Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
In an announcement to the London Stock Exchange on Tuesday, listed law firm Knights Group Holdings confirmed the acquisition of Exeter-based OTB Eveling in a deal worth £2.1 million.
“We are delighted to enter a sizable market for regional law today with the acquisition of OTB Eveling, an independent law firm with a strong cultural fit,” said Knights CEO David Beech. “The acquisition will provide us with a platform for future growth in the south west as we continue to build our position as the leading legal and professional services business outside of London.”
The purchase of the Exeter firm will involve an initial consideration of £1.4 million, comprised of £700,000 in cash and another £700,000 worth of shares in Knights. A deferred cash consideration of £700,000 will be staggered over two years, subject to certain conditions being met.
OTB Eveling was founded in 2012, and its acquisition will bring 17 new fee earners to the Knights group. The firm reported a turnover of £2.1 million with a profit margin of 16% for the year ending 30 April.
Knights has been resilient though the COVID-19 pandemic, seeing an increase of 13.2% in adjusted pre-tax profit – up to £6 million – in the half-year ending 31 October. Revenue increased 44% to £46 million on the back of three acquisitions completed in April, with OTB Eveling set to make four in 2020.
Full salaries resumed for Knights employees at the start of November, with trading having returned to near pre-COVID levels through the autumn. Beech projected confidence for activity at the firm in the months ahead.
[ymal]
“Our business is both well positioned and resilient, which gives us confidence in our ability to navigate the current economic turbulence,” he said.
Knights’ share value rose 2.6% to 436 pence after news of its latest acquisition broke.
Apple Inc’s head of global security, Thomas Moyer, was charged with bribery by a California grand jury on Monday, with prosecutors alleging that he offered 200 iPads – with a value of close to $70,000 – to the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office in return for four concealed firearms permits for Apple employees.
Moyer was indicted along with two officers from the Sheriff’s Office, according to a release from the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office. The officers were charged with soliciting bribes for issuing concealed carry permits.
"Call this quid pro quo,” Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen said. “Call it pay-to-play. Call it give to get. It is illegal and deeply erodes public confidence in the criminal justice system.”
The carrying of concealed firearms in California is illegal without a permit, and county sheriffs have broad discretion over their issuance.
The indictments were issued amid an ongoing corruption probe into the Sheriff’s Office by the District Attorney concerning allegations that contributions had been made to Sheriff Laurie Smith’s 2018 re-election campaign in exchange for concealed weapons permits. This case was unrelated to Apple.
Moyer’s attorney, Ed Swanson, stated that he offered no bribe, and that he had applied for weapons permits for some Apple security personnel in order to protect executives and employees in light of shootings at other Silicon Valley tech companies, citing an incident in 2018 at YouTube’s headquarters.
[ymal]
“They went through the process the way you’re supposed to do it,” he said, referring to the permit applications.
Apple also said that it had found no wrongdoing after conducting its own investigation.
Daniel Fleming, Jeff Li, Kat McKay and Brittany Parisi, with assistance from paralegal Sabrina Piotrowski, offer Lawyer Monthly an analysis of the ongoing litigation surrounding the results of the US election.
President Trump continues to tilt at windmills and lob Hail Mary passes to stay in the White House. Here is a survey of election litigation, which is highly unlikely to change the result that Biden won.
What is the lawsuit about?
In Wood v. Raffensperger, the plaintiff alleged that the presidential election in Georgia was defective based on Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s unauthorised oversight of the balloting process and sought a court injunction against certification of the results.
How was the lawsuit decided?
On 20 November, 2020, the court denied the relief sought by Plaintiff. The court ruled that Plaintiff had no standing as a private citizen to overturn millions of votes. As the court noted, “Just because the right to vote is fundamental does not mean that individual voters have the right to direct the manner in which votes will be cast, accepted or rejected.”
What’s the likelihood the Supreme Court will hear the case?
None. This lawsuit was for an injunction stopping certification. An audit was already completed on November 19, 2020, which did not change the winner, and the Secretary of State and Governor certified the results on November 20, 2020.
Can the lawsuit delay the election results?
Not this lawsuit. The Secretary of State has already certified the results, showing former Vice President Biden won by more than 12,000 votes.
What is the lawsuit about?
