NEW YORK & MINNEAPOLIS –(BUSINESS WIRE)

Consumers from New York and California filed a class action lawsuit in
federal district court in New York today against KAS Direct LLC,
alleging that the company uses deceptive marketing and business
practices to promote its Babyganics line of infant-oriented health,
hygiene, and personal-care and household cleaning products, said
plaintiffs law firm Halunen Law.

Despite its name, the suit alleges that most Babyganics products are not
manufactured using organic ingredients. Yet the company’s marketing has
made them appear as the organic and therefore safer and healthier – if
costlier – alternative to thousands of American parents concerned about
reducing their babies’ physical exposure at home to potentially harmful
synthetic chemicals the complaint alleges. Most Babyganics infant care
products are applied directly to the skin, such as sunscreens, diaper
rash rubs, insect repellents, and hand and face wipes. The suit alleges
that consumers have become increasingly concerned about the effects of
synthetic and chemical ingredients in their products and that Babyganics
is capitalizing on consumers’ concerns and their desire for “organic
products.”

The lawsuit alleges that the Babyganics name violates various consumer
protection statutes in California and New York, and by extension
throughout the United States, since Babyganics products are marketed
through various retail channels on a national basis. The lawsuit asks
the court to award class damages from KAS/Babyganics in excess of $5
million and to require the company to cease using marketing practices
that falsely portray it as an organic company making organically based
products.

According to the complaint, the Babyganics deception begins with the
brand name itself, which implies to consumers that the company is all
about organic products, despite the inclusion of laboratory-derived
chemicals in several products such as baby sunscreens and cleaning
agents. The Babyganics business is built on the idea that consumers will
pay more for organically-based products, because they perceive them to
be more healthful and life-enhancing, the complaint states. The
Babyganics name, itself an artificially contrived admixture of baby and
organics, was deliberately selected to suggest to consumers that
Babyganics differentiates itself – falsely – by making products free of
synthetic chemical intrusion or composition, says the complaint.

“Consumers deserve truth in labeling and should have confidence that
they can rely on product labels when making purchasing decisions. We are
talking about calling products ‘organic’ that contain potentially
harmful chemicals—we will fight hard to right what we believe is a
wrong,” says Melissa Wolchansky, attorney with Minneapolis-based Halunen
Law, one of three law firms filing the class action lawsuit on behalf of
plaintiffs Tanya Mayhew in New York and Tanveer Alibhai in California.

The deception allows Babyganics to charge premium prices for its
products, a practice that has unjustly enriched the company to the tune
of millions of dollars, the complaint alleges. So successful was
Babyganics strategy that it appeared on the Inc. 5000 list of fastest
growing private companies in America in 2014, after reporting a 277
percent annual growth rate for the previous three years.

Plaintiff Mayhew purchased the Products because she saw the labeling,
advertising, the Defendant’s website, and read the packaging, which
represented that the products are “Organic” and “Mineral-Based.” The
marketing convinced her that Babyganics products were worth the premium
prices she paid for them, when in fact she now believes the products are
worth less than she paid.

Plaintiff Alibhai sought to reduce her young child’s sun exposure risk
in purchasing the Babyganics mineral-based sunscreen, believing it to be
free of chemical sunscreens. Her child developed a skin rash from using
the product, after which she discovered that Babyganics included several
chemicals, including Octinoxate and Octisalate, two active chemical
sunscreens that the Environmental Working Group (a member of a “sun
safety coalition” with KAS/Babyganics) tells consumers are under
scrutiny in Europe for potentially harmful human impacts. By featuring
the product as “mineral based,” Plaintiff Alibhai alleges that
Babyganics purposely sought to deceive health-conscious consumers into
believing the product was free of chemical sunscreens.

All told, Babyganics markets dozens of products for infant and household
care. While many of them contain some organic ingredients, they fall
short of meeting the legal standard for labeling a product as organic,
as defined by the California Organic Products Act of 2003 and the
National Organics Program, the complaint alleges. COPA mandates that “no
product shall be sold as organic pursuant to this article unless it is
produced according to regulations promulgated by the NOP, and consists
entirely of products manufactured only from raw or processed
agricultural products.”

Class action lawsuits are an effective means for redressing marketplace
fraud and deceit, empowering consumers – and the legal system – to take
action collectively against practices that may not, on an individual
transaction basis, be practical to litigate. “We stand up for consumers
against retail fraud, that’s what lawyers like myself do,” says
Wolchansky. “I encourage any consumer who believes they are victims of
systematic retail fraud to contact a class action law firm such as
Halunen Law or my co-counsel at Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca and The Sultzer
Law Group.”

