Category Archives: Cases

Astor Asset Management prüft Sammelklage gegen Ricardo Benjamín Salinas Pliego und Grupo Elektra wegen Marktmanipulation

VANCOUVER, Kanada, 18-Sep-2024 — /EuropaWire/ — Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd untersucht derzeit, zusammen mit internationalen Anwälten, ob eine Investorengruppe eine Sammelklage gegen Ricardo Benjamín Salinas Pliego und Grupo Elektra, S.A.B. de C.V. einleiten sollte. Der Vorwurf: Mögliche Verstöße von Salinas gegen Offenlegungspflichten bei Aktiengeschäften und Krediten, die Investoren geschadet haben könnten.

Im Fokus steht ein Kredit von Salinas, besichert durch 7,2 Millionen Elektra-Aktien, der nicht ordnungsgemäß öffentlich gemacht wurde. Diese fehlende Transparenz könnte gegen Wertpapiergesetze verstoßen und den Aktienkurs von Grupo Elektra künstlich in die Höhe getrieben haben. Am 26. Juli 2024 wurde der Aktienwert bei 960 MXN gehandelt, während Schätzungen einen fairen Wert von 200-250 MXN sehen.

Investoren könnten durch diese Intransparenz irregeführt worden sein und finanzielle Verluste erlitten haben. Eine mögliche Sammelklage würde betroffene Investoren in Mexiko, Europa und den USA vereinen. Astor Asset Management ruft Aktionäre, die in den letzten sieben Jahren Elektra-Aktien erworben haben, dazu auf, sich zu melden, um mögliche Ansprüche zu prüfen.

Transparenz und Vertrauen

Fehlende Offenlegungen durch Insider wie Salinas beeinträchtigen die Markttransparenz und schaden den Investoren. Die Untersuchungen sollen klären, inwieweit die Marktmanipulation zu finanziellen Verlusten geführt hat und welche rechtlichen Schritte unternommen werden können.

SOURCE: EuropaWire

Investors to Pursue Class Action Against Ricardo Salinas and Grupo Elektra Over Alleged Financial Misconduct and Shareholder Harm

VANCOUVER, 11-Sep-2024 — /EuropaWire/ — In a significant development within the investment community, Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd has initiated steps to form a group of investors to pursue legal action against Ricardo Benjamin Pliego Salinas and Grupo Elektra, S.A.B. de C.V. The lawsuit alleges Salinas, who controls 74% of Elektra’s shares, has engaged in improper financial dealings, including undisclosed loans and share pledges, that have harmed shareholders.

The case centers on Salinas’s alleged failure to disclose critical financial transactions, such as the recent pledge of 7.2 million Elektra shares as collateral for a loan with Astor Asset Management. The lack of transparency surrounding these activities, along with previous non-disclosures of trades and loans, has drawn the attention of regulators and investors alike.

Astor claims that Salinas’s actions have contributed to an overvaluation of Elektra shares, which trade at an inflated price despite declining earnings. These factors, combined with a series of prior regulatory fines for Salinas, have raised concerns of market manipulation and misinformation.

Astor is calling on investors who have purchased Elektra shares within the last seven years to join the class action, with the goal of seeking compensation for financial losses incurred due to alleged manipulation and lack of regulatory compliance. The lawsuit is expected to be filed in multiple jurisdictions, including Mexico, the United States, and Europe.

SOURCE: EuropaWire

From Market Success to Legal Struggle: The Story of ThinkStrategy Capital Management

NEW YORK, 20-May-2024 — /EPR LAW NEWS/ — ThinkStrategy Capital Management, a prominent investment firm, today announces a comprehensive legal victory as all regulatory charges brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have been fully dismissed. This significant legal outcome vindicates Chetan Kapur, the firm’s founder, and highlights the firm’s unwavering commitment to lawful and ethical business practices.

For over a decade, ThinkStrategy has not only provided exemplary returns to its investors but has also adhered to the highest standards of regulatory compliance and operational transparency. Despite these commitments, ThinkStrategy faced a series of allegations from the SEC that have now been proven to be unsubstantiated.

“The dismissal of these charges is a testament to the strength of our legal position and the unjust nature of the accusations we faced,” stated Chetan Kapur. “This victory is not just for ThinkStrategy but for all investment firms that uphold the principles of fairness and integrity in the face of baseless allegations.”

The allegations, initially posited by the SEC, suggested regulatory missteps by ThinkStrategy which were demonstrated in court to be completely without merit. Extensive legal examinations and proceedings confirmed that the charges were influenced by improper motivations and a lack of substantial evidence.

This resolution comes after a prolonged legal battle that strained the firm’s resources but ultimately reaffirmed its reputation and operational resilience. ThinkStrategy’s legal team, supported by credible independent third-party testimonies, effectively showcased the firm’s compliance with financial regulations and its proactive approach to investor protection, especially during the financial downturn.

ThinkStrategy Capital Management is grateful to its legal advisors, investors, and clients for their support throughout this process. With these legal challenges behind it, the firm looks forward to focusing on its core mission of delivering outstanding investment performance and maintaining robust compliance protocols.

SOURCE: EPR Network

Kansas Pro Se Whistleblowers Place Johnson County Family Court Judge in Federal Lawsuits and Under Misconduct Allegations

KANSAS CITY, Kansas, 2024-Jan-3 — /EPR LAW NEWS — According to federal and county court documents, District Judge Burmaster has been accused of manipulating domestic violence protection orders in a biased manner that favors female petitioners in her courtroom. The judge allegedly exhibited prejudice against a Kansas pro se father in one particular case, to such an extreme extent that it resulted in unlawful detentions, unjustified findings of contempt of court, and the removal of the father’s child custody rights. These actions taken by Judge Burmaster prompted the father to file two separate federal civil rights lawsuits against the judge in United States District Court for the District of Kansas, under the name Escalante Vs Burmaster. 2:23-CV02471 and 2:23-CV02559. Both lawsuits progressing and the first has a schedule conference on January 24, 2023 and a trial begins. The lawsuits center predominantly on an 18 month period of time beginning July 08, 2023, in which its alleged a fraud protective order was placed by Burmaster and procured from opposing counsel Chris T Wilson.

