With the current state of the British high street one of abject decline, is it really the right time to buck the trend and open a new shop? Well, actually, there’s never been a better time to do exactly that. The focus is now shifting on to how to rejuvenate Britain’s high streets and bring new life back into them, so the opportunities for low rents, prime locations and start-up packages from the banks are all there to be grabbed firmly by anyone with an entrepreneurial spirit and a great idea.
But if you’re about to set up shop on the high street, there are a few things you need to take into consideration before you throw open the doors and invite the masses in:
#1 – What do you bring to the table?
The way we shop has changed dramatically in the last 20 years, so any high street store needs to have a USP that will grab the attention of even the most reticent high street shopper. Make sure you bring something new and exciting to the table, and are not just a carbon copy of a rival shopping experience that’s already well established.
#2 – Supplementing in-store with online
The high street shops that are succeeding are the ones that are literally ‘covering all the bases’ by having a strong online presence too. Remember to ensure that your branding is tied in across every platform, both in the real world and online.
#3 – Long lease or pop-up?
The type of lease you go for will entirely depend on your business plan. A long-term plan needs a stable base to build customer loyalty, whereas pop-up shops are great for dash-for-cash marketing ideas, especially seasonal ones.
#4 – Get your paperwork in order
Even pop-up shops need to be registered as a business, so no matter what your plan, check with your legal representative that every piece of paperwork is in order. Business registration, shop insurance, trading licences and ensuring you conform to H&S legislation should all be checked by a legal professional before you open the doors.
#5 – Insurance
It’s the dullest topic in the world, but it’s also essential if you’re opening a business to the public. Shops insurance packages that include public liability will cover you and your stock, as well as protecting you against claims made by the public.
#6 – Your vital support team
You need three key external partners when you set up in business – your insurance broker, your accountant and your legal representative. Make sure you have this vital support team in place before going into business so that you can focus your efforts on driving the business forward.
#7 – Legal cover
Shops insurance will cover just about every eventuality, from accidents suffered by the public whilst on your premises to interruption of business due to fire damage, for example. But you will also need to ensure that you have the right employer’s insurance if you have other people working for you so that you comply with employment law. This is a complex aspect of the law, so again if you’re going to be hiring (and even firing) then you’ll need a legal representative who’s well versed in employment law to make sure you stick to the rules.
#8 – Who are your rivals?
Once the legal and insurance stuff is sorted out, it’s time to look at on-the-ground considerations. Before you set up, check that you’re not in direct competition with existing operations or rival companies that already have a loyal customer base. It will be hard to draw those customers over to your shop unless you have a pretty impressive USP.
#9 – Building the brand
It’s actually easier to build a brand online than it is to develop a strong customer base in the ‘real’ world. Most high street shops rely on passing trade, so ensuring you’re in a prime location to attract that trade is key. But you will also need to develop an inclusive marketing strategy that involves every aspect of your business, from online sales to advertising campaigns.
#10 – Have a plan
You’ll be hard pushed to get a business loan without a comprehensive and very detailed 5-year business plan. But even if you don’t need to apply for a loan from the bank, still have that plan. It helps to have a roadmap of your ambitions, aspirations and developmental process so that your business has a sustainable growth structure for the foreseeable future.
Guest post regarding Junior ISAs and IHT.
Junior ISAs are a tax efficient way of saving. Neither donors to a JISA or the holder have to pay tax on interest earned.
Although the interest earned by a JISA is not subject to income tax, there may still be issues with the Inland Revenue. This is because of inheritance tax.
A promised rise in the threshold for inheritance tax has not happened. This means that many more estates will be liable to duties than would have been the case otherwise. Even payments into a Junior ISA made before death could be subject to a levy.
Gifts
One of the ways in which it is common to plan for inheritance tax is by giving gifts while still alive that are not subject to taxation. There is an annual allowance of £3000 that can be given away without consequences from tax, and a JISA can be a suitable product to pay it into.
Anybody can pay into a Junior ISA, not just the parents of the child that it is in the name of. This means that grandparents and other relatives can pay into a JISA.
Seven Year Rule
Although there are annual allowances for gifts that are not subject to inheritance tax, any gift can potentially be exempt, as long as the giver lives for a further seven years. If however the giver does die in in this period a chain of events is set into motion.
The first thing that happens is that the tax authorities will have to take a look at the gift, known technically as a ‘Potentially Exempt Transfer’ (PET), along with the history of giving since and in the seven years prior to see whether inheritance tax is due.
