text:
- ParaguayClothingFunding via Fundación Paraguaya
San Cayetan...ParaguayClothingFunding via Fundación Paraguaya
Kuña Katupy...ParaguayClothingFunding via Fundación Paraguaya
Mujeres Virtuosas Group
Una D. esas mujeres luchadoras es Norma, quien se dedica a la venta D. joyas, trabajo gracias al cual pueD. crecer como profesional y como persona. Comenta que tiene ya una clientela que siempre prefiere comprar D. ella lo que venD.. Tiene mucha demanda y es por ello que solicita el crédito para poder cumplir con ellas.
Desea comprar pulseras, anillos, aros, tobilleras y otros tipos D. joyas. Agradece a la fundación por la oportunidad que esta les fa, pues es muy importante para el crecimiento D. todas.
Additional Information
About Fundación ParaguayaFundación Paraguaya is a financially self-sustaining social enterprise that promotes entrepreneurship in urban and rural areas through microfinance, education programs, and more. Its focus on agriculture has helped many farmers boost their crop yields. And a number of other borrowers have taken out loans to start and grow social businesses that have helped deliver eyeglasses, medicines and other helpful services in their local communities.
This is a Group Loan
In a group loan, each member of the group receives an individual loan but is part of a larger group of individuals. The group is there to provide support to the members and to provide a system of peer pressure, but groups may or may not be formally bound by a group guarantee. In cases where there is a group guarantee, members of the group are responsible for paying back the loans of their fellow group members in the case of delinquency or default.
Kiva's Field Partners typically feature one borrower from a group. The loan description, sector, and other attributes for a group loan profile are determined by the featured borrower's loan. The other members of the group are not required to use their loans for the same purpose.
About Paraguay
61View loans »
Success!! The loan was 100% repaid
- Repayment Term
- 6 months (Additional Information)
- Repayment Schedule
- Monthly
- Pre-Disbursed:
- Oct 19, 2011
- Listed
- Nov 21, 2011
- Currency Exchange Loss:
- Covered
- Ended:
- Mar 15, 2012


text: Hello everyone, I am having a desktop system . I am using Windows Xp home edition of operating system . I have just installed Microsoft Office 2007 and use excel mostly. I am working in a marketing firm as an analyst, So I spend a lot of time with MS Excel so that I can do all the calculations in it, but I have heard from my friends that a Pivot table helps more in doing a tabular analysis of data and is more flexible.Can any one comment on this. Post your replies.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
(617) 373-2026
e-mail to media @ tplp.org
May 30, 2006
Philip Morris USA v. Williams to be a watershed for punitive damages for cigarette cases and beyond
Background and Commentary
Boston, MA: The U.S. Supreme Court today granted Philip Morris's request to review a punitive damages award of $79.5 million dollars in a wrongful death lung cancer case involving a Marlboro smoker. The award was unanimously upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court earlier this year. That court cited Philip Morris's "extraordinarily reprehensible" conduct as a justification for approving the jury's punitive damages verdict.
The two questions that the U.S. Supreme Court will review are:
The Court's ruling next year will determine the role of punitive damages in our civil justice system regardless of whether cigarettes, defective motor vehicles, or rape and murder are involved.
No. 05-1256
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to
The lawsuit was brought by the family of Jesse Williams, who smoked Marlboro cigarettes for 47 years, and resulted in a jury finding that Mr. Williams and Philip Morris were equally at fault for the fatal lung cancer suffered by Mr. Williams. The jury awarded the family $800,000 in compensatory damages. In addition, the jury found that Philip Morris was guilty of common law fraud for its 50 years of lies and awarded $79.5 million in punitive damages, much of which, under Oregon law, is directed to special state funds to benefit victims of crime. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $32 million and both Philip Morris and The Estate of Jesse Williams appealed.
The Oregon Court of Appeals rejected Philip Morris's appeal but reinstated the $79.5 million punitive damages award on June 5, 2002. Philip Morris appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court but was again rebuffed. Then the company appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which had issued a decision in 2003 that can restrict awards of punitive damages that greatly exceed the underlying compensatory damages award (State Farm Insurance Co. v. Campbell). The nation's high court sent the case back to the Oregon Court of Appeals so that it could reconsider its decision to restore the full punitive damages award in light of the State Farm decision and nullified the restoration of the $79.5 million award stemming from 2002's decision.
But after applying the appropriate standards for reviewing punitive damages, on June 9, 2004, the Oregon Court of Appeals found ample reason to once again restore the jury's $79.5 million punitive damages verdict against Philip Morris. The Court, at one point in the decision, states that "it is difficult to conceive of more reprehensible misconduct for a longer duration of time on the part of a supplier of consumer products to the Oregon public than what occurred in this case." Philip Morris then appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court for the second time. This time, the highest court in Oregon agreed to review the verdict. See the Oregon Supreme Court's decision.
