Congressional Republicans have attacked the Obama administration by accusing federal agencies of engaging in collusive litigation practices with public interest groups (pejoratively dubbed “sue-and-settle”). Republicans in both the 112th and 113th Congress have introduced legislation that purports to address this practice. Senate Republicans have most recently leveled similar accusations at Ms. Gina McCarthy during the confirmation proceedings for her nomination to be the next Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator.

Yet when railing against this alleged practice, these members of Congress have failed to substantiate their charges with actual proof. And they never acknowledge the harmful consequences that the extreme bills would produce.

The so-called “Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act” (introduced in slightly different forms as H.R. 3862 in the 112th Congress and S. 714 in the 113th Congress) creates the legal opportunity for third party “intervenors” to obstruct settlement talks and prolong illegal, harmful actions when federal agencies are sued for violating federal laws.

Specifically, the bills create a presumption requiring courts to allow non-party industry intervenors to participate in federal agency settlement discussions. The bill also establishes devious means by which these intervenors may disrupt and obstruct the settlement of lawsuits that the government believes should not be defended in court.

Let’s be clear. Sponsors of these extreme bills want industry intervenors to be given the right to participate in settlement discussions to argue that agencies like the EPA have not broken the law—even when agencies admit that they have. These industry intervenors would like to oppose rulemakings and schedules to remedy the legal violations, over the objections of injured plaintiffs, even when the agency is willing to follow the law and correct its illegal behavior.

Under current law, third party intervenors have no legal right to participate in settlement discussions involving any party, whether government, private entity, or individual. For example, in a lawsuit by female employees against a national supermarket chain over claims that they are paid less than their male co-workers, Congress does not (and should not) give male employees the right to participate in and block settlements between the supermarket and the female workers because the men want the pay discrimination to continue.

However, this is precisely what the described legislation would foster by allowing unlawful federal agency action or inaction to persist and the promise of health and safety protections to remain unfulfilled.

Statutory deadlines are written into many federal statutes, and these congressional deadlines ensure that statutes are carried out to advance important safeguards for public health, the environment, workers, consumers, and investors. David Shoenbrod, a witness at the hearing for H.R. 3862, testified that EPA has met only “14 percent of the hundreds of deadlines set for it by Congress.”

When such a deadline passes, Congress has empowered citizens, states, and corporations to enforce the law against wayward federal agencies for their failure to meet statutory deadlines and other legal responsibilities. The judiciary oversees enforcement of these statutory requirements in court and by approving settlements agreements and consent decrees.

What’s more, current law is replete with legal mechanisms that ensure adequate public participation, transparency, and fulsome rulemaking procedures before agencies commit to binding, substantive decisions with the force of law.

Take, for example, EPA’s recently finalized mercury and air toxics standards for power plants. EPA missed a mandatory statutory deadline by nearly 10 years to promulgate national standards that would for the first time limit mercury, arsenic, and acid gases emitted by fossil fuel-fired power plants.

When sued, EPA agreed in a consent decree to propose standards by a certain date and to finalize standards by a later date. The agency did not (and could not) commit to a particular outcome or policy position. Consistent with the Clean Air Act, EPA solicited public comment on the consent decree. Power industry intervenors not only opposed the rulemaking schedule but also argued (unsuccessfully) that EPA was forbidden from adopting the long overdue standards. (The judge declined to credit these arguments and approved the decree.) Later, when EPA proposed standards, it provided nearly 140 days of formal public comment opportunity, and then finalized toxic air pollution standards for power plants. At that point, industry parties brought lawsuits challenging substantive and procedural aspects of the new standards.

Today’s legislative proposals would upend this process. These radical bills are actually designed to enhance the ability of industry intervenors to thwart the obligation of agencies like EPA to follow the law and reduce hazards to the public that occur when industry fails to comply. (Indeed, industry challengers to the mercury and air toxic standards testified that their experience was a prime reason they believed the House bill was necessary.) No longer would a federal agency be able to resolve litigation early in the process by settling lawsuits that it would clearly lose.

Instead, industry intervenors would oppose rulemaking schedules that agencies agree to meet to remedy missed statutory deadlines. This would further harm already injured plaintiffs and the public, increase transaction costs for the parties, and unnecessarily waste the resources of an already strained judicial system. This directly conflicts with the widely accepted policy of the federal judiciary that favors the “compromise and settlement of disputes,” and ignores the very reason that deadline suits are brought in the first place.