Further, in December 2023, criminal charges that had been filed against the father for allegedly violating a fraudulent protection order were suspended. It is believed by the plaintiff that the judge was attempting to keep the father incarcerated in retaliation for bringing attention to her improper handling of such cases and biased decision-making through the whistleblowing lawsuits. If the allegations made in the court filings are substantiated, they portray a serious abuse of judicial authority and violation of the father’s civil rights to an impartial trial and due process under the law. Additionally and separately, two men’s criminal matters stemming from purported violations of Judge Burmaster’s civil protection orders have stalled – one since March 2022 – due to questions surrounding the judge’s issuance of orders in those underlying cases. Concerns of gender bias, fraud procurement of protective order petitions, unlawful retaliation, and improper judicial conduct remain ongoing regarding Judge Burmaster’s handling of domestic violence protection order cases in his Kansas courtroom. The Kansas father Knoche, is almost a year and half under a claimed false criminal violation of a protective order and that can be seen as questionable in bad faith from prosecution with the failure to prosecute the father over now. 18 months straight. His case is riddled with bad candor by prosecutors and it was initiated by a Burmaster civil order. Docs in the criminal case state the exchanging of ex parte evidence during scheduling conferences was occurring by the prosecutors.

The lawsuits aim to hold Judge Burmaster accountable for his reported manipulation of protection order procedures that stripped a father of his legal rights as parental retaliation for challenging her authority. The outcome of these civil cases could set an important precedent regarding the impartial administration of justice and protection from retaliation for those who lawfully expose potential judicial misconduct. Both the integrity of the courts and the civil liberties of those involved in family law cases may hinge on the resolution of Escalante Vs Burmaster.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Le autorità italiane hanno bloccato i tentativi di vendita non autorizzata di Villa Guidiccioni a Lucca, in Toscana

Le autorità italiane hanno bloccato i tentativi di vendita non autorizzata di Villa Guidiccioni a Lucca, in Toscana

LUCCA, Italia, 13-Lug-2022 — /EPR LAW NEWS/ — La società di consulenza HBC ha reso noto che le autorità italiane hanno bloccato i tentativi di vendita non autorizzata di Villa Guidiccioni a Lucca, in Toscana. La villa è stata acquistata nel 2019 per 4,5 milioni di euro dall’oligarca russo del carbone Dmitry Bosov, che l’aveva intestata a proprio nome. Un anno dopo si è suicidato.

La vedova di Dmitry Bosov, Katerina, ha fatto diversi tentativi di vendere Villa Guidiccioni senza trasferire il diritto di proprietà dopo la morte del marito. Tuttavia, il comune di Lucca non ha consentito l’operazione. Inoltre, è sorto il sospetto di un tentativo intenzionale di effettuare una transazione non autorizzata.

Nel 2020, Dmitry Bosov, proprietario del più grande produttore di carbone di antracite del mondo, Sibanthracite, è stato trovato da sua moglie Katerina ucciso a colpi di arma da fuoco sul territorio della loro villa fuori Mosca. Aveva una pistola Glock in mano. Un anno prima aveva acquistato dalla ASL l’edificio dell’ex ospedale di Carignano, noto come la cinquecentesca Villa Guidiccioni. In seguito all’acquisto, era stato concordato con le autorità lucchesi un piano decennale di ricostruzione della Villa e del parco circostante. Bosov avrebbe vissuto personalmente nella villa, insieme alla figlia. Attualmente la ricostruzione è sospesa e l’edificio è abbandonato.

HBC dichiara che, dopo la morte del marito, Katerina Bosov ha fatto diversi tentativi per ottenere il controllo della sua attività con l’aiuto di un notaio di fiducia. Ma questi piani non sono stati realizzati.

Pochi giorni fa, il caso si è concluso. Come scrivono i media, l’eredità è stata trasferita ai genitori e ai figli dell’oligarca defunto.

Allo stesso tempo, la polizia sta indagando sul caso del suicidio del re del carbone e gli investigatori hanno qualcosa da chiedere a Katerina Bosov. La reputazione della Bosov è contro di lei. Giornalisti indipendenti hanno scritto dei legami di Katerina con un fornitore di servizi di escort d’élite e della sua dipendenza dalla cocaina. Si ritiene che la conoscenza con il suo futuro sposo sia avvenuta a una festa di oligarchi russi a Monte Carlo e sia stata ben pianificata.

Per questi motivi, HBC ritiene che la partenza di Katerina per l’Europa, dove sta cercando di trasferirsi in un luogo di residenza permanente, non abbia motivazioni politiche. Non è altro che il desiderio di evitare problemi con le forze dell’ordine. Allo stesso tempo, i suoi tentativi di vendere la villa italiana secondo una formula illegale potrebbero impedire alla vedova dell’”antracite” di ottenere un passaporto europeo.

SOURCE: EuropaWire

Limassol District Court will investigate all the facts related to the attempt of the coal oligarch Dmitry Bosov’s widow to win control over her husband’s assets

Katerina Bosov

LIMASSOL, Cyprus, 13-Jul-2022 — /EPR LAW NEWS/ — Henry Bertson, HBC Consulting expert, believes that the Limassol District Court will investigate all the facts related to the attempt of the coal oligarch Dmitry Bosov’s widow to win control over her husband’s assets. Recently his inheritance has been transferred to the parents and children of the deceased businessman. Having tried other ways to establish control over her husband’s coal empire and his property, Katerina Bosov filed a lawsuit with the Limassol District Court, where the majority of the coal king’s assets are registered. According to HBC, the list of law violations committed by Katerina in the struggle for inheritance is already overlong.

After Dmitry Bosov’s suicide in May 2020, Katerina Bosov betrayed his relatives’ confidence and headed the Board of Directors of the Sibanthracite coal holding, founded by her husband. From the HBC’s point of view, her aim was to win control over Alltech company registered in Cyprus. This very company owned the Sibanthracite holding, which was worth over $1 billion after the death of its owner. To implement her plans, Katerina even involved an interested notary. However, these plans were thwarted by the parents and other heirs of the businessman. The venturesome Katerina was suspended from managing Sibanthracite.

According to media sources, the war for Dmitry Bosov’s inheritance continued for several years. It has become clear that the oligarch had earned his fortune long before his marriage to Katerina and she had no rights to claim for business and property. Moreover, evidence of law violations committed by Katerina in her pursuit of inheritance was analyzed. According to HBC and the media, this could have been a misrepresentation of the notary and an attempt to make a deal with the investigator.

