Andrew C. Laufer studied Political Science at the State University in Albany and earned his Bachelor’s degree. He attended Quinnipiac University to become a lawyer, and before opening his law firm in 2000, he worked for the prestigious law firms, Hartman & Craven and Jaffe & Asher, in Manhattan. Mr. Laufer is experienced in personal injury, commercial and corporate law, real estate and corporate transactional work, and real estate litigation. Hundreds of clients have been helped by the Law Office of Mr. Laufer from settling multimillion dollar disputes to property transfers. While his primary focus is on civil rights litigation and personal injury he takes the victims of police brutality, prosecution, and police misconduct in particular regard.

Mr. Laufer has given lectures to lawyers regarding cases involving police brutality litigation, and his cases have been heard in both state and federal courts. He is on the board for the State Trial Lawyers Association in New York, belongs to the Police Accountability Project, has appeared on television regarding police brutality, and given exceptional interviews used for print. His experience with these types of cases is extensive, and he has a history of good results regarding cases of police brutality.

Q: Why are you so passionate about the cause of police brutality?

I am extremely aggressive in police brutality cases because I believe when an individual is stopped without reason by the police it is a fundamental violation of their civil rights and therefore extremely offensive. Individuals must be allowed to walk down a street without a police officer harassing them. I have seen individuals who did not resist arrest still receive punches and broken noses under the excuse of probable cause. I know the power of correctional officers and law enforcement can be abused because I have seen it. As in any industry, there are both good and bad people.

Q: What is your stance on malicious prosecution?

I feel this is the ultimate indignity. Too many innocent individuals face prosecution even though they did not commit the crime. Malicious prosecution takes away an individuals finances and time and can destroy their life. Anyone placed in this position should consult an attorney immediately.

Q: Why have you become involved in so many wrongful arrest cases?

Too many individuals have been arrested by police officers without any legal justification. Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government officials and police officers from lawsuits regarding false arrests. When the action of the official is considered discretionary, they are protected from any liability. The protection becomes void if the officer violated the established laws. I will fight for an individual when a warrant has been issued against them, despite them being the wrong person. The example I often use is the 2002 case of Sorrell vs. McGuigan. Crispin Sorrell was detained by Officer McGuigan due to the description of a robbery suspect and searched for weapons. Sorrell was arrested despite the fact the victim of the robbery told Officer McGuigan he had the wrong man. After booking, Sorrell was released and not prosecuted. Sorrell filed a lawsuit for false arrest, and the court denied the qualified immunity of the officer. Cases like these are why I am dedicated to seeking justice for my clients.

Q: You have often spoken out against the NYPD, explain why?

There is a lengthy and terrible history of abuse against New York Citizens perpetrated by the NYPD. The City of New York had to pay $735 million in 2012 to citizens suffering from abuse caused by the NYPD. There are many documented cases including the Louima case, the Diallo case, and more currently, a man with no weapon was killed in his car near Grand Central after being shot by the NYPD. Several reports, as well as the Knapp Commission, have documented these abuses. They have demonstrated the abuses of the NYPD efficiently and shown how the citizens suffered the consequences. These were the people the NYPD have sworn they would protect. There are thousands of lawsuits filed by the citizens of New York every year for numerous abuses. One case that especially caught my attention was a woman with absolutely no record. She was placed under arrest by the NYPD for smoking marijuana and held for four hours. She had to be rushed to the hospital because the precinct refused to give her necessary medication. She pleaded for her medication, was ignored, and nearly lost her life. These are the people I am so passionate about fighting for.

Go to Source

The government and the ruling party have released a set of measures to help small shop owners and small businesses facing difficulties with rising rental fees and the minimum wage hike.

The ruling camp on Thursday produced the support measures during a meeting at the National Assembly.

The Democratic Party’s chief policymaker Kim Tae-nyeon said in a news briefing that the two sides decided to revise the law this month to sharply lower a ceiling on rental fee hikes. 

The measures also include a cut in credit card processing fees charged for small amount purchases on small shops, such as convenience stores, bakeries and supermarkets by improving related regulations. 

Kim said that the ruling camp will also decide to increase state funds aimed at supporting struggling small firms to two-point-four trillion won. 

Last July, the government decided to raise the minimum wage by 16 percent to seven-thousand-530 won for 2018, marking the biggest jump in nearly two decades.

