KC law firm marketing vet opens own agency in Fairway

Katie_Bonnar

Katie Hollar Barnard opened her legal marketing firm in Fairway earlier this year.

By Alicia Allison

A veteran of the marketing departments of two of Kansas City’s biggest law firms has opened her own agency in Fairway.

Katie Hollar Barnard spent nine and a half years at Lathrop and Gage before becoming the chief marketing officer at Shook Hardy and Bacon LLP three years ago. She left that position in February and started her own agency, Firesign Marketing.

“Our primary mission is to help attorneys attract, win, and retain business,” said Barnard. “We specialize in law firms of about 5 to 50. Another new line of business is working with legal technology companies and to help them tell their stories and change the profession.”

The company currently has about ten clients nationwide, from Colorado to Ohio. The company is located in the Fairway Office Park on Shawnee Mission Parkway.

“I had a dream of owning my own agency for a very long time,” said Barnard. “The timing was just right for our family so I took the leave. Entrepreneurship is an adventure and I worked for one of the best firms in the whole country, and I’m so glad that I did.”

Barnard says her husband David and her three step-daughters, Ava, Kate, and Remy, have all played supportive roles in helping her start the company. Barnard says she took inspiration from her twin step-daughters’ zodiac signs for the company name.

“When I was doing all of the branding exercises, I kept coming back to bringing light and warmth to legal. The legal profession is a human business. It’s humans serving humans. But often it’s very conservative and sometimes it could use a little light and warmth,” she said. “I wanted to think of something light and warm. So, one day in the car, I was talking to the kids about what their horoscope signs were and realized I’m a Leo and the twins [Ava and Kate] are Aries. I was telling them they’re fire signs and the fire signs are known for having passion and leadership and warmth and energy.”

FROM OUR SPONSORS:

Go to Source

EDITORIAL COMMENT: Mining firms must prioritise host communities

RECOMMENDATIONS by the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Indigenisation and Empowerment for the amendment of the country’s indigenisation law to insert a requirement that compels mining firms to contribute at least 25 percent of pledges to Community Share Ownership Trusts to facilitate their speedy set up is spot on and should be implemented as soon as possible.

This is important given numerous reports of mining firms resisting or reneging on payment of their contributions to Community Share Ownership Trusts.

The matter is particularly urgent for Mudzi and Mutoko where the committee was reviewing progress. Despite hauling millions of tonnes of granite from Mudzi and Mutoko after desecrating landmark hills, mining companies have made millions of dollars, but have done very little to improve the lot of villagers in these areas.

Reports from the two areas indicate that impoverished villagers have over the years been left counting their losses due to the destructive nature of mining activities in their areas.

The Environmental Management Agency has raised concern over deforestation, noise pollution, destruction of farm land through rock waste depositing in the fields, cracks in houses through rock blasting effects, and destruction of mountains that have been caused by mining activities in the two areas.

Such wanton destruction cannot be allowed to go on with no benefit accruing to the villagers. It should be borne in mind that minerals by their nature are a finite resource and as such communities living within mining areas should benefit from the resource while it’s still available.

So we fully support the recommendations made by the committee. Mining companies should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it, Government, as the custodian of all mineral resources in the country, should throw down the gauntlet and ensure that communities start enjoying the benefits that should accrue to them.

It is time mining companies are brought to account. There are a lot of communities that are crying foul over CSOTs after mining companies failed to honour their pledges.

One of the most notable is in Chiadzwa where President Mugabe was presented with a cheque for $1,5 million during the launch of the Zimunya-Marange CSOT, but only $400 000 was made available.

There are about 59 CSOTs that were launched by the President across the country and a good number have done very little because of lack of funds due to a failure by companies to honour their pledges yet studies have shown that if properly implemented CSOTs can be viable options for development of communities in mining areas.

A case in point is the Zvishavane Community Share Ownership Trust, which in 2013 spent $2,1 million, just over half of the revenue received from Mimosa mining company under the empowerment law to build critical infrastructure in the district. The Trust constructed a clinic and electrified several schools. The trust has also constructed classroom blocks across the district for $845 000.