If inheritance tax falls due on a PET it will have to be paid by the recipient of the gift. If the giver has died within three years of the gift then this will be at the full rate. For every year after the first three the tax liability is reduced by 20%, which means that if a donor passes on between six and the seven year limit there will be a discount of 80% in the amount of tax due.
Other considerations
It is important to remember that the money put into a Junior ISA then belongs entirely to the child. When that child turns eighteen they then have full control of that money, and can do absolutely whatever they want with it.
Ultimately the freeze in the inheritance tax threshold, along with the inexorable rise of property prices means that many more people will come to be subject to tax on their estates. Getting into the habit of giving early is for many going to be a good strategy, and a Junior ISA has the potential to be a substantial nest egg.
Pamela Chimbonda writes in association with Alliance Trust Savings.
The laws of the U.S. and the U.K. are similar in many ways, but there are important differences in their employment laws. If you are an American planning to work in the U.K., or vice versa, you should be aware of those differences which may be important to your circumstances and your employment relationship. This article will summarize four.
At-Will Employment
Subject to exceptions, U.S. law recognizes the doctrine of “at-will” employment. That is, the employment relationship is voluntary and may be terminated by either party with or without cause and without liability. Employment agreements and collective bargaining agreements often preclude at-will termination, but in the absence of such contractual protection an employee should assume that the employer has the right to terminate at-will. In the U.K., employment is typically subject to detailed contracts, often incorporating provisions of U.K. labor law intended to protect the employee from termination without good cause. Thus, terminations in the U.K. must be justifiable and in accordance with established rules, including a notice period. Failure to comply with the required procedures will likely result in claims for unfair dismissal or discrimination being brought against the employer.
Employment Authorization
In the U.S., non-citizens and non-permanent residents generally require governmental authorization to accept employment. In most cases, that authorization is in the form of a non-immigrant visa. Obtaining such visas can be difficult and expensive. On the other hand, enforcement of U.S. immigration laws is lax, and the penalties for hiring unauthorized workers light. As a result, unauthorized employment is common in the U.S. The penalties for such violations in the U.K. are severe. Therefore U.K. companies are meticulous in verifying employment authorization.
Non-Competes
In the U.S., non-compete provisions tend to be common in employment agreements and they are generally enforceable so long as they are reasonable in the context of the surrounding circumstances. U.K. law tends to more protective of employees, so that non-compete clauses and other post-termination restrictions in employment agreements are often found to be unenforceable.
Privacy
The U.S. and the U.K. have similar approaches to protecting the privacy of their citizen generally. However, they differ in the level of protection they provide in the case of employment screenings. Generally speaking, the U.S. allows employers to conduct background checks, and in most cases employers require potential employees to consent to such background checks. In the U.K., background checks are only allowed if relevant to the job in question. Moreover, U.K. data collection services must be registered with the government.
So, which law applies if you are a citizen of one country but working in the other? There is no easy answer except, “It depends.” As a rule, the law of the country where you are performing your services will apply. However, if you are only in that country briefly on a short business trip or secondment, for example, the law of your home country is likely to apply. Most employment agreements for ex-pats will state a governing law, but it is not certain those provisions will apply, especially if they conflict with the laws of country in which the employee is physically present and providing services. As always, it is best to consult with a qualified employment attorney.
This article was written together with Robert Tritter, a passionate freelance writer of law-related articles throughout the web. They write this on behalf of HJP&E, a group of great civil litigation lawyers in California who will go great lengths to serve you. If you have been a victim of Employee Discrimination, make sure to contact them and see how they can help you.
If you have a family member who died due to the negligent actions of an individual, business or government entity, you might be able to file a wrongful death lawsuit. Each state has different guidelines that determine the applicable statute of limitations and other restrictions, however, so it is important to consult with an attorney as soon as possible. For example, if the death occurs in Michigan, you will have three years to file a case, but there are some states that only give you one year.
What is the Definition of Wrongful Death?
For a wrongful death to occur, an individual must die due to the negligent action or inaction of another person or entity. For example, if a driver kills a pedestrian because they were looking at their phone instead of the road, a wrongful death lawsuit might be appropriate. Although each state’s wrongful death statute was written separately, there are four common elements that are typically represented.
The Four Elements that are Essential for a Wrongful Death Case
In order to file a successful wrongful death case, you will need to be able to prove each of the following:
1) The conduct of the defendant was at least partially responsible for the individual’s death.
2) The defendant’s specific action or inaction makes them both negligent and liable for the individual’s death.
3) The deceased is survived by a child, spouse, beneficiary or other legal dependent.
4) The family has incurred monetary expenses as a result of the individual’s death.
