 200 data privacy lawyers working on GDPR projects – about a sixth of all its lawyers.

It said it would hire over 100 more staff this year to deal with GDPR and also create training programs so that more of its lawyers would be qualified to work on those types of projects.

Wim Remes, a cyber security consultant in Brussels, said he was fielding about a dozen GDPR-related calls per week. His clients are based in Europe and the Americas and include retailers and technology firms.

Ahead of State of the Union, Hassett talks up tax law and stock market

Getty Images

Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Kevin Hassett

Americans will understand that the effects of the tax law signed by President Donald Trump aren’t “fictional,” and that it’s working as intended, a top White House official told MarketWatch a day before Trump is due to promote his policies in his first State of the Union address.

Kevin Hassett, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, spoke to MarketWatch about Trump’s plans to rebuild U.S. roads and bridges; how the president will add “color” in his speech to his trade ideas; and the implications of the sweeping tax law.

“The tax bill is going to have a big, positive effect on the economy,” Hassett said in a phone interview, “and once people see it in their paychecks, then they’re going to understand, I think, that the effects are not fictional.”

Hassett, formerly an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, also commented on stock valuations and said optimism about the U.S. economy “should be something that’s reflected in the markets” going forward.

Here is a lightly edited and condensed transcript of the interview.

MarketWatch: In last year’s speech before a joint session of Congress, the president used it to push an infrastructure program — which still hasn’t happened. He’s going to use this year’s speech to promote infrastructure, too. But why should businesses have more confidence this time, this year?

Hassett: Well, the president will talk about his trillion-dollar plan for rebuilding our infrastructure, and I think that people of both parties agree that the nation’s infrastructure is in decay and that it’s not serving us well and needs to be improved.

I think that historically, infrastructure-type bills have done OK even in election years because there is such broad bipartisan support for infrastructure. And so last year, I think the president was right to prioritize taxes. If you look at accomplishments, it was historic. And if you look at the way the economy and markets are responding to the tax bill, I think that you can judge that the president’s judgment was correct, that moving taxes first was a good idea.

Ideally taxes would have passed in March and we could have done infrastructure last year, too. But there’s only so much legislative time in the calendar, and I think that turning to infrastructure now is a very sound idea economically — I mean, it’s still something that needs to be fixed. Politically I think that there should be the floor time to do it.

MarketWatch: What we’ve seen leaked out on the infrastructure plan is that it’s a matching fund, and contingent on either local government or private funding of the same projects. So, how much of the roughly $200 billion set aside would actually be used?

Hassett: I think that I’m not supposed to respond to comments about leaked documents, and I’m not even sure that the leaked document is accurate or up to date, and so I think that the best thing is to wait and see what the president says in the State of the Union.

MarketWatch: He is expected to promote the tax law in the speech. But at least one recent poll found that just 29% of Americans see it as mostly positive for their family. Why do you think the law isn’t more popular?

Hassett: I think that the law is going to have a big, positive effect on the economy, that that positive effect is visible already if you look at the millions of people that have had pay raises, the hundreds of businesses that have said that they plan to move plants back to the U.S., and so on.

Ultimately, the academic literature suggests that Americans respond in the voting booth to how the economy is doing, and they hold the party that’s in power accountable for the state of the economy. That’s a calculus that we’re very happy to have them make, because the tax bill is going to have a big, positive effect on the economy and once people see it in their paychecks, then they’re going to understand, I think, that the effects are not fictional; that they were scientifically based from the beginning, and that they’re working as designed — or as intended, maybe is a better way to say it.

See: Mnuchin says 90% of workers will get more take-home pay under withholding change.

MarketWatch: In his Davos speech last week, the president said that trade needs to be fair and reciprocal. What more in the State of the Union will we hear about that, and why won’t this approach result in a trade war?

Hassett: I think you’re right, that the president is once again going to add color to the idea of what fair and reciprocal trade looks like. I think this is something in both the APEC speech and the Davos speech that he’s begun to flesh out.

I think that the president’s exactly right, that if you look at many of the trade deals that America’s signed over time, that we’ve tended to agree to things that were quite asymmetric: allowing other countries to have high tariffs on our things while we remove all tariffs on theirs.

I think that everybody in the Trump administration believes in free trade. The problem is that for some of our deals, it looks like that belief is one-sided. The president had a life of success at negotiating, and his intent is to do a better job than previous presidents have at negotiating fair and reciprocal deals. Who would bet against him, given his track record in terms of negotiations?

MarketWatch: The president has highlighted the strength of the economy, at a time when the trade deficit has widened substantially. Economists say one impact of the tax bill will be to worsen the trade deficit even further. So doesn’t this show somehow that the administration is wrong to link the trade balance to economic performance?

Hassett: There are going to be times when we decide to import more of something for reasons that are sound economically. I think the problem in the president’s mind arises when there are clear, sort of, asymmetries in trade deals that disadvantage American firms, and those are the kind of things that he wants to fix.