Close attention on behalf of law enforcement agencies, investigating, in addition to the seizure of shares, the case of incitement to suicide, forced Katerina Bosov to move to Europe. Meanwhile, her routes are still typical for glamorous “girlfriends” of wealthy businessmen from Eastern Europe: Nice-Monaco-Milan. According to HBC data, she is currently in Italy waiting for the Limassol District Court to hear her counterclaim for her share of stock in Alltech. Simultaneously, Katerina is trying to influence public opinion in Cyprus, posing as a political refugee.

In Italy, her plans regarding Dmitry Bosov’s assets failed as well. The Tuscan authorities strictly forbade Katerina from selling the Villa Guidiccioni, purchased by her husband in 2019 for himself and his daughter, since Katerina is not among the owners. As is known, Dmitry Bosov did not leave a will. The HBC expert believes that Katerina has complicated her way to obtaining a residence permit in Europe by displeasing local authorities. Therefore, the Cypriot court remains the last hope of the coal king’s widow. However, the HBC experts are sure that all Katerina Bosov’s actions since the day of her husband’s death are widely known to the public, therefore, the satisfaction of Katerina’s claim is very doubtful.

SOURCE: EuropaWire

Cole & Van Note Announces Meyer Corporation Data Breach Investigation

Oakland, CA, USA, 2022-Mar-03 — /EPR LAW NEWS/ — Cole & Van Note, a leading consumer rights law firm, announces today its investigation of Meyer Corporation, U.S. on behalf of its consumers/clients, arising out the company’s recent data breach. According to the company, the private information of a massive number of people may have been stolen in the hacking of its information network. It is currently unknown how many people have had their information used for criminal purposes.

If you received a notice of this alarming data breach and/or have transacted in any way with Meyer Corporation, U.S., your information may already be in the hands of cybercriminals, making your urgent attention to this situation very important.

Cole & Van Note is ready to discuss your options and can be contacted at (510) 891-9800, by email at sec@colevannote.com or through its website by clicking below:

Cole & Van Note has been successfully handling consumer and employee rights matters since 1992. The firm has recovered compensation for millions of individuals and stands ready to help you get paid for your losses.

Attorney Advertisement. Our previous results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome.

Full Name: Scott Cole
Organization Name: Cole & Van Note
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Email Address: sec@colevannote.com
Facebook Page
LinkedIn Page

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Billionaire Richard Branson Called a Trademark Bully by the Trademark Law Professors of University of Washington, School of Law

Westborough, MA, 2020-Jul-30 — /EPR LAW NEWS/ — Virgin has targeted to attack over 300 small companies & non-profit charities. Common sense says that the word ‘virgin’ cannot be owned by one individual or organization but Virgin has deep pockets to destroy those who dare to fight for their rights.

“Opposing trademark registrations in unrelated fields is the classic behavior of a trademark bully,” says Mike Atkins, an attorney at Atkins Intellectual Property who teaches trademark law at the University of Washington, School of Law.

That’s why it came as a surprise that Branson decided to send a threatening cease-and-desist letter (where he tells the small start up to either commit a business suicide right away or else Virgin lawyers will destroy it within 30 days) to I Am Not A Virgin, a small eco-friendly denim label, claiming that the company’s name infringes on his copyright, as the Telegraph’s Laura Hubbert reported on the case.

Richard Branson’s lawyers demanded environmentally friendly start up jeans label ‘I Am Not A Virgin’ to cancel their trademark (a trademark they have been lawfully granted and owned for almost 4 years before they received the threat letter from Branson – reports Ms. HUBBERT in her article.

“I guess I could rename my jeans Not Made By Richard Branson” – comments sarcastically the founder of the brand. Branson also demanded the small business owner cease to sell current stock of the jeans and removes them from the stores which for a small business is a financial suicide and a loss of all start up investment costs essentially leading to the end of a business.

“Common sense says that the word ‘virgin’ cannot be owned by one individual or organization. In other words, it’s stupid to claim a colour of your own, let say a word. Branson, who’s also well known for his support of environmental causes, apparently has failed to see that” – says Anderson Antunes in his Forbes article about Virgin’s abuse on small entrepreneurs.

Attorney at law, Widerman Malek, summaries in his comments: “If Richard Branson has his way, it might be. ” He adds: “Although sometimes considered a bully in the trademark office, they remain unapologetic for their stance.”

According to multiple news reports, in the past several years, the Virgin group has targeted over 300 companies who used the word Virgin in their name, URL or marketing slogan. Unfortunately, many of these 300 companies are small businesses who do not have the resources to fight back against a multi-billion dollar company with hundreds or even thousands of lawyers on their retainer. These small businesses almost always settle simply because they cannot afford to fight.

Widerman Malek brings up some of the companies Virgin attacked:

  • Virgin Vapors – a small vapor company located in California whose owner currently refuses to change its name despite being threatened by Virgin.
  • The owners of domain names virginthreads.com, virginpublishing.com, virginstar.net, and virgincigar.com. The Virgin group alleges cyberpiracy for any company using the name virgin in their domain, even if it is not their business name.
  • Author Cristina Crayn, who named one of her published books, “Tales from the Virgin Vault.”
  • Virgin Valley Cab – a cab company in the Virgin Valley geographic location of Northwest Arizona, who recently came to an agreement with conglomerate to stop using the name.
  • Las Virgenes United Educational Foundation – a nonprofit organization in the Las Virgenes School District. The Virgin Group attempted to block the trademark application. Evidently, any virgin will meet their criteria – no matter which language it’s in and if destroying charities for children is to take place.
  • I Am Not A Virgin – a New York clothing company which specializes in creating and selling denim products.
  • Virgin Air, a small airline in the American Virgin Islands, which no longer exists under this name due to Virgin’s lawsuits.
  • CBS Studios, who may be opposed by the Virgin Group in an attempt to trademark the name Jane the Virgin, which they will use as a sitcom name.
  • Last year, the Virgin group attempted to stop Valle Grande from trademarking a phrase that contained the words “virgin olive oil”, using the argument that Valle Grande currently only sells vinegar.
  • In 2004, the conglomerate sued a tiny apparel retailer called Virgin Threads in federal court in New York; the retailer dropped the name a year later as they could not afford to battle with Virgin any longer.
  • VIRGINIC – Purity Perfected – small cosmetics brand, selling “beyond organic”, handcrafted, allergy-free face creams in small batches. Virgin has been suing them with malicious, aggressive litigations, on the ongoing basis from 2018-2020 in multiple countries to starve them financially to business death, as Virgin did with other start ups. Interestingly, Virgin abandoned selling cosmetics years ago making public statements on their own website that they have no intention to sell beauty products. As of July 2020, VIRGINIC still refuses to be bullied and to give up their name.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Virgin’s unethical business practices against small start ups and non-profit foundations

Louisville, Kentucky, 2020-Jul-16 — /EPR LAW NEWS/ — When it comes to big business versus small business, the deck is, and always has been, heavily stacked in favor of the giants, making sure it stays that way. Yes, there will always be David and Goliath stories held up as the reason for hope in these battles, but reality dictates that they are almost insurmountable obstacles in the path of a small entrepreneur.

