Describes motivation process for creativity with emphasis on intrinsic motivation by Corey K Katir

Facebook study: Women are more active on Facebook than men, the importance of “power users” and other findings from the Pew Internet Project.

Facebook’s IPO filing on Wednesday offers investors, bankers, analysts, journalists and anyone willing to read the massive S-1 document a deeper look at the business and financial side of the world’s largest social network than we’ve ever had before.

Facebook fired back at Paul Ceglia, the New York man who claims he’s entitled to half of Mark Zuckerberg’s multibillion-dollar stake in the social networking giant, saying he should pay the legal fees its lawyers are requesting. In papers filed in federal court in Buffalo, N.Y., Facebook said its attorneys had “substantially discounted” and were asking for an amount “far less than what defendants actually paid.”

With Facebook’s S-1 filed to the Securities and Exchange Commission for what is set to be a blockbuster IPO in May worth at least $5 billion, Mark Zuckerberg is now firmly sitting among Silicon Valley’s top CEOs, if he wasn’t already. And, likely with that in mind, Zuckerberg is falling in line with what is a tradition among some of the Valley’s top CEOs — a $1 annual salary.

Edward Dus, an ambulance driver, injured his knee when he was moving a patient at the emergency room at Provena St. Maryas Hospital. He claimed he was injured by a laundry cart being pushed by a Provena employee. Dus sued Provena. A jury awarded Dus $300,000, which was cut in half because he also was found to be 50 percent at fault for the accident.

Within 30 days, Dus asked the trial court for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the question of his contributory negligence. But when his lawyer did not appear for the hearing, the trial court denied Dusas request. Two days later, Dus asked the trial court to reconsider the denial. The trial court allowed Dus to refile the original request for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Dus refiled, but three months later the trial court denied Dusas request.

Dus appealed. Provena asked the appellate court to dismiss the appeal because, the hospital argued, Dus filed the appeal too late, more than 30 days after the first time the trial court denied his original motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Dus argued the time to file was tolled until 30 days after the trial court ruled on his request for reconsideration, which would have made his appeal timely.

The Third District Illinois Appellate Court agreed with Provena. Here is the courtas rationale:

a| [I]f Dus wished to appeal the trial courtas judgment, he was required to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the trial courtas initial ruling on his judgment n.o.v. [notwithstanding the verdict] motion.

* * *

The [trial] court stated from the bench that the motion was adenieda adue to non-appearance of movant [Dus],a and the [trial] courtas written docket entry confirmed that the motion had been adenied.a Moreover, two days after the court denied Dusas judgment n.o.v. motion, Dus filed a aMotion for Reconsideration of Plaintiffas Previously Filed Post-Trial Motion, which asked the court to areconsider the rulinga the trial court had issued regarding his posttrial motion on September 22. By filing this motion, Dus acknowledgeld that the [trial] court had denied his motion on September 22 a| [A] motion to reconsider a trial courtas denial of a posttrial motion does not extend the deadline for filing an appeal under [Illinois Supreme Court] Rule 303(a)(2).

The appellate court dismissed Dusas appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Read the whole opinion, Dus v. Provena St. Maryas Hospital, 2012 IL App (3d) 0901064, by clicking here.

While their divorce case was pending, Robert and Cindy Andrews signed a listing agreement to sell their house. The real estate broker, VC&M, found a buyer. But the Andrewses rejected the offer, which was for less than their asking price. Instead, Cindy decided to stay in the house, so she agreed to purchase Robertas half. As part of their marital settlement agreement, Robert transferred his interest to Cindy.

VC&M wanted a commission for introducing the prospective buyer, but the Andrewses refused to pay. So VC&M sued for breach of contract. The Andrewses asked the trial court to dismiss the complaint. VC&M filed an opposition memorandum electronically. Before VC&Mas e-filing, the parties had not stipulated to allow e-filings.

The trial court agreed that VC&M did not state a claim, so the complaint was dismissed. Thirty days later, in another electronic filing, VC&M asked the trial court to reconsider the dismissal. Another month later, VC&M filed a paper copy of its reconsideration request. Another month after that, VC&M e-filed a notice of appeal.

