Merely doing business in Delaware not enough for lawsuit

, The News Journal 11:44 a.m. EDT April 21, 2016

High court overturns decision regarding whether Delaware has legal oversight over businesses registered in state

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • The Delaware Supreme Court has issued a ruling over a decades-old decision regarding jurisdiction.
  • It overturns a ruling that says corporations registered in Delaware are subject to state jurisdiction.
  • The ruling was 4-1 and involves an Atlanta auto-parts supplier.

An out-of-state company can no longer be sued in Delaware merely because it does business within the state, the Delaware Supreme Court has ruled.

Under a 1988 state Supreme Court ruling, a plaintiff could sue a company in Delaware for a personal injury or other tort claim that occurred in another state. That meant a large retail chain operating a store in Delaware or a company with an office in the state could be vulnerable to a Delaware lawsuit simply because it did business here.

However, in this week’s rare 4-1 split decision, the Supreme Court reversed that holding in Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec. The opinion was authored by Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice Leo E. Strine.

“This is a positive for companies not incorporated in Delaware, but do business in Delaware,” said Donald W. Durandetta, a professor of business at Wilmington University. “It is increased protection for doing business in Delaware.”

Plaintiffs Ralph and Sandra Cepec are Georgia residents who sued automobile equipment supplier Genuine Parts Co., the parent company of NAPA AutoParts. Genuine is a Georgia corporation headquartered in Atlanta and operates more than 60,000 retail stores throughout the nation, including about 15 in Delaware.

Ralph Cepec worked for Genuine Parts in a Jacksonville, Florida, warehouse between 1988 and 1991. He filed a personal injury lawsuit in Delaware saying he was exposed to asbestos during his employment, causing mesothelioma and other illnesses.

Last year, the Cepecs sued Genuine Parts in Delaware, despite that than 1 percent of its stores and employees are based in Delaware and less than 1 percent of its revenue comes from the state, according to the court’s opinion. Genuine Parts is registered to do business in Delaware, giving the state’s court system general jurisdiction over the company under Delaware law.

The case started in the Delaware Superior Court, which upheld the state’s jurisdiction over Genuine Parts, citing the state Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Sternberg v. O’Neil. Genuine Parts appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court. In the decision, the high court ruled plaintiffs can only file a lawsuit against a company in Delaware if the claim resulted from the defendant’s connection to the state. A plaintiff no longer pursue a claim in Delaware just because a company does business here.

Plaintiffs can still file lawsuits in Delaware against national corporations if the injury occurred in the state or there is some other connection.

Read Full Article – http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2016/04/20/merely-doing-business-delaware-not-enough-lawsuit/83293736/

Canada violating international law with Saudi arms sale: expert

OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

A controversial rationale the Trudeau Liberals are using to justify approving exports of combat vehicles to Saudi Arabia – that these machines could help Riyadh prosecute a war in neighbouring Yemen – is figuring prominently in a Federal Court challenge aimed at stopping the shipments.

Eric David, a renowned human rights legal scholar from Belgium who has acted in major international cases, is lending support to a March 21 lawsuit led by University of Montreal professor Daniel Turp that seeks to block exports of the weaponized armoured vehicles from Canada.

In an affidavit being added to the lawsuit, Prof. David of the Free University in Brussels says he believes Canada is violating international law by shipping arms to a country already accused of massive human-rights violations in Yemen. A United Nations panel investigating the Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen found “widespread and systematic” attacks on civilian targets in violation of international humanitarian law.

Allowing the “sale of armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia … would violate the obligation to respect and ensure the respect of human rights and international humanitarian law,” Prof. David wrote in a 196-page filing.

“The sale of armoured vehicles … becomes an “internationally wrongful act.”

As The Globe and Mail first reported, Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion last week quietly approved export permits covering more than 70 per cent of the $15-billion transaction with Saudi Arabia – a decision that represents the most vital step in determining whether a weapons shipment to a foreign country can proceed or whether it’s “illegal,” as Ottawa calls it.

The revelation that Mr. Dion greenlighted the bulk of this deal runs contrary to the Liberal claim that the Trudeau government’s hands were tied on the Saudi deal.

Many observers had assumed the Conservatives had granted export permits when they signed the deal.

The Liberal signature on the export permits means the Trudeau government has taken full ownership of a decision to sell arms to a country notorious for human-rights abuses.