In Constantino v. City of Detroit, the plaintiffs sought, based on allegations of fraud, an injunction to stop the certification of the votes in Detroit’s home county, and for the court appointment of an election results audit to delay certification of the vote in Michigan.
Is the lawsuit credible?
No. Wayne County Chief Judge Timothy Kenny found that the plaintiffs’ supporting affidavits of fraud were replete with “generalised statements” of “speculation” and unfounded “sinister motive” but nothing more. He ruled that granting the requested relief would be “an unprecedented exercise of judicial activism for this Court to stop the certification process” and “could disenfranchise Michigan voters from having their state electors participate in the Electoral College vote.”
This is just the latest of six lawsuits in Michigan, including a federal lawsuit, all of which failed.
What’s the likelihood the US Supreme Court will hear the case?
Nil. Plaintiffs’ state court appeals have all been denied.
Can the lawsuit delay the election results?
This case, like the others, is dead on arrival. Now that Wayne County has certified its votes, all that’s left is for the State of Michigan to certify all votes on 23 November, 2020 (as it now has). Recount votes must be filed with the Secretary of State within 48 hours after the State has certified all votes. Trump faces an uphill battle on any recount since he must first prove he has a reasonable chance to win to be entitled to a recount. That’s a tall order, given that he lost in Michigan by more than 157,000 votes.
What is the lawsuit about?
In Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar, plaintiffs seek an emergency order prohibiting the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from certifying the results of the Presidential General Election. On 18 November, 2020, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging there are 682,807 ballots that should be invalidated because the Trump campaign had not been allowed to watch the counting process as closely as they wanted to. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
Is the lawsuit credible?
No. Trump’s re-election campaign admitted in court that plaintiffs are not alleging voter fraud or impropriety and agreed to sign a stipulation to memorialise same at the 17 November, 2020 court appearance.
This is just one of several election lawsuits filed by the Trump Campaign in Pennsylvania, many of which have been unsuccessful.
What’s the likelihood the US Supreme Court will hear the case?
Slim. The evidentiary hearing originally scheduled for 19 November, 2020 was cancelled. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss which the Honorable Matthew Brann granted on 21 November, 2020. Plaintiffs will have a difficult time obtaining certiorari from the United States Supreme Court seeing that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rule that an election observer in Philadelphia was not entitled to stand within a particular distance from employees who were processing mail-in ballots, overturning a lower court’s ruling on the matter.
Can the lawsuit delay the election results?
Unlikely. In the unlikely event the Trump campaign can whittle away Biden’s advantage to 0.5%, Pennsylvania law would trigger an automatic recount. However, even if Pennsylvania’s vote did go to a recount, and even if that recount resulted in President Trump winning Pennsylvania, this alone would not change the outcome of the Presidential General Election because all of the other states have been called and President-Elect Biden has collected at least 290 electoral votes. Therefore, overturning Pennsylvania’s result, alone, would not pave the way for a second Trump term.
[ymal]
There are no pending lawsuits in Arizona because they have all been dismissed. The last lawsuit involved only two ballots, which the court dismissed. All other lawsuits were dismissed voluntarily, including one challenging the right of election officials to use sharpie marker pens. None of the lawsuits had any merit, none will reach the Supreme Court, and none will delay the presidential election.
What is the lawsuit about?
In Langenhorst, LeMay and Fifrick v. Pecore, plaintiffs sought an injunction to stop Wisconsin’s certification of the votes for Joe Biden because they alleged that election officials included illegal ballots in Democratic-leaning counties, thereby diluting proper ballots.
Is the lawsuit credible?
No. Plaintiffs made no specific allegations of wrongdoing.
What’s the likelihood the US Supreme Court will hear the case?
Impossible. Plaintiffs have already voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit.
Can the lawsuit delay the election results?
No, but at Trump’s request, there will be a partial recount in the Democratic-leaning counties of Milwaukee and Dane. Trump has paid $2,809,682.12 for this recount.
During the 3 November election, California residents were given the opportunity to shape the future of the gig economy in America by voting on the Proposition 22 ballot measure. Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash spent over $205 million on the “Yes on 22” campaign – making it the most expensive ballot measure in California’s history – in the name of overturning a key component of the state’s labour laws. Now that it has been legally approved with 58% of the vote, what consequences will there be for the gig economy and companies that rely on it?