There is, however, a more insidious and corruptive side to the competition that few, if any, really see or understand at all. The legal teams.

Companies like The Virgin Group and Sir Richard Branson retain the type of law firms that see no ethical issue in destroying anything and anyone on their way, no matter the cost, the merits and the human lives and dreams destroyed along the way.

Take billing, for example. Virgin Enterprises uses Norvell IP and A. A. Thornton, type of companies that sees fit to charge by the half hour for anything that they do, including a single phone call, running up bills of around $300 per call. Yes, you read that correctly…$300 PER CALL! Equally absurdly, they charge the same to write a letter, to attend a meeting or to send an email!

 

Ok, so Virgin and Sir Richard is worth billions, they can afford these costs and who cares? It’s their choice and their wallet, right?

Well, no. They make their pray pay for it.

The thing is, as the relentless (and oftentimes frivolous) stream of trademark infringement lawsuits are filed across the globe, those costs are, almost exclusively borne not by Virgin, but by the small business that they are making their claim against.

Take the case of Wyoming start-up, VIRGINIC LLC. Virgin decided, as they have done on so many occasions in the past, that they were unhappy with the UK Intellectual Property Office awarding VIRGINIC LLC their own brand trademark “VIRGINIC”. For a little context, let’s not forget that this is the same company that sued a Virgin Olive Oil producer, the TV show “Jane The Virgin” and even a Non-profit Educational Foundation, “Las Virgenes” for children, staffed entirely by volunteer parents! If you’re like most people, this alone can leave anyone speechless. Clearly, Virgin is not afraid to throw their litigation budget around even against non-profit children care foundations.

So, Virgin took umbrage to the idea of a company VIRGINIC LLC, regardless of the fact that the UKIPO had already awarded their trademark for their name to them. Virgin attacked and yet again the UK courts decided that there was no case to be heard and VIRGINIC should keep their own trademark.

Virgin lost the case, and the subsequent appeal, with VIRGINIC being awarded the princely sum of £300 in costs, and that, in any sensible judicial process, should have been that. However, Virgin’s lawyers managed to get the UK High Court of Appeals to agree to review the appeal of the case which, upon doing so, intrestingly awarded in favor of Virgin this third time around.

And here is the fun part; When VIRGINIC, a small “David” went up against the behemoth “Goliath” of Virgin and managed to not only show that common sense is still alive and well in some legal systems, but managed to do it on a shoestring budget, whilst a mammoth task and stupendous result given the odds, it appears that the ultimately necessary penny-pinching that all start-ups are likely to be forced to adopt, is the largest chink in their armor.

The reason for this is simple: Virgin lose and the judge awards costs in the order of £300 to the start-up. £300 which Virgin never actually saw fit to pay, regardless of the fact that they spend so much time in courtrooms arguing that their rights are being infringed upon and crowing for justice. This in itself is a pointer towards where this all goes wrong. You see, they cry foul and plead for justice as if the courtroom is a sacred place where all shall find their truth. In reality, when that truth is contrary to their opinion, they simply disregard the orders of the court and find somebody else to cry to.

Now, what happens when, at the third time of asking, they manage to find themselves a “friendly” judge? Well, their costs are awarded against VIRGINIC in the sum of…

Ready for this…?

£33,000 + £10,000!
With no right to appeal any further, conveniently.

So, Virgin “loses” and the bill is £300. I would guess that the lawyers charging $300 to make a phone call would probably be happy to pay that off themselves with the cash that they dropped down the sofa last night. However, when VIRGINIC loses, all those cups of coffee that the world’s most expensive secretaries were making suddenly add up to a sum of £43,000, so exorbitant, so utterly defiant of anything even approaching a reality that is in any way sustainable, that all suddenly becomes so very clear.

Virgin and, more importantly, Virgin’s lawyers LOVE finding random reasons to drag volnurable, small businesses (and apparently non-profit foundations too) into a courtroom because it is a no-loss situation for them. They literally don’t even bother paying the measly costs generated if they lose (Virgin pays) whilst running up such absurd bills themselves that, if they win, the small business is basically financially crippled to the point where it either ceases to exist or exists only for the purposes of paying off the legal bills. Small educational foundations like “Las Virgenes” for children, staffed entirely by volunteer parents are a no match with this malice legal practice backed by deep pockets of Virgin.

Is there a happy ending here? VIRGINIC is well off its knees trying to write one as we speak. Keep your fingers crossed and maybe the Wyoming case will prove more uncorrupted justice system in the US than the UK one.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Matvil Corp. Continues Its Fight Against Illegal Actions of the Legal System of Moldova

A case of intellectual rights dispute sheds light on the corrupt legal system of Moldova

TORONTO, Canada, 2020-May-15 — /EPR LAW NEWS/ — As one of the leading online ethnic TV providers, operating in North America, Matvil Corp. discovered, there is no reliable system in place that protects legal broadcasters from dishonest competition. In their attempts to enter the US and Canadian markets, Internet pirates commit fraud and manipulate data in order to influence the corrupt legal system of Eastern European countries and try to destabilize operations of successful companies, cause financial damage and hurt their reputation.

The case Radio Star Ltd. against Matvil Corp. is a vivid proof of such practices.

On June 8, 2018, Radio Star Ltd. filed a lawsuit against Matvil Corp. in the court of Chisinau, Moldova, stating that the latter illegally broadcasted a number of Russian and Ukrainian channels on the territory of Moldova.

It should be noted right away that in support of its demands, Radio Star (Moldova), knowingly and deliberately used various methods to circumvent technical protection measures undertaken by Matvil Corp., and subsequently presented them as evidence. Using ExpressVPN program, accomplices or employees of Radio Star (Moldova), (which in this case is a media “pirate”), physically located in the Republic of Moldova, created user accounts and, using American IP addresses, with location in New Jersey, USA, registered on the Matvil Corp website, thereby creating the illusion of receiving services offered by the company.

