[Image Credit: Pexel]

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) is one of the leading workplace injuries, often causing significant disruption to work routines and productivity.

It is a painful condition affecting the wrist and hand, and if left untreated, it may lead to severe complications requiring surgical intervention.

According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), carpal tunnel surgery ranks as the second most common type of surgery among workers.

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) develops when the tendons and tissues in the wrist become inflamed. This inflammation reduces the size of the carpal tunnel—a narrow passageway in the wrist—and exerts pressure on the median nerve.

This nerve is essential for controlling sensation and movement in the thumb and the first three fingers. Symptoms often include tingling, numbness, weakness, or pain in the affected hand and wrist.

Workers in roles requiring repetitive hand and wrist movements are particularly vulnerable. These include:

-Construction workers
-Assembly line operators
-Drivers
-Cashiers
-Office workers engaging in extensive keyboard use
-Individuals performing repetitive pressing, pushing, or slicing actions

If you believe your CTS stems from workplace conditions, you may be eligible for workers’ compensation benefits in Illinois. Our legal team will carefully review your case, assess your injuries, and outline the best legal options to secure the compensation you deserve.

The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor asked judges on Wednesday to issue an arrest warrant for the head of Myanmar’s military regime for crimes committed against the country’s Rohingya Muslim minority.

Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, who seized power from elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi in 2021, is accused of crimes against humanity for the persecution of the Rohingya.

Nearly a million people were forced into neighboring Bangladesh to escape what has been called an ethnic cleansing campaign involving mass rapes, killings and the torching of homes.

From a refugee camp in Bangladesh, the court’s top prosecutor, Karim Khan, said in a statement that he intended to request more warrants for Myanmar’s leaders soon.

“In doing so, we will be demonstrating, together with all of our partners, that the Rohingya have not been forgotten. That they, like all people around the world, are entitled to the protection of the law,” the British barrister said.

The allegations stem from a counterinsurgency campaign that Myanmar’s military began in August 2017 in response to an insurgent attack. Min Aung Hlaing, who heads the Myanmar Defense Services, is said to have directed the armed forces of Myanmar, known as the Tatmadaw, as well as the national police to attack Rohingya civilians.

Khan was in Bangladesh where he met with members of the displaced Rohingya population. About 1 million of the predominately Muslim Rohingya live in Bangladesh as refugees from Myanmar, including about 740,000 who fled in 2017.

Rohingya face widespread discrimination in Buddhist-majority Myanmar, with most denied citizenship. Myanmar’s government refuses to recognize the Rohingya as one of the country’s 135 lawful ethnic minorities, instead calling them Bengalis, with the implication that their native land is in Bangladesh and they are illegally settled in Myanmar.

Human rights groups applauded the decision to seek a warrant. The dire situation of the Rohingya has received less attention as the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza have grabbed headlines. “The ICC prosecutor’s decision to seek a warrant against Sr. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing comes amid renewed atrocities against Rohingya civilians that echo those suffered seven years ago. The ICC’s action is an important step toward breaking the cycle of abuses and impunity,” said Maria Elena Vignoli, senior international justice counsel at Human Rights Watch.

We provide legal services in the area of Assisted Reproduction Law, also known as Third Party Reproduction, or Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) law. These matters involve matters such as Surrogacy (Compensated or Compassionate), gamete (sperm/egg) donation, embryo donation and embryo disposition. We also file for Judgments of Parentage for ART and Surrogacy matters. We pride ourselves in being collaborative, while at the same time advocating strongly for our clients, and being thorough, detail oriented and efficient. We work throughout the states of New York and New Jersey.

These agreements are when a surrogate is being compensated to be a surrogate for Intended Parent(s). There are strict requirements under the law that need to be adhered to, and we insure that the agreements are fair, collaborative and thorough. During this representation we can only represent one side of the agreement- either the Intended Parents or the Surrogate and her Spouse or Partner, if any.

– Intended Parents. We represent Intended Parents in a variety of ways: we offer consultations to explain the process of working with an agency or going on an independent journey. We can review Surrogacy Agency service agreements. We represent Intended Parents in the drafting and negotiation of the surrogacy agreement. We will also represent Intended Parents throughout the duration of the Agreement. Finally, we will file for the pre-birth order of parentage, and assist with the birth certificate.

