text: LeClairRyan Accountant and Attorney Liability Newsbrief TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 Arbitration Provision Does Not Compel Parties to Arbitrate Claims Arising Out of Accounting Services Provided in the Past Page 3 Forum Selection Clause Held Unenforceable As To State And Federal Employment Law Claims Page 4 Liability For Speculative Future Loss: Lessons In Advising On Property Rights And Appellate Procedure Page 5 The Independent Contractor Statute May Not Apply To Your Industry Page 6 The Cooperation Credit in Corporate Investigations According to New Justice Department Guidance Page 8 ACA Update: Two-Year Cadillac Tax Delay, More Changes Pass in Congress Page 9 New Rule for Overtime Pay Coming Later in 2016 Winter 2016 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Holds Firm's Representation of Competing Patent Clients Is Not A Per Se Conflict by Ben N. Dunlap, Esq. In Maling v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, the plaintiff alleged harm resulting from his patent counsel's failure to disclose an alleged conflict of interest. The trial court dismissed the complaint and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding because the plaintiff's claims hinge on the existence of a conflict of interest, and none was adequately alleged in the complaint, the claims were properly dismissed. In 2003, the plaintiff engaged the defendant law firm to help him obtain patents for his screwless eyeglass inventions. From 2003 to 2009, attorneys in the firm's Boston office represented the plaintiff and firm successfully obtained four separate patents for the plaintiff's inventions. Meanwhile, unbeknownst to the plaintiff, during the same period of time, lawyers in the firm's Washington, D.C. office represented a competitor in the screwless eyeglass business who also sought patents for screwless eyeglass devices. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged his counsel took too long to perform work on his patent applications and the firm's Washington, D.C. lawyers completed patent application work for his competitor more quickly. He also claimed he was harmed when the firm in 2008 declined to provide him with a legal opinion addressing similarities between his patents and the competitor's patents, causing him to lose or forgo funding for his invention. The plaintiff also alleged he invested "millions of dollars" to develop his product, which he would not have invested had the firm "disclosed its conflict of interest and/or its work on the competing … patent." The complaint included counts alleging breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, and unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of Chapter 93A. Noting "each count hinges on the existence of an undisclosed conflict of interest," the Court focused its inquiry on whether, based on the facts alleged in the complaint, a conflict arose in violation of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 1.7 provides a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation is "directly adverse to another client," or where "there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer. Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.7(a) (1), (2). In the practice of patent law, the simultaneous representation of clients competing for patents in the same technology area is known as "subject matter conflict." The plaintiff argued for a broad interpretation of Rule 1.7 that would make all "subject matter conflicts" a per se violation of the rule. The Court rejected that view and concluded, "although subject matter conflicts in patent prosecutions often may present a number of potential legal, ethical, and practical problems for lawyers and their clients, they do not, standing alone, constitute an actionable conflict that violates Rule 1.7." The plaintiff argued he and his competitor were "directly adverse" under Rule 1.7 because they were competing in the "same patent space." He argued for a broad interpretation of Rule 1.7 that would make all "subject matter conflicts" (i.e., the simultaneous representation of clients competing for patents in the same technology area) a per se violation of the rule. The Court disagreed, explaining Rule 1.7 does not bar simultaneous representation of clients whose interests are "only economically adverse." Because the plaintiff and his competitor were not competing for the same patent, but "directly adverse." The Court concluded, "although subject matter conflicts in patent prosecutions often may present a number of potential legal, ethical, and practical problems for lawyers and their clients, they do not, standing alone, constitute an actionable conflict that violates Rule 1.7." WWW.LECLAIRRYAN.COM CALIFORNIA | COLORADO | CONNECTICUT DELAWARE | GEORGIA | MARYLAND MASSACHUSETTS | MICHIGAN | NEVADA NEW JERSEY | NEW YORK | PENNSYLVANIA TEXAS | VIRGINIA | WASHINGTON, D.C. 2 The Court stated a directly adverse conflict "likely" arose in 2008 when the plaintiff sought a legal opinion addressing the likelihood he may face claims by his competitor for patent infringement. Providing the requested opinion "arguably would have rendered the interests" of plaintiff and his competitor "directly adverse" within the meaning of Rule 1.7. But because the plaintiff did not allege the firm had agreed to provide such opinions in its engagement to prosecute his patents, the Court concluded no conflict based on direct adversity had been adequately alleged. The Court also addressed whether the firm's representation of the competitor "materially limited" its representation of the plaintiff in violation of Rule 1.7(a)(2). The "critical inquiry" under Rule 1.7(a)(2) is whether the lawyer has a competing interest that will "materially interfere" with the lawyer's independent judgment in considering alternatives or courses of action that reasonably should be pursued on the client's behalf. The plaintiff argued his counsel "pulled its punches" and obtained more for his competitor than for him. But the Court concluded the plaintiff provided "little more than speculation" that his lawyers' judgment was impaired or that he obtained a "less robust patent" than if he had been represented by other, "conflict-free" counsel. For example, he did not allege his patent applications were altered in light of his competitor's applications or his confidential information was disclosed to his competitor. The Court concluded on a cautionary note, urging lawyers to implement "robust" conflict check systems adequate to detect potential conflicts. "[M] isuse of client confidences and the preferential treatment of the interests of one client, to the detriment of nearly identical interests of another, are serious matters that cannot be reconciled with the ethical obligations of our profession." Thus, although the Court declined to adopt a per se rule against subject matter conflicts under the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, and the facts pled by the plaintiff did not otherwise state a claim for "direct adversity," it appears on slightly different facts a conflict may be created, and a law firm may face liability should it fail to detect and disclose it. Contact the author at email@example.com. In Merrimack Coll. v. KPMG LLP, Appeals Court No. 15-P-122, 2015 WL 9597898 (Jan. 6, 2016), the Appeals Court ruled that an agreement to arbitrate contained in an engagement letter for audit services for fiscal year 2005 did not compel the parties to arbitrate disputes that arose over services for previous years. The Court ruled the intent of the documents was that the agreement to arbitrate would apply only to services for fiscal year 2005, and not previous years. The defendant, KPMG LLP ("KPMG"), performed annual audits for the plaintiff, Merrimack College ("Merrimack"). Merrimack alleged KPMG committed malpractice when it failed to detect serious financial irregularities that occurred in Merrimack's financial aid office during fiscal years 1998 through 2004. Merrimack had hired KPMG to perform auditing services for those years through a succession of separate annual engagement letters. None of the engagement letters from 1998 through 2004, makes any mention of arbitration