Tag Archive: Law Firm Press Releases

Vault’s 2017 Best 25 Law Firms to Work For Ranks Thompson & Knight Among Top Six Firms

/EINPresswire.com/ — DALLAS, TX–(Marketwired – July 14, 2016) – The law firm of Thompson & Knight LLP ranks sixth among the top 25 law firms in Vault’s 2017 Best Law Firms to Work For. Thompson & Knight is the only Texas-based law firm listed and one of only two firms to rank as the top firm in three Quality of Life Categories – Substantive Work, Career Outlook, and Informal Training, Mentoring & Sponsorship.

“We are committed to the long-term development of our Associates and to providing a collegial environment in which each individual can flourish and participate in the growth of our practice and support of our diverse client base,” said Mark M. Sloan, Thompson & Knight’s Managing Partner. “We are honored to be the only Texas-based law firm on the list.”

Thompson & Knight is ranked as the top firm in the Substantive Work category with one Associate telling Vault, “compared to my colleagues at other firms, I have handled a significantly greater amount of substantive work on real cases years before they did.” With regard to Business Outlook, a Thompson & Knight Associate remarked, “T&K is a firm where, if associates do what is asked of them and commit themselves to their clients and the firm, then they can (and are expected to become) partners.” Another Associate noted that the firm “has less attrition than other big firms.” Thompson & Knight also is the top firm in Informal Training, Mentoring & Sponsorship. One Associate said, “The firm goes above and beyond to help young attorneys transition from students to practitioners of law,” while another noted “informal mentoring opportunities are encouraged and promoted.”

The Law Firm Quality of Life Rankings are derived from Vault’s Law Firm Associate Survey, in which more than 18,000 associates rated and commented on various aspects of their work life. This year’s Best 25 Law Firms to Work For rankings were calculated using a formula that weighs associate ratings in a dozen different areas: Overall Satisfaction; Firm Culture; Hours; Substantive Work; Compensation; Business Outlook; Career Outlook; Associate/Partner Relations; Leadership Transparency; Informal and Formal Training; Pro Bono; and Overall Diversity. For more information, please visit Vault’s 2017 The Best Law Firms to Work For.

About Thompson & Knight
Established in 1887, Thompson & Knight is a full-service law firm with more than 300 attorneys. The Firm provides legal solutions to clients and communities around the world and is particularly recognized for its depth of experience and capabilities on behalf of the energy industry. Thompson & Knight has been named “Law Firm of the Year” in Oil & Gas Law in U.S. News-Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” for 2011-2013, 2015. For more information, visit www.tklaw.com.

For additional information:
Lauren Gass
Communications Manager

Fish & Richardson Named One of 24 Most Loved Law Firms by General Counsel; One of 10 Firms GCs Love for Pharma Work

/EINPresswire.com/ — BOSTON, MA — (Marketwired) — 06/30/16 — Fish & Richardson has been named one of the 24 law firms that general counsel “love the most” and one of 10 firms GCs “love for pharma work” according to BTI Consulting Group’s BTI Power Rankings: The Law Firms with the Best Client Relationships. The firms on the 2016 BTI Clientopia® 24 list have “honed their ability to serve clients so well that their relationships with general counsels have entered a sort of utopian existence where they earn glowing recommendations from clients and consistently win work.” As one of the 10 strongest pharma firms in the country, Fish excels at “a special type of attentiveness” that helps these firms “earn the majority of their clients’ work in the field.”

In-house counsel consider these 24 law firms as both their leading primary provider and the first firms they recommend to other legal decision makers. A typical company relies on 42 law firms for their legal needs, but only two firms on average are considered “primary.”

“Clients will invest in the law firms that invest in them,” said BTI President Michael Rynowecer. “The way they measure that is client service and the components of client service, the law firm that really makes your clients’ life easier.”

The BTI rankings analyze the strength of client relationships based solely on objective feedback from the highest-ranking legal decision makers and GCs at the largest companies. According to the report, top legal decision makers are clear, articulate, and decisive when defining what client service means to them. Understanding the client’s business and unique needs comes in at the top of the list. The report notes that clients want law firms to place legal advice into a business context in order to help manage business risk.