About Halunen Law

Halunen Law has expertise in litigating consumer class actions and a
track record of success in challenging dishonest marketing, corporate
fraud and illegal business practices. Halunen also offers experienced
representation to employees and whistleblowers under the False Claims
Act and other statutes. Visit the firm’s website at www.halunenlaw.com.

About Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP

Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca has litigated scores of defective building
products and consumer cases and recovered over $2 billion for its
clients. Cuneo represents individuals and businesses that have been
victims of antitrust violations, faulty products, civil rights
violations, and securities fraud. Learn more about Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca at http://www.cuneolaw.com,
Washington, D.C. | Tel: (202) 789-3960.

About The Sultzer Law Group P.C.

The Sultzer Law Group, P.C. focuses on complex civil litigation,
including consumer class actions. The firm is headquartered in New York,
and maintains offices in California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Since
its founding in 2013, The Sultzer Law Group, P.C. has served as lead
counsel in numerous high-profile consumer class action cases. The firm’s
attorneys have contributed to or been featured in various well known
publications regarding their class action practice, including: Law360,
Inside Counsel Magazine, Risk Management Magazine, and CNBC News. More
detail about the firm, its practice areas, and its attorneys appears on
its website: www.thesultzerlawgroup.com.

View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160907006420/en/

Halunen Law
Melissa Wolchansky, 612-605-4098
or
Big
Thunder PR
Doug Hovelson, 612-722-5501
doughovelson@msn.com

Copyright Business Wire 2016

This article was originally distributed via Business Wire. Business Wire, Frankly and this Site make no warranties or representations in connection therewith. If you are affiliated with this page and would like it removed please contact pressreleases@franklyinc.com

Go to Source

(c) 2016, The Washington Post.

WASHINGTON – The obscure law that authorities are using to investigate Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe – and could possibly use to probe the overseas dealings of former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort – is rarely enforced, and Justice Department officials and agents generally do not agree on its intent, according to am inspector general’s report released Wednesday.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act, which requires U.S. citizens who lobby on behalf of foreign governments to register with the Justice Department, generated only seven criminal cases between 1966 and 2015, according to the report. The department inspector general’s office found that agents and prosecutors had different understandings of the law and disagreed on how to apply it.

“We believe these differing understandings are indicative of the lack of a comprehensive Department enforcement strategy on FARA, which the Department should develop and integrate with its overall national security efforts,” the report concluded.

While the report would not affect McAuliffe, a Democrat, or Manafort directly, it shows how unusual it would be for prosecutors to initiate criminal proceedings against either of them.

In McAuliffe’s case, it is unclear exactly what has drawn investigators’ attention. Federal officials have told The Washington Post they are looking broadly at his personal finances, especially foreign sources of income. McAuliffe’s attorney has said they are investigating potential violations of FARA, though the lawyer insisted they will find no wrongdoing.

Manafort resigned from his job with Trump’s campaign amid reports of his past dealings in Ukraine. The Associated Press reported that he “helped a pro-Russian governing party in Ukraine secretly route at least $2.2 million in payments to two prominent Washington lobbying firms in 2012, and did so in a way that effectively obscured the foreign political party’s efforts to influence U.S. policy.”

The firms – Mercury and the Podesta Group – said they were assured the funds came from a nonprofit group, not from a government or political party, and they registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act rather than FARA. Manafort, who did not register as a foreign agent or lobbyist for his Ukraine work, has said he never represented the governments of Ukraine or Russia.

The inspector general’s office found that registrations under FARA, which was passed in 1938 as an effort to combat fascist and communist propaganda, began to fall sharply in the mid-1990s.

The report found that enforcement actions are extremely rare. The Justice Department, the report said, had not sought civil relief under FARA since 1991, and two of the seven criminal cases it brought between 1966 and 2015 were dismissed. An eighth case was approved for prosecution in November 2015, according to the report.

In 2010, former congressman Mark Deli Siljander, R-Mich., pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and a charge under FARA, admitting that he had been hired by an Islamic charity based in Sudan to lobby for the group’s removal from a federal list of charities suspected of funding international terrorism, without being properly registered to do so.

The inspector general’s office found that FBI counterintelligence agents and officials in the national-security division had differing understandings about FARA’s intent and what actually constituted a “FARA case.”