A group of Senate Republicans recently demanded that EPA promise to allow industry intervention in agency settlement talks, implying they would filibuster Ms. McCarthy’s nomination otherwise. EPA responded to the demand thusly:

[T]he EPA and the Department of Justice must have latitude to respond to [litigation against the government], on a case-by-case basis, in a manner that serves the public interest and is fully consistent with the government’s legal obligations. The EPA is unaware of any precedent for the U.S. Government, or any federal agency, to take such a sweeping position [guaranteeing intervenor participation], constraining the conduct of its defense in lawsuits brought against the government.

The market for kosher food products has grown to more than $12 billion annually, with an estimated 12 million consumers buying kosher-certified products in the United States.  In an event hosted by the Penn Program on Regulation, Albany Law School Professor Timothy Lytton argued that kosher food regulation serves as a model for how third-party private certification can effectively regulate an industry.  The kosher model, he suggested, offers insights into how private certification can enhance food safety and nutritional labeling.

According to Lytton, only 8% of kosher consumers are religious Jews who buy exclusively kosher food. Most consumers buy kosher food for reasons related to food safety, health, allergies, or religious restrictions such as halal. 

The system of private third-party kosher certification of industrially prepared and packaged food began in the second half of the twentieth century following decades of fraud and corruption in kosher meat production. A network of professionalized certification agencies replaced individual rabbis who had historically overseen kosher food production. 

Today, in order to obtain kosher certification, a food producer signs a contract with a certifying agency.  Monitoring is conducted on an on-going basis and fees vary based on the nature of the production.  While there are over three hundred kosher certification agencies in the US, a group known as the “Big Five” control 80% of the market.

Professor Lytton found that private kosher certification agencies overcame a number of common sources of regulatory failure, such as regulatory capture, insufficient resources, and inadequate enforcement.  In his talk, Professor Lytton pointed out that, today, kosher fraud is extremely rare, and that when it does occur, agencies are quick to alert consumers and order product recalls.  

Professor Lytton argued that the relative lack of fraud in the kosher food industry can be partially attributed to a core of vigilant consumers.  He explained that the 8% of religiously observant kosher consumers who eat only kosher food frequently discover problems and alert agencies. They also spread agency alerts through social networks, enhancing consumer protection. In addition, these consumers keep the agencies on their toes. The agencies are careful to avoid mistakes and prevent misconduct in order to maintain their reputation for reliable certification. 

In the end, Lytton concluded that kosher certification provides a successful model of reliable private certification that could point the way to reforming other forms of private third-party regulation that have not performed as well, such as private food safety audits and front-of-package nutritional labeling.

Lytton’s talk at the University of Pennsylvania Law School drew on his new book, Kosher: Private Regulation in the Age of Industrial Food, recently published by Harvard University Press.

There are state and Fed laws ruling air travel. Re criminal matters, these execs can handle all of the criminal writs including writs to stifle bail matters or FIR in an Indian high court. These executives are well experienced in conducting enormous and complicated company legal proceedings matters in the country. Additionally Anton pillar and fit actions, civil injunctions and other related intellectual property matters may be sorted. So re any company legal proceedings India matters you have make certain to consult the right executives who has doubtless worked in India Court legal action services so you avail the right legal services.

Additionally, some district courts publish notices soliciting grant applications from non profit affiliations for cy pres awards. Many non profit associations have such info widely available on the organization’s site, so friendly cy pres award proposals. Non-profit organisations looking for cy pres awards should so tightly monitor these notices and make an application for funds when suitable. Conclusion California Fed courts typically permit cy pres awards to non profit setups in class action settlements when the organisation serves the interests of the litigant class. You and Google consent to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Britain to solve any legal matter coming from the Terms. In spite of this, you accept that Google shall still be permitted to sign up for injunctive cures ( or an equivalent kind of important legal relief ) in any jurisdiction. Two Quite often these clauses contain a condition enabling temporary relief like an injunction anywhere worldwide so that offending material might be controlled world wide five. The customer can only really be sued where he's dwelling. It is one important thing to say there are ‘X’ quantity of each symptom type, it is another thing altogether too visually show the symptoms by subclass, location, or acuteness for the court to see a clear picture of the size or magnitude of the situation to hand.