In the memorandum justifying the export permits, the department of Global Affairs reasons that the light armoured vehicles will help Riyadh in its efforts at “countering instability in Yemen,” where the Saudis are fighting Houthi rebels aligned with Iran, as well as combatting Islamic State threats.

“The acquisition of state-of-the-art armoured vehicles will assist Saudi Arabia in these goals,” the memo approved and signed by Mr. Dion said.

When it comes to Yemen, the Canadian government is choosing its words carefully, noting that so far the Saudis have not been found to be using Canadian-made combat vehicles previously sold to Riyadh to commit rights violations there.

Asked about the Saudis’ conduct in Yemen on Thursday, Mr. Dion said they’re not the only ones that need be held to account. “There are serious concerns that should be raised about all of the parties” fighting in Yemen, Mr. Dion told the Commons foreign affairs committee Thursday, widening the matter to include the conduct of Houthi rebels.

“As far as Yemen is concerned, our priority is to have a peaceful solution found.”

Separately, Thursday, Mr. Dion offered only mild support for an NDP proposal by MP Hélène Laverdière to create a Commons committee that would scrutinize arms exports. “I think it’s an interesting proposal. I am not sure it’s the priority right now – but the committee can certainly decide,” the minister told the foreign affairs committee.

Saudi Arabia is regularly ranked among the “worst of the worst” on human rights by Freedom House.

Sourced From – http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-violating-international-law-with-saudi-arms-sale-expert/article29640135/

Top 10 Questions to Ask a Prospective Divorce Attorney

We’ve provided a few questions you might consider asking during your initial interview with a family law attorney. These may help you determine whether this lawyer is right for your case.

1. Do you specialize in divorces, or are divorces just a part of your practice? How long have you been practicing family law? How many family law cases have you handled? Are you a “certified family law specialist?”

2. What is your strategy for my case? How long will it take to resolve my case?

3. How long do you take to return phone calls? How do I get a hold of you if there is an emergency? What do you consider to be an emergency?

4. Will anyone else in your office be working on my case? What experience do they have? Can I meet them?

5. How will you charge me? What is your hourly rate? Do you charge for the time I spend with other lawyers, with paralegals, and/or with secretaries? If so, at what rate? What is your retainer up front?

6. What costs (other than your own) do you expect will be involved (for example, for private investigators, forensic accountants, physicians, and/or psychologists), and how will you charge me for them?

7. What’s your estimate of the total cost of this divorce? (Do not be alarmed that most divorce attorneys will resist answering this question as the cost of the divorce depends greatly upon the level of conflict in your case. However, the way attorneys answer this question may help you size them up. An honest attorney will often answer that it is difficult to estimate the costs in advance. An attorney that gives you an unrealistically low amount may just be trying to get your business).

8. Do you allow me to negotiate directly with my spouse? How can I keep the cost of my divorce down? Are there tasks that I can do myself to cut down on the amount you will charge me?

9. Based on what you know about my case, how would you predict a judge would rule on it?

10. What can you do to help me understand the tax effect of the decisions I will have to make?

sourced from – http://www.divorcenet.com/states/california/top_10_questions_to_ask_a_prospective_divorce_attorney#b

Drug makers spend big to fight California price control referendum

Drug Companies To Pour $100M Into Battle Against California’s Price Control Ballot Initiative

The initiative, likened by one lobbyist to a “grenade being rolled into the conversation,” would require the state to pay no more for prescription drugs than the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and the industry is gearing up to fight back. In other news, Novartis’ heart-failure drug is getting a warmer welcome in Europe than America, and the company is considering its options in selling its stake in Roche.

Politico: Drug Makers Spend Big To Fight California Price Control Referendum

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton give drug makers the jitters when they talk about Medicare negotiating the prices of prescription drugs. But the biggest near-term threat to the industry comes from a California ballot initiative that would test a version of that idea in the most populous state. That ballot initiative “is a grenade being rolled into the conversation, and it is being taken very seriously,” says a Republican drug lobbyist in Washington, D.C. (Cook and Karlin-Smith, 4/25)

The industry is expected to pour $100 million into an effort to squash the November ballot initiative.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton give drug makers the jitters when they talk about Medicare negotiating the prices of prescription drugs. But the biggest near-term threat to the industry comes from a California ballot initiative that would test a version of that idea in the most populous state.