– Surrogates. We represent Surrogates in their review and negotiation of the surrogacy agreement.

The relationship between employers and employees in California is governed by employment and labor laws at both the federal and state levels. These laws provide a framework of obligations and rights. Disputes often arise from a failure to uphold and undertake these obligations and rights, which can lead to serious disruptions in the workplace and problems for the employer.

Employer Defense Attorneys in Gardena, California

At Law Offices of Albert Chang, we are committed to each of our clients. Our employment and labor law attorney in Southern California helps employers and understand their legal obligations and rights, and we take appropriate action given the unique circumstances of each case. If you believe you have an employment law issue or want to act proactively to avoid problems in the workplace, contact us today at (310) 769-6836 to schedule a free 30-minute consultation

Law Offices of Albert Chang is a full service law firm assisting and representing business owners in business, employment, and real estate matters with the ability to take a case from inception to conclusion. We are here to listen to you and help you resolve your legal needs with the most favorable outcome. At Law Offices of Albert Chang, our clients choose us because we understand complex employment laws, regulations, and legal precedents, and we use this knowledge to give clients accurate advice and effective representation.

Defending solely for employers, we advocate for their rights and interests. We use our unique perspective to develop smart strategies tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, maximizing the chances of a favorable outcome, favorable contract terms, or other resolutions that meet our clients' best interests.

A federal judge ruled this week that one of West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice’s businesses owes more than $1.5 million to a Swiss company for undelivered coal.

U.S. District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon on Tuesday granted a request from VISA Commodities to enforce an April order from a London-based arbitrator that found Bluestone Coal Sales Corp. liable for $1.5 million plus arbitration costs and interest, the Charleston Gazette-Mail reported.

The problem started when Bluestone failed to supply 70,000 metric tons of coal under a November 2020 agreement, according to VISA Commodities’ court filings. In an April 2021 settlement, Bluestone agreed to pay VISA Commodities $1.5 million by July 30, 2021. But Bluestone failed to pay and also failed to participate in the subsequent arbitration, according to VISA Commodities’ filing with the Virginia Western District court.

Neither the Governor’s Office nor an attorney for Justice’s coal companies responded to the newspaper’s requests for comment.

Justice’s coal companies have a long history of unpaid obligations. Federal officials have said nearly two dozen of Justice’s companies were consistently late in making monthly payments on $5.13 million in mine safety fines they agreed to pay in 2020. Justice is listed as controller of nearly 200 mines with safety fine delinquencies totaling $1.7 million, according to federal Mine Safety and Health Administration records obtained by the Gazette-Mail.

Workers have also complained of missed obligations. Trustees of a United Mine Workers union benefit plan filed a federal lawsuit last year asserting that three of Justice’s coal companies failed to pay required monthly premiums over four years. And retirees of Justice’s coal companies have complained in recent years of interruptions to their prescription drug coverage.

Justice pledged to put his adult children in charge of his family’s businesses after taking office in 2017. James C. “Jay” Justice III, the governor’s son, is president of Bluestone Coal Sales Corp., based in Roanoke, Virginia. The governor has suggested in court proceedings and interviews since taking office that he remains familiar with his coal companies’ operations.

Business contracts legal matters can get complicated. When a contract goes awry and circumstances are not going according to plan, our attorneys can do the talking for you.

If you find yourself demanding for payments or are being sued over a contract, The Roth Law Group can represent you in court. When you hire us, you will send out a message that you are serious about enforcing your rights.

Disputes dealing with contracts and other businesses can be challenging and having a professional represent you will give you the best chance of reaching a solution. Raleigh-based Roth Law Group represents businesses and clients from North Carolina.

A top Kansas government attorney argued Monday that congressional redistricting is naturally political and that the Kansas Supreme Court shouldn’t try to decide when partisanship goes too far, only to be chastised by one of the justices for making a “boys will be boys” argument.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the state’s appeal of a lower court ruling that represented the first time that a Kansas court declared that partisan gerrymandering violates the state constitution. The lower court ruling struck down a Republican congressional redistricting law that would make it harder for the only Democrat in the state’s congressional delegation to win reelection this year. The GOP-controlled Legislature enacted it over Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto.