as an available or mandatory means for the parties to resolve disputes that might arise between them. The 2005 agreement spelled out specific auditing services that KPMG would provide to Merrimack during that year. The 2005 engagement letter expressly contemplated that KPMG could provide "other services" to Merrimack, as may be agreed to by the parties during the course of the year. The 2005 engagement letter included a mandatory dispute resolution provision. In pertinent part, that provision stated any dispute arising out of "the engagement letter between the parties, the services provided thereunder, or any other services provided by or on behalf of KPMG" to Merrimack shall be resolved by arbitration. The 2005 engagement letter stated "the parties agree to forego [sic ] litigation over such disputes in any court of competent jurisdiction." The question the Court had to answer was whether, as a matter of contract law, the parties agreed that the dispute resolution provision in the 2005 engagement letter was intended to apply retroactively to disputes arising under their earlier agreements. The dispute resolution provision included in the 2005 engagement letter applied to disputes "arising out of or relating to" three categories of things: (1) "the engagement letter," (2) "the services provided thereunder," and (3) "any other services" that KPMG provided. KPMG acknowledged the past services it provided to Merrimack pursuant to earlier engagement letters do not fit within the first two categories. Instead, KPMG claims its pre–2005 services fit within the phrase "any other services" that KPMG provided. The Appeals Court held notwithstanding the breadth of the term "any other services provided," the only reasonable interpretation of that language in the context of the engagement letter is in reference to services that KPMG would perform after the new contract was executed. The engagement letter was a "forward thinking" document, referring to services KPMG would perform in the future for fiscal year 2005. Had KPMG wanted to insist that Merrimack forfeit its existing rights to pursue a civil action for past disputes, it easily could have included language expressly stating the dispute resolution provision had retroactive application. The Court made it clear the 2005 agreement to arbitrate could have been written in a way to include services provided by KPMG in previous years, but did not do so in this case. When an accountant chooses to include an agreement to arbitrate in its engagement letters, that provision should clearly state the scope of the claims to be arbitrated. If the intent is to bind the parties to arbitrate any claims for services provided in past years, the engagement letter must clearly state that intention. Contact the author at email@example.com. Arbitration Provision Does Not Compel Parties to Arbitrate Claims Arising Out of Accounting Services Provided in the Past by Matthew M. O'Leary, Esq. Winter 2016 3 The Massachusetts Federal District Court has held claims brought by a class of Massachusetts workers against an out-of-state company for alleged employment law violations were not subject to a forum selection clause contained in each of the workers' service-provider agreements with the company. Reasoning that the workers' state and federal employment law claims for alleged misclassification, failure to pay overtime, failure to distribute gratuities, and failure to reimburse expenses were not dependent upon the existence of the service-provider agreements, the Court in Chebotnikov v. LimoLink, Inc., No. CV 14-13475-FDS, 2015 WL 8664206 (D. Mass. Dec. 11, 2015) held the out-of-state company was required to defend against the plaintiffs' claims in Massachusetts despite a forum-selection clause designating Iowa as the exclusive jurisdiction for all disputes "arising from" each worker's service-provider agreement with the company. By focusing on the particular language of the service-provider agreements, the Court's decision in LimoLink provides an important lesson for employers and their counsel to heed when drafting future contracts. Significantly, the rationale for the decision in LimoLink does not appear to be confined to the forum-selection clause context presented in that case. As such, the lesson of this case appears to apply broadly to other contractual provisions such as mediation and arbitration clauses as well. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE The plaintiff, Vladimir Chebotnikov, was a limousine driver and resident of Massachusetts who was employed by the defendant, LimoLink, Inc., a chauffeur services company with its headquarters located in Iowa. LimoLink brokers chauffeur services provided by drivers such as Mr. Chebotnikov whom LimoLink classifies as independent contractors. Mr. Chebotnikov brought a putative class action in the Massachusetts Federal District Court alleging that in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 149, LimoLink had failed to properly classify its drivers as "employees," and that the company also had failed to pay overtime, distribute gratuities, and to compensate its drivers for expenses related to their employment as required by state and federal law. Based on a mandatory forum-selection provision contained in LimoLink's service-provider agreements with each of its drivers, LimoLink moved to dismiss and/or transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. The forum-selection clause contained in the SAVE THE DATE LeClairRyan's Annual Accountant Liability Seminar Seminar June 23, 2016 Half-Day Morning Program Westin Waltham in Waltham, MA service-provider agreement signed by each of LimoLink's drivers provided in relevant part: In the event that the parties … litigate any disputes arising under this Agreement, the Parties hereby agree to the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts of Iowa for resolution of any dispute arising from this Agreement. THE COURT'S DECISION Focusing on the terms "arising from" and "arising under" contained in the forum-selection clause, Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV, denied LimoLink's motion holding the plaintiffs' claims could proceed in Massachusetts. As Judge Saylor explained: "[i]t is the language of the forum-selection clause itself that determines which claims fall within its scope." Examining the particular language contained in the service-provider agreements, Judge Saylor found that "disputes 'arising under,' 'arising out of,' or 'arising from' the terms of an agreement must have their inception in the agreement itself, instead of merely being related to the agreement or the relationship of the parties." Judge Saylor reasoned the terms "arising from" and "arising under" generally are construed more narrowly than phrases absent from the forum-selection clause such as "with reference to," "relating to," or "in connection with." Thus, the Judge held "only disputes that are sourced in the terms of the agreement are subject to the forum-selection clause." In reaching his conclusion that the Plaintiffs' claims against LimoLink did not "arise out of" or "arise from" the terms of the service provider agreements, and thus were not subject to the forum-selection clause, Judge Saylor cited Pacheco v. St. Luke's Emergency Associates, P.C., 879 F.Supp.2d 136 (D.Mass.2012), an earlier decision of the Massachusetts Federal District Court also involving a worker's claims to recover payments allegedly owed under the FLSA. In Pacheco, the defendant employer argued the plaintiff's claims were subject to a forumselection clause, which by its terms was applicable to disputes "derived out of the [employment] agreement." Construing the word "derive" to mean "take, receive, or obtain especially from a specified source," the Court in Pacheco found the rights the plaintiff sought to enforce "derived" from the FLSA and thus were "not dependent on any provision of the employment agreement." The Pacheco Court reasoned the plaintiff sought to enforce the terms of the employment agreement, rather than to enforce rights "deriving out of" the FLSA. Thus, the Court Forum Selection Clause Held Unenforceable As To State And Federal Employment Law Claims by David A. Slocum, Esq. Winter 