Wrongful Death Statistics
Each year, the majority of the 90,000 wrongful death cases that are filed in the U.S. are due to drunk driving and other traffic related incidents. Like most other lawsuits, it is typical for a wrongful death case to be settled out of court. The amount of money that the family will receive can be limited by the state. For example, Florida has a restriction in place that prohibits families from seeking more than 1.5 million in non-economic damages from a wrongful death case outside the medical field. If you are filing a case against a medical practitioner, however, you will only be able to ask for 1 million to cover non-economic damages.
Factors that will Influence the Settlement Amount
In addition to remaining compliant with your state’s guidelines for damages, you will also need to consider several factors when you decide on the amount of damages that you are seeking. If the case gets to a judge, they are going to take all of the following items into account: funeral expenses, expected earnings between the time of the accident and the victim’s anticipated retirement age, loss of parental companionship for any minor children, mental anguish suffered by the survivors, loss of all employment related benefits and the general character of the deceased. In other words, if a father of two is killed by a drunk driver at the age of 35, his family is likely to receive a much larger settlement than a retired man of 65 who was only survived by his spouse. In South Carolina, Charleston personal injury attorney firms see many different outcomes for wrongful death cases that occur each year.
Regardless of all the specific factors, it is always in your best interests to work with an attorney who has experience dealing with wrongful death lawsuits. Not only will they have a firm understanding of how the law works in your state, but they will also be able to draw on their experience to help you determine a fair settlement amount.
Anthony Joseph is a freelance author who enjoys writing about many different areas of law, and contributes this article toward the fight to keep our families safe. Having a Charleston personal injury attorney from the law firm of Howell & Christmas, can make the difference when trying to fight for what you rightly deserve. They have over 30 years of experience defending and protecting the rights of victims.
Both Xpert HR and Paul Waugh have recently released articles detailing the bludgeoning that the Government is receiving from the House of Lords over what has been dubbed their “rights for shares” proposals. We’ll take a look in this post at what those proposals entail, why the Government thinks the proposals are a good idea, and how the proposals were received in the House of Lords last week. We’ll do so in the following order:
- What are the employee-shareholder proposals?
- Why does the Government think the proposals are a good idea?
- How were the proposals received in the House of Lords?
What are the employee-shareholder proposals?
The Government is proposing to introduce a new type of “owner-employee” contract under which employees will be given shares in the business that they work for in return for waiving certain of their employment rights. If they choose to enter into such a contract then their employer may choose to give them between £2,000 and £50,000-worth of shares (any gains on which would be tax-free) and in return they would have to waive the following rights: unfair dismissal protection; statutory redundancy pay; the right to make a flexible working request; and the right to request time off in relation to training.
Why does the Government think the proposals are a good idea?
The Government wants to make employment regulation more “flexible” and allow small- and medium-sized businesses the room to grow without what the Government feels are onerous restrictions. According to Paul Waugh, this proposal is the brain-child of George Osbourne and he seems determined to carry it through.
How were the proposals received in the House of Lords?
The best way to describe the reception of the draft legislation in the House of Lords last week was a “good kicking”. Xpert HR reports that Lord Adonis in particular weighed heavily into the debate, describing the proposal as a “bully’s charter” , a “£1bn tax loophole” and a “farce”. Paul Waugh reported that the Government’s minister (Lord Younger) came under heavy fire from Lord Adonis, Lord Pannick and Lord Deben. Lord Deben, in particular, stated that he found the plans to be “mystifying” whereas Lord Pannick attacked the proposals as an attempt to subvert the balance that statutory protection afforded to the employee-employer relationship.
It will be interesting to see how the draft legislation proceeds through the House of Lords over the next few weeks.
Employment Law Advice Solicitors are employment law solicitors andsettlement agreement solicitors based in the City of London.
The Court of Appeal has given further clarification on breach of trust claims brought against solicitors by lenders. In AIB v Mark Redler & Co, the solicitors were negligent in acting for AIB on a remortgage advance of £3.3 million. The solicitors had failed to obtain a redemption figure for the borrowers’ second loan account with Barclays who had a first legal charge on the property. Instead of paying some £1.5 million to Barclays to redeem the charge, the solicitors only paid £1.2 million for the redemption of the first loan with the balance of the proceeds going to the borrowers. As a result, AIB only had the benefit of a second charge. The property was subsequently repossessed. The borrowers were made bankrupt resulting in substantial losses for the lender.
