Latest Posts

Multinational firms lose luster among Chinese students: survey

Multinational companies no longer enjoy recruitment advantages in China as domestic IT and Internet companies increasingly gain favor among Chinese students, according to data released Thursday by international consultancy Universum in Shanghai.

The Stockholm, Sweden-headquartered Universum received assessments of 233 employers from 79,346 students majoring in business, engineering, science, social sciences and humanities, law and medicine.

In the survey, 18 percent of Chinese students said they were willing to work for a multinational, a decrease from 25 percent in 2016 and 28 percent in 2015. The proportions were even lower among science and engineering majors—only 16 percent of engineering students and 14 percent of science students wanted to join a multinational after graduation. The students said multinationals were less stable than their domestic counterparts.

This year, the top five most attractive employers for business majors were Alibaba, Huawei, Bank of China, Ernst & Young, and PricewaterhouseCoopers, while the top five most favored by engineering students were Huawei, Tencent, Alibaba, Baidu and Microsoft.

Alibaba and Huawei were also attractive to other majors. Alibaba was the second most attractive employer among science students and the top among students of social sciences and humanities. Huawei took the first spot among science students, and was the second most popular among business students and majors in social sciences and humanities. Tencent also ranked high among various majors.

Chinese Internet companies were well known for competitive compensations that came with highly stressful workloads. But the survey found Chinese students attributed these companies’ attractiveness to their entrepreneurial spirit, creative working environment, team work and corporate social responsibility. The students valued “a sound support for future career development” when it came to choosing an employer.

Wu Gang, the vice-president of Universum’s Asia-Pacific region, said that “In recent years, through our surveys and research, we’ve found an obvious change. That is, China’s indigenous IT and Internet companies are becoming increasingly popular, while the competitive advantages multinationals used to enjoy are no longer that noticeable.”

Go to Source

Mrs Lee Suet Fern leaves managing partner role in her law firm’s S’pore office

SINGAPORE — Mrs Lee Suet Fern, the wife of Mr Lee Hsien Yang, has stepped down as managing partner of her law firm’s Singapore office, TODAY has learnt. 

She will continue helming its international leadership team. Her successor, Mr Ng Joo Khin, has been appointed as managing partner of Morgan Lewis Stamford’s Singapore office and will oversee the firm’s day-to-day operations here. 

The leadership transition has been in the works for some time, as part of the company’s regular transition process, TODAY understands. The news was communicated by the law firm to some of its staff earlier this week.

In the past week, Mrs Lee, 59, has been in the spotlight over her role in the saga among the Lee siblings over their Oxley Road family home. Mr Ng’s name has also cropped up in the controversy, as he was the one whom Mrs Lee said had handled the preparation of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s final will, based on an edited summary of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s statutory declaration — which was released publicly on Thursday (June 15) — to the Cabinet committee set up to mull over the options for the home. PM Lee has questioned Mrs Lee’s role in the will and whether there was conflict of interest on her part. 

As head of Morgan Lewis’ international leadership team, Mrs Lee will be based both in Singapore and Hong Kong. This group comprises the managing partners of all the firm’s offices outside the United States and a partner in New York. 

When contacted by TODAY, a spokesperson for Morgan Lewis said on Thursday that the firm “does not anticipate any material change in (its) Singapore team or practice”. 

“(Mrs Lee) will continue to spend a significant amount of time in Singapore as well as travel to Hong Kong, as she already does in support of her strong client relationships there and as head of our international leadership team,” the spokesperson added. Mrs Lee declined comment when approached. 

On Wednesday, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, 60, had said in a joint public statement with his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, 62, that he would be leaving Singapore for “the foreseeable future”. On the same day, he told this newspaper that his wife, Suet Fern, was considering whether to leave the country as well. “We’re looking at what we want to do and what we should do,” he said.

