Seminole County Bail Bonds – Supreme Court orders new look at ‘swipe fees’ law

Source     : CNBC News
By             : Press Release
Category : Bail Bonds in Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

Supreme Court orders new look at ‘swipe fees’ law

The Supreme Court is ordering a lower court to take a new look at a New York law that prohibits businesses from imposing fees on credit-card purchases.

The court ruled unanimously Wednesday in a case about fees that merchants pay to credit-card issuers each time a customer charges a purchase. The fees typically range from 2 percent to 3 percent and generate more than $50 billion a year.

The issue before the justices was whether the measure violates merchants’ free-speech rights. The federal appeals court in New York that upheld the law concluded that it regulated conduct, not speech. The justices said the law deals with speech and ordered the appeals court to re-evaluate it.

Read more here: cnbc.com/2017/03/29/supreme-court-orders-new-look-at-swipe-fees-law.html

Bail Bonds Sanford – Apple expands Qualcomm legal spat to China

Source     : CNet News
By             : Shara Tibken
Category : Bail Bonds Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

Apple expands Qualcomm legal spat to China

Apple’s legal battle with Qualcomm has gone international. The iPhone maker on Wednesday filed two lawsuits against Qualcomm in China, according to Reuters, which cited a press release from Beijing’s Intellectual Property Court. The first alleges that Qualcomm “abused its clout in the chip industry,” a violation of China’s anti-monopoly law. Apple seeks 1 billion yuan ($145.32 million) in damages, Reuters said.

The second accuses Qualcomm of not making its cellular standard essential patents available broadly and cheaply. It asks the court to determine the terms of a patent license between Qualcomm and Apple. Qualcomm said in a statement that it hasn’t yet seen the complaints but had seen the court’s press release. Don Rosenberg, executive vice president and general counsel of Qualcomm, said: “These filings by Apple’s Chinese subsidiary are just part of Apple’s efforts to find ways to pay less for Qualcomm’s technology. Apple was offered terms consistent with terms accepted by more than one hundred other Chinese companies and refused to even consider them. These terms were consistent with our NDRC [National Development and Reform Commission]Rectification plan. Qualcomm is prepared to defend its business model anywhere in the world. We are proud of our history of contributing our inventions to the development and success of the mobile communications ecosystem.”

Apple referred CNET back to its comments about Qualcomm from Friday. Its statement said, in part, that “Apple believes deeply in innovation and we have always been willing to pay fair and reasonable rates for patents we use. We are extremely disappointed in the way Qualcomm is conducting its business with us and unfortunately after years of disagreement over what constitutes a fair and reasonable royalty we have no choice left but to turn to the courts.” The lawsuits in China come only days after Apple filed a suit against Qualcomm in the US and about a week after the US Federal Trade Commission accused Qualcomm of forcing Apple to use its chips exclusively in exchange for lower licensing fees. In Apple’s complaint filed Friday, Apple alleged the wireless chipmaker didn’t give fair licensing terms for its processor technology. Apple also said Qualcomm sought to punish it for cooperating in a South Korean investigation into Qualcomm’s licensing practices by withholding a $1 billion rebate.

Qualcomm is the world’s biggest provider of mobile chips, and it created some of the essential standards for connecting phones to cellular networks. The company derives a significant portion of its revenue from licensing that technology to other chipmakers. Apple designs the processors in its iPhones and iPads, but it buys chips from Qualcomm to connect to 4G LTE and other cellular networks. Under Qualcomm’s licensing structure, Apple pays it a fee for its chips and another fee for the intellectual property included in those chips. Most components suppliers bundle the IP cost in with the chip sales price. For the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus introduced this year, Apple also started buying 4G LTE chips from another supplier, Intel. Because Intel’s chips use some of Qualcomm’s essential technology, Apple pays Qualcomm a licensing fee for those processors, as well, which is based off the total value of the iPhone ($650) versus the value of the Intel chip (closer to $20). Apple wants a US court to lower the amount it pays Qualcomm in licensing fees, as well as order the return of the $1 billion. The company said in its suit that Qualcomm should be paid royalties based on the value of its particular contribution, not for contributions from other patent holders. Currently, Qualcomm’s royalties are based off the selling price of a phone, rather than what portion Qualcomm’s technology enabled. Qualcomm has come under scrutiny in recent years for alleged monopolistic practices. Two years ago, it paid China nearly $1 billion to end a 14-month antitrust investigation in that country. Then, in December, South Korea hit Qualcomm with a $850 million fine following a three-year investigation. The South Korean Fair Trade Commission accused the chipset maker of having an “unfair business model” and creating a monopoly with its practices. The US FTC also has accused Qualcomm of illegally dominating the cellular chip market.