Federal judges — not the Kansas courts — have typically reviewed congressional boundaries, but the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 2019 that complaints about partisan gerrymandering are political issues and not for the federal courts to resolve.

Kansas Solicitor General Brant Laue argued that Kansas’ top court should take the same position. The Kansas Constitution mentions only legislative redistricting and does not contain any specific provisions prohibiting gerrymandering.

“Congressional redistricting is political by design,” Laue said. “The Legislature, and not the state judiciary, is designed and equipped to make the political determinations that cannot be avoided.”

The Supreme Court did not say when it would rule, though both sides are hoping it will be within days. Also, the Legislature is set to reconvene next week for a day or two of work if the justices reject the new congressional map or new boundaries for legislative districts that the court also reviewed Monday. The Kansas secretary of state’s office on Monday delayed the filing deadline for congressional and legislative candidates to June 10 from June 1.

During Monday’s hearing, the seven-member court wrestled with how to determine when improper political gerrymandering has occurred. Justice Caleb Stegall questioned whether the term can be clearly defined.

The European Union's top diplomat says the bloc remains a staunch supporter of the International Criminal Court despite U.S. condemnation of the tribunal.

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said Thursday that "we will continue to fully and strongly support the ICC and its work."

The Hague-based court was created in 2002 to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in areas where perpetrators might not otherwise face justice.

Mogherini said the ICC "has strengthened universal justice beyond power politics and beyond geopolitical interests," and added that "accountability is essential to build the foundations for peace."

U.S. National security adviser John Bolton denounced the ICC earlier this week just as a judge weighs whether to investigate allegations of war crimes against U.S. and Afghan personnel in Afghanistan since 2003.

On September 15, 2011, the Indiana Supreme Court issued its decision in Lucas v. U.S. Bank, N.A., ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2011), Cause No. 28S01-1102-CV-78, an action that arises from an attempt by a bank to foreclose on a home. That case raised the issue of how to tell when defenses in a foreclosure action should be tried to a jury or to a court. In deciding this case, the Court issued an important decision refining the general test for deciding when a case is essentially equitable and, therefore, not triable to a jury.

The Lucases entered into a residential mortgage in 2005, but in 2009, the bank move to foreclose on the loan. The Lucases filed an answer asserting many affirmative defenses and counterclaims, asserting that the bank violated numerous statutes and the common law and that the Lucases were thus entitled to various forms of relief, including money damages. The Lucases requested a jury trial on their affirmative defenses and counterclaims, but the trial court denied that motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Lucases had the right to have a jury hear their legal claims. The bank then successfully sought transfer.

The Court relied heavily on its decision in Songer v. Civitas Bank, 771 N.E.2d 61 (Ind. 2002), which also addressed the test to be used when deciding whether to have a jury hear issues in a case involving both legal and equitable claims. That test was a fact-based, multi-pronged test.

Ultimately, we believe Songer reveals that a trial court must engage in a multi-pronged inquiry to determine whether a suit is essentially equitable. Drawing on the teachings of Songer, we formulate that inquiry as follows: If equitable and legal causes of action or defenses are present in the same lawsuit, the court must examine several factors of each joined claim—its substance and character, the rights and interests involved, and the relief requested. After that examination, the trial court must decide whether core questions presented in any of the joined legal claims significantly overlap with the subject matter that invokes the equitable jurisdiction of the court. If so, equity subsumes those particular legal claims to obtain more final and effectual relief for the parties despite the presence of peripheral questions of a legal nature. Conversely, the unrelated legal claims are entitled to a trial by jury.

Th Lucases' claims in this case were subsumed into equity because, although they were legal causes of action, when "looking at the cause as a whole, we conclude that the core questions underlying the Lucases' legal claims significantly overlap with the foreclosure action that invoked the equitable jurisdiction of the trial court." Because "the essential features of the suit" were equitable, the entire case must be tried to the bench, rather than to a jury.

Lesson:

If a case involves both legal and equitable claims, the legal claims will be subsumed into equity if the whole action is essentially equitable. This is a fact-based, multi-pronged test.

Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/Indiana-Supreme-Court-Refines-Test-of-When-a-Suit-is-Essentially-Equitable

SEC to "Discuss" Internal Control Proposals at Open Commission Meeting

The SEC has scheduled an open meeting for next Wednesday to "discuss" the PCAOB's internal controls auditing standard (AS #5) and the SEC's own management report proposal. Based on the wording of the SEC's announcement, it doesn't seem like they will adopt anything - rather, the Commissioners and Staff will discuss the comment letters received to date (including the oft-mentioned alignment of the PCAOB's and SEC's proposals) and approaches available to the SEC. The SEC seems "on plan" to adopt something by May.

Maybe my memory is foggy, but I don't recall an open Commission meeting being held during which rules were not being proposed or adopted. In the past, these were fairly scripted affairs (but not as much over the past several years) and a discussion like this one would be conducted behind closed doors. Maybe its driven by a desire to ensure the standards are harmonized without treading on some "government in sunshine" restrictions about the SEC's dealings with the PCAOB...

The FASB's Appointment Process

Yesterday's WSJ included this article on recent changes to the selection process used to select members of the board of trustees for the Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF) and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). The article recounts the back and forth between the SEC and the FAF over how much power the SEC should have regarding the selection process at the FASB.

You might recall that Section 108 of Sarbanes-Oxley gave oversight power to the SEC over the FASB - and the SEC outlined its role in a 2003 policy statement. In that statement, the SEC said that, given its oversight responsibilities, the FASB should give the SEC "timely notice of, and discuss with the Commission" its intention to appoint new members. According to the article, "timely notice" became an issue for the SEC in recents months and an agreement reached this month defines "timely" as generally 45 days but not less than 30 days before the FAF nominates members to its board or FASB members.

Critics of the SEC's oversight power worry that the SEC could hold reappointment over the heads of FASB or FAF members while important votes are being considered. They also point to the fairly recent experience at the PCAOB, where some appointments by the SEC were not made very timely (and eventually made when votes on significant issues were on the table).

A Closer Look: SEC Chief Accountant Conrad Hewitt

Yesterday, the Washington Post ran this interesting article about relatively new SEC Chief Accountant Conrad Hewitt.

E&Y Censured Over Independence (Again)

On Monday, the SEC announced a $1.5 million settlement with Ernst & Young relating to alleged independence violations for its work at two clients, AIG and PNC Financial, in 2001. You might recall that E&Y had been censured just a few years ago for its PeopleSoft audit because E&Y's consulting arm profited from recommending PeopleSoft software to customers.

Here are some thoughts from Lynn Turner: "Some in the auditing profession argue investors should rely on an audit firm itself to assess its independence and put in place safeguards if it is questioned. The three cases cited in this WSJ article regarding E&Y in recent years strongly arues against any such approach. Interestingly enough, in April 2001, the partner then in charge of the E&Y national office declined a request to meet with the SEC staff to discuss progress that E&Y was making in instituting a system to ensure its independence on a global basis, citing he did not need anyone at the SEC telling him what the independence rules were. (The other 7 largest firms accepted such an invitation).

It is also interesting an E&Y partner is a leader of the current effort to obtain what is in essence, an indemnification of auditors by their clients. Certainly, these are matters of concern for investors and audit committees."

http://www.thecorporatecounsel.net/blog/archive/001430.html

On Monday, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision in the Enron securities class-action litigation that generally affirms that bankers, accountants, and others who work with publicly traded securities are not subject to securities-fraud claims that arise due to fraud committed by the issuer. There is some useful analysis of the decision in "The 10b-5 Daily."

And here is some analysis of the decision from Gibson Dunn: In a decision having important implications both for the scope of liability under the securities laws and for class certification in general, on March 19, the Fifth Circuit ruled that a securities fraud action against certain financial institutions that participated in transactions with Enron Corporation could not proceed as a class action. The decision, Regents of the University of California v. Credit Suisse First Boston (USA), Inc., No. 06-20856, 2007 WL 816518 (5th Cir. March 19, 2007), adds to a growing body of federal caselaw that places limits on efforts by plaintiffs' lawyers to plead securities fraud claims against secondary actors such as investment banks and other professional advisors, who did not themselves make any misrepresentations or omissions. The Fifth Circuit joins the Eighth Circuit in narrowly construing the scope of liability under such theories, and helps solidify a circuit split with the Ninth Circuit, which recently adopted a more liberal standard.

