Author Archive: Betty Taylor

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Concordia International Corp. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – CXRX

NEW YORK, Sept. 09, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Concordia International Corp. (“Concordia” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:CXRX) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 16-cv-06749, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Concordia securities between November 12, 2015 and August 12, 2016 inclusive (the “Class Period”). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). 

If you are a shareholder who purchased Concordia securities during the Class Period, you have until October 14, 2016 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]

Concordia is a specialty pharmaceutical company that purportedly owns a portfolio of branded and generic prescription products which are sold to wholesalers, hospitals and pharmacies in over 100 countries.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was experiencing a substantial increase in market competition against the Company’s drug, Donnatal, and other products; (ii) consequently, the Company’s financial results would suffer and the Company would be forced to suspend its dividend; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about Concordia’s business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 12, 2016, Concordia issued a press release announcing that it was lowering its 2016 guidance “to reflect the impact of unexpected competition on several products in our North America segment, and current foreign currency exchange rates.” The Company also announced that Adrian de Saldanha, Concordia’s Chief Financial Officer, was leaving the Company, and that Concordia’s Board unanimously agreed to suspend the Company’s $0.075 quarterly dividend.

On this news, Concordia’ stock price fell $6.33 per share, or 38%, to close at $10.03 per share on August 12, 2016, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

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

/EIN News/ —

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

NEW YORK, Sept. 09, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against The GEO Group, Inc. (“GEO” or the “Company”) (NYSE:GEO) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, and docketed under 16-cv-81494,  is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired GEO securities between March 1, 2012 and August 17, 2016 both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).  This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). 

If you are a shareholder who purchased GEO securities during the Class Period, you have until October 24, 2016 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]

GEO provides government-outsourced services specializing in the management of correctional, detention, and re-entry facilities, and the provision of community based services and youth services in the United States, Australia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and Canada.  The Company operates through four segments: U.S. Corrections & Detention, GEO Community Services, International Services, and Facility Construction & Design.

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) GEO’s facilities lacked adequate safety and security standards and were less efficient at offering correctional services than the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) facilities; (ii) GEO’s rehabilitative services for inmates were less effective than those provided by BOP; (iii) consequently, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) was unlikely to renew and/or extend its contracts with GEO; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, GEO’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 

On August 18, 2016, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates announced the DOJ’s decision to end its use of private prisons, including those operated by GEO, after officials concluded that GEO’s facilities are both less safe and less effective at providing correctional services than those run by the federal government. 

On this news, GEO’s share price fell $12.78, or 39.58%, to close at $19.51 on August 18, 2016.  

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

/EIN News/ —

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

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in SunPower Corporation of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – SPWR

NEW YORK, Sept. 09, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against SunPower Corporation (“SunPower” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:SPWR) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, and docketed under 16-cv-04915,  is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired SunPower securities between February 17, 2016 and August 9, 2016 both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). 

If you are a shareholder who purchased SunPower securities during the Class Period, you have until October 17, 2016 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]

SunPower is an energy company that delivers solar solutions to residential, commercial, and power plant customers. The Company’s offerings purportedly include: solar module technology and solar power systems that are designed to generate electricity over a system life typically exceeding 25 years; integrated Smart Energy software solutions; installation, construction, and ongoing maintenance, and monitoring services; and financing solutions that provide customers a variety of options for purchasing or leasing solar products.

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) a substantial number of the Company’s customers were adopting a longer-term timeline for project completion; (ii) the Company’s near-term economic returns were deteriorating due to aggressive Power Purchase Agreement pricing by new market entrants; (iii) market disruption in the YieldCo environment was impacting the Company’s assumptions related to monetizing deferred profits; (iv) as such, demand for the Company’s products was significantly declining; (v) in response, the Company would implement a manufacturing realignment that would result in significant restructuring charges; (vi) as such, the Company’s fiscal year 2016 guidance was overstated; and (vii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about SunPower’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 9, 2016, SunPower issued a press release announcing its second quarter 2016 financial results. Therein, the Company disclosed the existence of several factors negatively impacting the Company’s performance, including “customers adopting a longer-term timeline for project completion,” “aggressive [Power Purchase Agreement] pricing by new market entrants,” and “continued market disruption in the YieldCo environment.” The Company also announced a manufacturing realignment which the Company stated would result in restructuring charges totaling $30-$45 million, a substantial portion of which would be incurred in the third quarter of 2016. Finally, the Company disclosed that, as a result of these “challenges,” it was substantially decreasing its fiscal year 2016 guidance—expecting a net loss of $175 million to $125 million, rather than the earlier-forecasted net income of $0 to $50 million.