“It is an honor and a privilege to be selected for both of these lists,” said Jonathan Singer, who leads Fish’s Life Sciences Litigation Group. “We work hard to earn our clients’ trust, to understand their businesses and risks, and to provide creative, cost-effective solutions to help them succeed. Whether it’s protecting a valuable patent portfolio, obtaining a successful result in a post-grant proceeding, solving a regulatory issue, or winning in court, we bring the highest level of technical, scientific, and legal acumen to bear for our clients. We are a team and we win when our clients win.”

Fish’s Life Sciences Litigation Group was recently heralded for a major victory for client Gilead on June 6, 2016 when the firm got a $200 million jury verdict voided after proving Merck forfeited its right to assert its Hepatitis C drug patents against Gilead because of “unclean hands.”

In May 2016, Fish was named one of the best law firms in the country for developing and delivering alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) in BTI Consulting Group’s annual BTI State of Alternative Fee Arrangements 2016. Fish was one of only 22 firms — and the only IP law firm on the list — that corporate counsel find are the best at making AFAs a successful cost control tool with improved client focus, predictability in budgets, a more streamlined approach to the work, and double-digit savings.

Fish & Richardson is a global patent, intellectual property (IP) litigation, and commercial litigation law firm with more than 400 attorneys and technology specialists across the U.S. and Europe. Fish has been named the #1 patent litigation firm in the U.S. for 13 consecutive years and is one of the busiest post-grant firms, representing more petitioners at the PTAB than any other firm. Fish has been winning cases worth billions in controversy — often by making new law — for the most innovative clients and influential industry leaders since 1878. For more information, visit www.fr.com.

Image Available: http://www2.marketwire.com/mw/frame_mw?attachid=3028906

Amy Blumenthal
Blumenthal & Associates


Kelly Largey
Fish & Richardson

Local Marketing Tip – How Law Firms Can Get Testimonials from Your Clients

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Second Class Action against Niantic, Inc., The Pokémon Company, and Nintendo Co. Ltd.

NEW YORK, Aug. 10, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a second class action lawsuit has been filed against Niantic, Inc. (“Niantic”), The Pokémon Company (“Pokémon Co.”), and Nintendo Co. Ltd. (“Nintendo”) (collectively, “Defendants”).  Niantic, a software development company, is the developer and publisher of the Pokémon Go mobile game.  Pokémon Co. is responsible for marketing and licensing the Pokémon franchise.  Nintendo is the publisher of the popular Pokémon video game series and owns a 32% stake in Defendant Pokémon Co.  Each of the three defendants receives a percentage of all revenues generated by the Pokémon Go mobile application.

The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, and docketed under 16-cv-04556, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons whose use and enjoyment of their property has been affected by the Pokémon Go mobile game. 

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.

Pokémon Go is the latest iteration of the immensely popular Pokémon media franchise, which consists in large part of a series of video games in which players take on the role of “trainers” with the goal of capturing and collecting fantasy creatures called Pokémon.  Released on July 6, 2016 in the United States, Pokémon Go is an “augmented reality” game in which players use their smart phones to “catch” Pokémon in the players’ real-world surroundings by utilizing the GPS, camera, and gyroscope features on users’ mobile devices.  When the game detects, via GPS, that players are in the vicinity of certain real-world locations, the GPS coordinates of which were selected and programmed into the mobile application by Niantic and known to Pokémon Go players as “Pokéstops” and “Pokémon gyms,” the players gain access to potentially vital in-game items, which they can use to catch Pokémon, among other purposes, or gain the opportunity to engage in virtual “battles” with other Pokémon Go players. 

Pokémon Go was an immediate success. As of July 23, 2016, Pokémon Go had been downloaded more than 30 million times and had earned more than $35 million in revenue. 

However, within days of the game’s release, it became clear that a number of the GPS coordinates that Niantic had designated as Pokéstops and Pokémon gyms were, in fact, on or directly adjacent to private property, and that Niantic had placed these Pokéstops and Pokémon gyms without the consent of the properties’ owners.  As a direct result of Defendants’ actions, Pokémon Go players have trespassed on Plaintiffs’ property, blocked Plaintiffs’ driveway, and even directly threatened Plaintiffs when asked to leave.  The intentional, unauthorized placement of Pokéstops and Pokémon gyms on or near the property of Plaintiffs and other members of the proposed class constitutes a continuing invasion of the class members’ use and enjoyment of their properties, committed by Niantic on an ongoing basis for Defendants’ profit. 