It’s time for the gloves to come off, the interests of a few mining companies should not be allowed to supersede those of whole communities. It is time that mining companies contribute meaningfully to the development of areas that they operate in.

The onus is for Government to ensure this through implementing recommendations such as the one made by the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Indigenisation and Empowerment.

Go to Source

Nothing to see here: KZN Law Society refuses to investigate Zuma’s lawyer Michael Hulley

If there is a crucial issue that has been highlighted in the series of #GuptaLeaks exposés into State Capture, it is the role of auditing and consulting firms as well as lawyers who have acted in a professional capacity and who have now been implicated in alleged corruption.

It is imperative then that those regulatory bodies that oversee and monitor the ethical conduct and standards of these professions act as a bulwark against unscrupulous members. Which is why, shortly after Mxolisi Nxasana deposed his damning affidavit in April, Advocate Paul Hoffman SC, of Accountability Now, wrote to the KZN Law Society and lodged a complaint against the President’s legal adviser, Michael Hulley.

Nxasana had deposed his affidavit in a Corruption Watch and Freedom Under Law application in a civil case to review a R17-million payout to Nxasana. In it Nxasana alleges that President Jacob Zuma committed perjury and had lied when he stated under oath that Nxasana had willingly left the office in 2015 and had not been forced to do so.

Corruption Watch and FUL are seeking to have Nxasana’s departure and the payout declared unlawful. Nxasana has publicly expressed his desire to return to the crucial post as well as to pay back the R17-million he received as a golden handshake.

Nxasana has claimed he was hounded out of the position by allies of President Jacob Zuma when they suspected that he might reinstate the 783 charges of fraud and corruption against the president.

In the affidavit, Nxasana said that it was evident that Hulley had wanted him [Nxasana] to lie under oath that he had asked to vacate the office.

I advised Mr Hulley that I was not prepared to make that statement since that was not what had occurred factually. I reminded him that I was an officer of this court and that I would not mislead the court,” said Nxasana.

Nxasana, who was appointed National Director of Public Prosecutions in August 2013, instituted charges of perjury against Zuma ally, deputy head of the NPA Advocate Nomgcobo Jiba as well as NPA director of special prosecutions Lawrence Mwrebi which ultimately led to the North Gauteng High Court ruling in September 2016 that both be struck off the roll of advocates.

For this independence of mind Nxasana had to be removed.

Hulley is an attorney of the High Court who practices at La Lucia. Writing to the KZN Law Society in April, Hoffman attached a copy of Nxasana’s affidavit. Nxasana also happens to be a former president of the KZN Law Society “and accordingly a person whose oath should be taken seriously”, said Hoffman.

Hoffman wrote that Nxasana’s allegations amount to an attempt on the part of Hulley to defeat the ends of justice.

As the pertinent body having disciplinary jurisdiction over Mr Hulley, it
is accordingly incumbent upon the disciplinary structures of the KZN law
society to investigate the misconduct alleged in the Nxasana affidavit and
to take the steps necessary to apply to have his name struck from the roll
of attorneys if the affidavit is as well founded and credible as it appears
to be on a prima facie basis.”

Then Hoffman adds for good measure:

While you are about it with your investigations you may wish to consider how it could legally and ethically have come about that Mr Hulley was able to provide the NPA with covert tape recordings made by the NIA of discussions between former NDPP Bulelani Ngcuka and Leonard McCarthy, then head of the DSO, concerning the fate of then private citizen (now President) Jacob Zuma. At the time he relied, without any foundation for doing so, on professional privilege to avoid disclosing how he came to be in possession of the secret tapes.”

Hoffman concludes that while Accountability Now had no direct knowledge of either matters referred to, “Willie Hofmeyr of the NPA will be in a position
to enlighten you on the secret tapes if you decide to investigate that matter; Mr Nxasana’s affidavit is all you need in respect of the alleged attempt to defeat the ends of justice, the more serious matter by far in our
respectful submission.”

Three months later, on 13 July, Ms N Harripersad, on behalf of the Acting Director of the KwaZulu-Natal Law Society, replied to Advocate Hoffman.