The Fifth Circuit's decision denying class certification also represents another recent example of how federal courts are beginning to impose more rigorous standards for certification of investor classes in securities cases, and are permitting defendants to present more sophisticated "merits-based" arguments opposing class certification in appropriate cases. In December 2006, the Second Circuit reached a similar conclusion in the high-profile In re IPO Public Offerings Securities Litigation case, and denied class certification in that case as well.

http://www.thecorporatecounsel.net/blog/index.html

Yesterday, the SEC adopted long-awaited rules that will make it easier for foreign private issuers to deregister and terminate their SEC reporting obligations. New Rule 12h-6 and related Form 15F will enable a foreign private issuer meeting specified conditions to terminate its '34 Act reporting obligations. The final rules are similar to those re-proposed with some technical adjustments. Here are opening remarks from Corp Fin - and here are comments from Commissioner Atkins, Nazareth and Campos.

The new rule will be effective 60 days after publication of the SEC adopting release in the Federal Register - it is expected that the adopting release will be published by mid-April so that the rules will be effective by the middle of June. If this happens, calendar year companies will be able to avoid filing a 2006 Form 20-F (for large accelerated filers, the first to require internal control reports under Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley).

Below is some analysis of the adopted rules from Cleary Gottlieb: Under the new deregistration rule, a company can deregister equity securities if its average U.S. trading volume over a 12-month period represents 5% or less of its worldwide trading volume, so long as it meets the other requirements described below. While the basic test is identical to the December 2006 proposal, the SEC has refined the test in three respects:

- The 5% threshold will be calculated by comparing a company's U.S. trading volume to its worldwide trading volume, rather than comparing it to trading volume in the company's one or two primary markets.

- Off-market trading will be counted worldwide, and not only in the United States, so long as the information source is reliable and not duplicative of exchange-reported trading.

- Convertible and other equity-linked securities will no longer be counted in the threshold calculation.

Like the December 2006 proposal, the final rule provides that companies that terminate their listings or ADR programs will have to wait one year before deregistering. In contrast to the proposal, however, the waiting period will only apply to companies that are above the 5% threshold when they terminate their ADR programs (this was true for terminating listings, but not ADR programs, in the proposal). There will also be a transition rule for companies that terminated listings or ADR programs during the year preceding the adoption of the rule.

The final rule retains a number of other provisions from the December 2006 proposal, including a requirement that a deregistering company be listed in one or two foreign markets that together represent at least 55% of its worldwide trading for a year prior to deregistration, that it have at least a one-year SEC reporting history at the time of deregistration, and that it not have sold securities in an SEC-registered offering for a year prior to deregistration. Companies that deregister are automatically eligible for the registration exemption of Rule 12g3-2(b), meaning that their deregistration will be permanent so long as they publish English versions of their home country reports and financial statements on their web sites.

Under the December 2006 proposal, a company could also deregister debt or equity securities if the securities were held by no more than 300 U.S. residents (based on improved "look-through" counting rules) or 300 holders worldwide (without applying "look-through" rules). While a number of comment letters suggested raising the threshold for debt securities, the SEC did not refer to any modification of the threshold during the open meeting.

It remains to be seen whether a significant number of foreign private issuers will use the new rules. Many of the largest European issuers have informally indicated that they intend to stay registered, at least for the time being. Many of these issuers will wait to see whether the SEC eliminates the U.S. GAAP reconciliation of IFRS financial statements (currently targeted for 2009), a change that would substantially reduce the costs of a U.S. listing. Several of the Commissioners expressed support for this objective during the open meeting.

The most significant practical impact may come from a provision of the new rule that allows companies that use their shares to acquire foreign SEC registrants to avoid registering themselves as “successor issuers” (assuming this provision remains in the final rule in the form proposed in December). This provision could facilitate cross-border M&A transactions that previously would have been blocked by the successor registration requirement.

http://www.thecorporatecounsel.net/blog/index.html