A leading corporate lawyer, Mrs Lee founded Singapore-based regional law firm Stamford Law Corporation — now known as Morgan Lewis Stamford — about 17 years ago. Her areas of focus include mergers and acquisitions, and corporate finance. She has been involved in a host of corporate transactions in Singapore and the region. The Cambridge-educated lawyer also sits on the boards of public-listed firms, including insurance firm AXA. Until last year, she was also chairman of the Asian Civilisations Museum.

REBUTTAL

Meanwhile, in a span of several hours on Friday, Mr Lee Hsien Yang came out twice to rebut PM Lee’s concerns over the role his wife and her law firm played in the drafting of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s wills.

In his first post on Facebook, early on Friday morning, he stated that Stamford Law did not draft his father’s Last Will. He said his brother’s “claimed recollection to that effect is clearly erroneous”, adding, “LHL’s (Lee Hsien Loong’s) secret committee ignored it”.

Before ending the post with a question – “besides, we thought this was a ‘private family matter?’, a reference to the PM’s earlier statement that the airing of the feud had saddened him – Mr Lee Hsien Yang also said both he and Dr Lee had already responded to a ministerial committee’s questions on how the Last Will was prepared, and the role played by Mrs Lee Suet Fern and Stamford Law in it. Calling the PM’s assertion “a lie”, he said they had responded on Feb 28.

In a post several hours later, at 1.05pm, he went further, saying: “Stamford Law did not draft any will for LKY. The will was drafted by Kwa Kim Li of Lee & Lee.”

Rebutting “grave concerns” raised by PM Lee on Thursday over the role played by Mrs Lee and the potential conflict of interest on her part, Mr Lee Hsien Yang added: “Paragraph 7 of the Will was drafted at LKY’s (Lee Kuan Yew’s) direction, and put into language by Lee Suet Fern his daughter in law and when he was satisfied he asked Kim Li to insert it into his will.”

The Stamford lawyers were called in to witness the signing of the will on express written instructions from his father, and it was Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s estate that had instructed the law firm to extract probate.

On the role of Mr Ng, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said it was to read the will to the beneficiaries.

Stamford Law formed a significant part in PM Lee’s statutory declarations, which were made to the ministerial committee looking into options for the family home at 38, Oxley Road. In them, Mr Lee said Mrs Lee Suet Fern had said that his father asked her to prepare his Last Will, but as she did not want to get personally involved, she got a lawyer from her firm of Stamford Law to do so instead.

The Last Will differed markedly from a previous version: It gave an equal share of the late Mr Lee’s estate to all of his children, and contained a clause stating that the founding PM wanted the Oxley Road house demolished after his death.

By contrast, the previous version of the will gave a larger share of the estate to Dr Lee Wei Ling, and did not contain the so-called demolition clause.

The latest posts continued the pushback from the Lee siblings following the release of the PM’s statutory declarations.

On Thursday night, Dr Lee Wei Ling posted several rebuttals on Facebook, accusing the PM and his wife, Madam Ho Ching, of being “mischievous and dishonest” by selectively using quotes from her out of context to suggest that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife were trying to cheat her out of their father’s final will.

The long-running dispute over the fate of 38, Oxley Road spilled over on Wednesday, when Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee issued their six-page statement alleging that they felt “threatened” in their attempt to carry out their late father’s wish to demolish their family home on 38 Oxley Road. That statement alleged persecution.

PM Lee denied their allegations, saying they saddened him and tarnished their father’s legacy. He and Madam Ho also rubbished claims that he had political ambitions for his son, Mr Li Hongyi, who later weighed in to state that he had no such designs.

On Friday, Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s son, Mr Li Shengwu, also weighed in. In a Facebook post at 3.44am, he wrote: “Not only do I intend never to go into politics, I believe that it would be bad for Singapore if any third-generation Lee went into politics. The country must be bigger than one family.”

Go to Source

Legal firms ripping off state – Ngoepe

Johannesburg – Retired judge Bernard Ngoepe has raised concerns about the exorbitant fees charged by legal firms when dealing with the state.

Ngoepe, who is also the country’s tax ombudsman, said in an interview recently that there was seemingly a concerning tendency of firms charging high prices for legal services rendered to government departments.