Read More : cnet.com/news/apple-expands-qualcomm-legal-spat-to-china/

Bail Bond Sanford – Brexit in the High Court: What the legal arguments tell us

Source    : BBC Co. News
By            : Gavin Stamp
Category : Bail Bond Sanford , Sanford Bail Bond

Brexit in the High Court: What the legal arguments tell us

It lasted three days, brought together some of the country’s most eminent legal minds and, in the words of one, considered an issue of “fundamental constitutional importance” to the government, Parliament and the UK as a whole. Bearing all of this in mind, it is perhaps no surprise that the 582-page transcript of the High Court hearing into Brexit, which concluded on Tuesday, make fascinating as well as, at times, gruelling reading. At stake is the question of whether the government is within its rights to begin the process of leaving the EU – by triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty – without the consent and authorisation of Parliament. During the application for judicial review of the government’s intended use of prerogative powers to kickstart Brexit, the 23 lawyers on either side of the argument covered a huge amount of ground.

Appropriately for a case hinging on the scope of parliamentary sovereignty, there was a dizzying amount of legislation referred to in court. The 1972 European Communities Act, the 1978 European Parliamentary Elections Act, the 2008 European Union Amendment Act, the 2010 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, the 2011 European Union Act and the 2015 European Union Referendum Act were among laws cited as either setting or not setting vital precedents.
If that was not enough, a rich body of case law was thrown into the mix – covering disputes as diverse as the sequestration of a hotel during World War One, efforts to stop businessman Freddie Laker from securing a new airline licence in the early 1970s and changes to the criminal injuries compensation for firefighters in the 1980s. Amid all the rifling through tabs and bundles of evidence, there were some lighter moments, including outbursts of sympathy for the short hand writer, assertions from both sides that academic research supported their arguments and a to-and-fro about whether the government’s planned Great Repeal Bill was misnamed. There was also some rhetorical flourish to admire, from among others the constitutional historian and crossbench peer Lord Pannick. The QC, who was representing Gina Miller – the investment manager challenging the government’s Brexit strategy – likened Parliament having to accept its authority being undermined “not to (it) straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel”.

James Eadie QC, First Treasury Counsel representing the government, used terms such as “higher beasts” and “silver bullets” to describe the possibility of one piece of statute trumping another and likened the potential threat to certain rights from EU exit as “necessary incidents of leaving a club”. But unlike certain TV courtroom dramas, there was little or no playing to the gallery or moments when the presiding judges, Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, Master of the Rolls Sir Thomas Etherton or Lord Justice Sales, had to admonish or direct any of the silks in front of them except to clarify points of legal argument. It was quickly established on both sides that the issue was justiciable – in other words falling within the auspices of the courts to decide upon.

Read more: bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37704117

Seminole County Bail Bonds – Italy has joined the rest of Europe in giving some legal rights to gay couples

Source    :  CBS News
By            :  CBS / AP
Category :  Seminole County Bail Bonds, Bail Bondsman in Sanford

Italy joins rest of European Union in giving legal rights to gay couples

Italy joined the rest of Europe on Wednesday in giving some legal rights to gay couples after a years-long battle and opposition from the Catholic Church to anything that smacked of authorizing gay marriage. The lower Chamber of Deputies voted 372-51 with 99 abstentions to approve legislation already passed in February by the Senate. Earlier, the chamber approved a confidence motion tied to the law. Gay rights activists hailed the vote as historic, given that Italy was the last of the European Union’s 28 nations to grant legal recognition to civil unions. But they voiced disappointment that the government had sacrificed a provision to allow gay adoption to ensure passage.

The legislation grants same-sex couples many of the same rights as married couples: the possibility of having the same last name, inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights and medical decision-making rights. But it stops far short of authorizing gay marriage. CBS News’ Seth Doane, who is in Rome, reports that the Trevi fountain will be lit green in celebration of the bill passage. The Vatican, which holds sway politically and socially in overwhelmingly Catholic Italy, maintains that marriage is a lifelong bond between man and woman.