On this news, SunPower’s stock price fell $4.47 per share, or 30%, to close at $10.31 per share on August 10, 2016, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

/EIN News/ —

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

Drunk Drivers, Cyclists do not Mix

Austin, TX (Law Firm Newswire) September 9, 2016 – A young Austin woman was out for a bike ride when a man hit her with his truck, dragging her several blocks. He fled the scene.

Cyclist Elizabeth English was dragged almost a half-mile by a driver behind the wheel of a truck. Witnesses at the scene described the victim screaming as she was dragged along the pavement and the driver did not respond. English was taken to hospital in critical condition.

Thanks to sharp-eyed witnesses who were able to provide police with a description of the truck, the Austin Police Department eventually caught up to Artemio Avila and charged him with failing to stop and render aid to English. In actual fact, an off-duty police officer spotted Avila’s truck.

When inspecting the suspect’s truck, police noted there was blood on the hood and new scrapes on the paint. On arrest, Avila claimed he knew nothing about the hit-and-run accident. Eventually, he did admit he heard a slight bump on the passenger’s side of his truck. “Nonetheless, despite hearing something odd, he did not stop and investigate,” said DWI plaintiff’s attorney, Bobby Lee of Lee, Gober & Reyna, Austin. “He was more concerned about himself.”

In addition be being held on a $100,000 bond, Avila was held on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer.

“Driving while under the influence is illegal. Clearly Mr. Avila would be aware of that fact and yet he still chose to drive while inebriated,” added Lee. “Over 10,000 people a year are arrested for DWI in the Dallas area and roughly every 20 minutes someone is hurt or killed in a crash involving alcohol. Not all accidents end up being hit-and-runs, but the chances are higher of that happening when the driver is drunk and not in control of his or her vehicle.”

It is vitally important for those injured in an accident with a drunk driver to contact a skilled and experienced DWI plaintiff’s attorney as soon as possible. Find out what options are available and know the law as it relates to the circumstances of the accident.

For further information on drunk driving statistics in Texas, visit: http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/state-stats/Texas.html

Lee, Gober & Reyna
11940 Jollyville Road #220-S
Austin, Texas 78759
Phone: 512.478.8080

See other news sources publishing this article. BETA | Tags: , , , , ,

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in K12 Inc. of Class Action Lawsuit and Upcoming Deadline – LRN

/EIN News/ — NEW YORK, Sept. 08, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) —

Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against K12 Inc. (“K12” or the “Company”) (NYSE:LRN) and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired K12 securities between November 7, 2013 and October 27, 2015, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”).  This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). 

If you are a shareholder who purchased K12 securities during the Class Period, you have until September 18, 2016 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]

K12 is a technology-based education company that purportedly provides technology-based educational products and solutions to public school districts, public schools, virtual charter schools, private schools, and families.

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: (1) that K12 was publishing misleading advertisements about students’ academic progress, parent satisfaction, their graduates’ eligibility for University of California and California State University admission, class sizes, the individualized and flexible nature of K12’s instruction, hidden costs, and the quality of the materials provided to students; (2) that K12 submitted inflated student attendance numbers to the California Department of Education in order to collect additional funding; (3) that, as a result of the aforementioned practices, the Company was open to potential civil and criminal liability; (4) that the Company would likely be forced to end these practices, which would have a negative impact on K12’s operations and prospects, and/or that K12 was, in fact, ending the practices; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about K12’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On October 27, 2015, Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (“CREDO”) published a study regarding online charter schools, specifically mentioning K12. CREDO also published a press release in conjunction with the study, summarizing the results of the study. CREDO, in the press release, stated: “Innovative new research suggests that students of online charter schools had significantly weaker academic performance in math and reading, compared with their counterparts in conventional schools.” Multiple news organizations publicized the CREDO study.

