Thursday, February 28, 2013

Corporate culpability under the ‘Alien Tort Statute’




Can corporations be sued for human rights abuse under the Alien Tort Statute? The case of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. has once again opened the floodgate of issues centered on corporate culpability. The lawsuit ultimately ignited a heated debate on the usefulness of the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) of 1789, which provides district courts “original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." Whether the case will hold water remains a blurry prospect until now.

Image Source: thelawyer.com.ng

Included as one vital section in the Judiciary Act of 1789, the ATCA has evolved as a potent weapon against US multinational corporate giants accused of direct or indirect violations of human rights in foreign soils. Regrettably, despite various safeguards on corporate abuses and violation of domestic and international laws, violators have long eluded legal culpability in the past. The Kiobel lawsuit against Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., Shell Transport & Trading Co., Plc, and its wholly owned subsidiary Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd (SPDC) serves as a litmus test to the strength of ATCA in supporting the enforcement of international law and human rights standards.


Image Source: blogs.wsj.com


While the original spirit of ATCA is to uphold the law of nations into criminal jurisprudence and maintain healthy international relations, its essence has to evolve into a true, solid display of support to international implementation of justice. Just as it must be effectively wielded for the ultimate protection of human rights at all cost, failure to do so is simply unjustifiable at all fronts.


Image Source: corporateaccountabilityforum.com


Stay abreast of the latest in the legal arena by following this Evan Granowitz Twitter page.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Legal assistance: Analyzing the disconnect between cost and need



Working as a lawyer is one of the most respected careers today. Companies need lawyers to handle their legal transactions as much as appellants come to these professionals for much-needed legal guidance. Yet amidst this prestige, the said line of work is still far from perfect.


Image Source: braintrack.com


This is what the American Bar Association believes, asserting that the legal education system is facing what one may call an existential crisis. This can be observed in how law school applications significantly dropped, arguably resulting from not only the expensive tuition (which eventually yields to student debts), but also the difficulty of finding employment after graduation.

The lack of employment opportunities for law graduates is rooted from a harsh truth: in financial crises, clients avoid paying higher rates for lawyers or avoid hiring lawyers altogether.


Image Source: nytimes.com


There are ways to resolve this problem, as suggested by John Farmer of The New York Times. He recommends that an entry level period of practice be enforced upon new graduates, under experienced supervision and at reduced hourly rates.

These reduced rates will hopefully encourage clients to hire more young lawyers, testing out what the new generation of legal specialists can offer them. In this manner, the growing need for legal representation can be satiated whilst providing law graduates not only with the job they studied and worked hard for, but also with the chance to shine in their chosen field.


Image Source: law.ufl.edu


This Evan Granowitz Facebook page offers valuable information and updates on the field of law.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Law education is a lifelong commitment

Once a lawyer, always a lawyer.
Law students have their differing reasons as to why they entered law school in the first place. Regardless of the reasons behind pursuing the profession, budding lawyers must know the different challenges that they are required to face, and they must be prepared for the lifelong commitment.


Image Source: Fastweb.com

Before being able to attach “attorney” to their name, law students must make it through three years of law school on top of four years of undergraduate work. That would equal to seven years of paying for school tuition before being able to even think of landing a job as an attorney. Looking for employment would also come as a challenge, as they would have to stand out amidst a multitude of applications. This doesn’t come as a surprise, as the US has one of the highest lawyer densities in the world.

Image Source: Connecticutspecialeducationlawyer.com


To add to the many disenchantments of actual practice, not all neophyte lawyers get to be involved in courtroom action for many years. Most of the time, they are made to face mundane office tasks like paperwork, interviews, research, filing motions, and even organizing case files. If that isn’t enough, continuing professional education is required to be able to rise through the ranks. Even established law professionals such as Evan Granowitz and Cheryl Chadwick need to continue refreshing and updating their legal knowledge base.

