#joe garza

Oil giant Halliburton recently asked the United States Supreme Court to review an important Supreme Court Case, Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton. To be certain, the Erica P. John Fund (the “Fund”) is a shareholder of the oil company. The Fund’s years-old legal war with Halliburton comes from the notion that Halliburton falsely reported important information about its activities with shareholders; for instance, Halliburton is now being accused of overstating income and mitigating possible liabilities. Because of this, the Fund insists on having its lawsuit against the defense (Halliburton) recognized as a class action lawsuit (CAL) - a type of lawsuit that is brought on behalf of a group of people experiencing similar injuries. A class action lawsuit allows Erica P. John Fund to litigate on behalf of all Halliburton shareholders, effectively increasing the damages on the table in the case.

The New York Times just featured a relevant analysis of the Halliburton case, should it agree to hear the case. The Times publication explains how the majority of these types of lawsuits involve the idea of “reliance”, saying that the litigation - or in this case, shareholders behaved in reliance of the company's fraudulent operations. The Supreme Court has a myriad interpretations of "reliance". In order to reasonably imply reliance, a shareholder doesn't need to read a prospectus and the fraudulent statements it contains. Rather, courts view any criminal statements made by a corporation that is also accepted by the public that has any bearing on its financial value and is incorporated into the total price of the its securities. The Supreme Court justifies this view based on the ground that markets will price securities with all available market information, something that is widely encouraged in the study of finance. Nevertheless, even though most shareholders/investors don't exhaustively analyze financial statements and prospectuses made publicly available by the companies with whom they invest; they can still prove “reliance” provided that they can prove that they have acquired securities of the business. As more shareholders are able to show reliance, these types of suits become easier.

In their request to the Supreme Court to re-open the case, Halliburton suggested that it will contest that the court’s current definition of reliance is too broad. It will argue that the Court should interpret reliance as requiring shareholders to do more than just purchase securities; for instance, the court could start by requiring shareholders to read a financial statement or fraudulent prospectus. This kind of an argument could definitely get strong support from the greater business community.

As the Times piece illustrates, in 2012 in an unrelated case, four members of the Court stated that they would be willing to overrule the former, vast interpretation of “reliance.” If the Halliburton case eventually makes it to the Supreme Court, the crucial question will be about whether they can get a much-needed fifth vote on the Court. 

Leading Oilfield Services conglomerate Halliburton Co has asked the United States Supreme Court to review the 1988 Supreme Court Case, Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton - To be certain, the Erica P. John Fund (the “Fund”) is among Halliburton's shareholders. The EPJ years-old litigation with Halliburton comes from the notion that the oil company "fudged" key information concerning its shareholder activities, for instance, overstating income and understating potential liabilities. Because of this, the Fund insists on having its lawsuit against the defense as a class action suit, a lawsuit which is carried out on behalf of a certain group who have experienced similar injuries. A class action lawsuit would allow Erica P. John Fund to represent all Halliburton shareholders, which would seriously increase the dollars at stake in the litigation.

New York Times recently included an accurate analysis of the case the Court will have to decide in the case, should it hear the case. The Times article illustrates how many lawsuits like the one involving Halliburton and EPJ revolve around the legal concept of “reliance”, saying that the litigation - or in this particular case, shareholders acted in reliance on the organization's (potentially) illegal operations. Historically, the Supreme Court has a vast interpretations of "reliance". To demonstrate reliance, a shareholder involved in the suit need not read a prospectus and the fraudulent statements it contains. Rather, the court views any criminal statement(s) made by a corporation (and accepted by the public) that has any bearing on its financial value and is incorporated into the total price of the its securities. Courts typically justify this view on the ground that markets always price securities with all information that is available, something that is widely encouraged in the world of finance. Thus, although most investors do not critically analyze financial documents and prospectuses released by the companies with whom they invest; they can still show “reliance” assuming that they can prove that they have purchased securities of the business. As more shareholders are able to prove their reliance, CALs become easier to take to court.

In its request to the Supreme Court to re-open the case, Halliburton made it appear that it will argue that the court is enacting reliance too loosely. The oil company will argue that the Court should interpret reliance as something more involved than just purchasing securities; for instance, requiring shareholders to review a fraudulent prospectus or financial statement. Such an argument could definitely get enthusiastic backing from the business community.

As the NY Times piece mentions, last year four justices in an unrelated case claimed that they would be willing to overrule the conventional, broad meaning of “reliance.” If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the Halliburton case, the crucial question will be whether they can muster a necessary fifth vote from the Court. 

World Business headlines these days would be rather uneventful without Bitcoin updates, the fledgling currency that has demonstrated quite a few explosions in value since it was launched five years ago. Now, however, it may be the fall of Bitcoin’s impressive run could very well be coming. The October Silkroad takedown may have not been powerful enough to hinder it for the long-term, however, the latest headlines from China can't be optimal for the once-regulation-free currency. The Times reports that “If Bitcoin is a bubble, as its critics contend, it is showing signs of deflating.”