That ballot initiative “is a grenade being rolled into the conversation, and it is being taken very seriously,” says a Republican drug lobbyist in Washington, D.C.

Drug companies are expected to pour $100 million into an effort to squash the referendum in what will be a test of the industry’s strength at a time of growing consumer backlash against drug prices. The initiative would require the state to pay no more for prescription drugs than the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs — one of the few federal agencies allowed to negotiate drug prices.

From the industry’s perspective, California could set a dangerous precedent. Besides having an economy the size of many small countries, the liberal bastion is often a laboratory for new ideas that take root and then spread east. That’s even more likely given that the presidential front-runners are pushing the federal government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare.

“This is the crack in the door” on drug pricing, said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, a California nonprofit devoted to consumer protection issues. “If any Democrat in America wants bulk purchasing in Medicare, it will start with bulk purchasing for the most liberal state government in America.”

Which is precisely the intention of the initiative’s sponsor, Michael Weinstein, CEO of the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation. “If we win, we hope it will start a national prairie fire,” he said.

Weinstein pursued the ballot measure after years of in-your-face activism on AIDS and after watching the California state legislature fail to do anything about drug prices — a big concern to people with HIV/AIDS who may be taking costly drugs for the rest of their lives.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/drug-makers-california-referendum-222334#ixzz471Q9mg4k
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Mississippi Fails To Add Domestic Violence As A Legal Reason For Divorce

Melissa Jeltsen Senior Reporter, The Huffington Post

Advocates say the state’s antiquated divorce laws can make it harder for victims to leave abusive spouses.

A bill that would have added domestic violence as a legal grounds for divorce died in the Mississippi state Senate last week.

In Mississippi, a person can get a divorce if their spouse is a habitual drunk, commits adultery, has an incurable mental illness or is naturally impotent.

But if their spouse beats them? That would make things more complicated. As it currently stands, domestic violence is not among the 12 legal grounds for divorce in the state.

A recent effort to rectify that died in the Mississippi state Senate last week.

The bill would have made domestic violence the 13th legal justification for divorce, as long as it was “established by clear and convincing evidence, where the perpetrator commits upon a spouse one of the following: attempting to cause, or purposely or knowingly causing, bodily injury to the spouse; or attempting by physical menace to put the spouse in fear of imminent serious bodily harm.”

Wendy Mahoney, executive director of the Mississippi Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said she was disappointed that the bill failed, and characterized the state’s current divorce laws as antiquated.

“In this day and age, we were just trying to get some language that would be more fitting about what transpires in situations of domestic violence,” she said.

The coalition pushed for the bill after many domestic violence survivors reported that their greatest need was assistance with legal services, particularly divorce.

“Basically, we wanted to make this process easier for individuals, being that they are already dealing with so many issues — child custody, rebuilding their lives and so on,” Mahoney said.

William Wright, a divorce lawyer who has been practicing law for 42 years, said it’s harder to get a divorce in Mississippi than in most other states.

Under state law, if both members of the couple agree to divorce, they can claim “irreconcilable differences” and don’t need to provide a legal reason, he said.

But if one spouse doesn’t want the divorce, the process is often stymied. The person seeking the divorce must settle on unfavorable terms or claim one of the 12 grounds allowed by state law, and the court will decide whether to grant it.

“What you have down here is that the one who doesn’t want the divorce just holds out for a good deal,” he said. “One party holds the other party hostage.”

Wright said domestic violence victims trying to divorce abusive partners typically allege “habitual cruel and inhuman treatment,” which is among the current legal grounds for divorce.

But that can be hard to prove unless the abuse was physical and ongoing, he said. Subtle types of abuse, like emotional, verbal and economic, are much more difficult to demonstrate.

Stacey Sarver, legal director of WomensLaw, said that while it’s common for states to include cruel and inhuman treatment or extreme cruelty as a grounds for divorce, most don’t require proof that the abuse was ongoing or “habitual.”

“It seems in Mississippi, one incident is not enough,” she said. “That is not commonly found in the statutes of other states.”

Mahoney said she hopes the bill will pass in the next legislative session.

“We will have more support next year, and I think we will be better positioned to make sure it passes,” she said.

Sourced From – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mississippi-domestic-violence-divorce_us_571f7969e4b01a5ebde34227