“Defendants recklessly developed and marketed a product without properly considering its impact on private homeowners, depriving them of their right to enjoy their property without nuisance.  The Pokémon Company, Nintendo, and Niantic failed to realize that their virtual game has very real-world consequences,” said Jeremy A. Lieberman, attorney for the plaintiffs.

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/ —

                    Robert S. Willoughby
                    Pomerantz LLP

Press Release Distribution Services help you to submit press releases easily

With the EIN Presswire press release distribution service

you will reach decision makers, achieve high search engine visibility, get feature-rich options such as iframe, anchor texts, embedded video among other benefits without a long term fixed contract.
Just pay as you go or opt-in to plans such as the
Pro+ bundle
(10 releases for $399)
and get access for one year to EIN Newsdesk for free.


There were
press releases posted in the last 24 hours and
in the last 365 days.

Browse Press Releases


Get Recognized

Establish a basic online presence for your business. This option allows you to choose one industry target to focus on your market. Includes a 700 word limit and one year hosting of your press release.

Learn More


for news release


Promote Successfully

Go Pro. Includes the features of the Basic package plus automatic posting to social media channels such as Facebook and Twitter for greater reach.
Increase your press release visibility and get a conversation started with a bundle of 5 releases and 3 industry channels.

Learn More


for 5 releases


Expand Your Reach

Includes the features of the Pro package plus distribution via RSS and emailed directly to leading journalists and bloggers.
Maximize your search engine visibility of your press release with a bundle of 10 releases and 5 industry channels. Includes a 1-year membership to all EIN News publications.

Learn More


for 10 releases


Get Worldwide Attention

Get all the benefits of Pro+ for only $19.90 per release. You’ll get the broadest distribution of your press release and share your news with the people you want to reach.
This package allows you to send up to 50 press releases. Most useful for clients with aggressive marketing campaigns.

Learn More


for 50 releases

Send press releases more frequently?

Call today about a subscription pricing plan and watch your results multiply! Ask about our new EIN News Premium Package – get access to all the EIN News publications, post conference listings and news releases.

Call now: +1 202-540-8337

Unlike our competitors we combine a press release service with media monitoring services.
Your press releases will be published on EIN Presswire and EIN Newsdesk publications of your choice, distributed to our PR partners, social media sites (Facebook and Twitter),
major search engines and news sites (Google, Google News, Bing, Ask, Yahoo!, Topix etc.)
They will also be available via RSS and sent directly to journalists, other media professionals and to hundreds of newsletter recipients.
See a
list of our distribution partners.

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (BDC) INVESTOR ALERT: The Securities Arbitration Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A. Opens Investigation into Potential Brokerage Firm Violations Related to Sale of Non-Traded Business Development Companies in Response to…

NEW YORK, Aug. 10, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Securities Arbitration Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A. (“K&T”), www.nasd-law.com, has opened an investigation into potential brokerage firm violations related to sale of non-traded Business Development Companies (“BDCs”) in response to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Targeted Examination Letter sent to member brokerage firms. 

The scope of FINRA’s examination includes all information and documents related to non-traded BDCs, including due diligence procedures, for the period from January 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016.  Earlier this year, FINRA published its annual Regulatory and Examination Priorities Letter to highlight risks that, “could adversely affect investors and market integrity in 2016”.  FINRA noted the growing number of BDCs sold to retail investors, “exposed them to high commissions and fees, illiquidity risks and uncertainty regarding the time-period BDCs will hold funds before they are invested.” 

According to securities attorney Lawrence L. Klayman, “Our investigation is focused on whether brokerage firms provided inaccurate and misleading information to investors in order to sell BDCs that were not suitable investments.  We are also investigating whether these brokerage firms failed to supervise their brokers in conjunction with the disclosures being made to their clients.” 

Mr. Klayman further explained, “Non-traded BDC investments have risks and costs which make them unsuitable for many investors.”  K&T’s investigation is related to investments in non-traded BDCs, including:

  • Franklin Square Energy and Power Fund;
  • HMS Income Fund;
  • Nextpoint Capital Fund;
  • Carey Credit Income Fund;
  • CNL Corporate Capital Trust; and
  • Sierra Income Corporation.

/EIN News/ — According to FINRA Notice to Members 15-02, brokerage firms are required to provide greater disclosure concerning non-traded BDCs on customer account statements.  In light of these developments, K&T is conducting its investigation to determine whether brokerage firms violated FINRA sales practice rules related to non-traded BDCs, including unsuitable recommendations, misrepresentations and omissions of material facts and failure to supervise.  Investors who purchased BDCs that have information relating to this investigation are encouraged to contact Lawrence Klayman, Esq. or Raymond Gentile, Esq. of Klayman & Toskes at (888) 997-9956, email info@nasd-law.com or visit our website at www.nasd-law.com.

About Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
K&T is a leading national securities law firm which practices exclusively in the field of securities arbitration and litigation, on behalf of retail and institutional investors throughout the world in large and complex securities matters. The firm represents high net-worth, ultra-high-net-worth, and institutional investors, such as non-profit organizations, unions, public and multi-employer pension funds. K&T has office locations in California, Florida, New York and Puerto Rico.


                    Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
                    Lawrence L. Klayman, Esq.
                    Raymond Gentile, Esq.

Safirstein Metcalf LLP and the Law Office of Kevin Galbraith LLC Announce that FINRA has Issued A Fine for the Sale of Leveraged, Inverse and Inverse-Leveraged ETFs

/EIN News/ — NEW YORK, Aug. 10, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Safirstein Metcalf LLP and the Law Office of Kevin Galbraith LLC announce that FINRA has recently fined Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. (“Oppenheimer”) $2.25 million and ordered the firm to pay restitution of more than $716,000 to affected customers for selling leveraged, inverse and inverse-leveraged exchange-traded funds (non-traditional ETFs) to retail customers without reasonable supervision, and for recommending non-traditional ETFs that were not suitable.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), both issued investor alerts in 2009 to warn investors about investing in leveraged and inverse ETFs.  The regulators warned that while leveraged and inverse ETFs may be useful for certain sophisticated trading strategies, they are highly complex financial instruments that are typically designed to achieve their stated objectives on a daily basis.  FINRA and the SEC further warned that due to the effects of compounding, the performance of leveraged and inverse ETFs over longer periods of time can differ significantly from their stated daily objective, noting that leveraged and inverse ETFs that are reset daily typically are unsuitable for retail investors who plan to hold them for longer than one trading session, particularly in volatile markets.

Oppenheimer instituted policies following this regulatory guidance prohibiting its representatives from soliciting retail customers to purchase non-traditional ETFs, and also prohibited them from executing unsolicited non-traditional ETF purchases for retail customers unless the customers met certain criteria, e.g., the customer had liquid assets in excess of $500,000. Oppenheimer, however, failed to reasonably enforce these policies; thus, representatives continued to solicit retail customers to purchase non-traditional ETFs and continued to execute unsolicited non-traditional ETF transactions even though the customers did not meet Oppenheimer’s stated criteria. From August 2009 through September 30, 2013, more than 760 Oppenheimer representatives executed more than 30,000 non-traditional ETF transactions totaling approximately $1.7 billion for customers.

If you invested in a leveraged or inverse ETF (between 2008-2016) offered by Oppenheimer or another broker-dealer and want to know more about your rights, please contact Sheila Feerick at 1-800-221-0015 or email info@safirsteinmetcalf.com or visit http://www.safirsteinmetcalf.com/etf.html

Safirstein Metcalf  LLP and The Law Office of Kevin Galbraith LLC represent investors (both retail and institutional) who have suffered financial losses as a result of misconduct.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Safirstein Metcalf LLP                
                    Peter Safirstein, Esq.
                    1250 Broadway
                    27th Floor
                    New York, NY 10001
                    1-800- 221-0015

Pomerantz Law Firm Announces the Filing of a Class Action against Embraer S.A. and Certain Officers – ERJ

NEW YORK, Aug. 08, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Embraer S.A. (“Embraer” or the “Company”) (NYSE:ERJ) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 16-cv-06277, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Embraer securities between April 16, 2012 and July 28, 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 Embraer securities during the Class Period, you have until October 7, 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] 

Embraer designs, develops, manufactures, and sells aircraft and systems in Brazil, North America, Latin America, the Asia-Pacific region, Europe, and internationally. 

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made 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 had paid bribes to officials in the Dominican Republic to secure contracts for the sale of aircraft; (ii) Embraer’s President and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), Defendant Frederico Pinheiro Fleury Curado (“Curado”) was aware of the bribery scheme; (iii) the foreseeable consequences of the foregoing conduct would cost Embraer hundreds of millions of dollars; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about Embraer’s business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On November 1, 2013, after the market closed, The Wall Street Journal reported that Embraer was under investigation by the U.S. and Brazilian governments concerning bribery of Dominican Republic officials to secure a contract for the sale of military aircraft.