Government allegedly spent R1 billion on legal fees in the past financial year.

Having served the country’s legal fraternity with distinction for almost five decades, Ngoepe was at pains to point out two major issues that seem to plague the profession.

READ: SA’s first tax ombud ‘a true servant of the people’

“I must register publicly my concern about the seemingly – and I use the word seemingly – exorbitant fees charged by legal firms, especially when they are being asked by government to conduct forensic investigations.

“Secondly, I am concerned some of the expensive legal opinions given to government departments are not as good as they should be,” he said, tapping on the table in a bid to emphasise the point.

“They are just not good enough, they appear to be inaccurate and that concerns me,” he said, citing a 40-page legal opinion worth millions of rands.

He further pointed out that he hoped the country would achieve a balanced jurisprudence.

“In other words, balanced judgments that will lead us to the right direction and that can be achieved by a realistic, pragmatic interpretation and application of the Constitution,” said the soft-spoken judge, denying that he meant there was not enough sober judgement.

“No, I am not saying [that there are not sufficient sober-minded decisions in our courts], I am just saying we must always strive to interpret and apply our Constitution in a pragmatic and balanced way. I am saying we should continue to do that,” he said.

Government spend on litigation has been a major concern, with most prominent legal opinions paid for by the state not being acted upon and most cases that head to court being unsuccessful when challenged.

Government has allegedly spent almost R1 billion in legal services and that amount excludes that spent by parastatals.

Eskom, which has had almost 10 major investigations in as many years, said it spent R46 million on forensic investigations using 22 firms in the past financial year.

“Eskom appointed 35 law firms from its panel of attorneys against a spend of about R72.3 million across both civil litigation and legal opinions, with the former receiving more fees owing to Eskom having to defend its interest during the previous financial year.

“Eskom’s legal cost as a percentage of revenue falls in the 50th percentile of the global peer group and is relatively comparable to the local peer group,” Eskom’s media desk said.

Another major parastatal, the Passenger Rail Agency of SA (Prasa), paid R184 million in legal costs and a further R152 million on forensic investigations.

However, one of Prasa’s most recent forensic investigations, conducted by Werksmans Attorneys, cost the company more than R130 million.

The investigation was a major bone of contention between the board and the transport minister and is yet to yield a single significant conviction.

Despite numerous requests, the department of justice did not provide any figures.

White men still earn more

A recent report by the Law Society of SA (LSSA) has revealed how the lion’s share of money is still earned by white male advocates – even though they do not get the most work. 

The report revealed that state departments mostly give their work to black and white male advocates, while coloured female advocates get the least work in almost all categories. 

While state-owned enterprises (SOEs) give work to black male junior advocates and certain white male senior advocates, white male senior advocates are paid the most. 

All female advocates, with the exception of black female advocates, receive less work or no work from both government departments and SOEs. 

The LSSA commissioned the study to investigate the distribution of legal work between January 2015 and February 2016 by national government departments and SOEs. Of the 80 firms approached, only 20 responded. 

The study probed how government departments and SOEs distribute their legal work in terms of race and gender as well as the amount paid. 

Among the SOEs, the value of work given to white male advocates was almost three times more than that of Indian males, while black male junior advocates earned four times less than their white male counterparts. 

Professor Tsili Phooko, who conducted the research, said the report overall showed that even though white firms and white males get less work, they earn the lion’s share of the money. 

The report recommended that a body responsible for reporting be established and that it must ensure work is consistently distributed to all law firms and across all the races. 

It also recommended that a similar study be conducted in the private sector to “ensure that the distribution of legal work in all sectors of society is made known to the general public and monitored”. 

A multistakeholder action group, which includes representatives of the LSSA, General Council of the Bar, Advocates for Transformation, and the department of justice and constitutional development, was formed during last year’s summit on briefing patterns and has drafted an industry procurement protocol that is set to be signed later this month.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE UPDATE: Get Fin24’s top morning business news and opinions in your inbox.