2016 4 held because the forum selection clause at issue in Pacheco was limited to claims "derived" from the employment contract, it did not apply to the plaintiff's FLSA claims. Judge Saylor found the Court's decision in Pacheco to be persuasive, and applied the same analysis to the limousine drivers' state and federal employment law claims against LimoLink. Thus, Judge Saylor held: Because the rights LimoLink's drivers assert "arise out of" state and federal law and not out of the terms of the service-provider agreements, those claims were not subject to the forum-selection clause contained in the service provider agreements. TAKEAWAY / LESSONS LEARNED Employers and their counsel who draft employment agreements should take note of the LimoLink decision, which reinforces and extends the principle recognized in Pacheco. Together, LimoLink and Pacheco teach that when a worker brings claims alleging violations of state or federal employment laws, Massachusetts Courts will hold that those claims are not dependent upon the worker's employment agreement. In light of these decisions, an employer who seeks to include a forum-selection clause in its employment agreements that will be enforceable as to statutory employment law claims must take care to use broadly-worded In Brissette v. Ryan, 88 Mass.App.Ct. 606 (2015), a three–judge panel of the Appeals Court of Massachusetts overturned a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a professional negligence case finding an absence of an actual or threatened loss where the claimed damages stemmed from the loss of a property right. In Brissette, Robert and Marie Brissette sought professional advice from their attorney, Ryan, to protect their home from Medicaid liens should either require long-term care. Ryan advised that transferring title in their home to their four adult children and reserving life estates was necessary to protect their home. As a further protective measure, Ryan held in escrow a deed transferring the home back to the Brissettes in the event that the Brissettes wished to sell the home. Thirteen years after the life estates were created, the Brissettes and two of their adult children, Paul and Cynthia met again with Ryan. During this meeting, the Brissettes discussed the planned sale of their South Hadley home so that they could acquire a new property in Springfield. At this time, Ryan advised, if life estates were created for the Brissettes they would be ineligible for Medicaid should a claim need to be made in the near future, and there may also be the risk of a Medicaid lien being placed over any acquired Springfield property. Relying on Ryan's advice that the children could be trusted, and protection was not available without attendant risk, the Brissettes sold the South Hadley property, and reimbursed Paul with the proceeds for his purchase of the Springfield property. The title to the Springfield property was placed in the names of the Paul and Cynthia. Mr. Brissette passed away the following year. Mrs. Brissette then asked her children to transfer the title to her. They refused to do so. At the time of the refusal, Cynthia had transferred her ownership to a revocable trust that contained a provision allowing Marie to reside in the home as long as Liability For Speculative Future Loss: Lessons In Advising On Property Rights And Appellate Procedure by Justin J. Twigg, Esq. she wished; however, it would not provide any funds to her in the event that Marie no longer wished to remain there or the property was sold. Paul also established a revocable trust granting Marie a life estate, but Marie would lose her right to reside in the event she failed to live there for three consecutive months or more than 180 days in any year. Marie also had no ability to rent, sell or mortgage any interest in the property under the wording of Paul's trust. Such rights would have been available under a life estate. At trial, Marie's theory of damages was that she would have obtained a life estate for the sum of $193,000 in the Springfield property but for Ryan's negligent advice. She argued she could be subject at any moment to removal by her children, or being forced out by a judgment creditor of either of the children or any buyer. In addition, Marie had no ability to rent the property or mortgage her interest for value. The jury found Ryan was negligent and awarded damages of $100,000. Following the verdict, Ryan moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the basis that there was no actionable harm given the fact that neither of the children had any intention to evict Marie from her residence in Springfield, nor had Marie formed any desire to rent or mortgage any interest she might have had if a life estate had been reserved to her. Ryan argued Marie suffered no present loss entitling her to damages. The trial judge agreed. The Appeals Court reversed, finding that the loss of the life estate was a cognizable injury with resulting damage allowing redress. Implicit in the Appeals Court's finding is that the deprivation of any property interest is a recoverable loss, notwithstanding the absence of any pecuniary loss or immediate risk to any right of residence. While an argument may have been available to Ryan that the loss was speculative, it was not presented to the Appeals Court, and was treated language. Under LimoLink and Pacheco, it is clear that language such as "deriving from" or "arising under" will not suffice. Rather, it will be necessary to use more expansive language such as "with reference to," "relating to," "in connection with" or "any disputes between." Depending on the particular circumstances and the goals the employer seeks to achieve, it may also be advisable to include an express reference to claims asserting rights arising or deriving from state or federal statutes. Finally, it should be noted that the Court's analysis in LimoLink appears to be broadly applicable beyond the enforceability of a forum-selection clause against an out-of-state employer. Indeed, it appears that the same rationale would apply to the enforceability of other provisions of an employment agreement such as a provision requiring mediation or arbitration of all claims "derived from" or "arising out of" the parties' employment agreement. Similarly, there is nothing in either the LimoLink or Pacheco decisions that would limit their rationale to employers of any particular industry or to out-of-state employers. Thus, when contracting with workers in Massachusetts, employers across all industries and in all locations should carefully heed the lessons learned from LimoLink and Pacheco. Contact the author at email@example.com. Winter 2016 5 as waived. Had the argument been presented, it may have been successful due to the inability of a jury to reach a proper figure of damages for a loss that would not be incurred, if at all, until an undetermined point in the future. The case is an important reminder of the special value that Courts continue to place in real property rights and the necessity for appellate counsel to brief all arguments on appeal. Contact the author at firstname.lastname@example.com. The Independent Contractor Statute May Not Apply To Your Industry by Patrick E. McDonough, Esq. The Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") recently determined that the Independent Contractor Statute in Massachusetts, G.L. c. 149, § 148B, did not apply to real estate salespersons licensed by the Commonwealth under the real estate licensing scheme, G.L. c. 112, §§ 87PP through 87DDD1/2, and G.L. c. 112, §§ 65A through 65E. Monell et al. v. Boston Pads LLC et al., 471 Mass. 566 (2015). The real estate licensing scheme specifically allows for the classification of real estate salespersons as either employees or independent contractors. The SJC concluded that, because a real estate salesperson could not meet both the terms of the real estate licensing scheme as well as the three indicia required to prove he or she is an independent contractor under the Independent Contractor Statute, the real estate licensing scheme prevailed and parties cannot be liable for classifying real estate salespersons as independent contractors under the laws of the