According to the report, agents believed officials in the national-security division were reluctant to approve charges and seemed to prefer forcing alleged FARA violators to register rather than prosecuting them. Officials in the national-security division said they believed the primary goal of FARA was to “ensure appropriate registration and public disclosure,” though they disputed they were reluctant to approve charges when appropriate.

The law carves out what seem to be broad exemptions, and the national-security division said it could be difficult to determine whether think tanks, nongovernmental organizations, university and college campus groups, foreign media entities or others that may receive funding and direction from foreign governments are covered by them. The FARA unit comprises just eight people, according to the report.

justice-lobbying

Keywords: national security, fara, terry mcauliffe, paul manafort, foreign agents registration act, justice department, justice department inspector general

Go to Source

The obscure law that authorities are using to investigate Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe — and could possibly use to probe the overseas dealings of former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort — is rarely enforced, and Justice Department officials and agents generally do not agree on its intent, according to an inspector general’s report released Wednesday.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act, which requires U.S. citizens who lobby on behalf of foreign governments to register with the Justice Department, generated only seven criminal cases between 1966 and 2015, according to the report. The department inspector general’s office found that agents and prosecutors had different understandings of the law and disagreed on how to apply it.

“We believe these differing understandings are indicative of the lack of a comprehensive Department enforcement strategy on FARA, which the Department should develop and integrate with its overall national security efforts,” the report concluded.

[How Paul Manafort revived his career — and fortunes — in Ukraine]

While the report would not affect McAuliffe (D) or Manafort directly, it shows how unusual it would be for prosecutors to initiate criminal proceedings against either of them.

In McAuliffe’s case, it is unclear exactly what has drawn investigators’ attention. Federal officials have told The Washington Post they are looking broadly at his personal finances, especially foreign sources of income. McAuliffe’s attorney has said they are investigating potential violations of FARA, though the lawyer insisted they will find no wrongdoing.

Manafort resigned from his job with Trump’s campaign amid reports of his past dealings in Ukraine. The Associated Press reported that he “helped a pro-Russian governing party in Ukraine secretly route at least $2.2 million in payments to two prominent Washington lobbying firms in 2012, and did so in a way that effectively obscured the foreign political party’s efforts to influence U.S. policy.”

The firms — Mercury and the Podesta Group — said they were assured the funds came from a nonprofit group, not from a government or political party, and they registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act rather than FARA. Manafort, who did not register as a foreign agent or lobbyist for his Ukraine work, has said he never represented the governments of Ukraine or Russia.

The inspector general’s office found that registrations under FARA, which was passed in 1938 as an effort to combat fascist and communist propaganda, began to fall sharply in the mid-1990s.

The report found that enforcement actions are extremely rare. The Justice Department, the report said, had not sought civil relief under FARA since 1991, and two of the seven criminal cases it brought between 1966 and 2015 were dismissed. An eighth case was approved for prosecution in November 2015, according to the report.

In 2010, former congressman Mark Deli Siljander (R-Mich.) pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and a charge under FARA, admitting that he had been hired by an Islamic charity based in Sudan to lobby for the group’s removal from a federal list of charities suspected of funding international terrorism, without being properly registered to do so.

The inspector general’s office found that FBI counterintelligence agents and officials in the national-security division had differing understandings about FARA’s intent and what actually constituted a “FARA case.”

According to the report, agents believed officials in the national-security division were reluctant to approve charges and seemed to prefer forcing alleged FARA violators to register rather than prosecuting them. Officials in the national-security division said they believed the primary goal of FARA was to “ensure appropriate registration and public disclosure,” though they disputed they were reluctant to approve charges when appropriate.

The law carves out what seem to be broad exemptions, and the national-security division said it could be difficult to determine whether think tanks, nongovernmental organizations, university and college campus groups, foreign media entities or others that may receive funding and direction from foreign governments are covered by them. The FARA unit comprises just eight people, according to the report.

The national-security division said in a statement that its officials “agree with the report’s recommendations and in fact had already taken steps relating to several of the IG’s observations prior to the audit.”

Read more:

Officials: Federal prosecutors investigating Virginia Gov. McAuliffe

Which foreign countries spent the most to influence U.S. politics?

Editorial: America deserves answers on Manafort global money trail

Go to Source

THE School of Law began offering a complete program in 2010 at Samabula Campus, and, due to demand, is now offering Law programs at Saweni campus also.

It aims to take the lead in providing a face-to-face legal education in the Asia Pacific region and the best theoretical and practical knowledge of ‘law in context’.