Premier Matteo Renzi praised the vote as “writing another important page for the Italy that we love.” “Today is a day of celebration for so many,” he wrote on Facebook. “For those who finally feel recognized.” Italy’s leading Catholic bishop, Monsignor Nunzio Galantino, had criticized the government’s decision to put the bill to a confidence vote to ensure passage, saying it was a “loss for everyone.”

Read More : cbsnews.com/news/italy-joins-rest-of-european-union-in-giving-legal-rights-to-gay-couples/

Sanford Bail Bond – Daily Fantasy Sports Now Officially Legal in Virginia

Source     : Mens Journal
By            : Evan Grossman
Category : Sanford Bail Bond , Bail Bond Sanford

Daily Fantasy Sports Now Officially Legal in Virginia

Fantasy sports fans, it might be time for you to move to Richmond. Virginia became the first state to officially legalize Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) this week when lawmakers signed the Fantasy Contests Act into law. It’s a massive victory for DFS, but the landmark decision doesn’t mean they’ll easily pave the way for more states embrace the embattled industry.”Each state is its own political animal,” says Daniel Wallach, a sports and gaming legal expert and a shareholder at Becker & Poliakoff in Ft. Lauderdale. “This is not the birth of a nation.” DFS operators like DraftKings and FanDuel, which have been fighting for the survival of their billion-dollar industry for months, might not celebrate for long. While this is their first significant victory, legislation is still being considered in 30 other states. “They’ll be lucky if they get six to 10 this year,” Wallach says. “That would be a success. Any more than that would be a fantasy.” A 2006 federal law banned online gambling but allowed fantasy sports sites to operate in a gray area.

Late last year, the DFS industry came under siege as lawmakers across the country struggled with identifying fantasy sports as either a game of skill or one of chance. DFS operators maintain their product is a game of skill and should be legalized across the board, but the matter comes down to the state-by-state definition of what constitutes gambling. In New York, for example, DFS operators were forced to shut down because state law considers any game, with even the slightest bit of luck involved, gambling. Because the outcomes of DFS games are out of the hands of players once their rosters lock, it can be considered a game of chance.The other knock against DFS sites, which seems to be addressed at length in the Virginia law, were allegations of insider trading. In October 2015, a DraftKings employee was cleared of any wrongdoing after Ethan Haskell was accused of using proprietary information to gain an advantage playing DFS on another site. In prohibiting DFS employees from playing and in ensuring there are certain consumer safeguards, Virginia lawmakers clearly took the Haskell case into consideration when drafting the law. DraftKings spokesman Griffin Finan called the law “thoughtful and appropriate” in a statement, adding, “We will continue to work actively to replicate this success with dozens of legislatures and are excited to continue these efforts.”  Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe signed the bill into law this week, placing fantasy sports under the jurisdiction of the state’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service. The bill creates the first legal framework governing DFS in any state.

Here’s a closer look at the requirements the Virginia law places on DFS operators:

– Sites must register with the state.
– DFS operators are required to pay a $50,000 licensing fee.
– Fantasy sites must ensure players are 18 or older.
– Consumer safeguards include preventing the sharing of confidential information with third parties that can impact fantasy play until that data is made publicly available.
– Player funds are to be separated from company operational funds.
– DFS employees are prohibited from competing in public contests.
– DFS operators will be subjected to two yearly performance audits to ensure compliance.

While DFS operators continue to fight for their future in statehouses across the country, the Virginia law represents a first step toward broader acceptance.It’s a state-by-state issue, and just like marijuana legalization, it appears different states have different stances on legalized gambling. For example, while Indiana Gov. Mike Pence has expressed a willingness to sign a fantasy sports bill, a similar initiative has failed in Florida.”There’s no question, the Virginia law is a huge development,” Wallach says. “It’s an important first step. But there is going to be a three- to five-year process to bring legal clarity to DFS.”

Read more : mensjournal.com/adventure/races-sports/daily-fantasy-sports-now-legal-in-virginia-nowhere-else-20160309

Sanford Bail Bond – Legal Considerations in Businesses’ Disaster Planning

Source     : Nat Law Review
By             : Nicholas E. Williams
Category : Sanford Bail Bond , Bail Bond Sanford

Legal Considerations in Businesses’ Disaster Planning

In the last decade, Disaster Recovery (“DR”) and Business Continuity Planning (“BCP”)have become “hot” topics, as companies attempt to deal with disasters and the associated business risks. “Force majeure” is a legal concept that excuses a party’s performance under a contract on account of wide-scale, unpredictable, and devastating events, such as hurricanes, wars, national strikes and other similar occurrences. These common contractual provisions allocate the risk associated with non-performance because of a catastrophic, unpredictable event (for simplicity, let’s refer to these as disasters). But the legal implications in disaster planning extend beyond force majeure clauses.