I regret that the Society cannot assist you because it has been difficult to establish what the nature of your interest is in the matter reported by yourself against attorney Hulley & Associates, as you appear not to have been personally affected by the alleged conduct of the attorney.”

Harripersad requests that Hoffman “produce written confirmation from the affected party on whose behalf you are lodging the complaint, authorising you to do so”.

To which Hoffman replied on Tuesday:

We are not acting of behalf of any individual complainant in this matter. We are acting in the public interest as we are entitled to do as an NGO which concentrates on accountability. As you know, corruption has been a human rights issue since the Glenister II case was decided by the Constitutional Court on 17 March 2011.”

Public interest litigation, said Hoffman, was contemplated by the Constitution whenever human rights are threatened or infringed.

As a former president of your society and as a person suitable for high public office, Mr Nxasana is surely worthy of credence in your investigation of the matter, which should follow as a matter of course and without any complaint by any individual complainant.

The public interest cannot be served if your society turns a blind eye to the serious dispute between two of its members or adopts a passive stance because of the public interest nature of the serious misconduct involved. There is no individual complainant, we are all affected deleteriously when corruption is indulged and impunity reigns, hence the public interest in the matter.”

Hoffman requested the society to “proceed with the matter in the public interest. It is quite intolerable that two of your members should be at odds with each other in the manner we have described. An attorney’s word is meant to be his bond. If Nxasana is being mischievous, his stance needs to be exposed as a perjured affidavit; if Hulley is the one lying on oath, then it is not a time for your society to sit on its hands.”

Daily Maverick’s questions to the KZN Law Society asking for a response to Hoffman’s request for an investigation and the society’s initial reply that it could not investigate Hulley had not been replied to at the time of writing. DM

Photo: African National Congress President Jacob Zuma (R) speaks with his lawyer Michael Hulley ahead of a press conference after appearing at the Durban High Court, South Africa, April 7, 2009. REUTERS/Rogan Ward

Go to Source

Tobacco firms ‘hamper anti-smoking push’

The tobacco industry is hampering efforts to introduce life-saving interventions in low and middle-income countries, according to a report by the World Health Organization.

Countries covering two-thirds of the world’s population now have measures in place to encourage people to stop smoking.

But tobacco still kills more than 7 million people every year.

Tobacco companies say they are not opposed to “reasonable” regulation.

The proportion of smokers and those using other tobacco products around the world is falling – but it is happening slowly.

One in five people over the age of 15 now use tobacco, compared to one in four in 2007, according to the WHO report on the “global tobacco epidemic”.

Dozens of countries have introduced measures to discourage people from smoking over the the past decade, such as introducing higher taxes for products, advertising bans and smoke free zones.


Fighting tobacco use:

Nepal: Introduced the world’s largest health warnings on tobacco packaging in 2015, covering 90% of packets.

India: Launched a nationwide tobacco cessation programme and toll-free quit line in 2016.

The Philippines: Introduced a “Sin Tax Reform Law” which increased tax on tobacco significantly over time, earning an extra $5,2bn for other public services, including healthcare.


“There has been progress, but there’s more to do,” said Dr Vinayak Prasad, head of WHO’s tobacco control unit in Geneva.

“Most of tobacco usage is now happening in the Middle East, in Asian economies and (tobacco use ) in Africa is also adding up”

He said that tobacco companies are now increasingly setting their sights on “easier, less regulated markets”, and putting pressure on their governments.

“Many of these countries have not recognised the full value of tobacco taxation to make tobacco more expensive.

“Industry has given arguments on the economic value of tobacco or illicit trade.

“But the health cost burden and economic burden (in total $1.4 trillion) are far in excess than the contribution from the tobacco industry.”

He said the tobacco industry’s key aim is to make profits, and said they shouldn’t be at the table when it comes to national health policies.

“We need to recognise that the tobacco industry is not a friend of the government, they are only there to make profits.”

Some of the world’s biggest tobacco manufacturing companies have told the BBC that whilst they do not oppose reasonable tobacco regulation, they do need to be part of the debate on policy.