It should be clarified that ExpressVPN program is a virtual tunnel that virtually changes the physical location of a computer or other electronic device, assigning this device a virtual IP address, indicating a virtual location anywhere in the world (at the choice of the user of this program), while physically, the electronic device is located in its territorial space.

Matvil Corp is a respectable media provider that provides online TV broadcasting services in Canada and the United States. Subscription access to the service for users from the countries of former USSR and Russia is strictly prohibited and unavailable.

However, malicious desire for illegal enrichment pushes such adversaries as Radio Star (Moldova) to resort to illegal actions, falsification, fraud and the commission of crimes using IT technologies.

Moreover, as it became known already in the framework of the trial, Radio Star (Moldova) does not have exclusive rights at all to broadcast Russian and Ukrainian television channels in the territory of the Republic of Moldova. Radio Star (Moldova) is just an agent for the distribution and conclusion of contracts with the end consumer and with a limited duration of contractual agreements.

In addition, Matvil Corp did not receive any claims from the copyright holders, and Radio Star (Moldova) did not provide any evidence that authority was granted by the copyright holders to protect their interests.

Despite all of the above, on January 18, 2019, Chisinau Court of First Instance, Judge Oksana Parfeni, ruled in favor of Radio Star, accepting all their fabricated evidence as reliable, but denied Matvil Corp representatives the right to hear IT experts / specialists and also denied the right to hear those persons who allegedly gained access to the service.

If the court were objective and impartial, then these adversaries would be asked only one question: “For what reason and why did they use ExpressVPN program, used American IP addresses, with location in New Jersey, USA, and did not try to log in on Matvil Corp website under valid Moldovan IP addresses? ”

On February 2, 2019 lawyer Matvil Corp appealed the decision of the first instance, however, even here Matvil Corp had to face partiality.

On April 5, 2019, that is, after 2 months, Chisinau Appeal Chamber issued a Decision, which decided to return the appeal because it was filed by an unauthorized person. The reason for this decision was a banal and completely illegal motive: the power of attorney issued to the company’s lawyer was allegedly not legalized in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Moldova.

It should be noted that this Decision was not sent to Matvil Corp lawyers until May 15, 2019 (apparently it was concealed in order to have the appeal dates expire). Only after applying with an official statement and demanding to indicate at what stage the filed appeal was, the court deigned to issue this Decision.

On the same day, May 15, 2019, the lawyer filed a protest against the Decision dated April 5, 2019, where it was decided to return the appeal, and on June 6, 2019, the Higher Trial Chamber of the Republic of Moldova ruled that the power of attorney was legal, and therefore obliged the Appeals Chamber to consider on its own merits the appeal about the decision of the first instance of the Court.

Thus, the first ray of hope for the objectivity and honesty of the Moldovan Judicial System appeared.

November 14, 2019 – The Appeal Court acknowledged the fact that Radio Star (Moldova) does not have any exclusive rights to broadcast TV programs and does not have the authority to protect the interest of copyright holders and, as a result, reversed the decision of the first instance and dismissed adversaries’ lawsuit.

It seemed as though that justice has triumphed!!!

However, the miracles of the legal / judicial system of Moldova continued.

Just by accident and thanks to the vigilance of the lawyers, it became known that Radio Star submitted cassation appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice on January 14, 2020.

This information appeared on the court’s website, but until today, neither Matvil Corp nor the company’s lawyer have received a copy of this complaint and have not been officially informed of its existence.

Moreover, on March 18, 2020 this complaint has already passed the admissibility procedure, and the review itself is scheduled for May 20, 2020 and, what is noteworthy, without the participation of the parties!

This series of non-compliance with the requirements of the Law by the system itself, which was created to protect it, shows that it serves the interests of a certain group of people.

Using the Moldovan judicial system, unscrupulous competitors try to destabilize the business and cause serious financial and reputational damage to American and Canadian companies that do not conduct and did not intend on conducting business in Moldova.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

UK Personal Injury Law Sees a Calm Month after June Scrutiny

2013-07-15 — /EPRLawNews.com/ — Due to the nature of claiming for a personal injury, usually with the individual going against a business, it is always going to be a turbulent world, with legislation and law always having to keep up with the advancements in technology, professions and culture. The UK is no stranger to those twists and changes, and they can sometimes put the claimant in a position where they feel uncomfortable claiming for their personal injury, at work or otherwise.

Last month for example, there was media uproar about the amount of whiplash being made in the UK, with claimants coming under fire from a number of popular newspapers, saying that 50-60% of claims were fraudulent. According to Mail Online, fraudulent claims cost insurance companies £1bn ($1.51bn), blaming ‘American style claims’ for the increase in claim figures. On top of that, the attention came alongside changes to personal injury law. The interesting thing about these remarks is that the amount of car accidents has fallen by roughly 60,000 over the last year, understandably causing some confusion about the consistent level of claims.

Despite all this, the past two weeks have been a relatively quiet period in the UK. With no changes and little media attention, we are beginning to see a calmer season, yet that doesn’t mean it’s the last of scrutiny and change for the summer. As the temperature increases there is a higher amount of people on the road, workers that do their job outside are exposed to extra risks from the heat and the school break opening holiday season, meaning that we can probably expect some more attention before the end of August.

For the outside workers, the most common injuries are slips and fall that can end in minor breakages, so you would think that that becomes less in the dry summer, however, The heat can easily cause fatigue and dehydration, making people more likely to injure themselves.

###

Jury Finds that Escort, Inc. and Beltronics USA, Inc. Infringe Two GPS Radar Detector Patents

On July 3, 2012, a jury found that Escort, Inc. (www.escortradar.com) and Beltronics USA, Inc. (www.beltronics.com) infringed numerous claims in U.S. Patent Nos. RE39,038 and RE40,653. In particular, the jury held that Escort’s Passport 9500i, Passport 9500ix, and Passport iQ radar detectors, together with Beltronics USA’s GX65 radar detectors, directly infringe claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 25, 26, 27, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. RE39,038 (“the ‘038 patent”) and claims 22, 31, 32, 33, 38, and 41 of U.S. Patent No. RE40,653 (“the ‘653 patent”). The jury also found that Escort and Beltronics contributed to the infringement of claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 25, and 28 in the ‘038 patent and claims 22, 24, 31, 32, and 33 in the ‘653 patent. The jury further found that Escort’s Passport 9500ix and Passport iQ radar detectors, together with Beltronics USA’s GX65 radar detectors, infringe claim 24 of the ‘653 patent.