Read Fin24’s top stories trending on Twitter: Fin24’s top stories

Go to Source

Indiana to pay law firm $100k to handle records requests for Pence’s AOL emails

Indiana is paying a law firm $100,000 to help deal with a backlog of public records requests, most of which seek emails from Vice President Mike Pence’s tenure as governor, including correspondence routed through a private AOL.com account he used to conduct state business.

Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb’s administration entered a one-year contract last month with Shelbyville firm McNeely Stephenson to handle the “unusually high” number of requests, records show.

More than 50 such requests are pending before Holcomb, who was Pence’s hand-picked replacement on the ballot after Donald Trump selected Pence to be his running mate last July.

The vast majority seek correspondence Pence had with staffers and political groups, including emails that were routed through his private AOL.com account, according to documents previously obtained by The Associated Press through a public records request.

Go to Source

Council pension funds put £400m into fracking firms

TEN Scottish local authorities pension funds have invested more than £400 million in 23 fracking companies.

Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee, Falkirk and other councils put their pension money in multinational shale gas firms blamed for causing climate pollution.

A new report by Friends of the Earth Scotland discloses council pension investments in Shell, BP, Exxon, Chevron, Occidental and many other companies it says are involved in fracturing underground rocks to extract shale gas.

Campaigners say the fracking industry is “completely irresponsible” and are calling for money to be invested in clean energy instead. But councils say they have a duty to pensioners to invest where they can make the most money.

The biggest investor is the Strathclyde Pension Fund, administered by Glasgow City Council, which has put £142m into 21 companies. Two of them are said to have breached environmental laws in the US.

Over the last two years US authorities have fined Range Resources $13 million for pollution breaches in Pennsylvania. Cabot Oil and Gas, based in Houston Texas, was reported for 494 environmental violations in Pennsylvania between 2009 and 2013.

Dundee’s pension fund invests £59m in fracking firms, Aberdeen’s £51m, Edinburgh’s £46m and Falkirk’s £40m (see table below). The only council-run pension scheme that doesn’t have money in fracking is Shetland’s, says the report.

“Opening up new frontiers of fossil fuels like fracked gas whether here or in the US is completely irresponsible in the context of the global climate crisis,” said Friends of the Earth Scotland campaigner Flick Monk.

She pointed out that more than 40,000 people have urged the Scottish Government to permanently ban fracking because of its risks. A public consultation ended on May 31 and ministers have promised to make a decision before the end of the year.

“If fracking is too dirty and dangerous for us here in Scotland we shouldn’t be profiting from it taking place in other countries. Our local government pension funds should be investing for the long-term, not undermining our future by investing in the industries driving global climate change,” Monk said.

“The pressure will be on councillors on pension committees whose parties oppose fracking in Scotland to put in place an investment approach that supports a healthy future for us all, instead of making a quick buck from dirty industries like fracking.”

The trade union Unison. which represents many local government pension fund members in Scotland, argued that councils should be investing in clean energy solutions not fossil fuels.

“Using pension funds to invest in fracking is wrong on environmental and safety grounds,” said the union’s Scottish organiser. Dave Watson. “It is also a risky investment given doubts about the financial viability of fracking.”

Pension funds, however, argued that they had limited flexibility because of the “fiduciary duty” they had under law to protect the value of pensions. “This restricts disinvesting from companies for purely non-financial reasons,” said Pamela Bruce, spokesperson the Lothian Pension Fund administered by Edinburgh City Council.

Withdrawing funds may not the best way to influence corporate behaviour, she argued. “By engaging with companies the fund is able to encourage responsible corporate behaviour which is potentially more beneficial to the environment and society than divestment.”

Strathclyde Pension Fund stressed it was “a strong supporter” of the transition to a low-carbon economy. “However, the fund does not agree that an exclusive focus on fossil fuels is a reliable measure of any investor’s exposure,” said a spokesman.

“Simple divestment is unlikely to address climate change as all evidence suggests it simply gives greater control to investors with absolutely no commitment or interest in climate change or environmental protection.”