In its most basic sense, Prop 22 provides an alternative model to “AB 5”, a California law that was signed in September 2019. The law required companies to use an “ABC test” to classify their workers, meaning that workers could only be classified as independent contractors if they were: A) free from the company’s control; B) conducting work that was not key to the company’s business; and C) maintaining their own independent business in the same industry. If one or all of those conditions were not met, then companies would have to classify their workers as employees. This posed a critical issue to the aforementioned ride-hailing companies and several other organisations that had built their business models on the premise that their workers were treated as independent contractors.
When designated as independent contractors, workers have a different relationship with their employer and are ineligible for several benefits that a full employee would be entitled to. Employers are not responsible for employers’ costs including health insurance, unemployment insurance, Social Security, paid sick days and overtime. When working for ride-hailing companies, contracted drivers are expected to supply and maintain their own gas; Uber and Lyft do not pay for workers’ car repairs, petrol or similar expenses. At the same time, the companies retain their ability to set drivers’ rates and the commission that they pay themselves, usually in the range of 20% to 30%.
... Workers have a different relationship with their employer and are ineligible for several benefits that a full employee would be entitled to.
Though their designation as contractors will not change under Proposition 22, the new law will guarantee new benefits to those working for ride-hailing companies. A wage floor will be implemented to guarantee that drivers receive at least 120% of the local or statewide minimum wage, along with other limited benefits such as car insurance and health subsidies consistent with employer contributions under the Affordable Care Act for drivers working 15 or more hours per week. They will also retain a wide degree of freedom to choose when, where and how much they work.
Further to the above specifications, Prop 22 includes a provision requiring a seven-eighths majority of the California state legislature to agree upon any amendment, all but ensuring the measure cannot be overturned.
Legal scrutiny of the practicality of the new law is now underway. Some analysts have raised concerns about the minimum wage protection offered in the measure, which applies only to an employee’s “engaged time”, meaning time in which the driver is on a trip with a passenger or travelling to pick up a passenger. A study from the UC Berkeley Labor Center estimates that workers could be legally allowed to make only $5.64 per hour under the stated conditions.
It is estimated that, moving forwards, workers will no longer be able to effectively seek restitution for wage theft against gig economy companies, as these disputes will largely be solved through private arbitration. As California proposes legislation mandating a greater use of electric vehicles on ride-hailing trips, the burden of changing vehicle types is also likely to fall on individual drivers rather than their employers.
Since the success of the "Yes on 22" campaign, Lyft and DoorDash have signaled their intention to bring the model it presents to other states.
[ymal]
“Lyft stands ready to work with all interested parties, including drivers, labor unions and policymakers, to build a stronger safety net for gig workers in the US," Anthony Foxx, chief policy offer at Lyft, stated after Prop 22’s approval by voters.
Meanwhile, opposition groups such as Gig Workers Rising have declared that they will continue to work towards drivers’ classification as full employees entitled to the accompanying benefits.
We can expect similar ballot measures to be advanced in different states, potentially also by digital companies with a heavy reliance on contractors. In the meantime, the full scope of Prop 22’s practical effects will only be realized when it goes into effect on December 22.
In a letter seen by the Observer, UK immigration minister Chris Philp condemned immigration lawyers for issuing last-minute challengers to the deportation of asylum seekers, marking the latest in a line of government attacks on the legal profession.
In the letter to SNP MP Mhairi Black, dated 10 November, Chris Philp wrote that immigration lawyers “take advantage of their position and abuse the court process by playing politics”.
Amanda Pinto QC, chair of the Bar Council, condemned the comments from the immigration minister as deeply disturbing.
“This latest criticism of lawyers yet again exposes the lack of understanding of the role lawyers play in our immigration and wider justice system, as well as a gap in the minister’s knowledge of the Home Office’s own operations when it comes to immigration,” she said, adding that it was often near impossible to avoid last-minute challenges as lawyers responded to late or immediate deportation decisions by the Home Office.
“The government should not make general, unwarranted attacks on the reputation of the legal profession. To do so undermines the whole system,” Pinto said.