On this news, Embraer’s ADRs fell $0.17, or 0.57%, to close at $29.55 on November 4, 2013, the next trading day.

On September 23, 2014, shortly before the market closed, The Wall Street Journal reported that Brazilian authorities had filed bribery charges against eight Embraer employees, claiming that they had bribed officials in the Dominican Republic to secure a $92 million contract.

On this news, Embraer’s ADRs fell $0.26, or 0.68%, to close at $38.25 on September 24, 2014.

On March 16, 2016, after the market closed, various media outlets reported that Elio Moti Sonnenfeld (“Sonnenfeld”), a sales consultant who purportedly paid bribes on behalf of Embraer, had told Brazilian prosecutors that he believed the Company’s top managers, including Defendant Curado, then CEO of Embraer, knew of the illicit payments made in connection with the Dominican Republic sales.

On June 9, 2016, after the market closed, Embraer announced that Defendant Curado was stepping down from his position as CEO after 32 years with the Company, and that Paulo César de Souza e Silva would replace Curado as of July 2016.

On this news, Embraer’s ADRs fell $1.18, or 5.44%, to close at $20.51 on June 10, 2016.

On July 29, 2016, Embraer filed a Form 6-K with the SEC, stating, in relevant part, that:  [N]egotiations with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the settlement of the allegations of non-compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) have significantly progressed, to the point that Embraer is recognizing a US$ 200 million loss contingency in the quarter ended June 30, 2016.

Embraer also announced its financial and operating results for the quarter ended June 30, 2016.  Embraer reported, inter alia, the $200 million loss contingency and a net loss for the quarter totaling $99.4 million, or $0.55 per share.

On this news, Embraer’s ADRs fell $2.93, or 13.82%, to close at $18.27 on July 29, 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/ —

                    Robert S. Willoughby
                    Pomerantz LLP

Interim suspension of Richard Henry Hill

The New Zealand Lawyers and
Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal has suspended Richard Henry Hill from
practising as a barrister and solicitor until disciplinary charges brought against
him by a New Zealand Law Society standards committee are decided.

Mr Hill was found guilty on 11
July 2016 in the Hastings District Court of a charge of criminal breach of
trust. This related to offending in his capacity as a lawyer and trust account
partner in his previous law firm McKay Hill.

On 26 July he was sentenced to
eight months home detention and 100 hours community work.

The tribunal said Mr Hill faces
seven disciplinary charges laid by the Hawke’s Bay Standard Committee. These
were filed in the tribunal six years ago, with their hearing stayed awaiting
the outcome of his trial.

The tribunal said it had no
doubt that the interests of the public demanded that an interim suspension
order be made forthwith.

“The offending is particularly
serious and goes to the heart of the obligation of the practitioner to protect
his client and any funds placed by the clients in his care. The practitioner
has been found to have failed abysmally in this regard and thus other members
of the public must be protected from him,” it said.

The interim suspension took effect from 8 August 2016.

NZLS supports deceased organ donor register consideration

The New Zealand Law Society says it supports further consideration of a register of organ donors.

In a submission on the Ministry of Health discussion document Increasing Rates of Deceased Organ Donation, the Law Society says while tweaking the driving licence regime is a good option for improving the recording of consent, “a tick on the form does not necessarily enable fully informed consent to be given”.


It says there are limitations to focusing only on drivers and a register would apply more broadly and provide a process for properly informed consent.

Section 76 of the Human Tissue Act 2008 provides an enabling provision for establishment of an opt-in register and the law therefore does not need to be changed for such a register, which could be linked to the informed consent provisions in that Act.

“That would require the development of a system to ensure potential donors, while alive, are provided with sufficient information  and choose which organs they wish to donate in which circumstances before being placed on the register, with a simple system to record changes of mind,” the Law Society says.

“This could be linked with NHI numbers so that it is easily accessed.”

The Law Society says there should be provision of information for people on the the register to share with families so they are aware of donors’ views. Families could still override decisions, as clinicians are unlikely to be willing to remove organs in the face of family refusal.

There is a need to engage with Māori and minority groups as they may have fewer options for accessing organs, the submission says.

It also notes that Donation after Circulatory Death should not be introduced in New Zealand without thorough public consultation, as the notion of retrieving organs from a donor who is not brain dead will be offensive to some cultures and religions.