The Andrewses asked the appellate court to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. They argued that the court could not consider the appeal because VC&M had not complied with the local appellate rules for e-filing. The Second District Illinois Appellate Court agreed, and dismissed VC&Mas appeal. This is how the appellate court explained it:

The trial court dismissed with prejudice the amended complaint on February 23, 2011. The record shows that plaintiff [VC&M] e-filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal 30 days later on March 25, 2011. However, as the case was not properly designated an e-filing case, the e-filing of the motion to reconsider violated Local Rule 5.03 and was a nullity. Pursuant to [Illinois Supreme Court] Rule 303, the time to file a postjudgment motion or a notice of appeal elapsed on March 25, 2011 a| The hard copy of the motion to reconsider did not extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal. Because the action was not properly designated for e-filing from the beginning, the e-filed postjudgment motion was meaningless and the hard-copy postjudgment motion was filed late.

LocalRule 5.03(d) further dictates that, even in a case properly designated for e-filing, all appellate documents shall be filed in the aconventional manner.a a| The conventional manner of filing in the circuit court is in the form of paper documents submitted to the clerk of the court as is done in cases that are not e-filing cases a|

Despite Local Rule 5.03as express prohibition of e-filing appellate documents, plaintiff e-filed the notice of appeal. Plaintiff never filed a paper copy of the notice of appeal. Several months have elapsed since the trial court dismissed the amended complaint and denied the motion to reconsider, the appeal must be dismissed because the e-filed notice of appeal violated Local Rule 5.03 and was also untimely under Rule 303.

This court considered a notice of appeal as an appellate document that has to be filed in the aconventionala manner. A notice of appeal is filed in the trial court. So why not allow it to be filed it electronically? (For that matter, what is the justification for not allowing apost-judgment enforcement proceeding documents and noticesa to be e-filed?) The rules should make it easier, and thus less costly to litigants, to file papers with the court. The extra layers of regulation in these local e-filing rules serve just the opposite purpose.

Read the whole opinion, VC&M, Ltd. v. Andrews, 2012 IL App (2d) 110523 (4/16/12), by clicking here.

Here are seven of the most common forms of guidance in the form of documents and publications that provide assistance to charitable groups, business firms and taxpayers.

Notice

A notice is a public pronouncement that may contain guidance that involves substantive interpretations of the Internal Revenue Code or other provisions of the law. For example, notices can be used to relate what regulations will say in situations where the regulations may not be published in the immediate future.

Announcement

An announcement is a public pronouncement that has only immediate or short-term value. For example, announcements can be used to summarize the law or regulations without making any substantive interpretation; to state what regulations will say when they are certain to be published in the immediate future; or to notify taxpayers of the existence of an approaching deadline.

Private Letter Ruling

A private letter ruling, or PLR, is a written statement issued to a taxpayer that interprets and applies tax laws to the taxpayer’s specific set of facts. A PLR is issued to establish with certainty the federal tax consequences of a particular transaction before the transaction is consummated or before the taxpayer’s return is filed. A PLR is issued in response to a written request submitted by a taxpayer and is binding on the IRS if the taxpayer fully and accurately described the proposed transaction in the request and carries out the transaction as described. A PLR may not be relied on as precedent by other taxpayers or IRS personnel. PLRs are generally made public after all information has been removed that could identify the taxpayer to whom it was issued.

Technical Advice Memorandum

A technical advice memorandum, or TAM, is guidance furnished by the Office of Chief Counsel upon the request of an IRS director or an area director, appeals, in response to technical or procedural questions that develop during a proceeding. A request for a TAM generally stems from an examination of a taxpayer’s return, a consideration of a taxpayer’s claim for a refund or credit, or any other matter involving a specific taxpayer under the jurisdiction of the territory manager or the area director, appeals. Technical Advice Memoranda are issued only on closed transactions and provide the interpretation of proper application of tax laws, tax treaties, regulations, revenue rulings or other precedents. The advice rendered represents a final determination of the position of the IRS, but only with respect to the specific issue in the specific case in which the advice is issued. Technical Advice Memoranda are generally made public after all information has been removed that could identify the taxpayer whose circumstances triggered a specific memorandum.

Revenue Procedure

A revenue procedure is an official statement of a procedure that affects the rights or duties of taxpayers or other members of the public under the Internal Revenue Code, related statutes, tax treaties and regulations and that should be a matter of public knowledge. It is also published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. While a revenue ruling generally states an IRS position, a revenue procedure provides return filing or other instructions concerning an IRS position. For example, a revenue procedure might specify how those entitled to deduct certain automobile expenses should compute them by applying a certain mileage rate in lieu of calculating actual operating expenses.