In terms of the tax bill, I disagree that one should expect the tax bill to increase the trade deficit. There are a number of effects that it might have on it, but I think that the biggest effect is that right now, about 51% — according to a CEA estimate — of the trade deficit is attributable to transfer pricing by U.S. multinationals, who make products, say, in Ireland and ship them back to the U.S., rather than making them here. They established that practice because we were the high-tax place on earth, and they could avoid U.S. tax by locating activity offshore.

The tax bill has carrots and sticks designed to encourage firms to stop doing that, and given that that behavior accounts for 50% of the trade deficit — that is, the trade deficit is twice as high as it would be if U.S. multinationals weren’t doing this — then any reduction in that activity is very much first order in terms of the trade deficit, and it would reduce it.

MarketWatch: The president has frequently discussed the record highs of the stock market. Now that tax reform has passed, do you think that there’s much more room to go? And are you concerned at all about valuations?

Hassett: I think that one way to think about the movements last year in equity markets is that it’s the after-tax cash flow in present value that matters when you’re valuing equities. And in the old world, firms got to keep say, after tax, 65% of their profit. And now in the new world, they’ll get to keep 79% of their profit. So if you go from a .65 to a .79 out in front of a value formula, you can get a big stock market increase, which is I think something that we experienced last year.

I think going forward, that valuations will continue to be sound, provided that earnings and growth continue to hold up, and I think there’s every reason to expect that they will, given that we’ve just gone from the least competitive tax situation in the developed world to one that’s much more competitive. So there’s a lot of reason to be optimistic about the American economy, and that should be something that’s reflected in markets as well.

Go to Source

Indian IT firms looking for ways to soften US tax blow

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act seeks to discourage offshoring of work to overseas group companies by way of a 10% tax on the payments made to such offshore entities. Photo: Abhijit Bhatlekar/Mint

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act seeks to discourage offshoring of work to overseas group companies by way of a 10% tax on the payments made to such offshore entities. Photo: Abhijit Bhatlekar/Mint

New Delhi: An anti-abuse provision in the US tax code that President Donald Trump signed into law last month is forcing Indian information technology (IT) services companies to look at ways to mitigate the impact of the tax blow.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, designed to encourage American companies to invest and create jobs locally, seeks to discourage offshoring of work to overseas group companies by way of a 10% tax on the payments made to such offshore entities.

This tax, called the “base erosion and anti-abuse tax”, or BEAT, hits Indian multinational companies in the IT sector, which caters to their US clients through American subsidiaries.

Tax experts said the 10% BEAT makes their payments to the Indian parent an extra cost of doing business in the US and that Indian multinational companies are exploring ways to retain their competitiveness by reworking their business strategy.

“It can be said clearly at this point that this (BEAT) will disincentivize outsourcing to a related party,” said R. Chandrasekhar, president of Nasscom—the apex industry body for the IT sector—and former IT secretary to the government of India. Chandrasekhar, however, was quick to add that unlike the early days of India’s IT sector’s boom, today, overseas entities offshore their IT services requirements to Indian firms not primarily because of cost, but because of the quality of skill.

Vipul Jhaveri, partner, Deloitte India, said the 10% BEAT on payments US companies make to offshore related parties becomes an extra tax cost, which could impact the competitiveness of Indian IT and ITeS (IT-enabled services) exports if it is passed on to the ultimate consumer in the US.

“Indian multinational companies are exploring ways of mitigating the impact of BEAT in their overall cost of serving US customers,” said Jhaveri.

Emails seeking comments sent to Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro and Tech Mahindra on 19 January remained unanswered.

According to Chandrasekhar of Nasscom, the impact of BEAT on Indian multinational firms will depend, to a large extent, on the exact nature of the transaction, the nature of corporate holding and the business response that the company adopts in dealing with the change in laws.

“The bottom line is that the impact is not uniform on all transactions. Obviously, every company will work to minimize the tax cost on their operations and all of this will be weighed against the tax benefit that the tax reform brings,” said Chandrasekhar.

Among other measures, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered the US corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, which is applicable to all US companies. Apple Inc. responded on 17 January saying it will invest $30 billion in expanding US operations, help create 20,000 jobs and pay $38 billion in taxes on repatriated profits.

In 2016-17, the US accounted for 57% of India’s total $111 billion of computer software and IT-enabled services exports, according to Electronics and Computer Software Export Promotion Council (ESC), the Press Trust of India reported on 25 January.

Nasscom had said in an outlook issued in June last year that IT and business process management exports are set to grow 7-8% in 2018-19.

One risk that the industry faces is protectionist tendencies in key markets. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had in his address at the World Economic Forum annual summit in Davos last week criticized the rising wave of protectionism in the world that is threatening globalization.

Go to Source