Falkirk Council said it had recently changed its policy “to place greater emphasis on climate change risk”. Although the council had “some indirect exposure to fracking”, its fund managers would “engage robustly with investee companies in order to ensure that environmental risks are being properly recognised and managed.”

Dundee City Council said that its investment managers had to have signed up to United Nations responsible investment principles. Aberdeen City Council did not respond to a request for comment.

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities said that pension funds made investment decisions in line with their legal obligations. “Accountability lies entirely with the pension funds and their respective pension committees with regard to the decisions made,” said a convention spokesperson.

The UK fracking industry argues that investments in US shale had helped reduce climate pollution. “Oil and gas form the basis of our everyday life,” said Ken Cronin, chief executive of UK Onshore Oil and Gas. “The materials we now rely upon to produce our wind turbines, solar panels and low weight fuel efficient products for cars and planes come from oil and gas. In Scotland, nearly 2m homes and 22,000 businesses are connected to gas.”

Council investments in fracking companies

local authority pension scheme / amount

Glasgow / £142m

Dundee / £59m

Aberdeen / £51m

Edinburgh / £46m

Falkirk / £40m

Highland / £27m

Dumfries and Galloway / £21m

Fife / £10m

Borders / £5m

Orkney / £5m

Company / investment by Scottish councils

Shell / £130m

BP / £64m

Exxon Mobil / £44m

EOG / £40.7m

Apache / £20m

BHP Billiton / £19.5m

Chevron / £16.6m

Occidental / £12.6m

StatOil / £10.7m

Anadarko / £9.3m

Pioneer / £8.2m

Hess / £8m

Noble / £7.8m

ConocoPhillips / £6.3m

Cabot / £4.2m

Devon / £1.2m

EQT / £0.8m

Marathon / £0.6m

Encana / £0.4m

Range Resources / £0.4m

Murphy / £0.3m

Newfield Exploration / £0.3m

Antero / £0.04m

Go to Source

African, Chinese law firms ink deal to boost investments in Africa

NAIROBI — African and Chinese laws firms on Friday signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that aims to boost Chinese investments in Africa.

The MOU between Lex Africa and the Global Chinese Speaking Lawyers’ Association aims to improve the confidence of Chinese entrepreneurs operating in Africa.

Lex Africa founder member Fred Ojiambo told a media briefing that Chinese firms have began to recognize the importance of seeking legal assistance while doing business in Africa.

“So under the deal, Chinese business community can seek legal advice from Lex Africa partner lawyers who are situated in 20 African countries,” Ojiambo said during a trade and investment forum organized by the Kenya Investment Authority and China’s Shenzhen city.

The deal runs for an initial period of seven years, with a possibility of renewal depending on the outcomes. It is expected to give Chinese firms additional comfort that their investments and contracts will be fully respected.

Ojiambo said that Chinese firms are increasingly attracted to Africa due to the numerous business opportunities present in the continent.

“So our aim is to smoothen the Chinese experiences in Africa so that Sino-Africa relations are enhanced,” he said, noting that the legal environment in Africa is very different from that in China.

“As a result, Chinese firms often face difficulties whenever they find themselves in legal disputes with African governments or businesses,” he added.

Africa has diverse legal systems as African countries inherited different European legal systems.

The deal is also said to expand opportunities for African lawyers.

“We will now get referrals from Chinese lawyers on Chinese entrepreneurs who are seeking to establish presence in the continent and require legal representation,” Ojiambo said.

Go to Source

Trump Saving Jobs For Coal Miners and Law Professors

Trump Could Help Stop Law School Crisis

Trump Could Help Stop Law School Crisis

WASHINGTONJune 17, 2017PRLog — Although President Donald Trump’s efforts to protect and bring back jobs for coal miners is well known, he’s now – perhaps inadvertently – doing the same for professors at our nation’s law schools, notes public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

        News that Trump’s own attorney Michael Cohen has had to hire another lawyer, Stephen Ryan, to represent him regarding various investigations already ongoing in Washington, D.C., almost certainly sent a clear message to many others on the White House staff, Trump’s transition team, and high level executives at his many business ventures that they too probably need lawyers to protect their interests if not their freedoms, even if they are themselves lawyers.