Revenue Ruling

A revenue ruling is an official interpretation by the IRS of the Internal Revenue Code, related statutes, tax treaties and regulations. It is the conclusion of the IRS on how the law is applied to a specific set of facts. Revenue rulings are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin for the information of and guidance to taxpayers, IRS personnel and tax professionals. For example, a revenue ruling may hold that taxpayers can deduct certain automobile expenses.

Regulation

A regulation is issued by the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department to provide guidance for new legislation or to address issues that arise with respect to existing Internal Revenue Code sections. Regulations interpret and give directions on complying with the law. Regulations are published in the Federal Register. Generally, regulations are first published in proposed form in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). After public input is fully considered through written comments and even a public hearing, a final regulation or a temporary regulation is published as a Treasury Decision (TD), again, in the Federal Register.

To consult with a qualified tax attorney on these or any other tax controversy, call Mitchell A. Port at (310) 559-5259

The United States Tax Court is a court established by Congress under the Constitution. When the Internal Revenue Service has determined a tax deficiency and has sent the notorious 90-day letter, the so-called Notice of Deficiency, you may dispute the deficiency in the Tax Court before paying any disputed amount.

The Tax Courtas jurisdiction also includes the authority to order abatement of interest, award administrative and litigation costs, review certain collection actions, determine relief from joint and several liability on a joint return, redetermine worker classification, adjust partnership items, redetermine transferee liability, make certain types of declaratory judgments, and review awards to whistleblowers who provide information to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

The U.S. president appoints all 19 Tax Court judges. Trials are conducted and other work of the Court is performed by those judges. All of the judges have expertise in the tax laws and apply that expertise in a manner to ensure that you are assessed only what they owe, and no more. The main Court is in Washington, D.C., while the judges travel all over the country to conduct trials in various designated cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and Fresno (where only small tax cases are heard).

DO NOT miss the filing deadline to start a case in the Tax Court. File your petition early. The Court cannot extend the time for filing which is set by law.

A $60 filing fee must be paid when the petition is filed. Once the petition is filed, payment of the underlying tax ordinarily is postponed until the case has been decided. Keep in mind that interest and some penalties continue to run while your Tax Court case is pending.

If you donat think youall ever appeal your case beyond the Tax Court, then consider using the Court’s simplified small tax case procedure. Trials in small tax cases generally are less formal and result in a speedier disposition. In certain tax disputes involving $50,000 or less, you may elect to have your case conducted using this procedure.

Cases are calendared for trial as soon as practicable (on a first in/ first out basis) after the case becomes at issue. When a case is calendared, the parties are notified by the Court of the date, time, and place of trial. Trials are conducted before one judge, without a jury, and you are permitted to represent yourself if you desire. Taxpayers may be represented by practitioners admitted to the bar of the Tax Court.

Most cases are settled by mutual agreement without the necessity of a trial. However, if a trial is conducted, a report is usually issued by the presiding judge laying out findings of fact and an opinion. The case is then closed.

Speak with a tax attorney about your rights in the Tax Court. Call Mitchell A. Port at (310) 559-5259.

For 2012, no late filing penalties apply when missing the April 15 tax filing deadline. That’s because for this year, the federal tax filing deadline is April 17. Since April 15 falls on a Sunday, the deadline is moved to the following Monday; but because Monday is Emancipation Day in Washington, D.C., the filing deadline is moved to the following Tuesday, April 17. Here’s an explanation from the IRS in one of it’s “tax tips”.

Help from a tax litigation attorney is at hand. Call Mitchell A. Port at (310) 559-5259.

As of this past Monday, the Internal Revenue Service reopened the offshore voluntary disclosure program to help people hiding offshore accounts get current with their taxes and announced the collection of more than $4.4 billion so far from the two previous international programs.

The IRS reopened the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) following continued strong interest from taxpayers and tax practitioners after the closure of the 2011 and 2009 programs. The third offshore program comes as the IRS continues working on a wide range of international tax issues and follows ongoing efforts with the Justice Department to pursue criminal prosecution of international tax evasion. This program will be open for an indefinite period until otherwise announced.

aOur focus on offshore tax evasion continues to produce strong, substantial results for the nationas taxpayers,a said IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. aWe have billions of dollars in hand from our previous efforts, and we have more people wanting to come in and get right with the government. This new program makes good sense for taxpayers still hiding assets overseas and for the nationas tax system.a

The program is similar to the 2011 program in many ways, but with a few key differences. Unlike last year, there is no set deadline for people to apply. However, the terms of the program could change at any time going forward. For example, the IRS may increase penalties in the program for all or some taxpayers or defined classes of taxpayers a or decide to end the program entirely at any point.

aAs weave said all along, people need to come in and get right with us before we find you,a Shulman said. aWe are following more leads and the risk for people who do not come in continues to increase.a

The third offshore effort comes as Shulman also announced today the IRS has collected $3.4 billion so far from people who participated in the 2009 offshore program, reflecting closures of about 95 percent of the cases from the 2009 program. On top of that, the IRS has collected an additional $1 billion from up front payments required under the 2011 program. That number will grow as the IRS processes the 2011 cases.

