A proposal to ban roadside advertising signs in Peterborough County was rejected on Wednesday when county council voted instead to have a new committee update the sign bylaw by the end of 2018.

The new committee will be made up of citizens, municipal staff and business owners who use the roadside signs.

The signs in question are the large ones installed along county roads on public property.

The idea is to rethink a ban that had been recommended by county staff. Instead, the committee will be expected to seek a compromise between entrepreneurs who say the signs are crucial and opponents who say they’re eyesores.

The vote came at a county council meeting Wednesday. The idea to strike a committee came from Sherry Senis, deputy mayor of Selwyn Township.

Senis said the sign bylaw in Selwyn was recently changed following consultations with business owners and the public.

“It’s something that’s been established – and it works,” she said.

But Peter Nielsen, the county’s manager of engineering and design, told councillors Wednesday that there have been two years of public consultation on the matter.

The feedback from people has been generally in favour of removing the roadside signs, Nielsen said; people said the advertisements detract from the natural landscape.

But the county also heard from many business owners who said the signs are critical to their marketing – and six entrepreneurs spoke to council Wednesday to urge that the signs be allowed.

“To be clear – these signs work, and they work well,” said Garnet Northey, president of the home design/build firm Spotlight Home and Lifestyle in Bridgenorth.

Northey said 15 per cent of his business comes to him through the use of roadside advertising signs. Forget about getting that business through other means of advertising, he said: “There is no substitute.”

Northey said that roughly 60 small businesses in Peterborough County use the signs extensively and that to ban them would cause “economic retardation.”

He challenged council to send a “positive” message to entrepreneurs and keep the signs.

To him, it came down to a single question for councillors: “Do you support small business owners or not?”

Janet Clarkson also spoke out against the proposed ban; she’s the former mayor of the Municipality of Trent Lakes and the current co-chairwoman of the Buckhorn Area Ratepayers Association.

She said signs are critical for small businesses, and banning them is going to hurt young entrepreneurs – many of whom are raising families.

“Put yourself in their shoes,” Clarkson told councillors.

John Milne, the executive officer of the Peterborough and the Kawarthas Homebuilders Association, said local construction firms use the signs to make themselves known to people from the GTA who are coming to their cottages in the Kawarthas.

Those are prospective clients, he pointed out – and if they don’t know about the local firms, they may hire someone from Toronto to do their renovations.

He added that it’s unfair to call the signs ugly.

“Ugly’s a matter of opinion – you might like some signs, you might not,” he said.

But Bev Matthews, mayor of Trent Lakes, wouldn’t hear of it. She was the only councillor who voted against the motion to develop a new sign bylaw.

“Signs block out the real beauty – which is why people come to the Kawarthas,” she said. “The signs have got to go.”

Meanwhile Doug Hutton, deputy mayor of North Kawartha Township, asked his fellow councillors if they’ve ever driven on highways around Sudbury where there’s no roadside advertising.

“Having no signs is a sign of no civilization – and no economic activity,” he said. “It’s scary.”

J. Murray Jones, mayor of Douro-Dummer Township, said that he’s heard for years from citizens who object to the roadside signs because they’re ugly.

He said he arrived at the meeting Wednesday prepared to consider a ban – but then he changed his mind when he heard the business owners speak.

“Until today, I never heard the other side of the story,” he said, adding that he likes the idea of a committee developing a new sign bylaw that can work for everyone.

“I think if we go about this the right way, we can hit the magic button on compromise.”

JKovach@postmedia.com

Follow @JoelleKovach

Go to Source

NEW YORK, Jan 18, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE via COMTEX) —

Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against General Electric Company (“GE” or the “Company”)

GE, -3.34%

and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the District of Connecticut, and docketed under 18-cv-00106, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of GE between February 26, 2013 and January 12, 2018, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased GE securities between February 26, 2013, and January 12, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have until March 19, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and quantity of shares purchased.

[Click here to join this class action]

GE is a globally diversified technology and financial services company. GE offers a wide variety of products and services including aircraft engines, power generation, and water processing and household appliances. GE Capital is GE’s financial services unit. It provides commercial lending and leasing, as well as a range of financial services for commercial aviation, energy, and support for GE’s industrial business units.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) GE was failing to allocate sufficient reserves with respect to premium deficiencies and other risks associated with GE Capital’s legacy reinsurance business; (ii) these risks were then accruing billions of dollars in unreported impairment charges for GE; (iii) consequently, the value of GE was overstated during the Class Period, and additional undisclosed impairments were necessary; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, GE’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 21, 2017, GE’s then-CFO Jeffrey S. Bornstein advised investors, in advance of GE’s annual cash flow test of GE Capital’s run-off insurance business, that “[w]e recently have had adverse claims experience in a portion of our long-term care portfolio and we will assess the adequacy of our premium returns.”