        Cohen’s action probably reinforced the message which earlier was broadcast loud and clear when Trump’s other lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, reportedly told many White House “aides gathered in one meeting” that “it was not yet necessary” for each of them to go out and hire their own legal counsel.

        As a popular lawyer website, AboveTheLaw, noted, “I’m sure that’s what a lot of lawyers would like to tell potential witnesses against their clients.  Because, of course, once they get their own lawyers, Kasowitz can’t talk to them directly.”  So, many will take it as a signal to get lawyered up.

        When lawyers have to go out and hire their own lawyers, it really helps to reduce the current glut of lawyers looking for work, says Banzhaf, noting that many would be happy to have even low-paying jobs reviewing documents in windowless rooms.

        Add to this the growing number potentially involved in various probes who will now need lawyers, and any of those lawyers who will have to hire their own lawyers, there could be a hiring boom among D.C.’s lawyers not seen since the days of Watergate, says Banzhaf, who played a role in that scandal.

        All this is coming at a perfect time to help bail out law schools and law professors, says Banzhaf, noting that most law school have been forced to slash class size and/or significantly lower their admissions standards simply in order to remain afloat.

        This dire situation, which many have labeled a crisis, was precipitated by the recent financial collapse, but is also a logical result of advances in data processing and AI, and the outsourcing of work by law firms to specialty shops and to other countries, thereby slashing the need for new attorneys.

        As a direct result, law school are in trouble. For example, between 2011 and 2015, it was estimated that tuition revenue fell by about 35% among the great majority of law schools not at the top of the rankings list.

        Since most law schools are very heavily depended on tuition revenue, anything Trump does which creates an increased demand for more lawyers – including not only the D.C. probes, but also litigation over immigration and increased deportations, the need to fight changes in federal regulations, and, shortly, renewed litigation over whatever replaces Obamacare – is welcomed with joyful arms by the legal profession, and by the many law schools which continue to turn out more graduates than the nation really needs.

JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D.
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School,
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
Fellow, World Technology Network,
Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH),
2000 H Street, NW, Wash, DC 20052, USA
(202) 994-7229 // (703) 527-8418
http://banzhaf.net/  jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com  @profbanzhaf

Go to Source

3 firms picked to score Ohio medical-pot grower applications

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) – Three companies have been selected to review Ohio’s anticipated flood of applications for medical marijuana grow licenses.

A spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Commerce said Friday the companies are iCann Consulting, B&B Grow Solutions and Meade & Wing. A fourth bidder, GenFin Services, was not selected.

Friday was the deadline for small-scale cultivators to apply to compete for 12 available licenses. Companies seeking to become one of the state’s 12 large-scale cultivators have until the end of the month to submit applications.

Applicants for licenses will be scored in several areas, including operation plans, security, quality assurance and finances

Ohio passed its medical pot law last year. Cannabis for eligible medical conditions should be available by September 2018.

Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Go to Source

Tuskegee Airman Dr. Robert M. Higginbotham Offers Inspiration to Aspiring Lawyers at UB Law School Program

On Wednesday, June 7th  participants in the University of Baltimore School of Law (UBL)’s Charles Hamilton Houston Scholars Program heard remarks from former Tuskegee Airman Dr. Robert M. Higginbotham, Sr., father of F. Michael Higginbotham UBL’s

(PHOTO/Danielle P. Anderson)

Dean Joseph Curtis Professor of Law.

The 91-year-old Tuskegee Airmen veteran shared his experience from his childhood near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to serving as one of the famed World War II Tuskegee Airmen who helped America win victory. His inspiring words were part of the empowerment curriculum provided to approximately a dozen prospective law students selected from undergraduate colleges in Maryland and across the country.  