In all, the IRS has seen 33,000 voluntary disclosures from the 2009 and 2011 offshore initiatives. Since the 2011 program closed last September, hundreds of taxpayers have come forward to make voluntary disclosures. Those who have come in since the 2011 program closed last year will be able to be treated under the provisions of the new OVDP program.

The overall penalty structure for the new program is the same for 2011, except for taxpayers in the highest penalty category.

For the new program, the penalty framework requires individuals to pay a penalty of 27.5 percent of the highest aggregate balance in foreign bank accounts/entities or value of foreign assets during the eight full tax years prior to the disclosure. That is up from 25 percent in the 2011 program. Some taxpayers will be eligible for 5 or 12.5 percent penalties; these remain the same in the new program as in 2011.

Participants must file all original and amended tax returns and include payment for back-taxes and interest for up to eight years as well as paying accuracy-related and/or delinquency penalties.

Participants face a 27.5 percent penalty, but taxpayers in limited situations can qualify for a 5 percent penalty. Smaller offshore accounts will face a 12.5 percent penalty. People whose offshore accounts or assets did not surpass $75,000 in any calendar year covered by the new OVDP will qualify for this lower rate. As under the prior programs, taxpayers who feel that the penalty is disproportionate may opt instead to be examined.

The IRS recognizes that its success in offshore enforcement and in the disclosure programs has raised awareness related to tax filing obligations. This includes awareness by dual citizens and others who may be delinquent in filing, but owe no U.S. tax. The IRS is currently developing procedures by which these taxpayers may come into compliance with U.S. tax law. The IRS is also committed to educating all taxpayers so that they understand their U.S. tax responsibilities.

More details will be available within the next month on IRS.gov. In addition, the IRS will be updating key Frequently Asked Questions and providing additional specifics on the offshore program.

Introduction

On Monday, Arcapita Bank BSC (“Arcapita”), a Bahraini closed joint stock company, filed chapter 11 petitions for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.  As stated in the First Day Declaration of Arcapita’s Executive Director (the “Declaration” or “Decl.”), the company describes itself as a “leading global manager of Shari’ah-compliant alternative investments and operates as an investment bank,” instead of a domestic bank licensed in the United States.  Decl. at *3.  Arcapita is based in Bahrain and operates under a wholesale banking license issued by the Central Bank of Bahrain.  Id.  This post will look briefly at Arcapita’s business, why the company filed for bankruptcy as well as some of its objectives while in bankruptcy.

Business Operations

Arcapita began its business in 1996. By the time the company filed for bankruptcy, its operations had grown such that it now employs 268 people with offices in Bahrain, Atlanta, London, Hong Kong and Singapore.  The company’s core business focuses on investing on its own account, as well as on behalf of third parties, in investments that are compliant with Islamic Shari’ah rules and principles.  Decl. at *3.  In addition to investing, the company also manages approximately $7 billion in assets under investment.  Id.  Arcapita lists assets valued at $3.06 billion against liabilities of $2.55 billion.  Id. 

Events Leading to Bankruptcy

The global recession and the debt crisis in the Eurozone are the two primary factors leading to Arcapita’s bankruptcy filing.  Due to the recession, the company has seen its investment assets decline in value.  At the same time, the recession has hampered Arcapita’s ability to access much needed capital.  Decl. at *8.  The company is the borrower under a $1.1 billion Shariah-compliant debt facility that matures on March 28, 2012.  Decl. at *6.  Due to a lack of liquidity, Arcapita is unable to repay the debt facility when it comes due.  Decl. at *8.  Arcapita and its lenders have engaged in negotiations in an effort to reach an out of court restructuring of its debt.  However, to date the company has been unable to achieve full consent from its lenders which is necessary to restructure.  Decl. at *9.