Commonwealth. The three named corporate defendants were separate Massachusetts corporations doing business as "Boardwalk Properties" (the "businesses"). The businesses were licensed Massachusetts real estate brokerage firms who specialized in renting and selling real estate in Massachusetts. Another named defendant was a member and shareholder of the business entities who also served as the broker of record for the businesses. The plaintiffs were all licensed Massachusetts real estate salespersons who worked for the businesses under the businesses' real estate brokers' licenses. Under the Massachusetts real estate broker and salesperson licensing scheme, licensed salespersons conduct business with, or are affiliated with, a licensed real estate broker. Absent a brokerage license, real estate salespersons may not conduct business within the Commonwealth. The businesses classified the plaintiffs as independent contractors during the course of the plaintiffs' relationship with the businesses. At the outset of plaintiffs' relationship with the businesses, the businesses required plaintiffs to sign nondisclosure, nonsolicitation and noncompete agreements. The businesses also required plaintiffs to 1) undergo a training program, 2) purchase a day planner, 3) adhere to a dress code, and 4) submit to various disciplinary actions if plaintiffs did not meet their productivity goals. During plaintiffs' time working for the businesses, the businesses required plaintiffs to perform clerical and administrative tasks for the businesses, as well as complete monthly "office hours" that required them to answer phone calls from prospective clients. The businesses compensated plaintiffs exclusively pursuant to a commissiononly policy, which expressly stated plaintiffs would not be treated as employees "with respect to compensation for taxes and any other purpose." Plaintiffs earned commissions upon completion of a rental or sales transaction, and were typically due commissions of a percentage of the transaction's gross commission. The plaintiffs filed suit in Massachusetts Superior Court in 2011, alleging among other claims that the defendants violated the Massachusetts Independent Contractor statute by misclassifying them as independent contractors rather than employees. The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on this count; the Superior Court denied plaintiffs' motion and instead granted partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The defendants argued the real estate licensing scheme controlled defendants' classification of plaintiffs, and the scheme allows for classification of salespersons as either employees or independent contractors. The motion judge determined there was a conflict between the independent contractor and real estate salesperson statutes such that a real estate salesperson would not be able to satisfy all three indicia of the Independent Contractor statute. Because of this conflict, the motion judge concluded that the real estate salesperson licensing statute controlled, rather than the Independent Contractor statute, and as a result, the defendants did not fail to properly classify the plaintiffs as employees. As a result, defendants were not liable for violations of the Independent Contractor statute. The plaintiffs dismissed the remaining counts without prejudice in order to pursue this appeal. On appeal, the SJC affirmed the Superior Court's grant of partial summary judgment to the defendants for substantially similar reasons. The SJC first noted that the Independent Contractor Statute creates a presumption of classification as an employee, and a company may only overcome this presumption if it can concretely establish three separate indicia (the "independent contractor test"): (1) the individual "is free from control and direction" in his or her performance of the service for which he or she is paid; (2) the service is performed "outside the usual course of business of the employer"; and (3) "the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed." In contrast, the real estate salesperson licensing scheme prevents a salesperson from conducting business when not working as a representative of the licensed broker. The licensing scheme is inherently restrictive in nature, in that a salesperson would never be able to prove he or she was performing outside the usual course of the broker's business, a prerequisite for meeting the second indicia of the independent contractor test. In addition, because the licensing statute expressly prevents a salesperson from operating his or her own real estate business, salespersons cannot meet the third indicia of the independent contractor test that requires the person be "customarily engaged in an independently established" business. According to the SJC, the licensing scheme therefore makes it "impossible" for a salesperson to satisfy the three requirements for classification as an independent contractor. The conflict between the Independent Contractor statute and the real estate licensing scheme necessarily required the SJC to determine which statute ultimately controlled whether plaintiffs could be classified as independent contractors under the law. The SJC determined the statutes could not be construed in harmony with each other given this Winter 2016 6 conflict, and as a result, held that the real estate licensing scheme—not the Independent Contractor statute—governed classification of real estate salespersons. The SJC found the real estate licensing scheme is a "specific" statute the Legislature drafted specifically to reflect the fact that real estate brokers and salespersons operate in the "highly regulated field" of real estate transactions, the scope of which implicates a broad range of statutory and regulatory provisions. Because the real estate licensing scheme was more specific than the general Independent Contractor statute, the SJC determined it controlled classification of real estate salespersons. Accordingly, the defendants did not improperly classify the plaintiffs as independent contractors given the licensing scheme's express allowance of this classification. The SJC's holding likely implicates many other industries within the Commonwealth that are governed by specific licensing statutes the Legislature created to protect the publics interests. In instances where the Legislature has crafted a specific scheme by which persons operating in the industry must be licensed under the laws of the Commonwealth, these statutory schemes—and not the Independent Contractor statute—may apply to questions of classification. As the SJC noted in this matter, the Legislature enacted these comprehensive licensing schemes only when the profession in question is a matter of public interest. Determining whether a licensed professional in this industry may comply with both the licensing scheme at issue and the Independent Contractor statute is a fact-dependent inquiry, and not all licensing schemes will necessarily create such conflict. However, the licensing scheme will prevail where it is impossible for a licensed professional to comply with both the applicable licensing scheme and the Independent Contractor statute. The SJC's holding likely shields employers from potential liability for misclassification where the licensing scheme expressly allows licensed professionals in the field to be classified as independent contractors. Contact the author at firstname.lastname@example.com. The Cooperation Credit in Corporate Investigations According to New Justice Department Guidance by Madeleine Cassetta, Esq. In a new memorandum issued to all federal prosecutors and made available to all civil litigators Sept. 9, Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates outlined certain nonmandatory steps government attorneys should strongly consider in criminal and civil corporate investigations to ensure that the individuals who perpetrated the corporate wrongdoing are held accountable. The idea of individual accountability for corporate misconduct is not new. In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice has long expected that corporations seeking to avoid charges voluntarily cooperate with government investigators, including by