AIB argued that the solicitors were also in breach of trust due to the failure to obtain a first legal charge for AIB and that the solicitors were obliged to repay the full amount of the advance. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument on causation grounds. If they had been no breach by the solicitors, AIB would still have gone ahead with the transaction and would have still made the same losses, the only difference is that they would have additional security of around £300,000 being the amount of the second loan and therefore the equitable compensation for breach of trust was limited to this amount.
The Court of Appeal has also stated that on a remortgage, solicitors are in breach of trust unless they obtained a redemption statement from the existing lender and a suitable undertaking. In cases where the existing lender is not legally represented, an unconditional confirmation is required that the advance will be applied by the lender in redemption of its charge.
The AIB decision is significant in that it is a further illustration that lenders may not be in a better financial position in seeking to bring claims for breach of trust as opposed to claims in breach of contract and negligence where contributory negligence defences are available to the solicitors.
Guest post from London solicitors. For specialist criminal defence legal advice contact Lewis Nedas Law’s tax defence lawyers – visit their website here: http://lewisnedas.co.uk
The announcement followed hard on the heels of a speech by Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), in which he promised to continue cracking down on the practice.
Tax evasion v tax avoidance
Instances of both tax evasion and tax avoidance have been in the press recently. Starbucks and Amazon, for example, felt the wrath of the British media when it was revealed that they were, quite legitimately, paying minimal tax in the UK, despite earning massive profits.
This is tax avoidance, described by HMRC as using the tax law to get a tax advantage that Parliament never intended. It is legal, but often involves contrived artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce a tax advantage.
Tax evasion, on the other hand, involves fraud or deliberate concealment, and is a criminal offence. Numerous cases have hit the headlines recently, and HMRC has added to growing awareness of the issue by publishing pictures of thirty of the most prolific offenders on Flickr.
The Prime Minister’s pledge
According to Prime Minister David Cameron, tax evasion and tax avoidance is an issue whose time has come. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, he warned that governments need to act together to tackle the problem.
“This is about me and all the other G8 leaders being able to look our people in the eye and say that when they work hard and pay their fair share of taxes, we will make sure that others do as well,” he said.
HMRC actions
Back home, there are clear signs of a focused approach to tax evasion.
HMRC recently launched a national publicity campaign to increase awareness about tax evasion and the actions that the Revenue is taking to detect it.
These include plans to increase specialist staff levels by 2,500 by 2014-15; improve the detection of high-risk cases through the use of new technology; make more use of offshore agreements with other tax authorities; and continue using specialist regional taskforces to deal with high-risk sectors.
The approach of the DPP
On the criminal justice side, DPP Keir Starmer set out his approach to tax evasion in a recent speech, highlighting the boost given to the fight against tax evasion by the creation of the Central Fraud Division within the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Looking ahead, he predicted that extra funding will result in an increase in the number of cases that are referred to the CPS by HMRC. He expects up to 1165 non-organised tax fraud cases to be referred in 2014-15 – up from 565 cases in 2012-13. In addition there will be a significant number of cases relating to organised criminal gangs.
Starmer also highlighted a recent first – the successful prosecution of a case relating to the creation and operation of a dishonest tax avoidance scheme, and the subsequent imposition of a significant custodial sentence – as a sign of the growing effectiveness of the fight against tax evasion.
“No scheme is too clever or complex to be detected, to be put before a jury and to be found to be illegal,” he warned.
Even if you have been injured in an accident from the fault of an individual driver, there may be other factors in play that could have contributed to your auto accident. Other parties that may be at fault include the following.
The owner of the vehicle – The driver of the vehicle may not necessarily be the owner of the vehicle. Employees driving company cars or parents of a teen driving the car that was involved in the accident may be held accountable in the event of an accident.
Employers – When an accident occurs on the road and it stems from negligent behavior of an employee driving an employer’s car, then the employer may be held responsible. In certain situations, a parent company could be at fault. Talk to an auto accident attorney about who may be held responsible if you have been involved in an accident.
Car manufacturers – Sometimes accidents happen and it’s not necessarily the fault of any driver. Negligent design or faulty equipment and parts could be the root of an auto accident. When a car leaves the manufacturer and is put on the street, there should be no problems in how the automobile operates. When brakes fail or if an airbag doesn’t deploy properly which causes preventable injuries, the manufacturer of the automobile may be held liable.
Get the facts from a professional accident law firm when it comes to holding parties responsible during an auto accident. Your injuries and the price you may have to pay should not come at your expense, but at the expense of those at fault.