Jonathan Duce from Japan Tobacco International, responsible for brands such as Benson and Hedges and Camel cigarettes, said: “We believe that public officials and policing organizations should have access to all facts when it comes to policy-making, including from businesses.

“Topics such as combating organized crime in tobacco should not be addressed in isolation of the available knowledge from various experts which contributes to informing and driving policies that are effective.”

Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Claims On Behalf of Investors of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. – CMG

NEW YORK, July 19, 2017 /PRNewswire/ — Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (“Chipotle” or the “Company”)

CMG, -0.57%

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

The investigation concerns whether Chipotle 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 July 18, 2017, media outlets reported that Chipotle had closed a restaurant in Sterling, Virginia due to a suspected norovirus outbreak.  According to Business Insider, citing information from iwaspoisoned.com, a website on which consumers document suspected incidents of foodborne illness, at least 13 customers fell ill after eating at the Chipotle restaurant in question between July 14 and July 15. 

On this news, Chipotle’s share price fell $17.02, or 4.34%, to close at $374.98 on July 18, 2017.

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

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

View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-investigates-claims-on-behalf-of-investors-of-chipotle-mexican-grill-inc–cmg-300490758.html

SOURCE Pomerantz LLP

Copyright (C) 2017 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

Go to Source

Casinos now covered by anti-money laundering law

(UPDATED) Casinos are now required to report casino cash transactions exceeding P5 million, according to AMLA amendments signed by President Rodrigo Duterte

Published 2:34 PM, July 19, 2017

Updated 2:50 PM, July 19, 2017

CASINOS COVERED. A dealer plays card with visitors during a two-day exhibit on the gaming industry in Manila, 22 March 2007. Photo by Romeo Gacad/Agence France-Presse

CASINOS COVERED. A dealer plays card with visitors during a two-day exhibit on the gaming industry in Manila, 22 March 2007. Photo by Romeo Gacad/Agence France-Presse

MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – President Rodrigo Duterte signed into law Republic Act No 10927, which puts casinos under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) of 2001.

The law, signed by Duterte on Friday, July 14, says that casinos, “including internet or ship-based” ones, are now regarded as covered persons under AMLA.

Republic Act No 10927 amends the orginal AMLA, Republic Act No 9160.

Casino cash transactions of more than P5 million or its equivalent in other currencies are now considered a transaction covered by the law and must thus be reported to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).

In the amended law, the Anti-Money Laundering Council still has to wait for the Court of Appeals to issue a freeze order if they suspect a monetary instrument or property is related to an unlawful activity.

The freeze order will be effective immediately and will last 20 days.

The amendment signed by Duterte are much weaker compared to amendments proposed by Senator Francis Escudero.

In the lawmaker’s committee report filed in November 2016, he proposed putting not just casinos but also real estate developers, money transfer firms, junket operators, and dealers of high-value item goods under AMLC’s watch.

Under the proposed amendments, these entities will need to report cash transactions that exceed P500,000.

They also allow AMLC to issue an ex parte freeze order, which will be effective immediately and will not exceed 30 days.

Nevertheless, Escudero thanked Duterte for signing the amendments before the annual Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APC) Meeting and Forum on Technical Assistance taking place on July 21.

“I would like to thank the President for signing this into law right in time for the APG meeting. Now that we have already complied with the guidelines, we are hopeful that the country will no longer be put in the blacklist,” Escudero said in a July 19 statement.

The urgency of putting more teeth into the AMLA was highlighted in the fallout of the $81-million Bangladesh Bank heist – the biggest money-laundering case in Philippine history. – Rappler.com

Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Tahoe Resources Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – TAHO

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / July 18, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Tahoe Resources Inc. (”Tahoe” or the ”Company”) (NYSE: TAHO) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-05155, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Tahoe securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Tahoe securities between April 3, 2013 and July 5, 2017 both dates inclusive, you have until September 5, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

[Click here to join this class action]

Tahoe, together with its subsidiaries, explores, develops, and operates mines in the Americas. The Company primarily produces copper, gold, silver, lead/zinc, and natural gas and petroleum, as well as precious metals assets.