identifying culpable individuals. Indeed, voluntary cooperation has been considered a mitigating factor for a corporation facing potential charges. As Yates acknowledged, in the past companies have been awarded partial cooperation credit even if they stopped short of identifying the individuals involved in the wrongdoing. The Yates memorandum puts corporations and counsel on notice that half-hearted cooperation efforts will no longer be rewarded. Recognizing the challenges government attorneys face in holding culpable individuals accountable for corporate wrongdoing, Yates firmly stated, "No more partial credit for cooperation that doesn't include information about individuals." While it remains to be seen what — if any — long-term effects this new all-or-nothing approach will have for pending and future investigations, the message is clear: Corporations seeking to avoid formal charges by cooperating with government attorneys will have an uphill battle absent clear evidence of complete cooperation. Nuts and Bolts of the Yates Memo The Yates memorandum sets forth six specific measures that federal prosecutors and civil attorneys are to consider in corporate investigations. The first point relates to the department's expectations of corporations seeking cooperation credit, while the other five address how government attorneys are expected to conduct, develop and resolve corporate investigations. As an initial requirement, to be eligible for any cooperation credit, corporations must conduct a thorough investigation of the wrongdoing, identify all culpable individuals, produce all non-privileged information to the department and agree to continued cooperation regarding the culpable individuals even after the corporation investigation ends. This threshold requirement of complete cooperation applies to criminal as well as civil investigations. The remaining factors address what corporations should do from the inception of the investigation: • Criminal and civil corporate investigations should focus on individual accountability. • Criminal and civil attorneys handling corporate investigations should develop and coordinate civil and criminal proceedings and be in routine communication with each other. • Absent extraordinary circumstances, no corporate resolution should protect any individual from criminal or civil liability. • Corporate cases should not be resolved without a clear plan to resolve related individual cases before the statute of limitations expires, and any decision not to pursue an individual involved in the alleged misconduct must be memorialized and approved. • In considering whether to bring a civil action against the alleged culpable individuals, civil attorneys should evaluate each case based on considerations beyond the individual's ability to pay. Cooperation Credit Requirements Analyzed Prior to the Yates memorandum, corporations could gain cooperation credit based on their "willingness to provide relevant information and evidence and identify relevant actors within and outside the corporation, including senior executives," according to the Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations as revised in 2008 by thenDeputy Attorney General Mark Filip. In comparison, the Yates memorandum is drafted in a sharper tone in that the cooperation credit requirements are stated in absolute and categorical terms. Paradoxically, however, these terms also happen to be vague and ambiguous. Winter 2016 7 The Yates memorandum sets forth four components to the cooperation credit requirements, and these components are expected to be incorporated into the U.S. Attorneys' Manual. First, corporations seeking any cooperation credit must identify all culpable individuals, regardless of their position on the corporate ladder. This is a tall order, as Yates herself recognized the complexity of corporate wrongdoing. Responsibility is often diffuse, and high-level executives are rarely involved in the day-today activity in which the misconduct occurs. Nevertheless, as a second component of the required cooperation, corporations seeking credit cannot plead ignorance or fail to learn the identity of the culpable individuals. Instead, they must take necessary steps to identify those responsible for or directly involved in the wrongdoing. In other words, corporations must conduct thorough internal investigations that are narrowly tailored to the specific corporate misconduct. Failure to do so will disqualify corporations from being considered for cooperation credit, even if they cooperate in other aspects of the investigation. In a speech at the Second Annual Global Investigations Review Conference held in New York on Sept. 22, Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell said the department does not intend to "outsource" its investigation of corporate wrongdoing to companies and their outside advisors. Nevertheless, the implication of the new requirements appears to be that companies must build up the case for government attorneys in order to qualify for any cooperation credit. Thus, the Yates memorandum effectively deputizes corporations to help the department bring the culpable individuals to justice. As Caldwell explained, "[C]ompanies seeking cooperation credit must affirmatively work to identify and discover relevant information about culpable individuals through independent, thorough investigations." Third, corporations seeking credit must produce the result of any internal investigation. They must provide government attorneys with "complete factual information about individual wrongdoers" as well as "all relevant facts about their misconduct." It is unclear what "complete" factual information about individual wrongdoers actually constitutes. With respect to "all" facts relating to misconduct, the question is how much detail is required in an era in which corporate servers contain terabytes of data. Are corporations now required to become expert sleuths capable of tracking any and all clues to their full conclusion? Both Yates and Caldwell recommend that defense counsel call the responsible government attorney to clarify the scope of investigation if necessary. The question, however, is whether the government attorneys have any incentive to provide any substantive advice. The Yates memorandum calls on government investigators to compare any information received from the corporation against information gathered from their own investigation. These results are then used to determine whether the corporation is fully forthcoming or whether it seeks to minimize the role of any one person or group of individuals. Caldwell also attempted to assure the corporate world that the department is not asking the impossible. "[The department] recognize[s], however, that a company cannot provide what it does not have. And [the department] understand[s] that some investigations — despite their thoroughness — will not bear fruit," she said. "Where a company truly is unable to identify the culpable individuals following an appropriately tailored and through investigation, but provides the government with the relevant facts and otherwise assists [it] in obtaining evidence, the company will be eligible for cooperation credit." When analyzed more closely, however, this statement is as elusive as the Yates memorandum's guidance. Whether an internal investigation is "appropriately tailored and thorough" is subject to the discretion of the government's attorneys. Another issue raised by the disclosure requirement is the dilemma of privileged information. Generally, when internal investigations are conducted by counsel or at the direction of attorneys — and for the purpose of providing legal advice to the corporation — the information obtained is privileged. While the Yates memorandum says corporations are expected to provide non-privileged evidence implicating the responsible parties, the department's approach to evaluating cooperation may give government attorneys a way to do indirectly what they cannot do directly: to require that corporations produce privileged information. In fact, the Yates memorandum instructs government attorneys to "strive to obtain from the company as much information as possible about responsible