The ‘038 and the ‘653 patents are owned by Hoyt Fleming, an Idaho inventor of 37 U.S. Patents. On March 10, 2009, Mr. Fleming filed a complaint (Case Number 1:09-cv-00105-BLW, United States District Court District of Idaho) alleging that Escort and Beltronics USA infringed the ‘038 and the ‘653 patents. Escort alleged that certain claims of the Fleming patents were invalid because Steven Orr, while working for Cincinnati Microwave, Inc. in 1996, made Fleming’s invention earlier in time than Fleming. On July 3, 2012, after a trial spanning more than two-weeks that included live testimony from Steven Orr, John Kuhn (Escort’s Vice President of Engineering), and John Larson (Escort’s President), the jury refused to invalidate the above claims of the Fleming patents based upon Steven Orr’s alleged prior work.

“I am very happy with the jury’s verdict because the jury held that Escort and Beltronics are infringing two of my patents. I am looking forward to a future trial in which another jury will also find that Escort and Beltronics and many of their retailers, including Best Buy and Amazon.com, are willfully infringing a third of my radar detector patents, U.S. Patent No. RE41,905,” said Mr. Fleming. Mr. Fleming is represented by Mr. Michael S. Dowler ofPark, Vaughan, Fleming, and Dowler LLP in Houston, Texas. Escort and Beltronics USA are represented by Gregory F. Ahrens and Brett A. Schatz and of Wood Herron & Evans in Cincinnati, OH together with Steven B. Andersen of Holland and Hart in Boise, ID.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Jury Finds that Escort, Inc. and Beltronics USA, Inc. Infringe Two GPS Radar Detector Patents

On July 3, 2012, a jury found that Escort, Inc. (www.escortradar.com) and Beltronics USA, Inc. (www.beltronics.com) infringed numerous claims in U.S. Patent Nos. RE39,038 and RE40,653. In particular, the jury held that Escort’s Passport 9500i, Passport 9500ix, and Passport iQ radar detectors, together with Beltronics USA’s GX65 radar detectors, directly infringe claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 25, 26, 27, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. RE39,038 (“the ‘038 patent”) and claims 22, 31, 32, 33, 38, and 41 of U.S. Patent No. RE40,653 (“the ‘653 patent”). The jury also found that Escort and Beltronics contributed to the infringement of claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 25, and 28 in the ‘038 patent and claims 22, 24, 31, 32, and 33 in the ‘653 patent. The jury further found that Escort’s Passport 9500ix and Passport iQ radar detectors, together with Beltronics USA’s GX65 radar detectors, infringe claim 24 of the ‘653 patent.

The ‘038 and the ‘653 patents are owned by Hoyt Fleming, an Idaho inventor of 37 U.S. Patents. On March 10, 2009, Mr. Fleming filed a complaint (Case Number 1:09-cv-00105-BLW, United States District Court District of Idaho) alleging that Escort and Beltronics USA infringed the ‘038 and the ‘653 patents. Escort alleged that certain claims of the Fleming patents were invalid because Steven Orr, while working for Cincinnati Microwave, Inc. in 1996, made Fleming’s invention earlier in time than Fleming. On July 3, 2012, after a trial spanning more than two-weeks that included live testimony from Steven Orr, John Kuhn (Escort’s Vice President of Engineering), and John Larson (Escort’s President), the jury refused to invalidate the above claims of the Fleming patents based upon Steven Orr’s alleged prior work.

“I am very happy with the jury’s verdict because the jury held that Escort and Beltronics are infringing two of my patents. I am looking forward to a future trial in which another jury will also find that Escort and Beltronics and many of their retailers, including Best Buy and Amazon.com, are willfully infringing a third of my radar detector patents, U.S. Patent No. RE41,905,” said Mr. Fleming. Mr. Fleming is represented by Mr. Michael S. Dowler ofPark, Vaughan, Fleming, and Dowler LLP in Houston, Texas. Escort and Beltronics USA are represented by Gregory F. Ahrens and Brett A. Schatz and of Wood Herron & Evans in Cincinnati, OH together with Steven B. Andersen of Holland and Hart in Boise, ID.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Morrell Caterers Sued in Three Lawsuits – Alleged Kosher Food Fraud, Top-Shelf Howard Fensterman Morrell, & Morrell Employees Tips

Under Jewish kosher dietary laws, you can’t mix kosher and non-kosher food at any meal or in any kitchen. If you do, then the kosher food becomes tainted and is no longer kosher.

Scott Morrell, head of one of Long Island’s largest kosher caterer, is accused by former employees of preparing and serving, over a number of years, non-kosher food in kosher kitchens – – food that he represented as kosher. This is a direct contravention of kosher dietary laws.

Two former employees of Morrell Kosher Caterers allege that as part of Morrell’s non-kosher catering business , Morrell brought non-kosher food into the kitchen of Temple Beth Torah. This food was placed on the same food preparation tables where kosher food was also being prepared, and the same pots and pans were deliberately used to cook both kosher and non-kosher food.

The result of this deliberate co-mingling of kosher and non-kosher food, pots and pans is the contamination of all the kosher food prepared in the same kitchen, from that first moment of contact onwards.

Examples of the non-kosher food introduced into the kosher kitchen by Morrell include shrimp, lobster, pepperoni, prosciutto, and sausage. Despite this, Morrell represented that the food being served at kosher events his firm catered was in fact kosher and, as such, customers were charged more money for the kosher affairs. Typically, Morrell contracts for kosher events included a charge of $800 for kosher food.
Class Action Lawsuit brought by Morrell Employees — A Second Lawsuit

But this is not all the bad news for Morrell.  A second lawsuit , a class action brought by hundreds of former Morrell employees , accuses Morrell’s company of, over a six year period, holding onto service charges included in the catering contracts — money that was earmarked for waiters, bus staff and maitre d’s. The employees said that the caterer also demanded that they give back to Scott Morrell any cash tips they received at events catered by Morrell’s company.