Objectives in Bankruptcy

According to its Declaration, Arcapita filed for bankruptcy in order “to provide a forum for a global restructuring of their liabilities through a confirmed chapter 11 plan of reorganization.”  Decl. at *9.  Soon after filing for bankruptcy in New York, Arcapita Investment Holdings Limited (“AIHL”), a debtor subsidiary incorporated in the Cayman Islands, sought relief from the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands.  Decl. at 1-2.  AIHL commenced a proceeding in the Cayman Islands hoping to preclude another party from taking action in the Cayman Islands that might “undermine” “the benefits offered by the United States Bankruptcy Code.”  Decl. at *10.

Arcapita is represented by the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

———————————————————————-

Jason Cornell is a creditor’s rights attorney with the law firm of Fox Rothschild LLP.  Fox Rothschild is a full service law firm with offices nationwide, including New York, Delaware, California and Florida.  You can reach Jason at 561 804-4415 or jcornell@foxrothschild.com.

Surplus income limits for 2012 just released. We explain what it means to anyone considering filing bankruptcy.

The Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy just released the 2012 surplus income limits for everyone who files bankruptcy in Canada.  The amount you are required to pay if you are bankrupt is based on your family income, and that amount is adjusted for inflation each year by the government.  The limits this year increased by about 2.8% from last year.

What does this mean to you?

It means if you earn more than the limit allowed by the government, you pay a penalty of half of the amount you are over the limit, and your bankruptcy will be extended by twelve months.

The surplus income rules are much more complicated than that previous sentence may imply, so to find out more, we suggest you:

• read our detailed explanation of surplus income and bankruptcy; and
• use our free surplus income and bankruptcy calculator.

No problem, we have a solution for that; it’s called a consumer proposal, and when you call us we’ll explain why you can file a consumer proposal and not worry about working overtime or earning extra income.  Give us a call and we’ll give you the details.

I’ve been meaning to tell you something for awhile now. It’s going to be a bitter pill to swallow, but it’s better that you know now rather than later. Someone’s be spreading around this rumor, and it’s annoying as all get-out. Rather than buying a billboard in Times Square to tell you the truth, I [...]

I’ve been meaning to tell you something for awhile now. It’s going to be a bitter pill to swallow, but it’s better that you know now rather than later.

Someone’s be spreading around this rumor, and it’s annoying as all get-out. Rather than buying a billboard in Times Square to tell you the truth, I figured I’d set it down here.

Spread it around – let’s try to kill this story for good.

File For Bankruptcy, Get A Free House!

Image credit:  yoghaert

If you are in a Chapter 13 case, you are required to make monthly payments according to your Plan.  Here is a primer on an easy way to understand how to make chapter 13 plan payments.  The Plan contains your instructions on how much money, if any, will be paid to creditors.  Some payments will [...]

If you are in a Chapter 13 case, you are required to make monthly payments according to your Plan.  Here is a primer on an easy way to understand how to make chapter 13 plan payments.  The Plan contains your instructions on how much money, if any, will be paid to creditors.  Some payments will be made by you to your trustee; some might be made by you directly to certain creditors if permitted by bankruptcy rules.  The Plan will indicate who you are required to pay and how much will be paid.  In Illinois, payments are due each month on the same date that you filed your case, starting the month after you filed your case.  [The payment start date may vary in some states.] If you filed on the last day of a month, your payments are due on the last day of each successive month.  A chapter 13 bankruptcy can last any length of time from three years up to five years.  To help you remember, you should write your monthly amount and start date in a handy reference area.

Monthly Plan Payment Made By You to the Trustee:

$ _________  beginning  _______  for   36   ____   60   months

[Divide the monthly amount by 4.333 for the weekly amount.  $_________]

[Divide the monthly amount by 2.167 for the biweekly amount. $________]

Please understand this payment may change, the duration may change, and the Plan may need to be amended, based on the actual amount of your debt as reported by creditors or if you have an adjustable rate mortgage or mortgage escrow adjustment due to taxes or insurance.

PAYMENT INFORMATION:  You will receive a Court Order in the mail calling for monthly plan payments.  [Again, the process may vary in some states, but this is generally how it works in Illinois.]  If you are employed on a paycheck system, your employer will also receive a similar Order.  Your payments begin with the very next pay period after your case is filed.  The court does not accept late payment excuses.  If a payment is not payroll deducted from your check, you are required to make the payment for that pay period.  This is important so let me repeat.  In order to keep current, you must make a payment from every check you receive after you file.  If you are paid every other week, you should send in 2 weeks of payments from every check.  If you are paid twice a month, you should send in one-half of the monthly amount from each check. Use the formula in the last section to calculate the weekly amount.  Multiply that number by 2 for a biweekly payment amount.  Do not hold onto the money.  The quicker you send payment, the sooner your trustee can pay your claims.