Why Juvenile Probation is More Effective than Incarceration
It’s a sad truth that criminal offenders are getting younger each year, putting more of a strain on the legal system than at any other time in history. Probation is often the sentence handed down for many of these young criminals. Sentencing youthful offenders to probation instead of incarceration typically offers more benefits, both to the legal system and to the offender.1.Education
Children who are placed on probation are still able to fulfill the obligations of their education. Rather than being placed in a juvenile facility, these children remain in the community and attend school without interference. In fact, a condition of probation is often regular school attendance. Furthermore, children on probation must not get into further trouble while in school. This structure is often enough to encourage young offenders to get back on track. Consequences to missing school or bad behavior are clearly laid out in the probation contract; these missteps often lead to the handing down of further, more stringent punishment by the court.
2.Resources within the Community
Once placed on probation, young people have access to community resources that they may not otherwise have been aided by. These children may be required to attend substance-abuse treatment, mental health counseling or participate in volunteer activities that will benefit the community. As a part of sentencing, these resources are often free to the family of the offender. This can be an important component in the rehabilitation of the child, particularly if the family is not financially able to help their child.
3.Family Support
Families often struggle to deal with children who break the law, participate in undesirable activities, or otherwise disrupt the community. Once a child is placed on probation, the juvenile probation officer will work with families, giving them the knowledge and tools necessary to help rehabilitate their child. Families will gain access to support groups and necessary resources that will help ensure the betterment of both their child and the family unit.
4.Advocates
For some children, strong familial support is lacking. Once these children break the law and are placed on probation, they are assigned a court-appointed advocate. This person will stand for the juvenile, attending court hearings, helping move the child through their court sentence, and acting as a mentor to the offender. Many juveniles benefit from having a positive role model in their lives; an advocate can provide the stability so often absent in the lives of these youthful offenders.
5.Scared Straight
While it may seem an unfortunate thing to have happen, being placed on probation can often be a blessing in disguise. For some young people, it only takes one trip through the legal system to turn their lives around. It is for these children that probation is most often effective. For children that are mentally immature, this wake-up call can be the necessary occurrence that stops their behavior before it spirals out of control.
While there are those people that feel probation is too lenient for many young people, its effectiveness has been proven time and again. Rather than incarcerating children, probation gives offenders an opportunity to maintain a normal lifestyle while remaining accountable for their actions.
Chantel Leck is an avid blogger. If you have in interest in helping troubled youth, pursuing a criminal justice online degree can offer a career helping juveniles head down the right path.
Guest legal blog post regarding directors’ duties under the Companies Act 2006 in the UK.
Directors are open to claims for breach of duty and sanctions such as disqualification from office or a criminal offence if they are not familiar with their duties under the Companies Act 2006 (the “Act”) which codifies the duties of directors.
A director’s principle duties are as follows (subject to permissible amendments made to the company’s constitutional documents):
Duty to Exercise Reasonable Care, Skill and Diligence (Section 174)
This duty is related to a director’s liability for wrongful trading and whether a director can be held liable for wrongful trading is measured by: (i) comparing a director’s actions with the standard expected of a reasonable director in the same role; and (ii) considering the director’s own knowledge, skills and experience. In the event of a breach of this duty the most likely remedy for the company is damages.
Duty to Promote the Success of the Company (Section 172)
The duty to promote the success of the company requires a director to act in a way that is in the best interest for the company as a whole. This duty requires a director to have regard for the following (which is a non-exhaustive list):
- The long term consequences of any decision
- Employee’s interests
- The company’s relationships with stakeholders
- Impact on the community and environment
- Maintaining a reputation of high standard
- The need to act fairly between members of the company
Duty to Act within Powers (Section 171)
This duty simply requires a director to act in accordance with the company’s constitution including compliance with any resolution or other decision made in accordance with the constitution.
Duty to Exercise Independent Judgement (Section 173)
The duty to exercise independent judgement does not preclude a director from obtaining professional or other advice but the director must ensure that any decision is made based on his or her own judgement.
Duty to Avoid Conflicts of Interest (Section 175)
The nature of this duty is axiomatic; directors must avoid situations where they have or can have either a direct or indirect conflict with the company’s interests without disclosure to and authorisation from the company.
Duty not to Accept Benefits from Third Parties (Section 176)
This duty essentially prevents a director from making a secret profit occasioned by being the director of the company. It does not apply where accepting a benefit involves no conflict of interest.
Duty to Declare Any Interest of the Director in a Proposed Transaction or Arrangement (Section 177)
A director is required to disclose the nature and extent of his or her interest before entering into a transaction. This duty is not binding where there cannot be a conflict of interest or where the other directors are aware (or ought to be aware) of the director’s interest.
If you would like further information on either company law or director’s duties then you should speak with a commercial or corporate law firm whose business lawyers will be able to advise further.