On April 3, 2013, Tahoe announced that Guatemala’s Ministry of Energy and Mines (”MEM”) had granted the Company an exploitation license for the Escobal mine, a large silver mine located in the department of Santa Rosa in Southern Guatemala.

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) Guatemala’s MEM had granted the Escobal mining license to Tahoe’s Minera San Rafael subsidiary without prior consultation with Guatemala’s Xinca indigenous people; (ii) the foregoing constituted a violation of Guatemalan law and provided a basis for suspension of the Escobal license; (iii) consequently, the Company’s revenues associated with the Escobal mining license were unlikely to be sustainable; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Tahoe’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 6, 2017, Tahoe disclosed that the Supreme Court of Guatemala had issued a provisional decision suspending the Escobal mining license of Minera San Rafael, a Tahoe subsidiary, in connection with a legal action brought by the human rights organization Centro de Acción Legal Ambiental y Social de Guatemala (”CALAS”) against Guatemala’s MEM. CALAS alleges that MEM violated the Xinca indigenous people’s right of consultation prior to granting the Escobal mining license.

On this news, Tahoe’s common share price fell $2.74, or 33.01%, to close at $5.56 on July 6, 2017.

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

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

ReleaseID: 468747

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / July 18, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Tahoe Resources Inc. (”Tahoe” or the ”Company”) (NYSE: TAHO) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-05155, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Tahoe securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Tahoe securities between April 3, 2013 and July 5, 2017 both dates inclusive, you have until September 5, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

[Click here to join this class action]

Tahoe, together with its subsidiaries, explores, develops, and operates mines in the Americas. The Company primarily produces copper, gold, silver, lead/zinc, and natural gas and petroleum, as well as precious metals assets.

On April 3, 2013, Tahoe announced that Guatemala’s Ministry of Energy and Mines (”MEM”) had granted the Company an exploitation license for the Escobal mine, a large silver mine located in the department of Santa Rosa in Southern Guatemala.

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) Guatemala’s MEM had granted the Escobal mining license to Tahoe’s Minera San Rafael subsidiary without prior consultation with Guatemala’s Xinca indigenous people; (ii) the foregoing constituted a violation of Guatemalan law and provided a basis for suspension of the Escobal license; (iii) consequently, the Company’s revenues associated with the Escobal mining license were unlikely to be sustainable; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Tahoe’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 6, 2017, Tahoe disclosed that the Supreme Court of Guatemala had issued a provisional decision suspending the Escobal mining license of Minera San Rafael, a Tahoe subsidiary, in connection with a legal action brought by the human rights organization Centro de Acción Legal Ambiental y Social de Guatemala (”CALAS”) against Guatemala’s MEM. CALAS alleges that MEM violated the Xinca indigenous people’s right of consultation prior to granting the Escobal mining license.

On this news, Tahoe’s common share price fell $2.74, or 33.01%, to close at $5.56 on July 6, 2017.

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

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

ReleaseID: 468747

Source URL: http://marketersmedia.com/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-reminds-shareholders-with-losses-on-their-investment-in-tahoe-resources-inc-of-class-action-lawsuit-and-upcoming-deadline-taho-2/218969

Source: AccessWire

Release ID: 218969

Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in DryShips Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – DRYS

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / July 18, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against DryShips Inc. (“DryShips” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: DRYS) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-05368, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired DryShips securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased DryShips securities between June 8, 2016, and July 12, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until September 12, 2017, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

[Click here to join this class action]

DryShips Inc. owns and operates ocean going cargo vessels worldwide. It operates through two segments, Drybulk and Offshore Support. The Drybulk segment offers
commodities transportation services for the steel, electric utility, construction, and agri-food industries. The Offshore Support segment provides its services to the global offshore energy industry.

In a series of transactions beginning on or around June 8, 2016, DryShips raised hundreds of millions of dollars in capital by selling newly-issued shares directly to Kalani Investments Ltd. (“Kalani”), a British Virgin Islands firm, at a discount to the stock-market price. This influx of capital enabled DryShips to roughly double the size of its fleet to 36 vessels.