Howard Fensterman Morrell — A Third Lawsuit

Howard Fensterman Morrell — A third lawsuit against Morrell was by attorney Howard Fensterman. It alleges breach of contract and fraud by Morrell regarding a function hosted by Fensterman on May 29, 2010. That event was catered by Morrell’s firm. The suit accuses Morrell of substituting lower priced liquor for premium, top- shelf  liquor brands, as called for in Fensterman’s contract.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

ClaimsHeaven.co.uk Online Game Highlights Issues with Personal Injury Claims Marketing

Entertaining online consumer siteClaimsHeaven.co.uk has added a new free online game that takes a tongue-in-cheek look at the personal injury compensation industry in the UK to their array of claims resources.

If you’ve ever wondered about the personal industry claims market, and whether those adverts promising massive payouts if you have “been injured in an accident at home, at work or on the road” actually encourage a culture where people see being injured as a chance to cash in, then ClaimsHeaven.co.uk has a lot of interesting information and resources that can explain the way this controversial industry works, and help those who need to make genuine compensation claims avoid being ripped off or seduced by the promises of unscrupulous companies.

The latest tool the site offers consumers is a new free online game called Train 2 Claim that “trains” the player to become a better personal injury claimant. It involves the player’s character walking down a typical street with manhole covers and loose paving slabs, and having the ability to move to avoid these potential trip hazards. If you step on them, you’ll fall over, getting more and more injured the more times it happens. When the timer is up, you go and visit a compensation claims company to see how you’ve done. You then get a chance to try again, helping you learn what you need to do to get a bigger payout!

The game, and the supporting information can be found at:

www.claimsheaven.co.uk/games/train2claim.php

As well as being entertaining, it is intended to illustrate the problems in the personal industry claims market in the UK right now, and highlight the methods companies use that could potentially persuade people to make claims. The site is all about supporting legitimate claimants and helping people to understand the pitfalls and scams that exist in the UK claims industry, and aims to present its information through insightful, fun and interesting methods like this game.

Train 2 Claim is free to play through any popular internet browser, and users don’t need to submit any personal details to get access to the game, or any of the other information or games and resources on the site.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Long Island Attorney Steven Cohn Clears Up Misconceptions About “Extortion” — Howard Fensterman Morrell

In lawsuits, when two parties are suing each other, it has been custom and practice for decades across the U.S. that in many instances the opposing attorneys informally exchange the suits with each other before they are formally filed with the clerk of the court.

The purpose of this long-accepted courtesy is to allow the attorneys to talk together and see if any or all parts of the parties’ lawsuits can be settled or resolved before going through lengthy and expensive litigation.

This is a key tenant that enables our civil justice system to move forward efficiently and not become bogged down in endless litigation of lawsuits that otherwise could be settled out of court.

In these instances, typically, the attorney for one or both parties get to the point where they say “it may well be in our mutual financial interests to terminate or resolve all or parts of these suits.”

A recent case in point where this happened involves Scott Morrell of Long Island’s Morrell’s Caterers, one of the largest catering services on Long Island . Importantly, in early 2012, Morrell faced three lawsuits for allegedly illegal and deceitful acts.

Background: Three Lawsuits Against Morrell Kosher Caterer

One was brought by two senior employees of his catering firm. Another was initiated by hundreds of former employees, and a third lawsuit against Morrell was brought by Long Island attorney and Morrell client, Howard Fensterman [Howard Fensterman Morrell]. Morrell is a long-time friend of Fensterman with whom Morrell had participated over the last ten years in separate, outside investments.

Specifically, according to numerous news media reports, including an article in the Long Island Press of February 16, the first lawsuit – - by two senior employees of Morrell’s catering business – - accused Morrell of deliberately bringing non kosher food into what was supposed to be a kosher catering kitchen, thus effectively “contaminating” both the food and kitchen in violation of Jewish law. Examples of the non-kosher food introduced into the kosher kitchen by Morrell include shrimp, lobster, pepperoni, prosciutto, and sausage. Despite this, Morrell represented that the food being served at kosher events his firm was catering was in fact kosher and, as such, customers were charged more money for that.

The second lawsuit, by hundreds of former Morrell employees, accused Morrellscompany of, over a six year period, holding onto the service charges included in the catering contracts that were earmarked for waiters, bus staff and maitre d’s. The employees said that the caterer also demanded that they give back to Scott Morrell, personally, any cash tips they received at events catered by Morrell’s company.

The third lawsuit against Morrell, by attorney Howard Fensterman, alleges breach of contract and fraud by Morrell related to a function Fensterman hosted on May 29, 2010 — an event catered by Morrell’s firm. The suit accuses Morrell of two dishonest actions — Howard Fensterman Morrell. First, the suit accuses Morrell of charging Fensterman apremium for top shelf brands of liquor and, instead, serving lower priced brands.Second, the suit accuses Morrell of encouraging Fensterman to pay, and receiving from Fensterman, an 18 % service charge above the cost of the affair, to assure more attentive service from the Morrell staff and a higher quality affair, without telling Fensterman that he, Morrell, was going to keep the money for himself.

Morrell Tries To “Switch The Topic” — Howard Fensterman Morrell

Howard Fensterman Morrell — In an attempt to deflect public attention from these allegations , Morrell’s response was to try to change the subject, alleging that the presentation of Howard Fensterman’s lawsuit to Morrell’s attorneys, prior to its filing in court, was an attempt to “extort” Morrell.

The facts are that Long Island attorney Steve Cohn, personally hand delivered the lawsuit to the office of Morrell’s attorneys to see if a pre-filing resolution might be achieved, avoiding the monetary and emotional cost of litigation for the parties.

Morrell’s desperate action was to cry “extortion” in the hope of diverting the attention of past clients , rabbis and congregation members from his alleged actions of breach of one of the most sacred duties of a kosher caterer — in essence, serving non-kosher food to unsuspecting clients and their guests. Morrell’s diversionary tactics were also meant to shift the media attention away from his alleged acts and to try to discredit Howard Fensterman’s good name.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

RJW Joins Forces With Slater & Gordon In The UK Following ABS Licence Approval

RJW has been acquired by Slater & Gordon – the world’s first publicly listed law firm – for £53.8 million (approximately $AUD80 million). The acquisition took place on 30 April 2012 following the approval of an Alternative Business Structures (ABS) licence by the UK Solicitors Regulation Authority. The law firm notified the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) of its ABS licence approval on the same day.

Slater & Gordon was amongst the first organisations to be granted an ABS licence by the UK regulatory authority.