Following this news, GE’s share price fell $0.78, or 2.92%, to close at $25.91 on July 21, 2017.

Three months later, on October 20, 2017, Bornstein again addressed the adequacy of premium returns in GE Capital’s insurance business, advising investors that GE “recently observed elevated claims experience for a portion of the long-term care book at GE Capital’s legacy insurance business” and “began a comprehensive review in the third quarter of premium deficiency assumptions that are used in the annual claim reserve adequacy test.”

Following Bornstein’s statements, GE’s share price fell as much as $1.48, or 6.28%, to a low of $22.10 during intraday trading on October 20, 2017. However, comments by GE CEO John Flannery muted the effect of this partial revelation, as Flannery assured investors that he was concluding an “exhaustive” review of GE’s business and that there were “no sacred cows” at GE. On Flannery’s comments, GE’s share price rose $0.25, or 1.06%, to close at $23.83 on October 20, 2017.

On January 16, 2018, GE announced that “the comprehensive review and reserve testing for GE Capital’s run-off insurance portfolio, North American Life & Health (NALH), will result in an after-tax GAAP charge of $6.2 billion for the fourth quarter of 2017.” GE further advised investors that “GE Capital expects to make statutory reserve contributions of ~$15 billion over seven years” and will suspend its dividend to GE for the “foreseeable future.”

That same day, on a conference call with investors and analysts, CEO Flannery stated, in part, that “[c]learly, in hindsight, we underappreciated the risk in [GE’s insurance business] book” and that GE was “looking aggressively at the best structure or structures for our portfolio to maximize the potential of our businesses,” which “could result in many, many different permutations, including separately traded assets really in any one of our units, if that’s what made sense.”

On this news, GE’s share price fell $1.43, or 7.62%, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $17.33 on January 17, 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

Copyright (C) 2018 GlobeNewswire, Inc. All rights reserved.

Go to Source

Jan 18, 2018 (ACCESSWIRE via COMTEX) — NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / January 18, 2018 / Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Aflac Incorporated (“Aflac” or the “Company”)

AFL, -1.57%

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

The investigation concerns whether Aflac 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]

On January 11, 2018, post-market, The Intercept published an article entitled “Behind the Duck: Former Aflac Employees Allege Fraud and Abuse in Nearly Every Aspect of Company.” Citing “interviews with multiple current and former employees, as well as three previously unreported lawsuits,” the article reported that “Aflac has exploited workers, manipulated its accounting, and deceived shareholders and customers.” Among other issues, the article described “employees under pressure to meet sales goals selling policies without customer authorization or consent, illegally ‘bundling’ policies, and issuing others to ineligible customers”; the Company’s “[m]assaging of key operational metrics to prove company growth to investors”; “[e]arnings statement manipulation, by moving sales earned in certain weeks into different quarters to hit numbers”; and “[r]etaliation against whistleblowers”.

On this news, Aflac’s share price has fallen sharply during intra-day trading on January 12, 2018.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

http://www.accesswire.com/img.ashx?id=486385

Copyright 2018 ACCESSWIRE

Go to Source

A Service For Professionals
•
Friday, January 19, 2018

•
11610
Sources
•
427,580,848
Articles

•
2,718,449
Readers

Go to Source

NEW DELHI: A forceful argument that the State cannot compel a citizen to part with personal information to a private entity, today prompted the Supreme Court to point out that people voluntarily gave such inputs to private insurance or mobile companies.

The argument was made during the hearing on the Aadhaar issue by senior advocate Shyam Divan before a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra.

The bench said “You want insurance policy, you go to a private company. You want mobile connection, you go to private entities and part with personal information…

“Here the government has multiplied the options… the moment the government asks you to give proof of address and other details, you have a problem and you say ‘sorry’.”

To this, Divan responded saying “There is no problem per se with an individual parting with private information on his own. The point here is that you are being asked to part with information to someone you do not know and have no contractual relation with.”

The bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, is hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the government’s flagship Aadhaar programme and its enabling Act of 2016.

Divan, who is representing petitioners like former Karnataka HC judge Justice K S Puttaswamy, several activists Aruna Roy, Shantha Sinha and veteran CPI(M) leader V S Achuthanandan, submitted that the State cannot compel its citizens to give personal information, that too to a private company, as it violated their fundamental rights.