Late Payments:  No one should ever tell you that you are permitted to be late or miss a payment.  Let me repeat that.  No one should ever tell you that you are permitted to be late or miss a payment.  Although there are a couple of options to cure late payments, late payments may result in action by a creditor to repossess or foreclose your property.  If you fall behind in payments you should send in as much as you can as soon as possible.

Curing a Payment Default:  Once the trustee realizes you are delinquent, the trustee might send you a Notice requiring you to propose a method to bring your payments current, or in some states the trustee might immediately file a motion to dismiss your case.   If you fall behind you should contact your attorney to discuss the particular options available in your case.  You should only discuss these options with your attorney if you are represented.  Remember, the trustee is not your attorney and is not available to give you legal advice.  The trustee acts as the attorney in fact for all of your creditors against you.

Trustee Payment Address:  Some trustees use different addresses for mail and for payments.  Once you learn the correct address to use for each one you should write the address in a convenient reference area.

Method of Payment:  Payments should be made by money order or certified bank check.  In most cases the trustee does not accept cash, personal check or two-party check, though again, this might vary.  Make the item payable to “Trustee” and include your case number.

Write your case number directly on the item and keep your receipt.

Changing the Payment Amount:  Your payment is based on the monthly amount specified in your Plan.  Once your Plan is filed with the bankruptcy court the only way to change future payments is by Court Order.  The trustee alone cannot change the payment for you, nor can the attorney.  The most common way to change a payment is by filing an Amended Plan [or a Modified Plan] and having that Plan confirmed [approved] by court order.  You should contact your attorney to discuss whether circumstances permit such a modification.

Below is a terrific example of the path to rebuilding credit after bankruptcy:
http://www.yourwealthpuzzle.com/improve-credit-score-report

Rebuilding your credit after bankruptcy is a straightforward process. Your credit score is the credit industry’s way of predicting how likely you are to pay your loans on time. The scoring model gives greatest weight to recent events, so your score can quickly drop when you are late, but can also improve quickly with on-time payments.

The most common credit scoring model is the FICO score, used by Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union. A consumer is assigned a FICO score between 300 and $850. For most people, filing bankruptcy will cause the credit score to drop into the 400-500 range. The bankruptcy filing will stay on your credit report for up to ten years.

You can rebuild your credit using the path outlined above. After your bankruptcy discharge you should obtain free credit reports from Exquifax, Experian, and Trans Union. You can obtain these reports for free without a credit card from AnnualCreditReport.com.

Review your reports for errors. Discharged debts should be listed as “discharged in bankruptcy” with a zero balance. Any secured property that was surrendered back to the creditor should not be listed as a repossession. The automatic stay prohibits creditors from providing negative information to the credit bureau during bankruptcy in an attempt to collect a debt or coerce payment.

Obtaining a credit card is a good way to rebuild credit, but be careful! Some credit card offers come with high fees. In many cases a secured card is more sensible. A secured card is a Visa or MasterCard that is secured by a bank deposit. Additionally, if you are still struggling financially, it is probably best to postpone the credit rebuilding process. Late payments after bankruptcy will seriously harm your credit score.

Rebuilding credit is not difficult, it simply takes time and effort. Bankruptcy promises a “fresh start,” but it is up to you to take advantage of this new financial opportunity.

By Robert Magielnicki and Malika Levarlet

One does not usually associate the possibility of criminal penalties with the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act premerger review process. However, on May 3, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that an executive of a South Korean company agreed to plead guilty to obstruction of justice charges and to serve five months in prison for altering documents filed with the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) in connection with a proposed merger.

This plea agreement is the latest development in a civil merger investigation initiated by the Antitrust Division of the DOJ of the proposed acquisition by automated teller machine maker Nautilus Hyosung Holdings Inc. (“NHI”) of a competing manufacturer of ATM systems, Triton Systems of Delaware Inc., in 2008. The Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (“HSR”), as amended, requires companies contemplating mergers and acquisitions valued above certain thresholds to make premerger filings with the DOJ and the FTC. The federal antitrust agencies have authority to investigate and challenge the proposed transactions under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, if the transactions may substantially lessen competition. Before the Antitrust Division reached a decision regarding whether to challenge the transaction, the parties abandoned it.