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) Defendants engaged in a systemic stock-manipulation scheme to artificially inflate DryShips’ share price; (ii) DryShips’ transactions with Kalani were an illegal capital-raising scheme, due in part to Kalani’s failure to register as an underwriter with the SEC; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, DryShips’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 13, 2017, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled, “A Shipping Company’s Bizarre Stock Maneuvers Create High Seas Intrigue.” The article described in detail the various transactions between DryShips and Kalani – namely, how DryShips’ influxes of cash stoked investor interest in DryShips, enabling the Company to issue still more shares, which it then continued to sell to Kalani. Kalani ultimately acquired securities convertible to more than $626 million in DryShips common stock, roughly 100 times DryShips’ stock market value as of early November 2016. Meanwhile, to counter share-value dilution and avoid NASDAQ delisting, DryShips executed a series of reverse stock splits.

As The Wall Street Journal reported, however, because Kalani purchased DryShips stock with the intention of reselling, the transactions between DryShips and Kalani essentially constituted “pseudo-underwriting,” with Kalani in the position of the underwriter of a de facto public offering. Kalani, however, never registered as an underwriter with the SEC, in violation of the federal securities laws. Moreover, the issuance of tens of millions of new DryShips shares significantly diluted shareholder value, while the frequent and sharp spikes and drops in DryShip’s common share price, caused by DryShip’s illegal capital-raising, cost the Company’s shareholders hundreds of millions of dollars.

Since November 2016, DryShips’ share price has fallen approximately 99.9%.

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

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

ReleaseID: 468744

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / July 18, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against DryShips Inc. (“DryShips” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: DRYS) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-05368, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired DryShips securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased DryShips securities between June 8, 2016, and July 12, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until September 12, 2017, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

[Click here to join this class action]

DryShips Inc. owns and operates ocean going cargo vessels worldwide. It operates through two segments, Drybulk and Offshore Support. The Drybulk segment offers
commodities transportation services for the steel, electric utility, construction, and agri-food industries. The Offshore Support segment provides its services to the global offshore energy industry.

In a series of transactions beginning on or around June 8, 2016, DryShips raised hundreds of millions of dollars in capital by selling newly-issued shares directly to Kalani Investments Ltd. (“Kalani”), a British Virgin Islands firm, at a discount to the stock-market price. This influx of capital enabled DryShips to roughly double the size of its fleet to 36 vessels.

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) Defendants engaged in a systemic stock-manipulation scheme to artificially inflate DryShips’ share price; (ii) DryShips’ transactions with Kalani were an illegal capital-raising scheme, due in part to Kalani’s failure to register as an underwriter with the SEC; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, DryShips’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 13, 2017, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled, “A Shipping Company’s Bizarre Stock Maneuvers Create High Seas Intrigue.” The article described in detail the various transactions between DryShips and Kalani – namely, how DryShips’ influxes of cash stoked investor interest in DryShips, enabling the Company to issue still more shares, which it then continued to sell to Kalani. Kalani ultimately acquired securities convertible to more than $626 million in DryShips common stock, roughly 100 times DryShips’ stock market value as of early November 2016. Meanwhile, to counter share-value dilution and avoid NASDAQ delisting, DryShips executed a series of reverse stock splits.

As The Wall Street Journal reported, however, because Kalani purchased DryShips stock with the intention of reselling, the transactions between DryShips and Kalani essentially constituted “pseudo-underwriting,” with Kalani in the position of the underwriter of a de facto public offering. Kalani, however, never registered as an underwriter with the SEC, in violation of the federal securities laws. Moreover, the issuance of tens of millions of new DryShips shares significantly diluted shareholder value, while the frequent and sharp spikes and drops in DryShip’s common share price, caused by DryShip’s illegal capital-raising, cost the Company’s shareholders hundreds of millions of dollars.

Since November 2016, DryShips’ share price has fallen approximately 99.9%.