The court quotes State Farm on the appropriate size of punitive damages: "Single-digit multipliers are more likely to comport with due process, while still achieving the State's goals of deterrence and retribution, than awards with ratios in [the] range of 500 to 1, or, in this case [referring to Campbell v. State Farm], of 145 to 1."
Continuing to quote State Farm, the court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court, "did acknowledge, however, that even those tentative ratios might be adjusted up or down. A greater ratio might comport with due process if 'a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount of economic damages . . .'."
The court concludes by excoriating Philip Morris's behavior:
A recent Working Paper by Tobacco Control Resource Center attorney Sara D. Guardino and Northeastern University School of Law Professor Richard A. Daynard entitled "Punishing Tobacco Industry Misconduct: The Case for Exceeding a Single Digit Ratio Between Punitive and Compensatory Damages, [pdf]" supports the important role of punitive damages and distinguishes two types of reprehensibility: primary, concerning the reprehensibility of the defendant's underlying conduct, and secondary, involving the reprehensibility of the defendant's "scorched earth" litigation tactics, which often result in the plaintiff's inability to maintain an action against the defendant. [ University of Pittsburgh Law Review 2005;67.]
Edward L. Sweda, Jr., Senior Attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, noted that the,"U.S. Supreme Court has a golden opportunity to examine what the Oregon Supreme Court earlier this year unanimously termed the 'extraordinarily reprehensible' misconduct of tobacco giant Philip Morris,"
Mark Gottlieb, Director of the Tobacco Products Liability Project noted: "While we would have preferred to have seen the Court reject Philip Morris's petition outright, we believe that the Court will preserve the dual objectives of punitive damages in our civil justice system: to punish outrageous wrongdoing and deter similar reprehensible misconduct in the future. To do otherwise would effectively excuse and encourage horrendous corporate and personal misconduct. Such a result would be unthinkable."
-- ## --


text:
Review by feli214
January, 07 2014
Pros: The car was ok
Cons: Service is terrible and they charge too much money!
Review by rayks
November, 05 2013
Pros: None
Cons: Dishonest business practices and excesive added cost. Exceptionally long waits.
Review by jaffonerr
November, 03 2013
Pros: NOTHING. THEY ARE EVIL BEYOND DESCRIPTION!
Cons: Imagine a company owned and operated by SATAN.
This is it!
Review by veterantravelr
October, 10 2013
Pros: None
Cons: Unethical business
Hidden fees
Bad service
Old high-mileage cars
Review by lizislisa
September, 13 2013
Pros: There isn't one good thing to say.
Cons: Poor customer service on phone and in person, hidden fees.
Review by kbesw3
September, 09 2013
Pros: It's at LAX with a shuttle to the airport
Cons: no online insurance costs
Review by mrmeister
August, 20 2013
Pros: Horrible - no car, and uncaring staff.
Cons: Car I booked and called to confirm was not there when I arrived.
Review by toolmasterd
August, 15 2013
Pros: They Has The Car i booked.
Cons: These Guys will rip You Off !!
Review by littlesdcpa
July, 16 2013
Pros: none
Cons: manipulated me to get me to their location
Review by sali42409
March, 07 2013
Pros: The cars are in good shape. The lot attendant was helpful and nice.
Cons: Pay very close attention to extra charges. They guarantee lowest rates, BEFORE those extra charges.
Review by mmcleod3
January, 11 2013
Pros: No problems with car operations.
Cons: Lousy customer service. Dishonest employees?
Review by slavadon
January, 04 2013
Pros: None
Cons: Terrible customer service
Review by balkannomad
December, 16 2012
Pros: none!!!
Cons: arrogant customer service
Review by kayjay0403
November, 22 2012
Pros: Good rate initially and they have a good reputation.
Cons: Not open to minimal changes and obviously are not interested in customer feedback.
Review by alliec
October, 16 2012
Pros: The airconditioning in the office was nice
Cons: EVERYTHING
Review by stretch01
September, 25 2012
Pros: Car was okay
Cons: Bad service on return going to return my card
Review by portlandlinda
September, 16 2012
Pros: Great service and great price
Cons: None
Review by hinodemansion
September, 01 2012
Pros: Cheap come on
Cons: Beware unscrupulous added charges....
Review by texas-swede
August, 31 2012
Pros: Cheapest, honest, easy, no haggle, free upgrade, nice Jeep, gas station next door.
Cons: Signage at Thrifty, somewhat cold treatment, Dollar partner.
Review by quest12345
August, 21 2012
Pros: NONE!
Cons: WORST RENTAL CAR COMPANY EVER!!
Review by cheesemane
August, 20 2012
Pros: Nobody died.
Cons: They are interested only in taking money, not in providing service.