France's Constitutional Council ruled Tuesday that a French law
concerning the mass killings of Armenians a century ago violates the
country's constitution.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who had personally backed the law,
immediately said he would ask the government to prepare a new bill
taking into account the council's ruling.
The law passed by France's parliament in December makes it a crime to
deny that the killings of some 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks in
1915 constituted genocide. The council ruled the law would violate
freedom of expression and speech, which are guaranteed by the French
constitution.
Turkey, which says there was no systematic campaign against Armenians, has strongly opposed the French law.
The head of a French Armenian organization, meanwhile, sharply
criticized the ruling, saying it was the result of Turkish lobbying.
Relations between France and Turkey have suffered since the law's
passage, with Turkey suspending its military and economic cooperation
with France after the lower house approval of the measure in December.
The French Senate gave the law the green light in late January.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Indianapolis Business & Corporate Law Firm
Entity Selection & Formation
There are many important decisions to be made by an emerging business, each of which come with potential pitfalls that be damaging to the business and its owners in the absence of proper legal guidance. Our attorneys can help you with these issues, steering you clear of the problems while helping you select the type of entity which best serves your business interests and goals. From drafting the formation documents to stock issuance to agreements between co-owners, our Firm’s skilled business attorneys can help you establish a solid legal foundation for your business’s future.
Contract Drafting & Negotiation
Beyond the formation of business entities, our Firm acts as a corporate counsel for many of its business clients, including the negotiation, drafting and review of our client’s contracts, ranging in size from a few thousand dollars to millions of dollars. With just a few hours’ time, our review of contracts before they are signed can help our clients avoid paying for hundreds of hours of attorney time in litigation once a contract dispute arises.
Riley Bennett & Egloff Law is a Business & Corporate law firm that offers an all-inclusive range of legal services for their business clients and is capable of handling the various issues any business can face. Based in Indianapolis, their attorneys have expertise in entity selection and formation, contract drafting and negotiation, and mergers and acquisitions. Their experience can help you establish a solid legal foundation for your business's future. See www.rbelaw.com.
There are many important decisions to be made by an emerging business, each of which come with potential pitfalls that be damaging to the business and its owners in the absence of proper legal guidance. Our attorneys can help you with these issues, steering you clear of the problems while helping you select the type of entity which best serves your business interests and goals. From drafting the formation documents to stock issuance to agreements between co-owners, our Firm’s skilled business attorneys can help you establish a solid legal foundation for your business’s future.
Contract Drafting & Negotiation
Beyond the formation of business entities, our Firm acts as a corporate counsel for many of its business clients, including the negotiation, drafting and review of our client’s contracts, ranging in size from a few thousand dollars to millions of dollars. With just a few hours’ time, our review of contracts before they are signed can help our clients avoid paying for hundreds of hours of attorney time in litigation once a contract dispute arises.
Riley Bennett & Egloff Law is a Business & Corporate law firm that offers an all-inclusive range of legal services for their business clients and is capable of handling the various issues any business can face. Based in Indianapolis, their attorneys have expertise in entity selection and formation, contract drafting and negotiation, and mergers and acquisitions. Their experience can help you establish a solid legal foundation for your business's future. See www.rbelaw.com.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Houston Motorcycle Accident Law Firm
The Salazar Law Firm, PLLC
Motorcycle accidents happen for a variety of reasons, but statistics consistently show that they are now happening with alarming regularity. Approximately 25,000 people are injured and over 1,000 killed every year as a result of motorcycle accidents. A motorcycle accident can cause catastrophic injuries, leaving the victim partially or completely paralyzed. Motorcycle accidents that result in a wrongful death often leave the victim's family to deal with the sudden and unexpected loss. The most common causes are: driver error, reckless driving by another, dangerous road conditions, mechanical failure, and faulty motorcycle design.
The Salazar Law Firm is committed to providing clients involved in motorcycle accidents with the aggressive advocacy and knowledgeable support they need to get back on their feet. Their team of attorney aim to help the victims obtain a reasonably fair compensation for their losses and suffering. They are there for every step of the way, starting with the investigation site. See http://www.hurtinhouston.com for more information.
Motorcycle accidents happen for a variety of reasons, but statistics consistently show that they are now happening with alarming regularity. Approximately 25,000 people are injured and over 1,000 killed every year as a result of motorcycle accidents. A motorcycle accident can cause catastrophic injuries, leaving the victim partially or completely paralyzed. Motorcycle accidents that result in a wrongful death often leave the victim's family to deal with the sudden and unexpected loss. The most common causes are: driver error, reckless driving by another, dangerous road conditions, mechanical failure, and faulty motorcycle design.