individuals before resolving the corporate case." Caldwell attempted to clarify the issue of privilege waivers, stating that the new guidance does not change existing department policy regarding the attorney-client privilege or work product protection. Government attorneys, she said, will not request a corporate waiver of these privileges in connection with corporation cooperation. However, she did not address the department's general expectation of disclosure of underlying facts contained within privileged materials or situations where individual culpability cannot be established even after a good-faith investigation. Therefore, the corporation may have no choice but to waive privilege to demonstrate the basis for its conclusion if it wants to be considered for cooperation credit. Finally, the Yates memorandum says the requirement that corporations fully cooperate will continue even after the corporate investigation resolves, either by way of corporate plea agreement or settlement agreement. Corporations should expect any plea or settlement agreement to include this requirement of continued cooperation, including the requirement to provide any additionally acquired information about the individuals implicated in or responsible for the wrongdoing. Failure to do so will be considered a material breach of the agreement and grounds for revocation or stipulated penalties. To be clear, the cooperation credit is not guaranteed even when a corporation meets the threshold requirement of producing the results of Winter 2016 8 its (thorough) internal investigation, including facts about the responsible parties. Rather, by meeting this requirement the corporation merely becomes eligible for consideration for cooperation credit. The Yates memorandum enumerates some eligibility factors. When determining the extent of the cooperation credit, government attorneys will consider factors including "the timeliness of the cooperation, the diligence, thoroughness, and speed of the internal investigation [and] the proactive nature of the cooperation." While these factors are not new, their application in the context of the department's all-or -nothing approach remains unclear. Steps to Consider in Response to the New Guidance Corporations that take affirmative steps to ensure that their response to any corporate wrongdoing is appropriate under the circumstances will probably be in a better position to secure cooperation credit. As part of best practices, therefore, companies may want to take some general preventive steps, including to: In a rare display of bipartisan cooperation, Congress recently passed major spending and tax bills, that, among other things, amended the Affordable Care Act's ("ACA") so-called Cadillac Tax by delaying its implementation for two years. The Cadillac Tax was set to begin in 2018, and would have imposed a 40% non-deductible excise tax on that portion of a group health plan's premiums that exceeded $12,200.00 for single coverage, and $27,500.00 for family coverage. Instead, this new bill delays the Cadillac Tax until 2020. One concern over the Cadillac Tax that has alarmed employers and unions alike is the perception that healthcare costs will not stay in check, as they are rising far faster than CPI inflation. This point is critical since the Cadillac Tax's ceiling is increased annually by an inflation index. As a result, many argue that the vast majority of health plans will eventually exceed the Cadillac Tax ceiling given projected increases in healthcare costs. The obvious question, therefore, is whether the Cadillac Tax will be implemented in the future or be repealed. While both political parties are seemingly working to scrap it, the excise tax from the Cadillac Tax was designed to be a major source of revenue to cover the ACA's ongoing costs, including its tax credits. Moreover, the bill signed by the President last Friday, provides for tax deductions of the employer's/sponsor's payment of the excise tax. No study, however, has been done concerning what the impact will be with respect to revenue shortfalls caused by eliminating the Cadillac Tax or allowing a deduction for excise taxes paid. (As you may recall, the ACA, when first enacted, was purported to be a "revenue neutral" enactment, which now seems very unlikely.) Another question raised by this legislation is whether the current trend towards limiting healthcare costs will continue. Employers may not continue to implement cost control structures to avoid triggering the excise tax if the perception is that the Cadillac Tax may be repealed. Accordingly, while the road ahead is uncertain, it does seem clear that • Implement and review existing internal investigation policies, including ethics and compliance programs, to ensure for a thorough program designed to deter, identify and remediate violations of laws and regulations, and provide relevant training and effective reporting mechanisms. • Document management's response to issues brought to its attention, and adopt appropriate measures to demonstrate good faith on the part of the company's executives in the operation of the company. • Review bylaws to determine whether the company is obligated to indemnify and advance legal expenses and costs to employees and senior executives. • Review employment contracts to ensure individuals are required to cooperate in internal investigations. • Review corporate insurance to ensure it is mandatory, automatically triggered and provides sufficient protection. • Become familiar with data privacy laws of any foreign country in which the corporation is present. • Adopt legal strategies to minimize the risk of losing applicable legal privileges. Contact the author at firstname.lastname@example.com. ACA Update: Two-Year Cadillac Tax Delay, More Changes Pass in Congress by James P. Anelli, Esq. the next President will be left with a major issue in deciding how to pay for the costs of the ACA and how to control increases in healthcare costs in general with respect to an aging baby-boomer population. We note that this tax bill also included a freeze on the ACA's medical device tax for 2016 and 2017 and further provides that the U.S. Controller General and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners should study whether the ACA uses a suitable benchmark to calculate the Cadillac Tax's ceiling and whether it accurately takes into account both age and gender factors. In the final analysis, therefore, even with this delay, many companies will likely need to implement further measures to avoid the Cadillac Tax in 2020 if it is not repealed, although the ability to deduct this excise tax may help, to some degree, in mitigating this tax's overall impact. Contact the author at firstname.lastname@example.com. Winter 2016 9 Winter 2016 New Rule for Overtime Pay Coming Later in 2016 by Joan C. McKenna, Esq. Employers anxious to learn what exactly will be required of them under new overtime rules will need to wait a bit longer to learn what exactly those rules will require, according to a U.S. Department of Labor statement last week. The Department of Labor (DOL) has proposed amending the rules that govern overtime for salaried workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by more than doubling the salary threshold for mandatory overtime coverage. If the rules are revised as anticipated, in 2016, about 5 million more American employees will be eligible for overtime wages, and employer payrolls will swell as a result. The new regulations were anticipated to be rolled out in early 2016, but last week, the Solicitor of Labor, Patricia Smith, announced that the rules may not be forthcoming until later next year. Ms. Smith cited the large volume of comments received in response to the proposed rule--nearly 300,000, many in opposition--as the reason for the delay. However, analysts predict that the delay may indicate that the DOL is considering making changes to the duties test. Although the DOL's proposed rule did not suggest changing the duties test, it did ask for public comment regarding the test and said that the agency was considering whether revisions to the test were necessary. The Proposed New Rules Under the proposed DOL regulations, the salary