The advantages to class lawyers who exploited information research services range by kind of class action, but common benefits can be seen through all case types. Such benefits include the fundamentals of tracking accusers, complainant beefs, documents related to each complainant, and the general quantities, averages, and general locations of the accusers nonetheless, more advanced benefits can be realized by using a pro information researcher. Such advanced benefits include multi-dimensional findings, interactive prediction models based totally on particular location or type, information preparation and incorporation into court shows, and graphical representations of complainant groups by type, location, solicitor, and so on as the caught info permits.

Chriss W. Street

The San Jose City Council, facing huge budget deficits tried to honor the will of the people by terminating life-time pension benefits for Council members.  But they just learned ending wildly expensive retirement benefits may be wildly more expensive than staying in the plan.

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), which manages most public employee retirement benefits in California raised San Jose’s cost of checking-out of the pension plan by 584%.

Mayor Chuck Reed leads a conservative council majority in San Jose that have been battling to cut operating costs to keep the town of one million people from being forced to declare bankruptcy.  The city’s largest and fastest growing liability is cost to fund their public employees’ defined benefit pensions that are invested by CalPERS.

During the hot stock market in the late 1990s and legislation from Sacramento, San Jose and most state and local governments spiked life-time pension benefits for union employees and the city council members by 60%.  Thirteen years later, annual pension costs per employee have tripled, burdening San Jose with a $2.9 billion unfunded pension liability.  This liability equals $2,900 for every man, woman and child in the city.  But since only 46% of residents work, the liability is $6,304 per working Californian.

The city’s pension plan covers 7 current elected officials and 20 former mayors and council members.  Ten of the former officials already are drawing retirement benefits.

By law if the plan is terminated, the retired officials will continue to receive their pensions and current council members would keep the value of the benefits they have already accrued.  Facing staggering budget challenges, the council voted unanimously last January 2012 to terminate their own pension plan as a demonstration of leadership when they asked unionized city employee’s to accept pension benefit reductions.

San Jose voters in June approved a city council sponsored measure reducing pensions for new hires and calling for current employees to pay more each month for their pensions or accept a lower benefit formula for their remaining years on the job. The city’s unions have filed a law suit and both sides expect a battle.

Having voted to terminate city council defined benefit pensions, Mayor Reed appointed the city’s Human Resources Department to handle the paper work.  While the council’s pension benefit costs were considered small at less than $100,000 per year, the public voiced strong support for the council’s gesture of moral leadership.

The solvency of San Jose’s city council pensions was reported last year by CalPERS to be 72% funded and had a stated liability of $976,000, based on the agency’s assumption that the pension plan investments would earn 7.5% percent for each of the next 30 years.    But CalPERS told the city council to exit the pension plan would cost between $5 million to $5.7 million, approximately 584% more than the liability CalPERS had been annually reporting to the city.

It seems CalPERS’ expected return of 7.5% per year is only for participants that stay in the plan.  CalPERS hammers participants when they want to check-out of the plan by whacking their future estimated return down to the U.S. government bond yield, which is 2.4% right now.

San Jose’s city council pension plan only allows full retirement at age 55, pays 2% of salary for every year worked, and adds a 2% cost-of-living raise each year.  These benefits generate an annual pension payment of $13,000 per council member.  This benefit is only 60% of what a San Jose union employee would receive.

CalPERS manages $262 billion in pension assets for 1,576 local governments pension plans that cover state workers and non-teaching employees in 1,488 school districts and agencies.

The pension plan claims in its’ latest financial report that it has an unfunded liability of about $100 billion.  But if required to pay at the same rate they demand from San Jose City Council to check-out of the pension plan, CalPERS unfunded liability would be $584 billion.

As the Eagles warned when entering the Hotel California: “This could be Heaven or this could be Hell.”

WASHINGTON, May 2, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Statement by Susannah Baruch , Interim President & CEO of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, on the Department of Justice’s appeal of Judge Korman’s ruling directing the FDA to approve over-the-counter access to emergency contraception for all women within 30 days.

“We are profoundly disappointed. This appeal takes away the promise of all women having timely access to emergency contraception.