On the same day, October 27, 2015, the Company issued a press release entitled “K12 Inc. Reports First Quarter Fiscal 2016 With Revenue of $221.2 Million.” Therein, the Company reported disappointing financial results including “[r]evenues of $221.2 million, compared to $236.7 million in the first quarter of FY 2015,” “EBITDA . . . of negative $3.9 million, compared to $3.7 million in the first quarter of FY 2015,” and an “[o]perating loss of $20.5 million, compared to an operating loss of $13.2 million in the first quarter of FY 2015.”

On this news, K12’s stock price fell $1.93 per share, or 15.8%, to close at $10.25 per share on October 27, 2015, on unusually heavy trading volume.

After the market closed on October 27, 2015, K12 filed its Form 10-Q with the SEC for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2015. Therein, the Company disclosed that it received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of California, Bureau of Children’s Justice in connection with an investigation styled “In the Matter of the Investigation of: ForProfit Virtual Schools.”

Though the market did not immediately react to the disclosure of the subpoena buried in the Company’s Form 10-Q, K12’s stock price slid a cumulative $0.54 per share, or 5.2%, over three days from a close of $10.25 per share on October 27, 2015, to a close of $9.71 per share on October 30, 2015.

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

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

Premier ERISA Law Firm Extends its Leadership With the Addition of Bruce J. McNeil

BOSTON, Sept. 08, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Marcia Wagner, the Managing Director of The Wagner Law Group, widely recognized as the country’s top ERISA and employee benefits law firm, is pleased to announce that Bruce J. McNeil, a preeminent ERISA and employee benefits attorney, has joined the firm as a partner, effective as of September 6, 2016. “Bruce’s breadth of knowledge and depth of experience in ERISA and employee benefits law further strengthens our firm’s position as an exceptional institution in that area of practice,” says Ms. Wagner.

/EIN News/ — Mr. McNeil is considered one of the country’s foremost experts in the area of nonqualified deferred compensation and has testified as an expert before the United States Senate Committee on Finance on executive compensation matters.  He is the author of over 28 books, including 17 editions of “Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plans,” “Tax-Sheltered Annuities Under § 403(b) and Nonqualified § 457 Plans,” and “Employee Benefits in Mergers & Acquisitions,”  and he is the author or co-author of over 80 articles on employee benefit issues.  Mr. McNeil is a Fellow of the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel and is the Editor-in-Chief of both the Journal of Pension Planning & Compliance and the Journal of Deferred Compensation.  A member of the Bar in multiple jurisdictions, Mr. McNeil is also admitted to practice in the United States Supreme Court, the United States Tax Court as well as several Courts of Appeal and District Courts.  He has been an adjunct professor of law at the University of Minnesota Law School and is formerly a shareholder with the law firm of Littler Mendelson P.C. in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and served with the Employee Plans Technical and Actuarial Division of the Internal Revenue Service in Washington, D.C.   Mr. McNeil received a BA from Concordia College, a JD from Drake University Law School, an LLM from Georgetown University Law Center, and an MA in English from Georgetown University.  “I am thrilled to be joining the country’s most extraordinary team of ERISA and employee benefits attorneys,” says Mr. McNeil.