at which workers become exempt from overtime will jump from $23,660 to $50,440--nearly the median U.S. household income. All employees earning less than $50,440 (or $970.00 per week) will now be eligible for overtime pay, thus sweeping in some managers and supervisors into the overtime-eligible pool. In order to be exempt from this overtime rule, a worker must be paid a fixed salary that meets the new $50,440 threshold, and his or her primary duty must be executive, administrative or professional. The second half of this "white collar" exemption rule is called the "duties test." Real Cost to Employers The Obama Administration touts the change as a boost to "help shore up the middle class," and the DOL asserts that the revisions will simplify the overtime exemption rule, making it "easier for employers and workers to understand." Although the salary threshold provides a clear standard that might reduce wage disputes and litigation costs in the long term, right now the impending change is making employers rush to reallocate work and recalculate costs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S employers spend an average of $540.80 per employee on overtime each year. Apply that price tag to the 5 million additional workers eligible for overtime under the new rule and you're looking at a cost to employers of $2 billion in the first year of implementation, estimates the Wall Street Journal. Uncertainties Remain Despite the bright-line rule, questions linger about what counts as compensation--such as bonuses and other forms of payments that may not count toward salary--as well as when the final rule will be issued. Together, this invitation for public comment and the recent news about the rule's delay raise concerns that the DOL could make substantial changes to the duties test when it issues the final regulations. This could create a particular hardship for industries such as fast food, restaurant and hospitality, in which "exempt" managers may perform a significant amount of "non-exempt" work during busy periods or when non-exempt employees are absent. Practical Advice As the New Year approaches, employers should start crunching the numbers and evaluating how best to cope with the new rules to minimize the negative impact the increased liability will have on their businesses. Employers may consider the following: • Reduce employee hours to trim potential overtime costs; • Restructure existing positions to minimize the amount of traditionally "exempt" work to be performed by workers; • Raise employee salaries to the new threshold so currently exempt workers stay exempt; or • Reclassify workers who have heretofore been exempt as non-exempt and adopt and enforce strict rules prohibiting overtime. Ultimately, if the proposed regulations go into effect, nearly all employers will see a very tangible impact on their workforces and costs. LeClairRyan's Labor & Employment attorneys can help evaluate your options to make the best decision for your bottom line. Contact the author at email@example.com. What to subscribe? Send an email with ACCT/ATTY News in the subject line to email@example.com. LeClairRyan's Accounting and Legal Malpractice Attorneys Office Locations ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT: This newsletter has been prepared by LeClairRyan, a Professional Corporation, a law firm founded in Richmond, Virginia ("LeClairRyan") for informational purposes only and is not offered as legal advice. The information contained in this newsletter is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorneyclient relationship. This newsletter is not intended to be a source for legal advice, and thus the reader should not rely on any information provided in this newsletter as such. Readers should not act upon the information contained in this newsletter without seeking professional counsel. To the extent required by the Rules of the Virginia State Bar or the Rules of any other State Bar, LeClairRyan designates Janie Osterhaus as the editor responsible for this newsletter. Any specific questions regarding this Disclaimer and Terms of Use of this newsletter may be directed to Nancy M. Reimer or Warren D. Hutchison. Malinda A. Miller, Attorney in charge, Newark office. Jeffrey L. Alitz Lauren A. Appel Elizabeth J. Atkinson Douglas H. Amster Michael E. Barnsback Janet R. Barringer Catherine A. Bednar Daniel J. Blake Paul G. Boylan Laura C. Breitenbach Barry A. Cozier J. Douglas Cuthbertson Ben N. Dunlap Bruce S. Edington Andrew J. Fay Bernard Gehlhar Linda B. Georgiadis Judd A. Gilefsky Michael P. Giunta Tracy Taylor Hague A. Neil Hartzell Ronald S. Herzog W. Michael Holm Charles H. Horn Warren D. Hutchison Robin Gnudi Kalocsay Kevin G. Kenneally Stephen E. Kesselman John T. Kovach Paul C. Kuhnel Eric A. Martignetti James J. McConn, Jr. Thomas K. McCraw, Jr. Patrick E. McDonough John W. Moran Kevin P. Oddo Jeffrey L. O'Hara Matthew M. O'Leary Thomas C. Regan Nancy M. Reimer Leslie F. Ruff Charles M. Sims David A. Slocum Justin J. Twigg Patrick T. Voke Michael B. Weinberg Boston, MA Hartford, CT New Haven, CT Newark, NJ New York, NY Rochester, NY Philadelphia, PA Wilmington, DE Washington, DC Annapolis, MD Atlanta, GA Los Angeles, CA Sacramento, CA San Francisco, CA Glenwood Springs, CO Detroit, MI Houston, TX Las Vegas, NV Alexandria, VA Richmond, VA Norfolk, VA Williamsburg, VA Charlottesville, VA Roanoke, VA


text:
(Doug Fir, 830 E Burnside) When Jordan Cook swaggered out of machine-made fog a couple years ago, he was already Reignwolf, a seemingly fully formed blues-rock hero for the 21st century. His look is like if Bob Dylan and the Wolfman had a baby, and that baby joined a biker gang. His sound is classic, thunderous electric blues, all serrated guitar licks and scorched-earth howls. His show started out as a solo spectacle with Cook playing, singing, and stomping on a kick drum at the same time. (He has a band now, though his sets still feature some of the old one-man-band thing.) Also, he calls himself Reignwolf. Reignwolf! Like a wolf that reigns over all of the blues-rock landscape! Cook is the natural heir to the Led Zeppelin/Jack White throne, or maybe more; as a commenter at Rolling Stone's website says: "Jordan Cook is 100 percent this generation's Jimi Hendrix. Only dirtier, filthier, fuzzier, and way more badass." BEN SALMON
TxE, NU ERA
(Mississippi Studios, 3939 N Mississippi) In a place like Portland, there's plenty of talent to go around. To that end, local hiphoppers TxE (Tope, Epp, and producer G_Force) mined their own community for the beats and sounds that make up their latest: TxE vs. Prtlnd boasts samples from local indie rock bands like Typhoon, Sallie Ford, and Monarques. It connects the dots of our sometimes disparate scenes, not just expanding the palate of local hiphop but all of Portland music. NED LANNAMANN
(Mission Theater, 1624 NW Glisan) You know them. You love them. And whether you're currently experiencing your college stoner phase, or just want to nostalgically relive it, Built to Spill is here for you, with a jaggedly psychedelic sound that somehow keeps getting better. You've got three chances to see for yourself at their Three-Night New Year's Celebration. ALISON HALLETT

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- + Follow
Vicky Huang
Visual UI/ UX Design
Vancouver, Canada
Vancouver, Canada
A Taiwanese-born Canadian, graduated from Parsons in May 2013. A creative professional with experience in print and digital design. Passionate about creating clean, simple, and engaging design. Looking for a challenging and creative position, focusing on branding and UI/UX design
Apple Core Hotels Website Redesign
HANYC Website Redesign
WSCAH Brand Book
Work closely with marketing and web developer. Specific duties include: create and maintain digital media; update social media blogs and press posts; coordinate photo-shoots with a photographer, develop creative ideas and concepts while choosing the appropriate media and style; transform business requirements, user research and customer feedback into functional and testable prototypes; analyze metrics to aid in optimizing design solutions; design business collateral and print/digital promotions for the company.