If you’ve been asked to consider entering into a compromise agreement then you may have certain demands of your employer – one of these may be, for example, continued use of your company car after your employment ends (whether temporarily or permanently). In this post we’ll look at what a compromise agreement is, what forms of benefit you can expect under a compromise agreement, and whether you can use your company car after you’ve signed your compromise agreement. We’ll do so in the following order:
- What is a compromise agreement?
- What forms of benefit can I receive under a compromise agreement?
- Can I use my company car after I’ve signed a compromise agreement?
What is a compromise agreement?
A compromise agreement is a form of contract regulated by statute. It allows an employer and an employee to settle a potential or existing dispute, with the employer offering some form of benefit (whether this benefit is financial or non-financial) in return for the employee agreeing to waive certain (or all) of their rights against the employer (such as the right to make an unfair dismissal claim). The employee should be informed by the employer that they should receive independent legal advice from a relevant legal adviser. The employer will normally contribute towards the cost of obtaining legal advice (in the range of between £250 and £600).
What forms of benefit can I receive under a compromise agreement?
Broadly put, you can receive either financial or non-financial benefits under a compromise agreement. Financial benefits could include notice pay (or pay in lieu of notice), redundancy payments, holiday pay, compensation for the termination of your employment, or the continued use of contractual benefits (such as medical insurance, the use of a company car, or the use of company equipment such as a mobile telephone or laptop computer). Non-financial benefits include such things as particular agreements to confidentiality or the provision of an agreed reference to potential future employers.
Can I use my company car after I’ve signed a compromise agreement?
If you already enjoy the use of a company car under your contract of employment you can agree with your employer under the compromise agreement an extension of the time period under which you’re allowed to use the company car. This arrangement can be either temporary or permanent (it’s more frequent for it to be a temporary measure). However, you should bear in mind that the provision of a contractual benefit such as this is taxable and you should therefore be careful for this eventuality to be covered in the terms of the compromise agreement.
London Compromise Agreement Solicitors are settlement agreement solicitors based in the City of London.
Famous people with law degrees are a dime a dozen. It turns out that most Presidents of the United States, many other politicians and quite a few unexpected celebrities have suffered the rigors of law school and managed to pass the bar exam, albeit some of them had to try several times!
This isn’t an article about them. Instead, this is a list of five famous lawyers in recent memory who actually practiced law. Some of the names won’t be familiar to anyone outside the profession, but all of them are renowned for the cases they worked on, their skill as litigants and their dedication to clients.
Christopher Darden
His name might not be familiar, but many Americans would quickly recognize his face. Darden was an award-winning deputy district attorney for Los Angeles County a total of 15 years. During this time, he prosecuted a total of 27 murder trials, including his service as co-counsel during the O.J. Simpson trial.
Darden has appeared as a guest commentator on nearly every major television talk and news show. He is now a criminal defense attorney in California. He is a popular lawyer in certain circles with the defense and prosecution of over 1000 marijuana cases under his belt!
Jan Schlichtmann
If you’ve been poisoned or injured due to pollution or some other form of corporate negligence, this is one attorney you certainly want on your side. Jan Schlichtmann is a toxic torts and consumer protection attorney who was portrayed by John Travolta in the movie A Civil Action. He is currently engaged in a case against a large debt collection agency, but his primary field is environmental law.
Sarah Weddington
After playing a pivotal role in one of America’s longest standing divisions, Sarah Weddington went on to serve three terms as a representative in the state of Texas. This popular lecturer was an assistant to Jimmy Carter and the first woman to serve as general counsel for the USDA. Sarah got her start by successfully representing Jane Roe in the landmark Roe v. Wade.
Shawn Holley Chapman
Like Darden, Chapman got her start working in the Los Angeles county criminal courts. However, she worked as a public defender. She has taken over 60 criminal and civil cases to litigation, including her role on the O.J. defense team. She has represented Axl Rose, Michael Jackson, and Black Panther leader Geronimo Pratt. Chapman is a popular legal analyst on national television.
Morgan Chu
This winner of the UCLA Medal and the Chambers Award for Excellence remains unknown to most Americans, but his work has certainly affected the world. Morgan Chu received advanced degrees from Yale, Harvard and UCLA before making his name as an intellectual property lawyer. He is an opponent of the death penalty and serves as a board member for the world’s largest pro bono law firm.
Whether it’s securing $1 billion verdicts large corporations, prosecuting murderers or defending the poor, these lawyers are among the best litigators in the world. Most aren’t celebrities by any stretch of the imagination, but each has changed the practice of law.