The Salazar Law Firm is committed to providing clients involved in motorcycle accidents with the aggressive advocacy and knowledgeable support they need to get back on their feet. Their team of attorney aim to help the victims obtain a reasonably fair compensation for their losses and suffering. They are there for every step of the way, starting with the investigation site. See http://www.hurtinhouston.com for more information.
Eugene and Portland Criminal Defense - Coit & Associates, P.C.
Coit & Associates, P.C., with offices in Eugene and Portland, have criminal defense lawyers acknowledged for providing the highest quality representation in the greater Eugene and Portland metropolitan locations. No matter the size or seriousness of your case, a lawyer at Coit & Associates, P.C. will aggressively tackle the case and understand its importance to you and your family.
Our attorneys at Coit & Associates, P.C. not only have the experience to represent you but we will not b ack down from anyway. Our goal is to provide our clients with efficient, aggressive, and affordable criminal defense that is effective. We care for our defendents charged with or suspected of committing crimes and will fight for you.
Call us at (541) 685-1288 to schedule an appointment or visit us on http://www.criminaldefenseoregon.com for more information.
Our attorneys at Coit & Associates, P.C. not only have the experience to represent you but we will not b ack down from anyway. Our goal is to provide our clients with efficient, aggressive, and affordable criminal defense that is effective. We care for our defendents charged with or suspected of committing crimes and will fight for you.
Call us at (541) 685-1288 to schedule an appointment or visit us on http://www.criminaldefenseoregon.com for more information.
Proof of a Negative Not Required for Summary Judgment
The Indiana Court of Appeals has issued a decision that may have a large impact on summary judgment practice in Indiana. In Commr. of the Indiana Dept. of Ins. v. Black, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), the Court essentially held that Indiana will apply the standard set forth in Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), at least in some circumstances.
more..
less..
Tim Black alleged that Dr. Harris and others rendered negligent care to his wife after she complained of chest pain. The negligence allegedly resulted in severe cardiac arrest and resulted in the need for a heart transplant. The medical review panel unanimously concluded that Dr. Harris failed to comply with the applicable standard of care.
After the panel decision, Black filed a petition seeking payment of $1 million from the Patient's Compensation Fund and asserted that he had settled with Dr. Harris for $250,000, thereby satisfying the qualifying amount to get to the fund. The Commissioner sought discovery of the settlement agreement but Black refused to produce it, saying it was confidential. Black did produce a copy of an unauthenticated check in the amount $250,000 from the Medical Assurance Co., made payable to Black and his counsel. Black also produced some correspondence between counsel that discussed a prospective settlement.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss the petition claiming that he needed the settlement agreement in order to make payment. It was not clear from the check whether the payment was for settlement with Dr. Harris or other defendants. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and after conducting a hearing on damages, ordered the Commissioner to pay Black $1 million. The Commissioner appealed.
In considering the motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals observed that matters outside the pleadings were submitted in support of the motion to dismiss and were relied on by the trial court. In light of this fact, the Court of Appeals, pursuant to T.R. 12(B), treated the motion as one for summary judgment. In a footnote, the court recognized that T.R. 12(B) requires that "all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such motion by Rule 56." Although no such "opportunity" was given, the court found there was "no prejudice" and proceeded to consider the appeal as a summary judgment case.
more..
less..
Tim Black alleged that Dr. Harris and others rendered negligent care to his wife after she complained of chest pain. The negligence allegedly resulted in severe cardiac arrest and resulted in the need for a heart transplant. The medical review panel unanimously concluded that Dr. Harris failed to comply with the applicable standard of care.
After the panel decision, Black filed a petition seeking payment of $1 million from the Patient's Compensation Fund and asserted that he had settled with Dr. Harris for $250,000, thereby satisfying the qualifying amount to get to the fund. The Commissioner sought discovery of the settlement agreement but Black refused to produce it, saying it was confidential. Black did produce a copy of an unauthenticated check in the amount $250,000 from the Medical Assurance Co., made payable to Black and his counsel. Black also produced some correspondence between counsel that discussed a prospective settlement.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss the petition claiming that he needed the settlement agreement in order to make payment. It was not clear from the check whether the payment was for settlement with Dr. Harris or other defendants. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and after conducting a hearing on damages, ordered the Commissioner to pay Black $1 million. The Commissioner appealed.