Bottom-line: becoming a lawyer is a marriage of sorts to a high-end profession. As most marriages would go, this relationship could gobble up time and even fiscal resources. The journey can also be a bumpy ride for most. It would then take a lot of determination and tenacity to stick through thick and thin to feed this high-maintenance liaison. The profession isn’t for everyone, but conquering it can be very rewarding.  

Image Source: Education.gov.uk


Access more law-related updates by following this Evan Granowitz Twitter page.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Indicting insanity defense




Has the constitutional right to plead insanity as a defense to a criminal trial gone so awry that the justice system continues to take a blind eye? More than three decades since John Hinckley Jr. was acquitted for the attempted assassination of President Reagan by reason of insanity, the M’Naghten rule or insanity defense remained in the public stand facing trial.


Image Source: midtownmiscreant.blogspot.com


The post-John Hinckley era seems a little more resolute to sidestep a fundamental right of an accused in exchange for an outright justice designed, in most cases, to satiate an outraged public. In view of the spate of violence that rocked the country in the past months, it would just be a matter of time before any criminal would be hurled with the whole weight of justice not crazy enough to accept a plea for insanity defense. Just last year, the Supreme Court conveniently upheld the Idaho court ruling against John Delling, a paranoid schizophrenic who pleaded for insanity defense but was still convicted for the 2007 gruesome murder of his friends whom he believed were “zapping” his energy. While Delling’s crimes are unforgivable, the Supreme Court’s decision sparked debates for its delivery of a clear and overwhelming miscarriage of justice.


Image Source: midtownmiscreant.blogspot.com


Despite the past abuses on the use of the M’Naghten rule, the one thing that remains certain is the moral nature of criminal responsibility which seems to have been forgotten by a system already fortified by a culture of retribution. At present, no one is fully certain if the criminal justice system could also pass the “right-wrong" test. When such system denies a fundamental right enshrined in the law and punishes a person who truly doesn’t appreciate the merits of his or her actions, justice is likewise impaired. In a moral and legal standpoint, it’s could be considered insane.


Image Source: talesfromthelaw.wordpress.com


This Evan Granowitz Twitter page contains updates and links to articles on related topics.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Understanding product liability claims: The three basic categories

Image Source: OnlineInsurance.co.uk
Ever bought a product that the manufacturer claimed was fine but is actually not? Did a product cause injury or harm to you or your family? If so, then you can sue for a product liability claim.

There are three categories of product liability claims:

Defectively manufactured products.

These are products that are flawed because of some mistake or error in manufacturing them, such as fabrication machine problems or part installation problems, so much so that they cause harm to people who use them. Instances include a TV that exploded due to faulty wiring, cracked chains on bicycles, cellphone batteries that explode during prolonged use, tainted medicine, and broken condoms.

Image Source: SubrogationRecoveryLawBlog.com
Defectively designed products.

These are products that are faulty by design and not because of faulty manufacturing process. Examples include a car with a gas pedal that sticks, a children’s toy with sharp edges, and a phone that dies after just an hour even without use.

Failure to provide enough warnings or instructions.

Manufacturers will be liable should they fail to provide enough warnings or instructions on how to properly use their product, as improper product use due to missing warning labels or instructions can lead to accidents.

Image Source: WarnerandWarner.com
Knowing these categories can help you and your lawyer find out whether you have a case or not and what strategies your lawyer needs to use.

Atty. Evan Granowitz of Wolf Group LA is a highly respected lawyer who specializes in civil litigation. This website provides more information on civil litigation cases.

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Insurance coverage disputes: When your insurer goes bad

Image Source: Mashable.com
You use insurance coverage as a means of managing risk for a lot of things, including your house, car, and even health. In exchange for premiums, your assets will be protected from certain risks.

Although a lot of insurance companies honor their obligations when the time comes, there are times when insurance companies deny valid insurance claims, as these companies have a financial interest not to offer you compensation or payment. Insurance companies have cash reserves that they have to maintain. Providing you with compensation will cost them money, and they will have to replenish those cash reserves by either reducing profit or raising your premiums.