Sylvia Rowe writes for law blogs. Interested in advancing your law career? You may want to consider pursing an llm degree.
In this post we’ll take a look at the potential offences that may be committed by a director if they engage in the management of a company when they are under a bankruptcy order. We’ll therefore look at the following elements:
- When may a director be disqualified from taking part in the management of a company?
- What are the consequences if they breach this disqualification?
- What is the potential sentence if a director is convicted under the CDDA 1986?
- What should you do if you’re charged with an offence under the CDDA 1986?
When may a director be disqualified from taking part in the management of a company?
Under sections 11 and 13 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (“CDDA 1986″) a person may be disqualified from taking part (directly or indirectly) in the management, formation or promotion of a company at a time when he is either:
- Undischarged bankrupt; or
- A bankruptcy restriction is in force in respect of him
What are the consequences if they breach this disqualification?
If a person breaches the provisions of sections 11 and 13 of the CDDA 1986 then they may be liable to the following (depending upon whether the case is tried in the Crown Court or the Magistrates’ Court):
- On conviction on indictment: to imprisonment of not more than 2 years or a fine, or both; and
- On summary conviction: to imprisonment for not more than 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory minimum, or both
It’s no defence for a person to state that they were not aware that they were breaching their disqualification order (for example, because they didn’t know of the existence of the order or they thought the order had lapsed) – liability is strict (which means that their intentions didn’t matter). Although a disqualification order prevents persons from getting involved in the management of a company, they should also be careful that they don’t advise on financial matters of the company or on such things as a company restructuring – this would still render them liable under the CDDA 1986.
What is the potential sentence if a director is convicted under the CDDA 1986?
If a director is convicted under the CDDA 1986 (as above) then they can receive a sentence of up to two years in prison or a fine (or both) if convicted on indictment or they may receive a sentence of up to six months in prison or a fine (or both) on summary conviction.
What should you do if you’re charged with an offence under the CDDA 1986?
If you’re charged with an offence under the CDDA 1986 then you should take advice from a criminal defence solicitor (you may also wish to consult anemployment law solicitor) – the potential repercussions of such a charge are serious.
Criminal Defence Solicitors are criminal defence lawyers based in the City of London.
Chancellor George Osborne’s initiative announced at the Conservative Party Conference earlier this month would allow employees to swap some of their employment rights for shares in the company they are working for. Mr Osborne announced that if deemed effective, the policy would be implemented by April 2013.
In a nutshell, employees would create a hybrid employment contract – exchanging their rights such as flexible working, redundancy pay and cover for unfair dismissal for shares in the business, ranging from £2000 to £50,000. As an added incentive, Mr Osborne announced that the shares would also be exempt from Capital Gains Tax.
There has been much controversy in the national press regarding the issue. Many opinions so far have taken an economical or financial angle, as well as criticism based on workers’ rights. As the owner of a firm of solicitors in Norwich specialising in employment law, I’d like to put forward some of my opinions, taken from an employee’s point of view.
Freedom In Employment Contracts Is Nothing New
Firstly, these sorts of hybrid arrangements are actually nothing new in the employment law world. There is no set employment contract that all employees must sign. Obviously there is EU legislation and The Equality Act in place that any employer must abide by, but the arrangements surrounding flexible working, redundancy pay, maternity or paternity leave can be made however is agreed by the employer and the employee.
Employers can already offer an employee any type of contract they wish, so long as it does not conflict with human rights or EU legislation. If the potential employee does not agree to the restrictions of the contract, they can choose to either negotiate different terms or refuse the job.
It is very common for new businesses to offer similar arrangements to employees, sometimes also with an equity share. For example at mySolicitors firm in Norwich , Philip Bazley, head of our wills and probate department, is a partner with equity share in the company.
The John Lewis Partnership
The most high profile example, and a fantastic demonstration of shares for employees is that of the John Lewis Partnership. All employees are essentially partners in the company and reap the benefits of yearly bonuses. Therefore, all members of staff are highly motivated to go above and beyond because by doing so they can earn more money. I think we are all in agreement that in general the customer experience offered by Waitrose is noticeably of a higher level than that of some of their competitors. In this instance however, unlike the new proposal offered by Mr Osborne, they do not lose any of their employment rights.
The idea behind giving employees shares is that they will be happier – feeling more like part of a team and receiving more money, while the employer benefits from harder workers, increased customer experience and more sales as a result. I would hope that George Osborne’s policy would incentivise more employers to follow this example to the benefit of all.
Benefits For Employees
While at first glance it may appear that employees are giving up their statutory rights, they will still be protected by English and European Law – for example they will never have to lose the right to equality in the workplace.