Within the last few days, BTC China—currently the largest Bitcoin exchange in the world—issued a release saying that it would stop honoring Bitcoins. Even several European countries who are beginning to hinder Bitcoin transactions, although on a bit smaller scale. The country of Norway has just followed Germany in its decision to impose a capital gains tax on citizens’ assets in Bitcoin.

Despite the fact that some may bemoan the Bitcoin's demise, it's clear that for many people, Bitcoin's flimsiness clearly outweighed its benefits. Not only is the currency a completely uninsured currency, but it is one that has proven incredibly easy to steal. For instance, this month, nearly $100m. in was taken from customers of Sheep Marketplace, an Internet marketplace for illegal drugs. Even still, buyers making risky transactions haven’t been the only ones who have been hit. At the end of Oct., the Chinese trading algorithm for Bitcoin trading platform, GBL, disappeared completely out of nowhere, along with over $4 million of its patrons' investments.

Experts say, the reason that the currency perfect for theft is that actual ownership of a Bitcoin is solely defined by possession to a “private cryptographic key to unlock a specific address,”. Therefore, if a thief assumes posession of your unique key, do anything they feel like with your money. It’s actually not even that hard to find people's keys since many services store unique keys of their users online. Also, even though the currency can be publicly traced online, laundering them is now very easy due to anonymous services known as "tumblers".

The question is, could Bitcoins stay viable if investigators create a way to make them more traceable? It could make a difference, but now with a main part in the Bitcoin market missing (China) and other governments coming down on the currency, the possibility are rapidly decreasing for it to experience growth. Even more importantly, leading analysts have long predicted that the currency is in a flimsy bubble that could burst soon.

Arguable the biggest accomplishment thus far in the Obama administration has been the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) passed in 2010. This legislation mandates that every employer with 50 or more employees must offer healthcare coverage to their employees or pay a penalty. This mandate was to go into effect on January 1, 2014, but the Obama administration recently proclaimed that the mandate will be delayed exactly one year to January 1, 2015. This affirmed apprehensions that initiating the PPACA was even more daunting than originally expected. On top of this extension, concerns are arising that the health insurance exchanges stated by the PPACA will not be set by the October 1, 2013 projected implementation date. The administration also stated that the portion of the law that puts a limit on out-of-pocket expenditures for single persons and families will not be beginning in time for its original start date either.

These delays in the legislation are giving rise to the old criticisms of the PPACA and are strengthening its opponent’s motion for Congress to withdraw funding. Many conservatives view the recent actions of the administration as warning signs that the PPACA should be revoked all together. Some are even proclaiming that the change to the start-up dates for the PPACA is a constitutional issue. Section 1513(d) of the PPACA states that the mandate “shall apply to months beginning after December 21, 2013”. The legislation does not allow the President to change the dates that are expressly stating the time that the employer mandate is to take effect. Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States nor in the PPACA does it state that the President is allowed to ignore provisions within the law.

Read: Tax Court Has a Cow over Estate Plan

The Treasury Department made a statement on July 2nd proclaiming that it too was putting on-hold the reporting requirements of employers that are connected to the mandate. The PPACA states that employers are responsible for reporting relevant data to the Treasury Department and the IRS “at such time” as the Treasury Department sees fit. The Obama administration may use this announcement by the Treasury Department to legally justify their own delays, but even this argument has its flaws. The power given to the Secretary of the Treasury Department from the PPACA relates to employer’s obligation to report, but it does not relate to the enforcement of the PPACA itself. Now this suspension by the Treasury Department will undoubtedly make the IRS’s job of enforcing the PPACA even harder, but there is no legal basis that allows the administration to use this complication as reason to delay implementation of the law. This move by the Obama administration sparks even more speculation that the delay itself is actually meant to cloak the impact of the PPACA in order to prevent this legislation from being a hot-button topic in the coming 2014 congressional elections.

Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported on the multi-billion dollar case involving Chevron, its recently-acquired company Texaco, and Ecuadorean courts. Texaco was allegedly responsible for damage to the foreign country's environment, and upon being bought by Chevron, left its new owners with the brunt of the legal backlash. After losing roughly $18 billion in the Ecuadorean courts, Chevron has understandably taken every measure possible to prevent the case from being brought onto American soil.

The case has been dragged out for far longer than Chevron had hoped, and the corporation's legal team has been in a constant struggle to keep the litigation at arm's length: Chevron has been vigilant at overcoming US laws that insist on honoring overseas court decisions, assuming there was no apparent abuse of fraud involved. Of course, large corporations constantly fending off vicious litigation isn't uncommon, but Chevron's handling of the litigation is what makes this case rather interesting. In response to the plainiffs, Chevron has been proactive in trying to undermine the credibility of the litigating parties, particularly through an arbitration filing allowed by a US-Ecuadorean treaty. This allowed Chevron access to documents owned by plaintiffs that apparently point to collusion between the plaintiffs and the Ecuadorean court. This gave Chevron the opportunity to file a RICO suit against the counsel, plaintiffs, expert witnesses, and law firm Patton Boggs.