He discussed his journey to overcome racial discrimination that ultimately led to his becoming an orthopedic surgeon in Beverly Hills, California. He was among the group of Black veteran awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in a 2007 White House ceremony by then President George W. Bush. Giving a formal military salute during that ceremony, the president told the honorees, “I would like to offer a gesture to atone for all the unreturned salutes and unforgivable indignities…” Dr. Higginbotham encouraged the students to “work hard, be excellent in everything, deal honestly with people and you will earn their respect.” 

     The Charles Hamilton Houston scholars program is a pipeline initiative of the University of Baltimore Law School to reach out to minority students who are interested in the practice of law. According to the Program’s Director, law Professor Cassandra Jones Havard, the program is named in honor of Baltimorean Thurgood Marshall’s great mentor and Harvard trained Black lawyer who did much of his groundbreaking civil rights courtroom work here in Baltimore. In its sixth year, the program  has had students from colleges and universities as far away as Illinois, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas as well as college students from local schools who participate in the intensive academic enrichment classes that help them learn about the legal profession. The students visited local courts and law firms to hear from members of the legal profession and received training in legal analysis, case briefing techniques, professional skills and other activities that lead them to a smoother transition into law school. Federal Judge George L. Russell, III, state Judge Wanda Keyes Heard as well as lawyers from national law firms McGuire, Woods and Saul, Ewing hosted the scholars at their Baltimore offices and offered then insight and encouragement on their journey toward a legal career.

*Danielle Anderson is a Senior at UMBC and served as a teaching and media assistant for the Charles Hamilton Houston Scholars Program.

Go to Source

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – ITCI

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / June 16, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. (“Intra-Cellular” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: ITCI) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-03197, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Intra-Cellular securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Intra-Cellular securities between August 12, 2014 and April 28, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until July 11, 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]

Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that is focused on the discovery and clinical development of innovative, small molecule drugs that address underserved medical needs in neuropsychiatric and neurological disorders by targeting intracellular signaling mechanisms within the central nervous system, or CNS. The Company’s lead drug candidate, ITI-007 also known as lumateperone, is supposed to treat schizophrenia, behavioral disturbances in dementia, bipolar disorder and other neuropsychiatric and neurological disorders.

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) the findings related to toxicity observed in animals treated with lumateperone (ITI-007); (ii) these findings posed an additional safety concern regarding lumateperone; (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Intra-Cellular’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 1, 2017, before the market opened, the Company issued a press release entitled, “Intra-Cellular Therapies Provides Corporate Update on Schizophrenia Program” which revealed findings of toxicity in animals treated with lumateperone.

On this news, Intra-Cellular’s share price fell $3.33, or over 24%, to close at $10.49 on May 1, 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: 466053

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / June 16, 2017 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. (“Intra-Cellular” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: ITCI) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-03197, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Intra-Cellular securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Intra-Cellular securities between August 12, 2014 and April 28, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until July 11, 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]

Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that is focused on the discovery and clinical development of innovative, small molecule drugs that address underserved medical needs in neuropsychiatric and neurological disorders by targeting intracellular signaling mechanisms within the central nervous system, or CNS. The Company’s lead drug candidate, ITI-007 also known as lumateperone, is supposed to treat schizophrenia, behavioral disturbances in dementia, bipolar disorder and other neuropsychiatric and neurological disorders.

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) the findings related to toxicity observed in animals treated with lumateperone (ITI-007); (ii) these findings posed an additional safety concern regarding lumateperone; (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Intra-Cellular’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 1, 2017, before the market opened, the Company issued a press release entitled, “Intra-Cellular Therapies Provides Corporate Update on Schizophrenia Program” which revealed findings of toxicity in animals treated with lumateperone.

On this news, Intra-Cellular’s share price fell $3.33, or over 24%, to close at $10.49 on May 1, 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: 466053

Source URL: http://marketersmedia.com/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-reminds-shareholders-with-losses-on-their-investment-in-intra-cellular-therapies-inc-of-class-action-lawsuit-and-upcoming-deadline-itci/208865

Source: AccessWire

Release ID: 208865

Go to Source