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

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

ReleaseID: 468744

Source URL: http://marketersmedia.com/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-reminds-shareholders-with-losses-on-their-investment-in-dryships-inc-of-class-action-lawsuit-and-upcoming-deadline-drys/218961

Source: AccessWire

Release ID: 218961

Go to Source

Berkeley Law Expands Startup@BerkeleyLaw Initiative to Help…

New partnerships with Code2040 and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati will expand UC Berkeley law school’s groundbreaking work on entrepreneurship and venture capital

Berkeley, CA (PRWEB) July 18, 2017

Startup@BerkeleyLaw, a fast-growing initiative on the UC Berkeley law campus to help new ventures take flight, has launched a program to help underrepresented entrepreneurs find success in Silicon Valley.

This new effort, titled Access to Entrepreneurship, is designed to educate these entrepreneurs on how to start and grow their businesses and to connect with investors, law students, attorneys, and other startup founders. Startup@BerkeleyLaw has been providing similar services to entrepreneurs across the UC Berkeley campus since 2015.    

“In Silicon Valley, it’s all about who you know, and not just about your idea for a new product or service. Unfortunately, the attorneys and investors that dominate the industry struggle in connecting with entrepreneurs from underrepresented communities,” said professor Robert Bartlett, a leading expert on venture capital finance and a faculty co-chair of the law school’s Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy.

Startup@BerkeleyLaw’s Access program will partner with leading venture capital firms and community organizations, including San Francisco-based Code2040, a nonprofit that aims to close the racial wealth gap in the United States by creating pathways to success in the innovation economy for Black and Latinx technologists. Startup@BerkeleyLaw will sponsor travel for up to 30 entrepreneurs to Code2040’s annual summit on July 28-29 in San Francisco, where it will host workshops and office hours with law students, attorneys, and investors. It will also host a half-day of intensive training for Code2040 entrepreneurs on July 30 at Berkeley Law.

“We’re working to make sure that we are proportionally represented in America’s innovation economy by 2040, when people of color will become a majority of the U.S. population,” said Deldelp Medina, director of the Code2040 residency program. “Our partnership with Startup@BerkeleyLaw will help ensure that our entrepreneurs have the tools and relationships necessary to make this a reality.”

Bartlett said the collaboration with Code2040 expands its work, not only at UC Berkeley, but also at UC Merced, where it joins forces with community organizations to provide comprehensive legal services to Central Valley entrepreneurs of limited means and lack of access to startup capital.

Legendary Silicon Valley law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, a founding partner of Startup@BerkeleyLaw, has contributed an undisclosed amount to help Access to Entrepreneurship expand its reach. “The gift will allow us to aggressively scale up to better serve our law students and underrepresented entrepreneurs both locally and nationally,” Bartlett said.

“Our law firm has maintained a commitment to diversity in the legal and technology sectors since our inception more than 50 years ago,” said Steve Bochner, a partner at Wilson Sonsini and a 1981 graduate of Berkeley Law. “We are pleased to be a founding partner of Startup@BerkeleyLaw and are confident that its Access program will help Silicon Valley and the wider Bay Area business community make positive strides in the area of diversity and inclusion.”

Startup@BerkeleyLaw is a critical offshoot of the law school’s 12-year-old Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy. The center serves as UC Berkeley’s hub for business law: it involves more than 15 faculty members, hosts over 30 unique courses each semester and manages industry-leading research, executive programs, and conferences on venture capital, corporate social responsibility, mergers and acquisitions, capital markets, antitrust, and more.

“The Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy has built the world’s most innovative, and socially conscious, business law program. With Startup@BerkeleyLaw, we are seeking to increase the number of successful founders at UC Berkeley, as well as underrepresented entrepreneurs around the country,” said Adam Sterling, executive director of the center. To strengthen that effort, the center will collaborate with law and social science professor Victoria Plaut, the director of a diversity lab at UC, to offer workshops on equity and inclusion in the tech space. Professor Plaut will also be presenting on behalf of Startup@BerkeleyLaw at the Code 2040 annual summit.

Other participants in Startup@BerkeleyLaw’s programs include high-powered venture capital firms, including Andreessen Horowitz, AngelList, Kapor Capital, and Y Combinator. Bartlett said the school will recruit additional top venture capital firms in Silicon Valley, as well as law firms and NGOs.