“It is especially troubling in light of the Food and Drug Administration’s move yesterday to continue age restrictions and ID requirements, despite a court order to make emergency contraception accessible for women of all ages.

“Both announcements, particularly in tandem, highlight the Administration’s corner-cutting on women’s health. Complying with the thorough reasoning and clear directive of the court order would have been a huge step forward. Instead, we are left wondering how many more years we will have to wait for science to prevail.

“For years, medical experts, including scientists at the Food & Drug Administration, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have agreed that emergency contraception is safe for over-the-counter use by women of all ages and should be on store shelves. Without requiring women to prove their age; without the public embarrassment that can come from being “carded” by a clerk and without putting women who don’t have identification — whether because they are pre-driver’s license or because they are immigrants, or because they simply forgot to bring their ID when they left the house in a rush — in a continued race against the clock.

“[The Administration is under a court order to fix the mistakes they have made in the past. Instead they are taking the path of least resistance, a half-solution to a real problem.]

“Today it is clear that the only thing stronger than the scientific evidence supporting the removal of the point of sale restrictions on emergency contraception is political interference with robust agency decision-making. Judge Korman meticulously documented both in his April 5^th ruling.

“It’s a sad day for women’s health when politics prevails.

“We will continue to fight for full access to emergency contraception for every woman – without restrictions, when and where she needs it.”

For more information about emergency contraception, please visit RHTP’s press room here.

SOURCE Reproductive Health Technologies Project

NEW YORK, May 2, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — The following statement is being issued by Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP regarding the Citigroup Bond Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION
Master File No. 08 Civ. 9522 (SHS)
ECF Case

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: All persons and entities who, from May 11, 2006 through and including November 28, 2008, purchased or otherwise acquired any of the Bond Class Securities, which are certain debt securities (including certain medium term notes), series of preferred stock, and series of depository shares representing interests in preferred stock issued by Citigroup Inc. (“Citigroup”) and certain of its affiliates between May 2006 and August 2008,¹ and were damaged thereby (the “Bond Class”).

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK’S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT CITIGROUP, ANY OTHER DEFENDANTS OR THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS NOTICE, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, OR YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO BOND COUNSEL OR THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, WHOSE CONTACT INFORMATION IS PROVIDED BELOW, RATHER THAN TO CITIGROUP OR THE COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned litigation (the “Action”) has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Bond Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Bond Class by definition as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated March 18, 2013 (the “Stipulation”).

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Bond Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $730,000,000 in cash (the “Settlement”), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on July 23, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Sidney H. Stein at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 23A, New York, NY 10007-1312, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Bond Counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Bond Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the “Notice”), and the Proof of Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re Citigroup Inc. Bond Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., P.O. Box 9976, Dublin, OH 43017-5976, 1-888-895-0227. Copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, http://www.citigroupbondactionsettlement.com.

If you are a member of the Bond Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Proof of Claim Form postmarked no later than August 21, 2013. If you are a Bond Class Member and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Bond Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Bond Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than June 27, 2013, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Bond Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Bond Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Bond Counsel and Representative Defendants’ Counsel such that they are received no later than June 27, 2013, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim Form, may be made to Bond Counsel:

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
Steven B. Singer, Esq.
John C. Browne, Esq.
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
(800) 380-8496
blbg@blbglaw.com

Requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim Form should be made to:

In re Citigroup Inc. Bond Litigation,
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 9976
Dublin, OH 43017-5976
(888) 895-0227
www.citigroupbondactionsettlement.com

By Order of the Court

(Footnote 1) A complete list of the Bond Class Securities is available at www.citigroupbondactionsettlement.com and is set forth in the full printed notice of the settlement. Please note that Citigroup common stock is not included in this Action.

SOURCE Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP

LOS ANGELES, May 2, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — This past Monday April 29th, a Santa Monica jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of United Medical Devices and against Playsafe, LLC. United Medical Devices had retained Playsafe as a distributor for brand condoms in various territories around the world, including among others the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Russia, the Ukraine, Australia, and New Zealand.

After an unproductive year, during which Playsafe achieved no sales to a single consumer, United Medical Devices terminated Playsafe’s contract. Playsafe sued for breach of contract and fraud, seeking $10.5 million in damages. United Medical Devices also sued Playsafe, seeking $700,000 due under the contract.