Referring to the legal position with regard to the national population census, he said it has been made clear that the personal and demographic details of citizens collected during census were being protected, but in case of Aadhaar, there was no such safeguard.

Divan said the private party was “so much outside the control of the Unique Identification Authority of India” that they can use it for their own commercial purposes.

“Moreover, there is no binding contract between the UIDAI and private agencies employed to collect biometric and other details for granting Aadhaar numbers,” Divan said.

“What are the nature of safeguards to ensure that the information was not purloined,” the bench asked, adding the government is needed to ensure that the information collected is not sold.

During the day-long hearing, Divan referred to the contents of the Aadhaar enrolment form which said that people, getting enrolled, were parting with information voluntarily.

However, if a person refuses to part with certain details while getting enrolled, the software simply refuses to register the person, he said, adding that word ‘voluntary’ was “meaningless”.

Terming the scheme as “unconstitutional from beginning to end”, Divan said that initially the State was not authorised to compel the citizens to part with personal information and moreover, it became more troublesome when people were asked to share them with private firms.

At the time of enrolment when persons are asked to share details like bank accounts and mobile numbers besides the biometric details, no government officials are there to guide the citizens whose details are being secured by private entities, the senior lawyer said.

Divan referred to recent sting operations by some TV channels showing certain private firms engaged in Aadhaar enrolments, were willing to share personal information of citizens in lieu of money.

In a digitised world, the government has to be “an ally of the citizens and not their adversary” and it must ensure that the privacy interests of citizens are protected against national and overseas corporations, Divan said.

Highlighting the alleged malady of the Aadhaar system, he said it would lead to profiling and surveillance of citizens from birth to death.

He also referred to the recent nine-judge bench judgement holding privacy as the fundamental right and said it was delivered in the Aadhaar case and said the procedure for deprivation of this right must be “just, fair, and reasonable.”

Divan said the judgement grounded privacy in ideas of “dignity and autonomy” and it made the preamble to the Indian Constitution central to the concept of fundamental rights. “A constitutional democracy survives when citizens have confidence that the rule of law will prevail,” he said.

The advancing of arguments remained inconclusive and would resume on January 23.

Earlier, Divan had termed Aadhaar as “an electronic leash” and said the government could completely destroy an individual by “switching off” the 12-digit unique identifier number.

However, the bench had asked whether the state “cannot say that it has every right to find out the number of schools, children or the real beneficiaries of a welfare scheme and verify the real beneficiaries of huge funds which it is spending, it needs Aadhaar number. This is a valid argument.”

The apex court had on December 15 last year extended till March 31 the deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar with various services and welfare schemes of all ministries and departments of the Centre, states and union territories.

Go to Source

The apex court had on December 15 last year extended till March 31 the deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar with various services. (File photo)

On the second day of hearing on the Aadhaar issue, the Supreme Court bench on Thursday asked the petitioners if people could voluntarily give personal inputs to private insurance or mobile companies, then why couldn’t they share it with the government. “You want an insurance policy, you go to a private company. You want mobile connection, you go to private entities and part with personal information…Here the government has multiplied the options… the moment the government asks you to give proof of address and other details, you have a problem and you say ‘sorry’,” said the bench.

To this, petitioner’s lawyer Shyam Divan responded saying “There is no problem per se with an individual parting with private information on his own. The point here is that you are being asked to part with information to someone you do not know and have no contractual relation with.”

The bench, also comprising Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, is hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the government’s flagship Aadhaar programme and its enabling Act of 2016. Divan, who is representing petitioners like former Karnataka HC judge Justice K S Puttaswamy, several activists Aruna Roy, Shantha Sinha and veteran CPI(M) leader V S Achuthanandan, submitted that the State cannot compel its citizens to give personal information, that too to a private company, as it violated their fundamental rights.

Referring to the legal position with regard to the national population census, he said it has been made clear that the personal and demographic details of citizens collected during census were being protected, but in case of Aadhaar, there was no such safeguard. Divan said the private party was “so much outside the control of the Unique Identification Authority of India” that they can use it for their own commercial purposes.

“Moreover, there is no binding contract between the UIDAI and private agencies employed to collect biometric and other details for granting Aadhaar numbers,” Divan said. “What are the nature of safeguards to ensure that the information was not purloined,” the bench asked, adding the government is needed to ensure that the information collected is not sold.

During the day-long hearing, Divan referred to the contents of the Aadhaar enrolment form which said that people, getting enrolled, were parting with information voluntarily. However, if a person refuses to part with certain details while getting enrolled, the software simply refuses to register the person, he said, adding that word ‘voluntary’ was “meaningless”.