Employees in start-up businesses will be able to benefit from increasing dividends as the business grows. If the start-up fails, there is no loss to the employee other than the loss of their shares which they would not have had otherwise.
It has also been reported that employers will be able to give back rights to employees if they wish to. While I do not have the actual details of how employers will decide which employees have their rights reinstated, in theory a worker could receive both shares in the company and also their right to redundancy pay. This opens up negotiations between employer and employee to the point where both parties are happy. Currently, in many instances, employees simply accept the contract they are given without any negotiation of what could be flexible.
Risks For Employees
With unemployment figures the way that they currently are, there is an argument that some people could feel pushed into contracts they are not wholly happy with. An unemployed person who desperately needs a job but without many job offers may feel pressured to take a contract in which they give up rights in exchange for shares in the business, because otherwise they have no option but to refuse the job and remain unemployed. It gives employers more control over who they hire and how that person will work for them.
Accountants have also warned that there is a tax loophole for large earners in bigger companies whereby they have more to gain from the Capital Gains Tax relief. This could add fuel to the fire in the current political discourse about policies favouring the rich becoming richer.
However, there will always be bad employers unfortunately – this policy is not going to change that or make it worse.
Agency Workers
Agency workers in the UK have very few rights other than those covered by EU and English law. People working under agency contracts are therefore worse off than any employee as they do not have the same employment rights and would also not be offered shares in the company. The same goes for interns – a subject around which there was also a large amount of controversy last year. Could this policy mean that we start to see a rise in the numbers of agency workers?
Current verdict
Overall, I am all for new ideas that benefit employees, business growth and the economy and I think it is very important to explore ideas such as this before launching it.
In the case of bankers’ bonuses, this scheme would be perfect as employees would be working towards the long-term gain and performance of the company rather than to short-term targets so that they can receive inflated bonuses. On the face of it, I think that the scheme would be beneficial to both small and large businesses – the former having more confidence to employ new workers and the latter being able to better incentivise and bring together their team.
The intention of the scheme is to improve buy-in from employees and also ease the strict employment law that can sometimes limit smaller businesses, however until all of the details of the new policy are laid out, we cannot know whether the rights of the individual workers will be protected enough and that loopholes will not be exploited.
Before it can go ahead the policy must first go through Parliament and the House of Lords and I would be very doubtful of it being passed without the current criticisms being ironed out.
Guest blog post from Gibson Kerr’s executry solicitors based in Edinburgh, Scotland about winding up an estate.
Executry, intestacy, confirmation: big words that make the process of winding up a loved one’s estate just that bit more daunting. But don’t let the legal jargon put you off. The process it describes is, at its heart, pretty straightforward.
The basic process
Put simply, when a person dies, he is still nominally the owner of all his possessions – and his debts. No one else, unless the items were owned jointly, has the right to use, sell or dispose of those possessions.
Procedures have therefore been developed that give another person authority to deal with all the assets or debts of the deceased person.
That person, known as an executor, has to work out what the deceased actually owned, and how much it was worth. He has to gather everything in, pay off all the debts and any inheritance tax, and only then can he transfer what is left to the people who are entitled to it – the beneficiaries.
Is there a will?
The whole process hinges on whether or not there is a will.
It makes things much simpler if there is a will, because it appoints the executors and also lists the beneficiaries as well.
If there is no will, then an executor needs to be appointed by the court, and the beneficiaries identified. In this case the question of who is a beneficiary depends not on what the deceased person wanted, but on who the law says the beneficiary should be.
Inventory and valuation
The next step is to find out how much the deceased person owned, and owed, at the time of his death.
The executor – or more usually his solicitor – makes an inventory of the debts and assets owned by the deceased, listing things such as the house, mortgage, shares, bank accounts, cars and other property. The executor then finds out how much these are all worth.
This can, unfortunately, take a bit of time, as it can take a while for the banks and financial companies to get back in touch with a figure.
Confirmation or probate
The executor then has to be given official authority to deal with all the assets. This is called ‘confirmation’ (or in England, probate), and is granted by the local Sheriff Court.
Confirmation is a legal document that entitles the executor to sell or otherwise dispose of the assets listed in the inventory. Without it, the executor can do nothing, unless the estate is a very small one.
Distribution
Once the assets are in, the executor can then begin distributing them – paying off the debts and transferring the remaining money and other assets to the beneficiaries.
Detailed accounts are kept, and have to be approved before the final distribution is made.
Although generally straightforward, it is a time-consuming process, which usually takes between six months and a year to complete. Very large or complex estates can take a lot longer, however.