Despite losing a fortune to the case in Ecuador, Chevron's diligent defense tactics have certainly paid off for the corporation, with expert witnesses and even a presiding judge confirming that many of Chevron's statements are valid. But Chevron still faces pressure from Patton Boggs who is undoubtedly attempting to save face against the corruption charges and an additional contingency fee it could owe to the Ecuadorean courts: a bill that could add up to nearly $450 million.

This case - or series of cases - has caused Chevron to amass a legal team of more than 2,000 lawyers, which will come at a proportionately exorbitant pricetag. Nevertheless, the corporation's strong resistance to an unfortunate sequence of rulings and litigation could protect it in the future. Chevron's handling of the pressures surrounding Ecuador communicates its unwavering defense against legal action - one that litigators may be unwilling to go up against in the future.

Do you want to practice law in the state of Texas? Well, preparing adequately for a career in law can significantly enhance your chances of making it. This article focuses on how to become a lawyer in Texas.

1. Attain a Bachelor's Degree If you aspire to join the Texas bar, you should take up a four-year degree course. This also necessitates that you be a high school graduate in the first place. However, the American Bar Association (ABA) and by extension the Texas State Bar Association do not require that you take up a specific undergraduate course to be admitted to law school. However, you may wish to sharpen your writing and speaking skills (which are useful in practice of law) by taking appropriate short-term courses, though these won't count as qualification for entry into law school. Just make sure you earn a university degree from an institute accredited by a national or regional accreditation agency, which must be recognized by the U.S Department of Education.

2. Take the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) Prepare well and take the LSAT to be admitted into an ABA-approved law school. Preparations for the LSAT may include taking up LSAT prep courses or attending LSAT seminars at a fee. Make sure to sharpen your capacity for logical thinking, analysis and comprehension, as these will be tested. You may take the LSAT in February, June, September/October, or December, depending on when you wish to join law school.

3. Apply to Law School in Texas As per the Texas Board of Law Examiners, you must graduate from an ABA-approved law school, to become a lawyer in Texas. Thus, having passed the LSAT, you should apply to an accredited law school of your choosing. Four things must accompany your application to law school: your LSAT scores, academic transcripts, personal statement and letters of recommendation. Make personal visits to your preferred Texas law school and familiarize yourself with its learning environment and perquisites for successful application. Prepare well your personal statement and make sure to demonstrate what value you're going to add, how the school is going help you and why you should be considered for admission. Also, make sure the letters of recommendation come from people who know you personally, not necessarily legal practitioners. If admitted to law school, utilize the following three years of studying well and graduate with a degree in law.

4. Take the State of Texas Bar Exam Even though you've graduated with a law degree, you're not yet a Texas lawyer until you've been admitted to the Texas Bar. At this stage, you should apply to take the Texas Bar Examination, which takes three days to complete. For successful application to the Texas Bar Exam, you must be at least 18 years old, a US citizen or legalized national/resident alien, on top of the qualifications mentioned above. If you pass the test, you'll be sworn in at a ceremony and officially admitted to the Texas Bar.

Texas Bar Association Certification gives complete power to the State Bar in Texas so that it's supportive of its legal systems, ensuring that citizens are treated equally before the law, ensuring that lawyers uphold ethical values of conduct, ensuring that the kind of services rendered towards the public and all clients attains expected levels or standards, to also inform the public all aspects of Texas rule of law and enhance diversification in administering justice and law practices. Use these tips by Texas lawyer Joe Garza on joining the TBA.org.

Cyberspace Bar Association of Dallas: its mandate is boosting CLE seminars that involve educating attorney on how to apply technology when solving cases hence fasten the process of helping needy clients, how to distribute helpful information by using e-mail, ensuring that quality is upheld for articles and motions or any other important documents.

Houston Federal Bar Association, Texas Southern District Chapter: this association is given the power of ensuring that attorneys found to the Southern District are served with efficiency. Southern Texas Chapter has developed over time and is now the second biggest of all FBA Chapters in Texas.

Best southwest Association Bar, Cedar Hill: it's also a non-profit legal assistants and attorney association responsible of sharing important information that concerns modern legal matters and ways of availing quality services to the county of Southwest Dallas area with its needy businesses and individuals.

Contacting a professional Texas Lawyer, TBA can be useful when you have been involved in any personal injury case. In certain occasions, other persons may injure or offend you physically or mentally. It may be institution or a company that hurts. Most of these injuries come from falls, broken items, car accidents, work accidents, therefore they are not caused with intention to remain safe ensure to consult a professional Texas Lawyer, TBA like Joe Garza B. If this happens, the legal law will blame the guilty person for hurting the other person. Whenever you are injured physically or you receive any emotional pain because of deliberate action of a third party, you are entitled to be compensated for that. You have to check with your personal lawyer, because these attorneys are familiar with the actions which have to be carried for you to get compensation.