Following a two-week trial, the jury found 12 to 0 against Playsafe on all its claims and awarded United Medical Devices the full $700,000 sought on its claim. United Medical Devices’ principal Jimmy Esebag expressed his gratitude for the verdict: “Justice prevailed. The jury clearly saw through the story concocted by Playsafe’s principals Iehab Hawatmeh and Fadi Nora . For this we are grateful.”

Iehab Hawatmeh serves as the Chairman, President & CEO and Fadi Nora is a board member of CirTran Corporation.

United Medical Devices will seek its attorneys’ fees, which should push the judgment to over $1 million.

Source: United Medical Devices

SOURCE United Medical Devices

LYNDHURST, N.J., May 2, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — Scarinci Hollenbeck is pleased to announce the formation of a new legal practice group as part of its ongoing strategic plan to integrate new legal specialties that address clients’ changing legal needs – Cyber Security & Data Protection. The Cyber Security & Data Protection group, headed by Scarinci Hollenbeck partner and industry pioneer Fernando M. Pinguelo , expands the firm’s Crisis Management offerings to effectively address client emergencies. “The experience and professionalism Fernando Pinguelo brings to this firm with this newly formed group continues our commitment to offer services that were previously only available to clients of boutique and larger national law firms,” said Donald Scarinci , Managing Partner of the firm.

Cyber Crime is a dangerous aspect of the Internet Age and one that individuals, businesses, and government agencies must effectively counteract. Becoming the victim of a data security breach can leave companies open to costly ramifications and reputational damage. As technology advances, people and criminal enterprises find innovative ways to illegally access and use private and proprietary information. The cost of these attacks to the global economy is estimated to exceed $1.5 trillion.

Scarinci Hollenbeck recognizes the inherent risks that come with technological innovation and the Internet Age as a whole. Pinguelo and his interdisciplinary team of professionals assembled in creating the Cyber Security & Data Protection group will represent individuals, mid-sized businesses, large corporations, and government agencies in developing crisis management strategies by implementing data breach response programs and assist clients in understanding and complying with the web of international, national, state, and local laws and standards that regulate the collection, use, sharing, and protection of personal data.

The group works closely with business executives, in-house counsel, as well as HR and IT managers to develop strategies for managing business and legal issues relating to electronic data. The group focuses client attention on preventing claims and pursues strategies that enhance a client’s ability to manage data-essential precautions because of the financial and public relations fallout that often result from high-profile data breaches.

“Our Cyber Security & Data Protection Group is prepared to assist clients with the coordination of criminal and civil responses following a data breach. Businesses have a responsibility to shareholders, employees, and customers to safeguard proprietary, confidential, and trade-secret information,” explained Pinguelo. He continued, “Our local access to federal and state authorities and a global alliance of legal and technical professionals enable our team to address the most urgent of client needs.”

More information about Fernando M. Pinguelo and the Cyber Security & Data Protection Group can be found at: http://www.scarincihollenbeck.com/attorneys/partners/fernando-m-pinguelo/

Contact Information:

Fernando M. Pinguelo
Direct Dial: 732-568-8374
Email

Peter Moeller , Chief Marketing Officer
Tel: 201-896-4100 x 3324
Email

About Scarinci Hollenbeck
Scarinci Hollenbeck (www.scarincihollenbeck.com; @S_H_Law) is a New York, New Jersey and Washington, D.C. law firm that serves a diverse group of clients in numerous industries. The full service, general practice law firm retains a highly trained legal team with expertise in several areas, including Cyber and Data Privacy Law, E-Discovery, Corporate Transactions and Business Law, Insurance Law, Bankruptcy and Creditor’s Rights, Environmental and Land Use Law, Litigation, Public Law, Commercial Real Estate, Sports and Entertainment Law, and Tax, Trust & Estate Law. Top-tier personnel, innovative technology and superior client service adds to Scarinci Hollenbeck’s reputation as one of the most highly ranked law firms in the New York and New Jersey Metropolitan area.

This press release was issued through eReleases

SUNNYVALE, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Nair & Co., the leader in international expansion services has released HR, transfer pricing, taxation and regulatory updates for companies doing business in Australia, Brazil, China and India.