About Startup@BerkeleyLaw—a joint initiative launched in 2015 by two UC Berkeley Law School research centers: the Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy and the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology. The program gives law students, entrepreneurs, investors, and attorneys access to top experts, timely courses, and dynamic programming on legal and finance issues for emerging companies.


For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/07/prweb14508150.htm


Go to Source

JIT law firm is ‘one man show’

LONDON: Head of Joint Investigation Team (JIT) Wajid Zia has said that he chose to hire services of his cousin Akhtar Raja because of his professionalism and the repute of his company but an investigation shows that Akhtar Raja’s Quist Solicitors is only a one-man show and accounts of the law firm look in poor shape. 

It has been alleged that Wajid Zia favoured his cousin Akhtar Riaz Raja by giving him work in the UK while hiding the fact that his cousin’s law firm has been making losses and never carried out any financial and forensic investigation but an investigation shows that Akhtar Raja has worked on a few big cases such as the case of radical cleric Abu Hamza and his extradition to USA but he is not known for any major cases or any high profile forensic or investigative work.

Wajid Zia says that Akhtar Raja gave 35% discount to JIT but he has not revealed the exact amount he paid to his cousin and it’s not know on what basis he gave a sensitive case to his cousin, of all the law firms. 

At least two close family members of Akhtar Raja have confirmed that Akhtar Raja’s wife, who lives with him in London area called Hampstead Suburbs, is affiliated with a political party in the Panama case while Akhtar Raja has been involved in arranging tour of a Islamabad-Rawalpindi religious scholar, who follows sufiism, to UK in recent past. 

The relative said that Akhtar Raja and wife deactivated their facebook accounts recently fearing that their pictures at political events will be copied and used by the government of Pakistan. 

Research on Companies House shows that Akhtar Raja made a few companies and either dissolved them for loss making or their accounts were dormant. Evidence shows that Akhtar Raja’s current law firm Quist Solicitors hired by JIT head Wajid Zia, doesn’t operate from the prized Central London address given on its website. When this reporter visited the posh website address of Akhtar Raja’s office at “12th Floor The Broadgate Tower” near Liverpool Street, the building manager said that Quist Solicitors only uses its postcode for receiving correspondence and its landline number is managed by a telephone banks company in Wales. It’s understood that Akhtar Raja most works out of his home and his website confirms that he is the sole practitioner at his law firm along with another registered lawyer and this is confirmed by his law firm’s website. 

Akhtar Raja registered Quist Law Ltd (08450611) on 19 March 2013 using address: 170 Church Road, Mitcham, Surrey, England, CR4 3BW and this company remains active and this was the company used by Wajid Zia. Companies House said yesterday that Akhtar Raja submitted his company’s accounts to the Companies House as dormant made up to 31/03/2016.

But profile on legal regulator Law Society’s website provides information that only single person is working in the firm – which means that this firm is only one man show.

Akhtar Raja registered Quist Human Rights Project Ltd using 170 Church Road, Mitcham, Surrey, England, CR4 3BW but a search shows that 49 companies have been registered on this address.

Record of Companies House shows that Raja submitted his company’s accounts to the Companies House as total small company accounts made up to 30 September 2016. The cash in bank is shown as £7170 but the amount owed to creditors is £8426 which means this company is in loss for £717. 

Akhtar Raja registered a company called ‘2020 VISAS LTD’ using the same address (12th Floor The Broadgate Tower, 20 Primrose Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2A 2EW) that is currently being used by Quist Solicitors. His company remained active from 13/08/2012 to 22/03/2016 and then went under compulsory strike-off. He submitted his company’s accounts to the Companies House as dormant made up to 31/08/2014 and following this his company was struck out on March 22, 2016.

JIT has confirmed that Akhtar Raja instructed the laboratory firm that said in its opinion that the Calibri font may not be used in 2006 at the time the deed was signed between Hussain and Maryam Nawaz. 

Our Karachi correspondent adds: A person close to Akhtar Raja while talking to this correspondent rejected all the allegations against the company. He said some elements are engaged in propaganda against Akhtar Raja’s company. He said the company has a wide rage of clients.

This company works from the office and not from home. He said the company is engaged in transparent work.

Advertisement

Go to Source