The wide reach of disasters can create business risks with equally broad consequences. Imagine the “butterfly effect” in business caused by flooding in northern California or civil unrest in an oil-producing country. As an initial point, disasters may force manufacturers in a directly affected region to close their doors and “weather the storm.” Of course, lost production probably means lost profits. A closure also probably means disappointed business partners, suppliers, and customers. As a result, many large companies require suppliers to maintain business continuity plans to mitigate the risk of disruption.

Contracts play an important role in BCP and DR

For example, insurance contracts warrant careful analysis due to their complexity and nuances. Business interruption insurance, which covers the loss of income suffered by a business after a disaster, plays an important part in disaster planning. So, if business interruption insurance is a part of your manufacturer’s BCP or DR plan, be sure to understand the scope of applicable coverage, exceptions, and limitations.

Additionally, information technology contracts should be considered carefully. While many manufacturers use third-parties for technology solutions, other manufacturers host some, or all, of their own software solutions. These manufacturers typically engage third-parties for DR services, including backing up data and providing hardware in case of an emergency. In these circumstances, contracts should address the manufacturers’ expectations for returning to an acceptable operating level.

A related issue is the notification required in the event of a cyber-security breach or compromised data. Different industries face different requirements of different regulators. Thus, manufacturers that contract with utilities may be subject to different requirements than manufacturers who supply the Department of Defense.

Proper BCP and DR Can Limit Certain Legal Exposure

Unfortunately, many businesses that close their doors as a result of a disaster do not reopen. For those that do, without proper DR preparation, insurmountable setbacks, such as the loss of data, equipment, and personnel, may cripple or ultimately end a manufacturer. Those consequences, combined with the rise in BCP and DR, may put directors and officers on the “hot seat.” They may be accused of breaching their fiduciary duties for failing to implement BCP and DR initiatives. The applicable duty of care for fiduciaries duty standard is measured by one of reasonableness. Thus, directors and officers should evaluate their manufacturer’s preparedness for and exposure due to a disaster. Furthermore, business continuity plans should account for maintaining compliance with all relevant regulations, such as workplace safety and data security. Be careful not to create liability by overlooking these possibilities.

Legal issues and business risks go hand-in-hand, and BCP and DR are no exceptions. The above are just a couple common examples. Each manufacturer’s concerns vary based on a number of facts, including geography, industry, and size. Accordingly, it is crucial to consult with counsel while developing and implementing business continuity and DR plans.

Read more: natlawreview.com/article/legal-considerations-businesses-disaster-planning#sthash.OridRVtJ.dpuf

Bail Bondsman in Sanford – Uber loses round in legal battle with drivers

Source    :  Mercury News
By            :  Howard Mintz
Category :  Bail Bonds Sanford, Bail Bondsman in Sanford

Uber loses round in legal battle with drivers

A federal judge Tuesday dealt a blow to Uber’s efforts to neutralize a major legal challenge to its business model, finding that a lawsuit against the growing ride-booking company can proceed as a class action on behalf of most California drivers who have worked for the Bay Area outfit since 2009. In a 68-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen rejected Uber’s argument that the case should not proceed as a class action — an argument that would have made it far more difficult to successfully press legal claims that Uber drivers should be treated as employees instead of independent contractors. While the judge carved out some exceptions, for the most part he allowed the case to move forward in a way that could cover the claims of as many as 160,000 or more Uber drivers. A similar case is unfolding in federal court in San Francisco against Lyft, and Chen’s ruling could be used as fodder to back arguments for class-action status for those drivers. Uber issued a statement indicating the company plans to appeal the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a move that could sidetrack the case before it reaches trial. “We’ll most likely appeal the decision as partners use Uber on their own terms, and there really is no typical driver — the key question at issue,” an Uber spokeswoman said.