Australia Releases Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013

The Bill includes a broad range of amendments intended at making employment more flexible and family friendly, and providing the Fair Work Commission authority to deal with anti social claims at the workplace. Employers may have to deal with new types of workplace claims. Hence, they must incorporate and comply with the FWC policies. It is advisable to seek legal advice to minimize the associated risks arising from these amendments, says Nair & Co., which provides Global HR services for companies expanding overseas.

Read more at http://www.nair-co.com/ArgentinaTransferPricing-19-4-2013.aspx

Australia Proposes Amendments to GAAR (Part IVA) to Counter Tax Dodging

The Australian government has introduced Tax Law Amendment (Countering Tax Avoidance and Multi National Profit Shifting) Bill 2013 on February 13, 2013. The draft amendments are expected to address schemes which are technically compliant with the law but, may have been utilised to evade tax, says Nair & Co.â

LONDON, May 2, 2013 /PRNewswire/ –

• 73% of patent & IP directors need to invest in competitive research & analysis services
• 65% of IP and patent heads are looking for new tools for patent portfolio management
• 61% want to meet IP innovation and strategy consultants
• 57% are interested in vendors to help with patent renewals management

Ahead of the Global Patent Strategy Exchange, the Legal Exchange Network conducted research with its network of 150 Heads of IP and Patent from patent-rich and innovative companies to discover what their key challenges are and where they plan to invest in external solutions and services over the next 12 months. The full results can be accessed in a complimentary eBook available on the Global Patent Strategy Exchange website: http://bit.ly/11WQE7E

Protecting global patent portfolios is the major challenge for the majority of respondents across all industries and their investment priorities reflect this. For example, 57% need more external help with patent litigation and 65% want to invest in patent portfolio management tools in the next 12 months.

Turning their patent portfolio into a profitable company asset is a goal for many of the IP directors the Legal Exchange Network spoke with; further demonstrated by the fact that 43% of respondents are aiming to invest in valuation services over the next 12 months.

According to Iben Haasum, Director of IPR & Licensing at Chr. Hansen and Global Patent Strategy Exchange speaker, working with boards of companies to make them understand how you can drive extra value from your patents as well working with external providers is important to develop greater revenue from the patent portfolio. The full interview with Iben Haasum is available at: http://bit.ly/ZlS8pT

Peter Ericsson Nestler , Head of Patents at ST-Ericsson also joined the Legal Exchange Network to discuss how to drive revenue from the patent portfolio, the impact of the America Invents Act and how he expects the IP sector in Europe to develop. The Legal Exchange Network interview with Peter can be accessed at: http://bit.ly/18nXaGk

The Global Patent Strategy Exchange (taking place 4th – 6th June 2013, at Carton House, Dublin) is an invitation only networking forum for 60 Heads of IP and Patent looking to do more with their patent portfolios.

The complete research findings can be accessed in the Global Patent Strategy Exchange complimentary eBook, which includes an infographic on investment priorities, available here: http://bit.ly/11WQE7E

For more information about the Global Patent Strategy Exchange (taking place 4^th – 6^thJune 2013 at Carton House, Dublin), including the industry leading speakers and latest agenda, please visit: http://www.globalpatentstrategyexchange.com/PR or email info@thelegalexchangenetwork.com

If you are a Head of IP or Patent, request your invitation today online here: http://bit.ly/14TrJaE or email: info@thelegalexchangenetwork.com

For information on solution provider opportunities email: info@thelegalexchangenetwork.com or call: +44(0)207-368-9417

SOURCE Legal Exchange Network

CRANBURY, N.J., May 2, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — Palatin Technologies, Inc. (NYSE MKT: PTN), a biopharmaceutical company developing targeted, receptor-specific peptide therapeutics for the treatment of diseases with significant unmet medical need and commercial potential, announced today that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a Notice of Allowance for U.S. Patent Application Serial Number 12/952,238 (the ’238 application). The application includes composition of matter claims on a new class of melanocortin receptor- specific peptides for sexual dysfunction and other indications.