RJW and Slater & Gordon and announced their plans to join forces and capitalise on changes in the UK legal landscape in January of 2012, following 12 months of negotiations and due diligence.

RJW Chief Executive Officer Neil Kinsella said his team knew that changes were required to stay “at the forefront of a changing legal landscape” and Slater & Gordon was the “perfect partner” law firm.

Mr Kinsella said: “This is an exciting new chapter in our history, and an important step towards us achieving our ambition to become the largest and most trusted brand for personal legal services in the UK.

“We are in the midst of a changing landscape in the UK and we want to be at the forefront of that change – both in a regulatory sense and in service delivery.

“One thing that will not change is our commitment to make access to justice available and affordable to all, because that’s a common goal that we share with Slater & Gordon and it’s one of the things that attracted us to them in the first place.”

Slater & Gordon Managing Director Andrew Grech said it was the optimum time to enter the UK market because of the changes in ownerships laws and impending changes to the personal injury sector.

Mr Grech said: “Firms which do not adapt will simply not be able to compete effectively over the long term.

“This partnership gives RJW security so that they can continue providing a first class legal service, but it also gives them the resources needed to develop and grow whilst retaining and attracting talented people in a way that would not have been possible otherwise.”

Mr Grech said Slater & Gordon would support its UK business to continue to grow and meet the needs and expectations of their clients into the future.

He continued: “We have jointly identified the opportunities that will come as a result of the changes in the UK market and have already benefited from sharing our knowledge.

“The potential to share technology and have greater resources to retain and attract additional talented people will underpin our future success.”

RJW equity partners have exchanged ownership of a traditional partnership for share-ownership in Slater & Gordon Ltd. The partners will hold Slater & Gordon shares for a minimum of four years. RJW has traded as ‘Russell, Jones & Walker part of Slater & Gordon Lawyers’ from Monday 30 April, 2012. The acquisition includes RJW’s Claims Direct brand.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

Top-Shelf Attorney, Howard Fensterman, Claims Liquor Served at Morrell Kosher Caterers Was Anything But — Howard Fensterman Morrell

Howard Fensterman, the well respected Long Island, New York attorney and successful businessman and investor, is feeling the pain of a victim as he deals with the unpleasant realization that his long-time friend and former investment associate, Scott Morrell, head of Morrell Kosher Caterers, fraudulently deceived him by serving less expensive brands of liquor instead of the premium, top – shelf brands contracted and paid for by Fensterman for a function he hosted on May 29th, 2010 [Howard Fensterman Morrell].

Howard Fensterman Morrell

Howard Fensterman Morrell — Fensterman is accusing Morrell of breach of contract and fraud in that Morrell’s kosher catering establishment charged Fensterman for premium, top-shelf scotch and vodka, but instead served lower price brands.

While Fensterman refuses to guess how long the alleged “bait-and-switch” practice has been going on under Morrell’s watch, Fensterman has been advised that this has been a long standing practice at Morrell Kosher Caterers.

•  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/morrell-caterers-accused-violating-kosher-laws-long-island_n_1265199.html

•  http://www.newsday.com/columnists/james-bernstein/caterer-morrell-sued-again-by-wait-staff-1.3539312

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

PLS Secures Law Society Quality Mark

Cheshire-based law firm PLS Solicitors has been granted membership to the Law Society’s Conveyancing Quality Scheme (CQS), having been adjudged to have met a number of standards as laid out by the Society.

The CQS was established to provide consumers with a guide of quality for residential home-buying practices, thereby reducing fraud and driving up standards by enabling consumers to make more informed decisions when entering into the conveyance process. Law Society president John Wotton explained that with so many solicitors offering conveyancing services, it can sometimes be difficult for consumers to find a suitable firm.

“CQS improves efficiency with common, consistent standards and service levels and enables consumers to recognise practices that provide a quality residential conveyancing service,” he said. “Buying a home is one of the largest purchases anyone will make in their lifetime, so it is essential that it is done to the highest standard by a solicitor.”

Aashim Dhand, Managing Partner of PLS Solicitors welcomed the development, citing it as evidence to his company’s commitment to providing would-be homebuyers with a consistently high standard of service and helping to ensure that property transactions pass through as smoothly as possible. He also noted the difference quality conveyancing can make to alleviate much of the stress that so often goes with buying property.

Solicitors have to undergo a strict assessment in order to earn CQS accreditation – which is only open to members of the Law Society – and the initiative is backed by bodies including the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Association of British Insurers, the Legal Ombudsman and the Building Societies Association. Compulsory training, random audits and self-assessments are all essential elements of securing CQS status, and must also undergo annual reviews in order to maintain it.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases

But when will I see Granny?

Imagine a situation where both parents work and care is divided between both maternal and paternal grandparents. In an ideal world this arrangement would continue after a divorce or separation, but frequently all goodwill breaks down leaving children having to cope with new arrangements and often the loss or deterioration of a relationship with one or both sets of grandparents.

I often get asked ‘but what about my rights?’ by caring grandparents who are desperate to continue a relationship with their grandchildren. The sad, depressing, answer is that grandparents have no automatic right to make an application to the Court for contact or residence, unless the children have been living with them for at least 3 years.

Grandparents have an additional hurdle, of having to first apply to Court for‘leave’ to make an application. This application is sent to both parents, who have the opportunity to oppose, or agree to leave being granted. Only if the Judge is satisfied that it is in the child’s best interest for the application to be granted will the matter move to the next stage when a Judge will consider what, if any contact, there should be between grandparent and grandchild. That contact has to be viewed in context as often the children will be spending time with the ‘other’ parent. Frequently, the Court has to juggle complex arrangements to try to accommodate all members of the family (and the child’s school or social commitments).

The Government applauds grandparents for the vital role they play in shaping a child’s future, providing unpaid childcare so parents can return to work. However, since 1989 successive governments have so far refused to amend the law to provide grandparents the automatic right to make an application to the Court to preserve their unique relationship with grandchildren. Following the Family Justice Review, there has been a recommendation that Grandparents should be included in ‘parenting agreements’ setting out the time that children of separated parents should spend not only with Mum and Dad, but Granny and Grandpa too.

Whilst the judicial system may not be quick to help grandparents, I have used other dispute resolution such as mediation, collaborative law and family conferencing to assist in breaking the deadlock between family members and re-establishing contact.

Via EPR Network
More Law press releases