In the 8th year of its existence the School of Law has graduated and admitted to practice more than 80 members of Fiji’s legal profession who are practising in various spheres of employment, for example in government, private firms, and non-governmental organisations.

Our graduates come out of the university with a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice (GDLP) and are fully versed with Statutes, Common Law and Rules and Procedures of the Courts with respect to dealing with disputes resolution and litigation in the full range of the different areas of law.

They are qualified to occupy positions in the private sector as in-house counsel for commercial and company law, conveyancing and taxation or in government as lawyers in public law. A number of School of Law graduates — Programs offered:

Bachelor of Law (LLB)

The Bachelor of Laws degree comprises 32 subjects of which there are 30 compulsory subjects and two electives (of choice) which are studied in the third and fourth years.

The university decides every year which elective subjects it will offer in any one year. The Bachelor of Laws degree can be completed in four years by full-time students.

Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice (GDLP)

The program is designed to prepare law graduates for admission to the Bar as barristers and solicitors of the High Court of Fiji.

The GDLP is a competency skills based course with practical activities/tasks and assessments based on “real life” legal practice scenarios to help law graduates acquire necessary skills in client care, professional practice, conveyancing and advocacy, among others, to work effectively as entry level lawyers.

It is an intensive 18 weeks program designed to develop effective junior practitioners who will be ready to meet the standards expected of them when they enter the profession.

Master of Laws (LLM)

The School of Law encourages high calibre research into important questions of law, legal ideas and law in context in its Master of Laws (LLM) program.

This postgraduate degree can be done through courses or a thesis alongside relevant courses.

The Master’s program is both theoretical and practical and students are encouraged to explore their own topics of interest within the frameworks that are taught in the courses.

A welcome addition to the School of Law in 2016 was the International and Regional Affairs (INR) program formerly offered by the Centre for International and Regional Affairs (CIRA).

The INR’s postgraduate programs are designed to prepare graduates for practical career development in international and regional relations including diplomacy and security operations.

Both the Postgraduate Certificate and the Postgraduate Diploma in International Relations are also structured to assist with professional development of public servants, political analysts, military professionals, journalists, NGOs and others requiring sophisticated analytical skills to interpret and assess the implications of global and regional issues.

This program will assist those hoping to prepare themselves for careers with Government, media, international organisations and NGOs where a thorough grounding in international relations is required.

The programs offered in INR are:

* Postgraduate Certificate in International Relations;

* Postgraduate Certificate in Peace Keeping;

* Postgraduate Diploma in International Relations; and

* Master of International Relations and Diplomacy.

Overall the School of Law is able to provide a legal and international relations education that is intellectually rigorous, stimulating, robust, transferrable and global yet contextual in perspective.

• Back to top

Go to Source

WASHINGTON (AP) – FBI agents and federal prosecutors disagree over the intent of a foreign lobbying disclosure law, creating confusion within the Justice Department and complicating enforcement, according to a government watchdog report released Wednesday.

The report from the department’s inspector general found that prosecutors and agents are at odds on how best to enforce the Foreign Agents Registration Act and on what constitutes a prosecutable case. The 1938 law, known as FARA, requires lobbyists to register if they represent foreign leaders or their political parties, and to disclose details about their work, including how much money they spend and receive.

The law is enforced by a unit within the Justice Department’s National Security Division, but few criminal prosecutions are brought and the number of registrations has dropped significantly in the last few decades.

The statute, even if rarely used as a criminal tool, has made headlines recently. A lawyer for Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe said in June that federal investigators were looking into whether McAuliffe lobbied the U.S. government on behalf of foreign interests, and The Associated Press reported last month on a covert Washington lobbying operation on behalf of Ukraine interests directed by the firm of Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.

Investigators interviewed for the inspector general report said Justice Department prosecutors were slow in reviewing possible cases and reluctant to approve charges, while prosecutors said the law’s primary purpose was to ensure proper registration and public disclosure – and not to pursue criminal charges.

Though willful failure to register under FARA can carry up to five years in prison, only seven criminal cases have been brought in the last 50 years.

Justice Department lawyers told the inspector general say they face a high legal burden in proving that a violation was willful and that lobbyists were operating under the “direction and control” of a foreign government. They also say their powers are limited because they can’t compel lobbying firms or others to turn over documents, and are pursuing civil investigative demand authority from Congress.