This statement is only the latest development in a series of attacks on immigration lawyers by senior members of the UK government. Home Secretary Priti Patel slammed the legal defenders of asylum seekers as “lefty lawyers” during a speech at a Conservative Party conference, and Prime Minister Boris Johnson has echoed her language in separate remarks. The Bar Council and other UK legal bodies have called on the two to apologise for their comments.
[ymal]
Last Wednesday, lord chancellor Robert Buckland QC claimed that “activist lawyers” had eroded the reputation of the legal profession and “vaunted their political views” on social media in order to “generate some work”.
When you get yourself involved in a workplace accident that was not completely your fault and caused by someone else, you are entitled to receive compensation from that person's insurance company. Employers are required to give you a healthy and safe environment. However, the process of settlement can be a long journey with lots of investigations, negotiations, and follow-ups. One key thing that you always need to remember is that these insurance companies will always want to settle with you by giving as little as possible.
These insurance agencies work as a business firm that is focused on the results. They do not care much about your emotional side. Their objective is to let you say yes or accept the offer with the least settlement as possible while avoiding getting the case to the court. Here are some useful tips to help you ensure that you are getting the best settlement offer so that you can get the compensation for any damages caused that you are rightfully entitled to.
The golden rule here is that you should not accept the first offer the insurance company gives you. Always keep in mind that the settlement is somewhat negotiable. However, just like any other negotiation, the insurance company is not going to give you the highest numbers possible, no matter how they approach you. It is okay to set a number in your head that you are okay with, and do not accept lower than that.
Before accepting any offer, hire an attorney to help you with this. Finding one can help you understand the settlement and how everything works. It is kind of easy for you to find one, especially if you get involved in a workplace injury, as there are a lot of lawyers who are handling such a case. They can also negotiate on your behalf and make suggestions throughout the settlement process. Hiring one also helps you ensure that the employer’s insurance company takes your claim very seriously and will not take advantage of you.
[ymal]
Settling right away on the first offer might be a bad idea. It is best if you can collect evidence that your attorney can present to the employer’s insurance company to help you get the right compensation based on the facts you have submitted. Remember that when you have a strong case, you might get a high settlement offer. Keep all the records you can get from the hospitals, such as receipts, financial costs, and other evidence that could exhibit a lowered quality of life.
Normally, the insurance company handling your case will low-ball you and not present you with their best offer. As previously mentioned, they aim to close this case by giving you little as possible. If you think that they are offering an unreasonable settlement, you can ask them to explain how they come up with their offer. Once they have started to explain, you can justify the claims and why you deserve more than what they offered.
If you have been into an accident caused by someone else, you deserve fair treatment and compensation from your employer. Do not allow these people to take advantage of you by giving you a low-balled settlement and by accepting their first offer.
During a hearing on Thursday, a Georgia federal judge denied on multiple grounds a bid by an Atlanta attorney to halt the certification of Georgia’s general election results before the deadline on Friday.
In the suit, plaintiff L. Lin Wood took aim at Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and members of the Georgia Election Board over a March settlement agreed with the Democratic Party of Georgia to strengthen signature checks on absentee ballots. Wood claimed that this change in procedure was made without due authority and against measures approved by the state’s legislature, and urged a second recount of Georgia’s presidential votes.
Judge Grimberg described Wood’s “eleventh hour” motion for a recount as “a generalised government grievance” which would “breed confusion and potential disenfranchisement”.
"The settlement agreement was consistent with state law … if anything it achieves or seeks to achieve consistency among the county election officials in the state to follow the same procedure,” Grimberg said, “and in doing that it actually furthers plaintiff's stated goals of achieving fair and transparent public elections."
Georgia entered the international spotlight by swinging towards Democratic Party candidate Joe Biden during the US election, a surprise move in a state that has generally been considered a Republican stronghold.
In the aftermath of Election Day, Trump campaign affiliates sued in several key states in an attempt to prematurely halt the counting of ballots. When these states were called for Joe Biden, further lawsuits were issued to prevent the certification of the results, citing claims of widespread voter fraud. Most of these cases have since been dismissed.
[ymal]
Election results in Georgia must be certified by 5pm on 20 November. A recount held in the state recently confirmed Joe Biden’s victory by a margin of 12,284 votes.
In a ruling on Thursday, the Hong Kong High Court found that the government’s failure to establish an independent mechanism for the handling of complaints of ill-treatment by police officers violated the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.