Lyft and Uber drivers have mounted major legal challenges to the flexible, on-demand business model, arguing that they should be classified as employees rather than independent contractors, a distinction that entitles them to strong protections and benefits under California law and threatens the cost structure of the so-called sharing economy. The companies stress that drivers can work as much as they want and when they want, a come-and-go-as-you-please form of employment that gives them a financial slice of each Uber or Lyft ride they provide. In fact, the companies note that many drivers are signed on the same day with multiple ride-sharing apps, including Uber, Lyft and Sidecar.
Uber, in urging Chen to reject allowing the case to proceed on behalf of all California drivers, presented testimonials from about 400 drivers who indicated they preferred to retain their independent status. But the judge rejected that evidence in Tuesday’s ruling, concluding it represented a “statistically insignifciant” percentage of affected Uber drivers with a stake in the legal fight. But the judge identified numerous claims in the lawsuit that would be common to typical Uber drivers, such as pay, tips, schedules, firings and worker ratings enforced by the ride-booking service now valued in the billions. Chen did exclude group status for driver claims based on lack of reimbursement for expenses. “Uber’s class certification arguments are problematic,” Chen wrote. The stakes are high for Uber, which already has suffered setbacks in its bid to preserve the right to classify its drivers as independent contractors with less legal protections. The California Labor Commission ruled in June that a San Francisco-based Uber driver should be considered an employee and should receive compensation for mileage and other expenses, a decision that does not carry force in the courts but adds fuel to the standoff over labor rights.

Read more here:  mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_28739771/uber-loses-round-legal-battle-drivers

Bondsman in Seminole County – A Timeline of Texas’ 30 Years of School Finance Legal Fights

Source     : ABC News
By            : The Associated Press
Category : Bail Bondsman in Sanford, Bondsman in Seminole County

A Timeline of Texas’ 30 Years of School Finance Legal Fights

A lawsuit challenging how Texas pays for its public schools will soon reach the state Supreme Court — the sixth time since 1984. Here’s a look at major milestones in 30-plus years of legal battles:

— May 1984: San Antonio’s Edgewood school district sues, arguing Texas’ school finance system is inequitable.

— October 1989: The Texas Supreme Court throws out the school funding law after finding “glaring disparities” between districts in wealthy and poor areas.

— June 1990: The Legislature devises a new system meant to better equalize funding, but excludes the wealthiest districts.

— January 1991: The Texas Supreme Court again finds the system unconstitutional.

— May 1991: The Legislature approves 188 county education districts that consolidate property tax bases for wealthy school districts and nearby districts.

— January 1992: The Texas Supreme Court rules levies collected by county education districts are too much like a state income tax, which is unconstitutional.

— May 1993: Days before a court-imposed deadline threatened to close Texas schools, the Legislature forces districts in areas with high property values to share tax money with poorer districts.

— January 1995: The Texas Supreme Court upholds the “Robin Hood” plan.

— April 2001: Property-wealthy school districts sue, arguing the funding system has created an illegal property tax after many districts pushed collections to the legal limit. Nearly 300 other school districts join the case, expanding it to include arguments that the funding system is inadequate and inequitable.

— September 2004: Austin-based state District Judge John Dietz rules the education funding system unconstitutional.

— November 2005: The Texas Supreme Court rules that local property taxes for school funding amount to an unconstitutional statewide tax.

— May 2006: The Legislature cuts local school property taxes by one-third while allocating more state funding to public education. Lawmakers place minimum funding requirements for districts based on a temporary freeze in the amount of per-student money districts spent that year; the freeze is never lifted. The Legislature also caps tax rates at $1.17 per $100 of property valuation.

— May 2011: Facing a $27 billion budget shortfall due in part to the Great Recession, the Legislature cuts $5.4 billion in classroom funding and educational grant programs.

— October-December 2011: More than 600 school districts in wealthy and poor parts of Texas file suit, charging funding is inadequate and unfairly distributed and tax-rate cap constitutes an illegal state property tax.

— October 2012 — Testimony begins before Dietz.

— February 2013 — Dietz rules the school finance system is unconstitutional, doesn’t provide adequate money and the money available isn’t fairly distributed.

— May 2013 — The Legislature restores $3-plus billion in public education funding.

— January 2014 — Dietz reopens the case to hear evidence on the additional funding.

— August 2014 — Dietz again rules it unconstitutional, calling the extra money “plainly insufficient to satisfy constitutional standards.”

— Sept. 1, 2015 — The Texas Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments from school district attorneys and the state.

Read more : abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/timeline-texas-30-years-school-finance-legal-fights-33415408