Go to Source

Both farmer cooperatives and private grain trading companies are working together in an urgent attempt to change a provision in the massive new tax law that many fear could put small grain elevators out of business.

The provision in the law passed last month gives farmers a 20 percent tax deduction on gross sales of crops to farmer-owned cooperatives, but a much smaller deduction on farmer sales to private grain handlers, whether they be small independent grain elevators or giant companies such as Cargill.

“It’s a game-changer on a lot of things, not just for grain elevators but also for the entire farm industry,” said Brad Stenzel, owner and manager of Matawan Grain & Feed Inc., which has been in business for more than 40 years in the south-central Minnesota town of New Richland. “It would change the whole playing field, and it could close a lot of the privates down.”

Lawmakers are considering ways to undo the provision, and one of the quickest avenues could be an attempt to attach new language to the continuing resolution measure that Congress needs to pass this week in order to avoid a government shutdown, according to trade groups.

The concern is that farmers will sell billions of bushels to cooperatives such as CHS Inc. and Land O’Lakes in 2018 and beyond to take advantage of the more lucrative tax deduction, putting private firms at a disadvantage or even pushing them out of business.

Because farmers would have a financial incentive to sell to cooperatives, Stenzel said, private grain businesses like his would not be able to compete successfully for the grain. Elevators make much of their money by buying grain from farmers, drying and storing it, and later reselling it when they can make a profit.

Bob Zelenka, executive director of the Minnesota Grain and Feed Association, said about half of his 250 members with grain elevators are cooperatives, and half are private operators. The independents are greatly concerned about losing business soon if the tax provision is not changed, he said.

“Part of this has to do with the fact that complex legislation like this is being written and rewritten minutes before lawmakers are voting on it,” Zelenka said. “I think this was clearly an oversight.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) acknowledged the problem, and said in a statement last Friday that “the unintended consequences of the current language disadvantage the independent operators” of the industry.

“The federal tax code should not pick winners and losers in the marketplace,” said Greg Ibach, USDA undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs.

Large co-ops and private firms have said little about the issue. Cargill and Inver Grove Heights-based CHS Inc., two of the largest players, declined to comment.

Land O’Lakes President and CEO Chris Policinski said that the Senate authors of the provision worked hard to ensure that tax bills of co-op farmer members did not rise as part of the tax reform, so that producers could continue to help stimulate the economy.

“Unfortunately, as the authors and the USDA have publicly stated, there was an unintentional consequence that could potentially alter the competitive landscape in agriculture,” Policinski said in a statement. Land O’Lakes is working with other co-ops, agribusinesses and legislators to fix the problem, he said.

National grain groups from both the co-op and private sides have expressed solidarity to make appropriate changes.

“Our stakeholders are committed to reaching a solution in a thoughtful and expeditious manner, and to working with Congress to address this issue promptly,” said the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives and the National Grain and Feed Association in a joint statement last week.

The two groups have been working with others to revise the provision with Sens. John Hoeven, R-N.D., and John Thune, R-S.D., who crafted the section during final House-Senate negotiations on the tax bill last month.

Congress could try to add a rewritten provision as a rider to a continuing resolution or appropriations bill, Zelenka said.

It could also take up the measure as part of a corrections bill for other things in the new tax code, he said, but many feel that it would be difficult to garner the necessary 60 votes in the Senate for passage. Another option is that the Internal Revenue Service, which would implement the new law, has not yet provided guidance for how the provision would be implemented.

Steve Fischer, owner and manager of Wabasso Grain & Feed in southwestern Minnesota, said farmers are very aware of the new law, and are watching closely to see what happens.

“A farmer I’ve known for a long time came in and asked whether I’ve got my ‘For Sale’ sign up yet,” Fischer said. Although the farmer was joking, Fischer said it’s a serious matter for small independent operators like him.

Even though he’s been in business for 40 years, Fischer said he couldn’t blame farmers for selling to cooperatives if they could save thousands of dollars on their income taxes.

That could begin to happen soon, he said, as farmers sell grain in 2018 that’s subject to the new tax code.