Terming the scheme as “unconstitutional from beginning to end”, Divan said that initially the State was not authorised to compel the citizens to part with personal information and moreover, it became more troublesome when people were asked to share them with private firms. At the time of enrolment when persons are asked to share details like bank accounts and mobile numbers besides the biometric details, no government officials are there to guide the citizens whose details are being secured by private entities, the senior lawyer said.

Divan referred to recent sting operations by some TV channels showing certain private firms engaged in Aadhaar enrolments, were willing to share personal information of citizens in lieu of money. In a digitised world, the government has to be “an ally of the citizens and not their adversary” and it must ensure that the privacy interests of citizens are protected against national and overseas corporations, Divan said.

Highlighting the alleged malady of the Aadhaar system, he said it would lead to profiling and surveillance of citizens from birth to death. He also referred to the recent nine-judge bench judgement holding privacy as the fundamental right and said it was delivered in the Aadhaar case and said the procedure for deprivation of this right must be “just, fair, and reasonable”.

Divan said the judgment grounded privacy in ideas of “dignity and autonomy” and it made the preamble to the Indian Constitution central to the concept of fundamental rights. “A constitutional democracy survives when citizens have confidence that the rule of law will prevail,” he said. The advancing of arguments remained inconclusive and would resume on January 23.

Earlier, Divan had termed Aadhaar as “an electronic leash” and said the government could completely destroy an individual by “switching off” the 12-digit unique identifier number. However, the bench had asked whether the state “cannot say that it has every right to find out the number of schools, children or the real beneficiaries of a welfare scheme and verify the real beneficiaries of huge funds which it is spending, it needs Aadhaar number. This is a valid argument”.

The apex court had on December 15 last year extended till March 31 the deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar with various services and welfare schemes of all ministries and departments of the Centre, states and Union territories.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App

Go to Source

Many business people, who hold leadership positions at both banks and other firms, have decided to give up their positions in enterprises and keep the banking management positions to meet a new Government regulation.

Many business people, who hold leadership positions at both banks and other firms, have decided to give up their positions in enterprises and keep the banking management positions to meet a new Government regulation. — Photo enternews.vn

According to the revised law on credit institutions approved by the National Assembly last year, leaders at banks are not allowed to hold management positions in enterprises. Accordingly, chair of board of directors (BoD), chair of the member board, and general director of credit institutions (CIs) cannot be the chair and member of BoD, or chair and member of the board of members, general director, deputy general director, or other equivalent titles in any other enterprises.

The new regulation has taken effect since January 15; however, under the transitional provision of the law, these leaders may continue to concurrently hold the two positions until the end of their term, or the expiry date of the appointment at the bank.

According to the National Assembly Economic Committee, the fact that an individual is holding leadership positions at both a bank and another business has triggered several problems and affected banking operations and safety of the entire banking system. Therefore, the new regulation aims to ensure publicity, transparency and risk prevention for both credit and production activities.

Many business people, therefore, have been forced to give up their current positions in enterprises, where they have gained their reputation and careers, to hold senior leadership at banks.

Duong Cong Minh, chair of Sacombank’s BoD, has officially resigned from his position in many other businesses to focus on the restructuring process at Sacombank. Specifically, he is no longer the chair of BoD of four companies, including Him Lam Joint Stock Company, Bao Long Sport Equipment Joint Stock Company, Xin Man Development Joint Stock Company and Lien Viet Securities Company. He was elected to lead Sacombank at the bank’s annual general meeting in July 2017.

According to Minh, his resignation from Him Lam and other companies, where he used to hold top positions, will not affect the business of these companies.

Another case is of Do Minh Phu, chair of Doji Group, who recently announced his resignation from this position to continue being the chair of BoD of TPBank.

Similarly, Do Quang Hien, chair of T&T group and Saigon Hanoi Commercial Joint Stock Bank (SHB) also chose the bank and stepped down from T&T Group.

Hien will also withdraw from the top position at several other companies, such as Saigon Hanoi Fund Management Company, Saigon Hanoi Insurance Company and Saigon Hanoi Securities Company.

Another well-known businesswoman Thai Huong has officially announced she will leave the chairmanship at TH Group, the owner of TH True Milk brand, after 10 years and choose to be the general director of BacABank.