In a written response to the inspector general’s finding, the Justice Department said agents who were interviewed for the report appeared to confuse FARA – which the department considers to be primarily a disclosure statute – with a related criminal law that punishes espionage-like behavior on behalf of foreign governments or individuals.

That confusion “can lead to undue weight being given to criminal prosecution as the measure of FARA enforcement,” and insufficient recognition of the importance of administrative enforcement, such as encouraging voluntary compliance, the response said.

The inspector general made 14 recommendations, including that the Justice Department improve its oversight of FARA registrations and update its training for investigators and prosecutors. The department said it’s begun carrying out the recommendations and agreed with the importance of having a comprehensive FARA strategy and a better system for tracking cases.

“We continue to take additional steps now and look forward to maintaining a productive dialogue with FARA stakeholders on how to ensure the program remains able to continue fulfilling its role in helping protect our national security,” Justice Department spokesman Marc Raimondi said in a statement.

FARA was enacted in 1938 as a counter to German propaganda agents in the U.S. The number of registrations peaked in 1987 with a high of 916, but began to fall sharply in the mid-1990s, with only 360 active registrations at the end of 2014, according to the report.

Justice Department officials say they think the decline may be tied to filing fees first imposed in 1993 as well as the passage of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, which imposes less stringent requirements and carved out a large exemption, according to the report. The review found 62 percent of registrations were submitted late, though the Justice Department says more than half of the filings categorized as late were filed within 30 days of the filing deadline.

“All of this added up to our overall conclusion that the Justice Department lacks a comprehensive FARA enforcement strategy – and that such a strategy should be developed and integrated with the DOJ’s overall national security efforts,” Deputy Inspector General Rob Storch said in a podcast interview on the inspector general’s website.

The AP found that a firm run by Manafort directly orchestrated a covert Washington lobbying operation on behalf of Ukraine’s ruling political party but that Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates, never disclosed the work under FARA. Manafort and Gates said the registration was not necessary, though Manafort resigned his position with the Trump campaign.

___

Follow Eric Tucker on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/etuckerAP

Go to Source

COMMENT DISCLAIMER: Reader comments posted on this Web site are not in any way endorsed by The Standard. Comments are views by thestandard.ph readers who exercise their right to free expression and they do not necessarily represent or reflect the position or viewpoint of thestandard.ph. While reserving this publication’s right to delete comments that are deemed offensive, indecent or inconsistent with The Standard editorial standards, The Standard may not be held liable for any false information posted by readers in this comments section.

Go to Source

Wednesday, 7 September 2016, 5:03 pm Press Release: Australasian Legal Practice Management Association

Disconnect between what law firms think and what
they do

2016 ALPMA/InfoTrack Adapting
to the Changing Legal Landscape
Research

8 September
2016

The majority of Australasian law firms rate
themselves as innovative but there is little evidence to
support this claim, according to the results of the 2016
ALPMA/InfoTrack Adapting to the Changing Legal
Landscape report released at the 2016 ALPMA
Summit in Melbourne today.

Surveying 163 law firms across
Australia and New Zealand, 65 percent of survey respondents,
across small, medium and large firms believe their firm is
innovative or very innovative, with only 6 per cent
indicating they were not at all innovative.

“There is a
real discrepancy between how innovative firms believe they
are and what they are actually doing in terms of their
investment in innovation and in people, process and
technology initiatives to drive their firm forward,” ALPMA
President, Mr Andrew Barnes said.

More than 60 percent of
respondents said innovation was part of their strategic
plan, yet few have a dedicated innovation budget, have a
proactive group responsible or give staff time scheduled for
innovation.

The research also highlights significant
inconsistency with satisfaction on firm innovation
investment levels. While nearly half of the survey
respondents believe their firm dedicates sufficient time,
people and funds to innovation, one third of respondents are
unhappy with the level of innovation investment at their
firm.

“There is pressure on partners and practice
managers to pursue innovation. They can see the rewards for
innovative projects but ‘innovation’ is becoming an
over-used word to describe everything from culture and
processes to client delivery.”

“The question we need
to really ask ourselves is ‘are we innovating or merely
adapting to changes thrust upon us?’” he
said

Launching the research report at the ALPMA Summit
today, InfoTrack CEO Mr John Ahern said customer demand for
better value, rapidly evolving technology, increased
competition and the staff demand for work/life balance were
the key external factors impacting on Australian and New
Zealand law firms.

“Interestingly, most respondents were
critical of the legal profession’s response to these
external drivers, saying the industry was adapting to the
changing legal landscape only when necessary and certainly
not quickly enough – and this backed-up by other
findings,” he said.