“Fortunately there’s not a lot of grain moving now because prices are low,” he said. But farmers are dealing with their tax accountants at this time of year, Fischer said, and everyone is looking at their balance sheets and cash flows, searching for ways to save money. “Every day that goes by without this changing is one day against us,” he said.

 

Go to Source

Go to Source

Apple revealed a plan Wednesday that would make it the first major company to repatriate money from overseas as a result of the new corporate-friendly tax law passed last month.

The tech giant said it will make approximately $38 billion in tax payments – a figure that suggests the company is moving back $245 billion out of its $252.3 billion in funds stashed overseas.

Under the new law, companies need only make a one-time payment of 15.5 percent on repatriated funds, down from 35 percent.

The higher tax rate was the reason Apple had long resisted sending its war chest to the U.S., Tim Cook, the company’s chief executive told “60 Minutes” in 2015.

“I don’t think that’s a reasonable thing to do,” said Cook, whose company has faced years of criticism for avoiding U.S. taxes by keeping profits overseas and doing most of its manufacturing in China.

Apple also announced Wednesday that it plans to invest more than $30 billion in the U.S. over the next five years to create over 20,000 jobs.

About one-third of that new expenditure will go to data centers. The company, which recently finished a building a $5 billion headquarters in Cupertino, Calif., said it would open another campus at an unspecified location.

“We believe deeply in the power of American ingenuity, and we are focusing our investments in areas where we can have a direct impact on job creation and job preparedness,” Cook said in a statement Wednesday. “We have a deep sense of responsibility to give back to our country and the people who help make our success possible.”

Though Cook and President Donald Trump have disagreed on issues such as immigration, Apple’s announcement represents a major win for the White House, which has urged U.S. companies to invest their sizable profits in American workers.

“It’s a feather in Trump’s cap as this was the underlying best-case scenario that U.S. companies would bring this cash home for jobs and capital expenditure,” said Daniel Ives, an analyst at the investment research firm GBH Insights.

Since Trump’s election, corporations have gone out of their way to underscore how the administration’s policies have benefited the country – including touting worker bonuses as a result of the new tax law.

At times, that has backfired. More than a year ago, Trump appeared at a Carrier plant in Indianapolis vowing to save jobs from fleeing to Mexico. Despite state tax breaks aimed at keeping the factory open, 200 workers at the plant still lost their jobs earlier this month.

Moody’s Investors Service estimates $1.4 trillion is being held offshore by U.S. multinational companies.

Apple is by far the top holder of overseas cash, followed by Microsoft Corp. ($137 billion), Cisco Systems Inc. ($70 billion) and Google’s parent company Alphabet Inc. ($67 billion). Bringing those funds home will also be easier thanks to the money saved by the new federal corporate tax rate of 21 percent, down from 35 percent.

Experts say Apple and other firms that bring money back to the U.S. could use that wealth for mergers and acquisitions. The rest is expected to be deployed for stock buybacks, higher dividends and debt repayment, as well as business expansions.

The last time U.S. companies were presented with a sweetener to repatriate funds was 2004 when Congress offered corporations a 5.25 percent tax rate to send cash back. The plan, however, did not result in many new jobs or investment and instead mostly benefited shareholders, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Apple’s pledge to invest in new infrastructure addresses some of that skepticism.

Ives said Apple could look to acquire a major asset such as Netflix Inc., a long rumored move that would give the Cupertino company ownership of valuable content to stream over its hardware.

Apple shares climbed 1.65 percent to $179.10 in late afternoon trading.

“This was the right move at the right time” for Apple, Ives said. “The Street was anticipating this and now it’s about using the cash hoard for mergers and acquisitions, capital expenditure and building out the next stage of the Apple growth story.”

Go to Source

Russia special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators are examining payments from Moscow diplomatic accounts to people or companies in the U.S., including $120,000 paid to former Ambassador Sergey Kislyak 10 days after President Donald Trump’s 2016 election.

BuzzFeed News — citing “a U.S. official with knowledge of the inquiry” — reported Wednesday the data showed “years of Russian financial activity within the U.S. that bankers and federal law enforcement officials deemed suspicious, raising concerns about how the Kremlin’s diplomats operated here long before the 2016 election.”

The records being examined included the Kislyak transaction as”bankers flagged it to the U.S. government as suspicious in part because the transaction, marked payroll, didn’t fit prior pay patterns,” BuzzFeed reported.