Image Source: ParkDurham.com
The first thing you need to do if an insurance company denies you compensation is hire the services of lawyers, like Evan Granowitz and Timothy Pagel, who are well-versed in insurance coverage disputes and litigations. Second, you need to be steadfast. Just because an insurance company denied you compensation because it interpreted your policy in a manner which they can deny you coverage does not mean that they are right. Third, let your lawyer review your policy and your claim when your insurer denies your claim.

Image Source: TheWellsLawGroup.com
 If the facts are straight and there is evidence that you are being deceived by your insurer, then your lawyer can take the appropriate action to ensure that you get what you are owed.

The Wolf Group LA website is an excellent resource for people who need expert legal assistance.

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Defending yourself from breach of contract lawsuit with an affirmative defense


Image Source: mybussinesstravail.blogspot.com


Saving yourself from a breach of contract lawsuit involves having several affirmative defenses. This blog article explains how you can get out of a contract by taking advantage of those defenses. The courts of California afford defendants with several defenses in breach of contract actions. Among these are:

The contract was ambiguous. The plaintiff did not clearly state some aspects of the contract. Ambiguity makes it hard for you, as the defendant, to respond.

There was breach of contract by the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to comply with the terms of the transaction by changing the terms of the contract without your consent or failing to pay you.

You were induced to enter into a contract. A contract will be invalid if it was induced under duress or undue influence. The plaintiff made you enter into the contract against your will by taking unfair advantage of your mental incapacity or by using threats or force.


Image Source: giddenslaw.com


A mistake was made. There’s a mistake involving the terms that were agreed upon by the contracting parties. You can defend yourself by proving that the mistake was mutual.

There was fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Part of the contract, if not all of it, resulted from fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation by the plaintiff or another party.

If you’re charged with breach of contract, the law allows you to claim as many defenses as possible. Deciding which defenses work best for you is crucial, and seeking help from legal experts like Evan Granowitz and Thomas Gallagher is a wise move.



Image Source: derbylawyers.net


The Evan Granowitz Twitter page offers some helpful information about breach of contract and other legal matters. TAGS: breach of contract, breach of contract defenses, breach of contract affirmative defenses, contract breach defenses, contract defenses, breach of contract lawsuit

Monday, February 4, 2013

REPOST: Debt ceiling FAQs: What you need to know



What do you need to know about debt ceiling? What is its importance in today’s economy? This article from CNN.com has the answers.

 

Image Source: money.cnn.com


Just a few weeks ago, Congress narrowly avoided pushing the country off the fiscal cliff. Now it faces a potentially bigger risk to the economy: the need to raise the debt ceiling.

To help separate fact from fiction in the battle, here's what you need to know about the issue.

What is the debt ceiling exactly? It's a cap set by Congress on the amount of money the federal government may borrow. The limit applies to debt owed to the public (i.e. anyone who buys U.S. bonds) plus debt that the Treasury owes to government trust funds such as those for Social Security and Medicare.

Why does it need to be raised? The debt ceiling needs to be raised periodically because both parties in Congress have approved tax cuts and spending increases over the years, knowing full well they will add to deficits. By doing so, they increase the country's future borrowing needs.

That's why raising the debt ceiling is not a "license to spend more," as some Republicans assert. It simply lets the Treasury Department continue to pay all the country's obligations that Congress has already approved -- whether it's a payment to a federal contractor, aSocial Security check to a senior, or interest on the debt to a bond investor.

Since March 1962, Congress has raised the debt limit 76 times, according to the Congressional Research Service. Eleven of those times occurred in the past decade.

How high is the debt ceiling now? The ceiling is currently set at $16.394 trillion. The country's borrowing hit that mark on Dec. 31.