Only half (54%) of the respondents
believe their firm has an effective blueprint for change.

“The demand for better work/life balance has been
addressed by the industry with our research showing that
remote and flexible working arrangements and the technology
to support this has now been implemented at most firms.”

“Firms that do not offer this for their staff are now
lagging well behind the norm,” he said.

Most firms are
currently working on implementing workflow automation,
electronic settlement, customer relationship management
systems and improving their approach to performance
management.

“The really innovative firms have already
implemented these initiatives and are starting work on
things that most firms report are not even in their
foreseeable future – artificial intelligence, customer
apps, Lean Six Sigma process improvements and legal process
outsourcing,” he said.

Cultural
Change

“To become truly innovative requires
an overhaul of cultural DNA of most firms. This is not easy
and not for everyone so advance with caution,” ALPMA
President, Mr Andrew Barnes said.

The report found that
most firms (78%) were satisfied with their culture. Despite
this, 57% are planning cultural change this year (rising to
87% of very large firms).

“Improved productivity,
efficiency and profitability are the primary objectives of
these cultural change programs,” he said.

Few were
planning cultural change to support diversity, personal
initiative or entrepreneurship.

The full report is
available from ALPMA and InfoTrack’s
website.

© Scoop Media

Go to Source

TWO leading lawyers have established a firm which will provide employment law advice to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) across Yorkshire.

Founding partners and long-standing friends, Tiggy Clifford and Emma Whiting, decided to establish Torque Law in response to the growing numbers of small business owners who need help untangling employment law problems.

Ms Clifford and Ms Whiting are employment law specialists who have clocked up more than 30 years’ combined experience advising Yorkshire-based businesses, including many SMEs, on a wide range of human resources issues.

Ms Whiting, who was previously a partner at Addleshaw Goddard, said: “We’d both contemplated setting up in business ourselves, but knowing that you’ve got someone you trust and respect to share the success, as well as shoulder some of the burden, was a very big draw for both of us.

“The timing felt right to do something different too. We’re both mums to two primary school-age girls and we wanted to wrestle greater control back.

“We want to be able to invest more quality time with our families, while also having a fulfilling career in employment law, which we are both very passionate about.

“As owners of our own specialist employment law firm, we’re now both much better placed to be able to achieve this for ourselves.”

Torque Law, which is based in York, is among a small number of boutique firms offering specialist services across Yorkshire.

Ms Whiting said: “For me, it’s all about genuinely understanding clients’ needs, their risk appetite, and to be clear what’s driving their key decisions. Employment law is one of those areas that is very fast-paced. The biggest challenge for HR professionals is keeping up to date; that’s where I think we will help. We’ll ensure they are bang up to date and parachute ourselves in, as and when we need to. We will stand in our clients’ shoes and give them advice which is best for them.

“We’re quietly confident of the potential of this business. All the signs so far have been really positive.”

Ms Clifford, who is a former partner at Denison Till, added: “This is all about that personal touch, because I believe people are more and more selective in the advisers they want to use. Part of what we want to do, by knowing the clients so well, is to be able to pre-empt issues that might crop up.

“They can leave the employment law to us. We can provide advice that quickly solves a problem.”

YORK-based Torque Law has been established by Tiggy Clifford and Emma Whiting, who have years of experience in helping employers with HR legal matters – from day to day HR queries, through to complex restructuring projects and employment tribunal claims.

Torque also supports senior executives with their employment issues and deal with Settlement Agreements.

The firm says it won’t sit on the fence, and will talk plainly and give tailored but pragmatic advice.

Ms Whiting said: “Our clients get advice from highly experienced, partner level solicitors without the big firm price tags.”

The company’s website address is www.torquelaw.co.uk.

Go to Source

Go to Source

Dubai Municipality and Emirates Telecommunications Corporation – Etisalat on Wednesday signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the project Makani. As per the MoU, the Municipality shall provide Etisalat all the requirements for the use of its Makani app. The MoU comes as part of Dubai Municipality’s keenness to implement smart government standards in accordance with the directives of the Government of Dubai, and to complement the success of the Municipality’s new GIS mapping app Makani, which uses only the language of numbers to enable all individuals to use it easily without relying on a particular language. The MoU was signed by Eng. Hussain Nasser Lootah, Director General of Dubai Municipality and Abdullah Salem Al Mana, Director General of Etisalat, Dubai branch.

Go to Source