The Wagner Law Group:
The Wagner Law Group, now proudly celebrating its 20th anniversary, has been dedicated to the highest standards of integrity, excellence and thought leadership and is considered to be the nation’s most exceptional ERISA and employee benefits law firms.  The firm has five offices, providing unparalleled legal advice to its clients, including large, small and nonprofit corporations as well as individuals and government entities, in over 45 states and several foreign countries. The Wagner Law Group’s 25 attorneys combine many years of experience in their specialty fields of practice with a variety of backgrounds. Five of the attorneys are AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell as having very high to preeminent legal abilities and ethical standards. Four attorneys have been named to the prestigious Super Lawyers list for 2016, which highlight outstanding lawyers based on a rigorous selection process.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
                    Ari J. Sonneberg
                    asonneberg@wagnerlawgroup.com
                    (617) 357-5200

Lawyers Can Enhance and Expand Their Content with Bigger Law Firm Magazine’s New Content Issue

The latest BLF Magazine is a Content Guide for Lawyers

San Francisco, CA (Law Firm Newswire) September 8, 2016 – The Content Issue by Bigger Law Firm magazine is full of ways to bring better legal content to more people.

In the feature article, Kristen Friend examines the problem of how to get your website content to stand out among an ever-increasing number of sources and competitors. Her solution entails understanding your audience’s needs and the unique value you can create. Friend explains, with specifics, how to engage your audience, give them the information they need, and promote your content to reach the right people.

Brendan Conley considers the question of where to publish a law firm’s content. The firm’s own site is an obvious first choice, but the increasing variety of social networks and third-party blogs may have attorneys questioning how far they should spread their content. Conley examines the value these opportunities present, and the reader may be surprised by his conclusions.

For those who want to dig into search engine optimization strategies, Dexter Tam has a lesson in link-building – or, rather, link-severing. While most links to one’s website are desirable, others are not. Tam explains how Google’s “Disavow Tool” allows site operators to exclude certain links from the search engine’s ranking process.

Kerrie Spencer reviews two useful software tools. The first captures and archives websites in their entirety for evidentiary purposes. The second is a full-featured PDF creator and reader that represents a more affordable alternative to Adobe Acrobat.

Speaking of software, attorneys increasingly find themselves using sleek online tools for communicating with clients. Roxanne Minot explores the privacy, security, and ethical implications of sleek products readers have likely heard of, as well as more cutting-edge tools they perhaps have not.

Dipal Parmar shows how attorneys can repurpose content in order to present it to a new audience in a different way, saving time and increasing the value of their investment. Wrapping things up, Ryan Conley gives a rundown of several legal tech startups from the famous incubator Y Combinator.

Each issue of Bigger Law Firm magazine shines a light on the intersection of law, technology, and marketing. BLF is available in print and on the web.

Bigger Law Firm magazine is available online and in print.

Read the latest issue of Bigger Law Firm Magazine.

To learn more about how to build a Bigger Law Firm, visit https://www.biggerlawfirm.com

Twitter

Facebook

Google+

See other news sources publishing this article. BETA | Tags: , , , ,

Maritime terrorism legislation should allow for legitimate peaceful protest

The New Zealand Law Society says
legislation to address maritime terrorism risks should ensure that peaceful
protest is not inadvertently classified as terrorism.

The Law Society has presented its
submission on the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill
to the
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade select committee.

The bill implements obligations
under two maritime counter-terrorism treaties to ensure that New Zealand’s
maritime security framework can respond to contemporary transnational terrorist
threats. It introduces new offences, including offences relating to maritime
terrorism.

Law Society spokesperson
Jonathan Orpin told the select committee that terrorism is defined more widely
in the bill than in the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002.

“The definition in the Terrorism
Suppression Act is more appropriate as it sets a higher threshold that excludes
legitimate peaceful protest.

“As a matter of good legislative
drafting, the definitions of ‘terrorism’ should be harmonised unless the bill
is intended to cover a wider scope of activities than those covered by the
Terrorism Suppression Act,” he says.

The Law Society recommends that
the bill specifically allows a ‘peaceful protest’ exclusion, as the Terrorism
Suppression Act does, to ensure that the bill does not inadvertently criminalise
legitimate peaceful protest.

“The right to peaceful protest
is a fundamental right in a democratic society and that should be expressly protected,”
he says.

The Law Society also recommends
an amendment so that accidents during maritime protests qualify as a terrorism
offence only where the ship was used with the intention of causing death,
serious injury or damage.