In addition, five days after President Trump’s inauguration last year, “someone attempted to withdraw $150,000 cash” from the Moscow embassy’s account — “but the embassy’s bank blocked it.

“Bank employees reported the attempted transaction to the U.S. government because it was abnormal activity for that account,” according to the report.

Mueller’s investigators recently obtained the records after the Treasury Department provided the suspicious activity reports to the FBI.

The agency had asked for records that might relate to the investigation into the election, BuzzFeed reported, citing “three federal law enforcement officials with knowledge of the matter.”

FBI officials did not respond to requests seeking comment.

Further, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is conducting its own Moscow probe, “requested suspicious activity reports” on Kislyak as far back as August, though “it is unclear whether senators have received those documents yet.”

Top committee officials also declined to comment to BuzzFeed.

“All the transactions which have been carried out through the American financial system fully comply with the legislation of the United States,” Nikolay Lakhonin, a spokesperson for the Russian Embassy, told the website.

“We are not going to comment on any concrete names and figures mentioned in BuzzFeed articles.

“We see such leaks by US authorities as another attempt to discredit Russian official missions,” he said.

Kislyak, who left the U.S. last year and is now a member of the legislature of the Republic of Mordovia, which is part of Russia, declined to comment through a spokesman.

According to BuzzFeed, some of the transactions being scrutinized by Mueller’s team also include:

• Thirty checks flagged by bankers between March 8 and April 7, 2014, totaling about $370,000, to Moscow embassy employees. They cashed the checks as soon as they received them, making it virtually impossible to track the funds. Bank officials noted the employees had not received similar payments in the past, BuzzFeed reported.
• The Russian Cultural Centre, a branch of the government based in Washington that sponsors classes and performances, sent $325,000 in checks over five years that banking officials flagged as suspicious. The amounts were not consistent with normal payroll checks, while some of the transactions fell below the $10,000 threshold that causes a notice to the U.S. government.
• The Russian Embassy in Washington sent more than $2.4 million to several small home-improvement companies controlled by a Russian immigrant living near the embassy. His identity was not disclosed by BuzzFeed. The contractor’s companies received about 600 payments, earmarked for construction jobs at Russian diplomatic compounds between 2013 and March 2017.

Bankers, however, told Treasury officials they did not believe the transactions were related to the election but flagged them because the businesses seemed too small to have completed major work on the embassy and because the checks were cashed quickly or wired to other accounts.

The contractor told BuzzFeed that all the payments he received were valid for legitimate work.

But on all of the financial transactions, each one generated a “suspicious activity report” that was sent to the Treasury’s financial crimes unit by Citibank, which services the Russian Embassy’s accounts, according to BuzzFeed.

A Citibank representative said the company would not comment because the transactions are confidential.

“Consistent with our commitment to protect the integrity of the financial system,” Jennifer Lowney told BuzzFeed in an email.

“Citi is diligent in filing suspicious activity reports with the U.S. Treasury Department when appropriate.”

Go to Source

Go to Source

Go to Source

(c) 2018, Bloomberg.

When California employment lawyer Dawn Knepper transferred to her law firm’s Orange County office in 2012, she asked to be paid at least as much as a male counterpart with similar seniority whom she’d outscored in billable hours and finding more business.

Instead, she says, the firm that specializes in defending companies against just these types of lawsuits paid her about $100,000 less.

That’s one of the claims in Knepper’s $300 million gender discrimination suit against Ogletree Deakins. The firm is dominated by male decision-makers who foster a culture “that marginalizes, demeans, and undervalues women,” according to the suit.

Knepper, a nonequity shareholder, contends that while Ogletree’s website boasts about diversity and equality, about 80 percent of its equity partners are men — a setup that results in missed opportunities and less pay for women. Her proposed class-action complaint against the firm, with more than 700 lawyers in the U.S., was filed Jan. 12 in federal court in San Francisco.

In 2016, a woman who sued described a “male-dominated culture” at Sedgwick, a San Francisco-based firm, while Chadbourne & Parke and Proskauer Rose are also facing complaints for gender discrimination.

Ryan King, a spokesman for Ogletree Deakins, said equal opportunity has always been a core principle of the firm, and that discrimination of any kind isn’t tolerated. More than half of the firm’s employees are women, including many of its most successful attorneys and two of four elected members of its compensation committee, he said.