The court maintained that the government was obliged to “establish and maintain” this mechanism according to Article 3 of the 1991 Bill of the Rights, which states: “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
The case was brought against the Commissioner of Police and Secretary for Justice by the Hong Kong Journalists Association, which alleged incidents of police brutality against protesters on 12 June, 2019.
The court’s finding comes in the wake of a report from international experts who quit a Hong Kong police brutality enquiry in 2019, which said that the police’s crowd-control tactics had worsened public perception of the force’s legitimacy and had a radicalising effect on protesters. It also follows a statement from Hong Kong’s leader, Carrie Lam, saying that there was no need for a complaints system outside of the existing police-overseen one.
Under Hong Kong’s current system, there is a two-tier mechanism for investigating complaints against police. The complaint is first sent to the Complaints Against Police Office – itself part of the police force branch – and then to the Independent Police Complaints Council, which is separate from the police force but does not have the authority to overturn decisions made by the Complaints Against Police Office.
[ymal]
An independent investigation into police handling of demonstrations in 2019 has been one of the main demands of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement. Thursday’s court decision also comes after a senior Chinese official said that Beijing intends to review Hong Kong’s legal system, which pro-democracy groups fear could further damage the independence of Hong Kong’s courts.
Coca-Cola will be required to pay the bulk of a $3.4 billion IRS tax bill linked to the multinational operations the company uses to produce its famous beverages.
The case relates to a dispute over Coca-Cola’s shifting of its profits to foreign affiliates operating plants in Brazil, Mexico, Ireland and a number of other countries with lower corporate tax rates than the US, bringing large tax savings to the affiliates in these countries. It also concerns transfer pricing, or how a company values its intercompany transactions.
The Tax Court on Wednesday ruled in favour of the IRS, upholding two adjustments that jointly increased Coca-Cola’s taxable income between 2007 to 2009 by over $9 billion. However, the Tax Court ruled in Coca-Cola’s favour on a secondary issue relating to how it would price dividends paid by overseas manufacturing affiliates to satisfy royalty obligations, meaning $1.8 billion must be deducted from the IRS’s reallocations.
In writing the Tax Court’s decision, Judge Albert Lauber took aim at Coca-Cola’s pricing of its branding trademarks and other intangible assets during the two years in question, noting the apparently backwards dispersal of profits this created between the company’s US branch and its foreign affiliates.
"Why are the supply points, engaged as they are in routine contract manufacturing, the most profitable food and beverage companies in the world?” Judge Lauber asked. "And why does their profitability dwarf that of [Coca-Cola], which owns the intangibles upon which the company's profitability depends?"
[ymal]
Coca-Cola argued that its pricing for the use of its intangible assets was reasonable, especially taking the marketing and research conducted by its local affiliates into consideration.
The exact sum that the soft drink company will owe as a result of the judge’s decision is yet to be determined.
Apple is set to pay $113 million to settle a case alleging that it deliberately deceived customers by slowing down older iPhones, which the company has previously stated was intended to extend the life of the phones’ batteries.
The case was brought by 33 US states. The state attorneys general said that Apple had issued a 2016 software update on its iPhone 6, 7 and SE models which throttled chip speeds, which they alleged was done to compel users to buy newer devices. Millions of users were affected by iPhone slowdowns as a result of the update, according to a filing in Arizona.
"Many consumers decided that the only way to get improved performance was to purchase a newer-model iPhone from Apple,” wrote Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich in a court document made public on Wednesday. "Apple, of course, fully understood such effects on sales."
Though it apologised for the slowdown and offered affected users $29 battery replacements, Apple has never acknowledged any wrongdoing and does not admit to breaking any law in the settlement. It has also for the next three years to provide “truthful information” about iPhone power management on its website and in its software update notes and iPhone settings apps.
This is the second settlement that Apple has reached over its throttling of older phones, following a $500 million class action lawsuit that it settled in March. A fairness hearing for this settlement is scheduled to be held on 4 December.
The latest settlement has not yet received judicial approval.
[ymal]
Apple is the most highly valued company in the world, boasting a $2 trillion market cap and annual revenue of $275 billion. It is currently locked in a legal dispute with Epic Games over the handling of microtransactions in the iOS version of its flagship video game Fortnite.