“As the bill is currently
drafted, if an accident occurs during a peaceful maritime protest and the result
is that someone dies or is seriously injured, a terrorism offence has been
committed. The Law Society doubts this is the intended effect, and recommends this
is clarified,” Mr Orpin says.

Law Society makes free gender diversity guide available

The New Zealand Law Society and its legal education provider NZLS CLE Ltd have published a booklet which provides four approaches to working towards gender diversity in law firms.

The booklet, Working Towards Gender Diversity in NZ Law Firms: Four practical approaches to achieving change, may be freely downloaded. It contains four papers presented at a day-long conference earlier in 2016. The conference, held in Auckland and Wellington, focused on strategies for moving towards greater gender diversity in the legal profession.

The Wellington conference was livestreamed, and NZLS CLE Ltd has made videos of all sessions available for viewing. This may be accessed here.

While women now make up over 48% of all New Zealand lawyers and 60% of new lawyers each year, they comprise just 26.8% of partners and directors.

The papers which are included in the booklet are:

Effective strategies to encourage progression of women in senior roles, by Michelle Dixon, Partner and CEO, Maddocks, Melbourne, Australia.

The challenge of promoting diversity, by Andrew Poole, Chief Executive, Chapman Tripp, Auckland.

Changing law firm culture – Be the change, by Ngaroma Tahana, Solicitor, Gordon and Pilditch, Rotorua.

Turning the tide to make more women law partners in New Zealand, by Stacey Shortall, Partner, Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, Wellington.

Trump Immigration and Trade Proposals Alarming to Business Immigration Attorneys

Houston, TX (Law Firm Newswire) September 7, 2016 – Although Trump’s proposal to reduce corporate taxes has been met with some quiet cheering, many large corporations though are alarmed about his stated position on trade and immigration. In fact, 145 tech power brokers wrote that Trump would be “a disaster for innovation.”

Presidential candidate Donald Trump affects every voter in the United States on both sides of the ticket, in all parties, on all levels. Voters, potential voters and newly registered voters love him, hate him or are teetering in the middle ground over his policies, approach, rhetoric and inflammatory speeches. He is the catalyst of change and whether he wins or not, his brand of politics, right or wrong, has changed the way many Americans view their nation.

Why do big corporations regard Trump with a jaundiced eye? It has to do with his harsh and apparently unyielding stance on immigration. Immigrants are typically a large part of many U.S. companies, with hundreds to thousands of positions being filled by STEM candidates trained in other countries. The U.S. does not have a big enough hiring base to fill all the needed positions.

Many technology companies want liberal immigration policies because it allows them to attract the best global talent. If Trump were to become president and disrupt the immigration system even more than it is already upended, the consequences may be devastating for business in more ways than one. Hogtying businesses and creating an atmosphere in which they would be forced to struggle to find enough talented workers in the U.S. could set the country back into a tailspin.

To many technology proponents, entrepreneurs and those seeking such positions within the United States, Trump’s campaign could spell disaster later on once the dust settled. In an open letter to Trump, Josh Tetrick, founder of Hampton Creek, a start-up company, says the Republican campaign “feels un-American.”

In order to keep America on track it needs to stand firm with the melting pot philosophy – that all races, colors, creeds, sexes and occupations need to be a part of the fabric of a thriving society. The minute immigration is attacked and taken out of the formula in some way, shape or form; it causes rifts in the business sector and multiple other equally important sectors, such as agriculture. The trickle-down effect would be that once those sectors are impacted, others are also.

Immigration reform is about all sectors of the U.S. economy. Remove one card of the house of business and the whole thing comes tumbling down affecting everyone, not just one sector. The question of who to vote for is about more than just what they say or promise. It has long-term ramifications for the country as a whole.

Law Offices of Annie Banerjee
131 Brooks Street, Suite #300
Sugar Land, Texas 77478
Phone: (281) 242-9139

See other news sources publishing this article. BETA | Tags: , , , , ,