“The decision-making process that governs our compensation system is both fair and equitable,” King said in a statement. “We will confidently defend the firm against these claims as we remain steadfast in our commitment to equal opportunity for all.”

King said the firm uses an “open compensation” system under which all shareholders know what every other shareholder earns, as well as the factors used in setting that pay. He added that female shareholders in California have made more on average during the past four years than their male counterparts.

David Stanford, an attorney who represents Knepper, said the firm’s pay data for men and women employees across the U.S. aren’t that simple. He said he has more women — both equity and non-equity shareholders– lined up to join the lawsuit. Each potential plaintiff will bring added facts, he said.

“Ms. Knepper has raised her underpayment in every shareholder compensation interview and has submitted follow-up appeals as well,” the suit states. “Her complaints have fallen on deaf ears.”

Knepper, who joined the firm in 2005 in San Antonio, Texas, also says a male lawyer denied her requests for more business opportunities, turned down her bid to attend a Southern California conference for the Association of Corporate Counsel, and refused to let her speak at a seminar for in-house counsel that draws hundreds of attendees from around the world, including some of her own clients.

Female lawyers face hurdles at all levels in their career. While women make up over half of current law school graduates, they only make up 35 percent of lawyers at law firms, a survey from Law 360 found last year. A 2016 survey by the legal staffing firm Major, Lindsey & Africa of 2,100 law partners found women earned an average of $659,000 a year compared with an average of $949,000 for male partners.

ogletree-gender

Go to Source

A major law firm with deep roots in the Carolinas that specializes in helping employers avoid workplace discrimination complaints has been sued – on accusations of workplace discrimination.

The $300 million class-action complaint against Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart accuses the multinational firm of discriminating against its female attorneys by favoring their male counterparts in promotions and pay.

Male members of the firm also get more credit for attracting new clients even when women attorneys were directly responsible for recruiting the new business, the suit says. Female attorneys also are forced to handle a disproportionate share of the administrative duties, which cuts into their billable hours and reduces both their pay and chances of advancement, the suit says.

In a statement released from its Atlanta headquarters, Ogletree said, “Equal Opportunity has been a core principle” of the firm from its beginning, “and we don’t tolerate discrimination of any kind – gender or otherwise.”

The law firm said women make up more than half the firm’s employees, adding: “We will confidently defend the firm against these claims as we remain steadfast in our commitment to equal opportunity for all.”

The federal complaint was filed by a female Ogletree attorney in California. She claims in the lawsuit that the firm’s “male-dominated systems makes its extremely difficult for female non-equity shareholders to be promoted and paid at the same levels as equity shareholders, although they perform substantially similar work.”

One of her attorneys said Ogeltree’s workplace practices undermine its expressed commitment to equal opportunity.

“It’s ironic that a law firm like Ogletree, which boasts of its diversity initiatives and prides itself on effectively counseling employers to avoid lawsuits, finds itself charged with practices that epitomize gender discrimination in the work place and at law firms in particular,” said David Sanford, a Washington, D.C., partner in the firm of Sanford Heisler Sharp and the lead attorney in the complaint.

Ogletree, which was founded in 1977 in Atlanta and Greenville, S.C., now has more than 50 offices in North America and Europe, including ones in Charlotte, Raleigh, Greensboro, Charleston and Columbia. Its 850 attorneys specialize in such areas as employee benefits and executive compensation, employment law, traditional labor law, and wage and hour matters.

On its website, Ogletree notes that it has been named among the country’s Top 100 firms for female attorneys, among other industry accolades for gender equity and opportunity. Its 2018 class of new associates, known as “shareholders” at the firm, is more than 70 percent women, the firm says.

On Ogletree’s board of directors, seven of the nine seats are held by men, its website shows. A listing of the firm’s top officers show that four of the six are male. Men, according to the complaint, hold 80 percent of the firm’s equity positions.

Jill Sanford, another of the filing attorneys, said the accusations against Ogeltree comes with the country at a “cultural tipping point.”

“Women in the workplace will no longer tolerate unfair treatment, whether it comes in the form of sexual harassment or, as seems true at Ogletree, discriminatory pay and promotion practices that disadvantage women,” she said.

Go to Source