In the two-count felony charge, the DOJ stated that Kyoungwon Pyo, in his role as senior vice president for corporate strategy at Hyosung Corporation, an affiliate of NHI, altered and directed subordinates to alter numerous corporate documents before they were submitted to the DOJ and the FTC in conjunction with the premerger HSR filings. The DOJ further alleged that, after the Antitrust Division opened a civil investigation of the proposed acquisition, Pyo falsified additional documents in response to a document request with the intention of impairing their integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding. According to the DOJ “the alterations misrepresented and minimized the competitive impact of the proposed acquisition.”

On October 20, 2011, after voluntarily disclosing that numerous documents had been altered before being submitted to the government and agreeing to cooperate in the ongoing investigation, NHI pleaded guilty to two counts of obstruction of justice and paid a $200,000 criminal fine for its role in the document tampering. Following his employer, Pyo has agreed to plead guilty and to serve five months in prison for his conduct in a plea agreement which is subject to court approval. Pyo is charged with obstruction of justice, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a criminal fine of $250,000 for individuals.

This case marks the first time obstruction of justice charges have followed a civil merger investigation. The DOJ release is available at: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2012/282873.htm

For more information on the applicable HSR thresholds please consult: http://www.antitrustlawblog.com/2012/01/articles/article/higher-filing-thresholds-for-hsr-act-premerger-notifications-and-interlocking-directorates-announced/

On February 16, 2012 the Beijing office of Sheppard Mullin had a reception to celebrate the opening of new office space in China World Trade Center in the central business district. Firm Chairman Guy Halgren welcomed our 120-plus guests. Prior to the reception, Sheppard Mullin hosted a roundtable discussion on the Anti-Monopoly Law of China (“AML”). We had 18 participants, including in-house counsel for major corporations, as well as the German Chamber of Commerce. Our guest speaker, Mr. Zhang Yuqing, former director general counsel of the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”), who headed the inter-agency group which developed the AML, spoke on two topics which will probably be “hot” this year: a new regulation which will fine companies which didn’t report their transactions and went ahead with the transactions, and another regulation that deals with national security review. Gary Halling, head of Sheppard Mullin’s antitrust practice, spoke about recent enforcement trends in the U.S, specifically with respect to cartels. Michael Zhang of Sheppard Mullin’s Shanghai office also attended and gave his views on investment structures. The subsequent discussion among the participants was lively.

Sheppard Mullin hosts such roundtable discussions periodically, where we invite government officials and representatives of companies to exchange ideas and ask questions in an informal, off-the-record setting. If you are interested in participating in future roundtable discussions please contact Becky Koblitz, email address: bkoblitz@sheppardmullin.com. Below are the opening remarks of Becky Koblitz, Special Counsel, Beijing office of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Antitrust Roundtable, February 16, 2012
China Anti-Monopoly Law: What might we see in 2012?

Let us begin with a look at the past three years of antitrust enforcement in China and recent trends in the US. Today, we are lucky to have with us Zhang Yuqing, former general counsel for MOFTEC/MOFCOM, who led an inter-agency working group to develop the Anti-Monopoly Law and Gary Halling, head of Sheppard Mullin’s antitrust practice. I will open with a brief summary of some highlights of antitrust enforcement in China and the US so that we have a backdrop or framework for our discussion.

China Anti-Monopoly Law: it’s still evolving

Unlike other jurisdictions where antitrust enforcement is centralized, in China three agencies enforce the Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML”). The Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) handles mergers, while cases related to anticompetitive conduct are split between the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”) and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”). The NDRC handles price-related violations and SAIC the non-price related violations. The AML has been in effect since August 2008 and continues to evolve as these three agencies adopt additional regulations in order to provide more guidance on and clarification of such aspects as terminology, procedures, and enforcement.

In the first three years the major focus has been merger filings. Merger notifications continue to be time consuming (some taking up to 6 months or more), and involve elaborate formalities and investigations which sometimes were not necessary. Last year 160 investigations were completed (in comparison to 25 in 2008, 80 in 2009 and 117 in 2010). Of those 160, four were cleared with conditions (in comparison to 1 in 2008, 4 in 2009, 1 in 2010), bringing us to a total of 10 conditional clearances, all involving foreign companies. There has been only one rejection (Coca Cola/Huiyuan, March 2009). This was only the second decision published by MOFCOM and there was little in-depth discussion of what was analyzed to reach the conclusion. The general reaction was that this was a political decision. Over the years MOFCOM’s analysis has become more sophisticated. For your convenience I have prepared a list of the transactions which were conditionally approved and the one trans action which was rejected. Of the four conditional clearances in 2011, three are noteworthy:

1. Penelope/Savio (October 31): MOFCOM required the controlling shareholder of Penelope to divest its interest in another company which was one of two major players in the global market for yarn cleaners (the other was a subsidiary of Savio). This case is the first time MOFCOM considered how control could be exercised through portfolio interests by examining voting patterns.
2. GE/Shenhua (November 10): MOFCOM imposed conditions related to the joint venture’s relationships with its licensees. This case involved a joint venture. The AML does not expressly state that joint ventures are subject to merger control, therefore this conditional approval is constructively an affirmation by MOFCOM that joint ventures are subject to the AML merger control provisions. Another interesting aspect of this case is that it involved a state owned enterprise (“SOE”).
3. Seagate/Samsung (December 12): MOFCOM imposed conditions related to the relationship between the two parties and production capacities. Similar to the Sanyo/Panasonic case, this case highlights MOFCOM’s divergence from the US and EU authorities which issued unconditional clearances.

Merger enforcement will continue to be a major focus and source for consumption of time and resources for foreign companies. We may see more activity in the cartel enforcement area as the Chinese enforcement agencies interact with those of other jurisdictions.

1. Higher Thresholds For HSR Filings

On January 24, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced revised, higher thresholds for premerger filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. The filing thresholds are revised annually, based on the change in gross national product and will be effective thirty days after publication in the Federal Register. Publication is expected within a week, so the new thresholds will most likely become effective in late February 2012. Acquisitions that have not closed by the effective date will be subject to the new thresholds.

The HSR Act notification requirements apply to transactions that satisfy the specified “size of transaction” and “size of person” thresholds. The key adjusted thresholds are summarized in the following chart:
 

Also on January 24, 2012, the FTC announced new, higher thresholds for the prohibition in Section 8 of the Clayton Act against interlocking directorates. Section 8 prohibits, with certain exceptions, one person from serving as a director or officer of two competing corporations if two thresholds are met. Applying the new thresholds, competitor corporations are covered by Section 8 if each one has capital, surplus and undivided profits aggregating more than $27,784,000, with the exception that no corporation is covered if the competitive sales of either corporation are less than $2,778,400. As with HSR thresholds, the FTC is required to revise Section 8 thresholds annually based on gross national product. Section 8 thresholds become effective upon publication in the Federal Register, which is expected later this week.

By Thomas D. Nevins

Eatoni’s final liability theory was that RIM’s proprietary Blackberry platform was an essential facility for plaintiff’s keyboard technology. The court did not address whether the essential facility doctrine survived Trinko, 540 U.S. 398. Instead, it rejected plaintiff’s theory on two grounds: the antitrust laws did not require RIM to share its intellectual property (Op. at 9, citing SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 645 F.2d 1195, 1204 (2d Cir. 1982)); and RIM’s platform was not essential to plaintiff, there being a number of companies that manufactured smart phones, such as Samsung, Motorola and Nokia. Id.

The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss an antitrust counterclaim in a patent infringement action in the wake of defendant Mylan, Inc. (“Mylan”) having filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the Federal Drug Administration (“FDA”). Shionogi Pharma, Inc. v. Mylan, Inc., United States District Court, District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 10-1077, August 31, 2011. The decision raises a host of interesting and provocative issues relating to the “sham” exception for petitioning activity immunity under the Noerr doctrine. See Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961) (“Noerr”) and Professional Real Estate Investors v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 508 U.S. 49 (1993) (“PRE”). In essence, the court held that plaintiff and counter-defendant Shionogi Pharma, Inc. (“Shionogi”) could not maintain that Mylan lacked standing to prosecute an antitrust counterclaim by virtue of Shionogi’s filing of the underlying patent infringement action, which automatically triggered an ANDA automatic 30-month stay of FDA approval of Mylan’s submission.
 

Shionogi is the owner and/or owner of exclusive licensing rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,740,341 BI. (“’341 patent”), entitled “Taste Masking Rapid Release Coating System.” The ’341 patent relates to the tablet design for masking a pharmaceutical’s ill taste. Shionogi holds and is listed in the FDA “Orange Book” as the owner of a new drug application for Orapred ODT®, an orally disintegrating tablet.

By Don T. Hibner, Jr.

Personal Injury Lawyer Los Angeles – FREE CONSULTATION by Personal Injury Attorney Los Angeles – Legal Defenders, Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyers – Law Offices of Burg and Brock, who have won over $100 million in verdicts and settlements for clients

Page took 2 seconds to load.