In considering the motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals observed that matters outside the pleadings were submitted in support of the motion to dismiss and were relied on by the trial court. In light of this fact, the Court of Appeals, pursuant to T.R. 12(B), treated the motion as one for summary judgment. In a footnote, the court recognized that T.R. 12(B) requires that "all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such motion by Rule 56." Although no such "opportunity" was given, the court found there was "no prejudice" and proceeded to consider the appeal as a summary judgment case.
Ex-head of Nigerian state admits financial crime
A former governor of Nigeria's oil-rich Delta state pleaded guilty in a British court Monday to charges of money-laundering, conspiring to defraud and obtaining a money transfer by fraud, officials said.
James Ibori, 49, entered his plea at Southwark Crown Court. He is to be sentenced on April 16.
Paul Whatmore of the Metropolitan Police Proceeds of Corruption Unit said Ibori's guilty pleas capped an inquiry which began in association with Nigerian anti-corruption investigators in 2005. Ibori was immune from prosecution in Nigeria between 1999 and 2007 when he was serving as governor of Bayelsa state, police said.
"We will now be actively seeking the confiscation of all of his stolen assets so they can be repatriated for the benefit of the people of Delta state," Whatmore said.
James Ibori, 49, entered his plea at Southwark Crown Court. He is to be sentenced on April 16.
Paul Whatmore of the Metropolitan Police Proceeds of Corruption Unit said Ibori's guilty pleas capped an inquiry which began in association with Nigerian anti-corruption investigators in 2005. Ibori was immune from prosecution in Nigeria between 1999 and 2007 when he was serving as governor of Bayelsa state, police said.
"We will now be actively seeking the confiscation of all of his stolen assets so they can be repatriated for the benefit of the people of Delta state," Whatmore said.
BP 'ready for long court battle over Gulf spill'
BP chief executive Bob Dudley said the company is able to fight a lengthy court battle over the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Dudley, who took control of BP in October 2012 after former chief executive Tony Hayward resigned amid criticism over the way he had handled the oil spill, told the Sunday Telegraph that BP can continue to function even if the court case that begins in New Orleans today continues for years.
"We have to remember we are a business that invests in decade-long cycles," he said.
"For the vast majority of people now at BP, the company is back on its feet and it is starting to move forward," he said.
BP has set aside US$40 billion to deal with fines and associated costs of the April 20, 2010 blowout of BP's deepwater Macondo well which killed 11 workers and injured 17. The burning drilling rig Deepwater Horizon toppled and sank to the Gulf floor, where it sits today.
It took engineers 85 days to permanently cap the well.
By then, more than 750 million litres of oil leaked from the well and had covered much of the northern half of the Gulf of Mexico endangering fisheries, killing marine life and shutting down offshore oil drilling operations.
President Barack Obama called the BP spill "the worst environmental disaster the nation has ever faced."
Dudley said BP had improved safety standards on its rigs, five of which are working again in the Gulf of Mexico, and that the company was still committed to deepwater drilling.
"We had a choice whether or not to back away from the offshore industry and the deep water industry but we have a lot of great strengths in this area and so, rather than move away, we have gone in with even more commitment, more time and more people, more expertise," he said.
Dudley, who took control of BP in October 2012 after former chief executive Tony Hayward resigned amid criticism over the way he had handled the oil spill, told the Sunday Telegraph that BP can continue to function even if the court case that begins in New Orleans today continues for years.
"We have to remember we are a business that invests in decade-long cycles," he said.
"For the vast majority of people now at BP, the company is back on its feet and it is starting to move forward," he said.
BP has set aside US$40 billion to deal with fines and associated costs of the April 20, 2010 blowout of BP's deepwater Macondo well which killed 11 workers and injured 17. The burning drilling rig Deepwater Horizon toppled and sank to the Gulf floor, where it sits today.
It took engineers 85 days to permanently cap the well.
By then, more than 750 million litres of oil leaked from the well and had covered much of the northern half of the Gulf of Mexico endangering fisheries, killing marine life and shutting down offshore oil drilling operations.
President Barack Obama called the BP spill "the worst environmental disaster the nation has ever faced."
Dudley said BP had improved safety standards on its rigs, five of which are working again in the Gulf of Mexico, and that the company was still committed to deepwater drilling.
"We had a choice whether or not to back away from the offshore industry and the deep water industry but we have a lot of great strengths in this area and so, rather than move away, we have gone in with even more commitment, more time and more people, more expertise," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)