The ’238 application is the first patent application to issue covering a novel family of melanocortin-4 receptor agonist peptides. The melanocortin-4 receptor mediates sexual response, and agonists have been studied for treatment of both erectile dysfunction and female sexual dysfunction. Palatin’s bremelanotide product, a melanocortin-4 receptor agonist peptide drug administered using an autoinjector, has recently completed Phase 2 human studies for female sexual dysfunction, with pivotal Phase 3 clinical studies scheduled to start later this year.

The peptides in the ’238 application demonstrated effects on sexual function in animal models. Palatin is evaluating these peptides as potential follow-on or second generation products for treatment of sexual dysfunction. The melanocortin-4 receptor also has potential utility in treatment of obesity, metabolic syndrome and other indications.

“As we move into Phase 3 with bremelanotide for female sexual dysfunction, we are pleased to have new peptides with improved profiles suitable for use as second generation products,” stated Carl Spana , Ph.D., President and CEO of Palatin.

A Notice of Allowance is issued after the USPTO makes a determination that a patent can be granted from an application. The issued patent twenty-year term will not expire until June 2029, and is subject to a patent term adjustment, or extension, of 464 days. The Notice of Allowance for the ’238 application has been posted on the USPTO public PAIR website.

About Palatin Technologies

Palatin Technologies, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company developing targeted, receptor-specific peptide therapeutics for the treatment of diseases with significant unmet medical need and commercial potential. Palatin’s strategy is to develop products and then form marketing collaborations with industry leaders in order to maximize their commercial potential. For additional information regarding Palatin, please visit Palatin’s website at http://www.palatin.com.

Forward-looking Statements

Statements in this press release that are not historical facts, including statements about future expectations of Palatin Technologies, Inc. such as statements about potential clinical utility of melanocortin receptor-4 agonist peptides, whether the subject patent will issue or adequately protect against competition, the future status of pending and planned patent applications, potential clinical trial results, potential actions by regulatory agencies including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), regulatory plans, development programs, proposed indications for melanocortin receptor-4 agonist peptide product candidates and market potential for melanocortin receptor-4 agonist peptide product candidates, are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Palatin intends that such forward-looking statements be subject to the safe harbors created thereby. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause Palatin’s actual results to be materially different from its historical results or from any results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Palatin’s actual results may differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements for reasons including, but not limited to, results of nonclinical, preclinical and toxicology studies, result of clinical trials, regulatory actions by the FDA and the need for regulatory approvals, Palatin’s ability to fund development of its technology and establish and successfully complete clinical trials, the length of time and cost required to complete clinical trials and submit applications for regulatory approvals, products developed by competing pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, commercial acceptance of Palatin’s products, and other factors discussed in Palatin’s periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Palatin is not responsible for updating for events that occur after the date of this press release.

SOURCE Palatin Technologies, Inc.

RELATED LINKS
http://www.palatin.com

MINNEAPOLIS–(BUSINESS WIRE)–The Dolan Company (NYSE: DM), a leading provider of professional services and business information to legal, financial and real estate sectors in the United States, today announced financial results for the three months ended March 31, 2013.

“During the quarter we continued to make progress in improving our balance sheet. Principal payments plus a preferred stock sale reduced our net debt to $147.8 million during the quarter and we were in compliance with all of our debt covenants at quarter end”

â

NEW ORLEANS–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq. and the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC (â

BENSALEM, Pa.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that it is investigating potential claims against the Board of Directors of Conceptus, Inc. (â

BENSALEM, Pa.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that it is investigating potential claims against the Board of Directors of Buckeye Technologies Inc. (â

WILMINGTON, Del.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:

• Do you own shares of Telular Corporation (NASDAQ GS: WRLS)?
• Did you purchase any of your shares prior to April 29, 2013?
• Do you think the proposed buyout price is too low?
• Do you want to discuss your rights?

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that it is investigating potential legal claims against the board of directors of Telular Corporation (â

Creatas/Creatas/Thinkstock

A health insurance company rolled the dice with a Las Vegas jury and lost more than half a billion dollars.

The HMO was sued by patients who were infected in a hepatitis C outbreak at colonoscopy clinics operated by a doctor who reused syringes and cut corners.

The two patients, Helen Meyer and Bonnie Brunson, contracted the incurable virus that attacks the liver after undergoing endoscopic procedures at a clinic run by Dr. Depak Desai.

The outbreak infected dozens of patients and caused a scare to over 50,000patientswho