As a result, Treasury can't borrow any new money in the markets (although it still is allowed to rollover existing debt). So it has begun to use "extraordinary measures" to temporarily stave off the risk that the country will default on any of its obligations.

What are "extraordinary measures" and how much time can they buy? Treasury has four options, which combined can raise $200 billion.

The biggest of them is to temporarily stop reinvesting federal workers' retirement savings in special-issue short-term bonds.

Treasury has said that normally $200 billion can cover federal borrowing needs for about two months. But how much it buys this time around remains uncertain.

Treasury said on Jan. 14 that it expects to exhaust its extraordinary measures sometime between mid-February and early March. Earlier, the Bipartisan Policy Center had estimated the deadline would come as soon as Feb. 15 but no later than March 1.

What happens if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling in time? It's impossible to say with certainty. But generally speaking, nothing good will come of it.

Treasury would not be permitted to borrow. So it would only be able to pay those bills for which it has enough revenue on hand. Problem is, there won't be enough revenue on hand to cover the payments due on any given day.

So who would get paid and who would get stiffed? Treasury would be forced to make legally questionable decisions -- either picking winners and losers, or choosing to delay payments to everyone. "The reality would be chaotic," the Bipartisan Policy Center concludes in an analysis of Treasury's cash flow.

Some say the country could avoid default if Treasury simply chooses to pay interest due to bondholders first. It's not as simple as it sounds, but that is what most experts expect Treasury would do since defaulting on U.S. bonds would cripple the economy, send markets into a tailspin and potentially "trigger another catastrophic financial crisis," in the words of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee.

But if the debt ceiling standoff persists, there's no guarantee that paying interest but shirking other legal obligations will protect the country from the perception of default or at least instability.

If the debt ceiling isn't raised in time, will there be a government shutdown? Not technically, but effectively it may feel like a partial one.

A real government shutdown occurs if lawmakers fail to appropriate funds for federal agencies and programs. Without appropriated funding, government operations would cease, except for essential services.

By contrast, if the debt ceiling isn't raised in time, the government remains open and Uncle Sam has revenue coming in to pay for government services and agencies. Just not enough revenue to pay for everything.

"There would have to be severe cutbacks, but it is unlikely that large parts of the government would be shut down completely," said former Congressional Budget Office Director Rudolph Penner.

But the longer the debt ceiling crisis lasted, the harder it would be to keep government operations running. "After two weeks you'd have absolute paralysis in the federal government," said Steve Bell, economic policy director at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

What's all the noise about the 14th Amendment? If Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling, some believe the president could choose a "nuclear option" and invoke the 14th Amendment.

That amendment states: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned."

By invoking the 14th Amendment, the argument goes, Obama could direct the Treasury secretary to keep borrowing in order to pay the country's obligations.

The White House has rejected the suggestion several times. But minds may change, experts say, if the country is really on the brink of default.

It would, however, be risky politically.

And the country could still be hurt financially. Invoking the 14th Amendment could spark a constitutional showdown -- not exactly an affirming message to send markets already questioning Washington's ability to govern.

What about a $1 trillion platinum coin? Another instant-presto fix that some experts believe could be used to avert default is the creation of a $1 trillion platinum coin. Then again other experts think the idea is legally questionable and in any case not a bright move.

The idea goes like this: Treasury is not allowed to print money. But because of a legal loophole it is allowed to mint platinum coins. If it opts to mint a $1 trillion coin, it could deposit it at the Federal Reserve and thereby keep paying the country's bills even though the debt ceiling hasn't been raised yet.

"Minting a $1 trillion coin sounds like the plot of a Simpsons episode or an Austin Powers sequel. It lacks dignity," writes Donald Marron, a former Congressional Budget Office director, in an opinion piece.

Treasury beat back expectations and rejected the idea in a statement on Jan. 12. "Neither the Treasury Department nor the Federal Reserve believes that the law can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit," Treasury said.

This Evan Granowitz Facebook page shares the latest financial and legal news nationwide.