Currently, many business leaders are chairing banks’ BoDs and at the same time running other companies. For example, Vo Quoc Thang is chair of BoD at Kien Long Joint Stock Commercial Bank and Dong Tam Company; Vu Van Tien is chair of BoD at An Binh Commercial Joint Stock Bank and Geleximco Group; Nguyen Thi Nga is chairwoman of BoD at Southeast Asia Commercial Joint Stock Bank and BRG Group; while Le Thi Bang Tam is chairwoman of BoD at HCM City Development Joint Stock Bank and Vietnam Dairy Products Joint Stock Bank (Vinamilk). Some of the leaders said they will meet the above requirement by the end of their term. — VNS

Go to Source

Attorney Thomas More Marrone’s flagship law firm MOREMARRONE LLC named to the 2018 Best Law Firms in America for Second Consecutive Year

PHILADELPHIA (PRWEB) January 17, 2018

For the second straight year, veteran personal injury and class action lawyer, Thomas More Marrone is honored to announce that MOREMARRONE LLC was named to the 2018 Best Law Firms in America. MOREMARRONE LLC has earned this honor every year since its inception at the end of 2016.

After a prior stretch that included two class action jury trials resulting in a settlement and a verdict combining for well over $15 million, several substantial personal injury recoveries, successful business and employment negotiations, and hundreds of satisfied clients, Tom Marrone established his multifaceted firm, MOREMARRONE LLC. His approach to success for his clients has always followed a simple mantra, “I won’t be outworked and I refuse to give up.”

“This is not your grandfather’s law firm,” he says. MOREMARRONE has a heart, a soul, and a will. Bare knuckled intellectuals. Original and nimble thinkers and doers who have produced some of the largest verdicts and settlements in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We represent plaintiffs in substantial personal injury, catastrophe, class action, and complex civil litigation matters; individuals and businesses in crisis avoidance and crisis management; and we provide lawyer-to-lawyer case strategy and trial consulting and intervention. Experience, proven success, and peer reviews have earned Thomas More Marrone regular honors as The Best Lawyers in America®, Super Lawyers, AVVO Clients’ Choice + perfect 10.0 rating, and Martindale Hubbell AV 5.0 Peer Rating for Highest Level of Professional Excellence.

In December of 2017, U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers, for the eighth consecutive year, announced the “Best Law Firms” rankings. Firms included in the 2018 “Best Law Firms” list are recognized for professional excellence with persistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. Achieving a tiered ranking signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal expertise.

“U.S. News has decades of experience evaluating key institutions in society—from colleges to hospitals,” says Tim Smart, executive editor at U.S. News. “Law firms perform a vital role in American life, and ranking them is a key extension of our overall mission to help individuals and companies alike make important life decisions.”

The 2018 rankings are based on the highest number of participating firms and highest number of client ballots on record. To be eligible for a ranking, a firm must have a lawyer listed in The Best Lawyers in America, which recognizes the top 4 percent of practicing attorneys in the U.S. Over 13,000 attorneys provided more than 1,000,000 law firm assessments, and over 7,500 clients provided more than 65,000 evaluations. The 2017 “Best Law Firms” rankings can be seen in their entirety by visiting bestlawfirms.usnews.com.

The U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process.

##

About Thomas More Marrone and MOREMARRONE LLC

MOREMARRONE LLC has handled cases producing some of the largest verdicts and settlements in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The firm represents plaintiffs in significant personal injury, class action, and other complex civil litigation. After a recent 11-month stretch that included two class action jury trials resulting in a settlement and verdict amounting to well over $15 million in addition to several substantial personal injury recoveries, successful business and employment negotiations, and hundreds of satisfied clients, Tom Marrone established his multifaceted firm, MOREMARRONE LLC.

Licensed to practice in the State and Federal courts of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, Tom Marrone has extensive experience and proven success handling difficult, complex cases, especially class actions and collective actions, cases involving personal injury, employment, wage and hour claims, insurance matters, product liability, consumer protection, consumer fraud, deceptive practices, legal malpractice, and wrongful use of civil proceedings.

Individual and corporate clients also engage MOREMARRONE LLC for advisory services, including legal matters, crisis prevention and crisis management. A veteran class action trial lawyer, Tom Marrone also offers consultations with other attorneys and law firms related to class action and complex litigation theory development, implementation, and trial strategy.

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2018/01/prweb15095697.htm

Go to Source

Vancouver-based market intelligence company DiscoverOrg announced Wednesday it will add law firms and companies’ legal divisions to their catalog.

The move is the latest for the company, which started as a sales-as-a-service company to provide accurate emails, phone numbers and other contact information for companies looking for sales leads.

Founded in 2007, DiscoverOrg’s platforms are used by 4,000 companies today, the company said. It acquired an East Coast competitor in August.

Go to Source

Go to Source