Designed e-vites, posters, brochures, banners, calendar, T-shirts, mailers, icons, and web buttons for their programs, events, and school website. Retouched images and created photo silhouettes for publication in print and online.
Redesigned clients' brand presentations by understanding their audiences, identifying the key insights of their brands, and finding the right aesthetics for their companies. Works include designing icons, finding the right images, and transforming data into infographics.


text:
All articles for '
Michelle Williams Net Worth'
All the featured articles about Michelle Williams Net Worth. News, articles, net worth profile, and all biography about Michelle Williams Net Worth.
Michelle Williams Net Worth
Michelle Williams Net Worth: Michelle Williams is an American actress who has a net worth of $16 million. Born in 1980 in Kalispell, Montana, Michelle Williams started appearing on TV screens in the early '90s. She landed guest roles on "Home Improvement", "Step by Step", and "Baywatch". Her feature film debut came in 1994's "Lassie". When she was 15 years old, she filed for legal emancipation wit...
Michelle Williams Net Worth
Juan Williams Net Worth
Juan Williams net worth: Juan Williams is a Panamanian-born American journalist and political analyst who has a net worth of $2 million. Juan Williams
Kiely Williams Net Worth
Kiely Williams is an American singer, actress, songwriter and dancer who has a net worth of $500 thousand. Kiely Williams has earned her net worth as a member of the girl groups 3LW and The Cheetah Girls.
Michelle Williams - Destiny's Child Net Worth
Michelle Williams net worth: Michelle Williams is an American actress who has a net worth of $10 million. Michelle Williams was born in Rockford
Brendan Cole Net Worth
Brendan Cole net worth: Brendan Cole is a New Zealand ballroom dancer who has a net worth of $3 million. Brendan Cole was born
Sonequa Martin Net Worth
Sonequa Martin-Green net worth: Sonequa Martin-Green is an American actress who has a net worth of $2 million. Sonequa Martin-Green was born in Russellville,
Rachel Roy Net Worth
Rachel Roy net worth: Rachel Roy is an American fashion designer who has a net worth of $12 million. She was born in 1974
Andre Leon Talley Net Worth
Andre Leon Talley net worth: Andre Leon Talley is a former magazine editor who has a net worth of $1.5 million dollars. Andre Leon Talley was born in Durham
Heath Ledger Net Worth
Heath Ledger net worth: Heath Ledger was an Academy Award and Golden Globe winning actor from Australian. Heath Ledger passed away on January 22, 2008
Sarah Silverman Net Worth
Sarah Silverman net worth: Sarah Silverman is an American comedian, writer and actress who has a net worth of $12 million. Sarah Silverman started earning
Mathew Knowles Net Worth
Mathew Knowles net worth: Mathew Knowles is an American music executive, businessman, record producer and manager who has a net worth of $500 thousand. Mathew Knowles
Common Net Worth
Common Net Worth: Common is an American musician and actor who has a net worth of $45 million. Born Lonnie Rashid Lynn Jr. in Chicago, Illinois
Solange Knowles Net Worth
Solange Knowles net worth: Solange Knowles is a singer-songwriter, actress, and model who has a net worth of $8 million dollars. Solange Knowles
Terrence Howard Net Worth
Terrence Howard net worth and salary: Terrence Howard is an American actor and musician who has a net worth of $5 million dollars. Terrence Howard was born in Chicago
Beyonce's Journey from Obscurity to Pop Super Stardom is a Masterclass in Perseverance
Beyonce Knowles is a massive success now, but it wasn't always that way. Her early years in the music industry were extremely rough. Today she is the poster child for perseverance.


text:
ASUS Transformer Book Flip R554LA-RH51T
15.6" powerful laptop with 360° rotating touchscreen
ASUS Transformer Book Flip is designed to give you the ultimate flexibility with a display that can be flipped at any angle from zero to 360 degrees. With a simple flip, you can use it as a powerful laptop, a responsive tablet or anything in between.
Breeze through any tasks with powerful Intel Core 4th generation processor plus high-performance graphics. Enrich your entertainment experience with premium HD touchscreen and professional-grade sound system. Boost your productivity, thanks to the excellent touch capability, precision keyboard, and large Smart Gesture touchpad.
Flip from Laptop to Tablet
ASUS Transformer Book Flip is designed to work as a laptop, a tablet, or anything in between. The clever hinge design lets you set the display at any angle from 0 to 360 degrees for perfect viewing.
For work, use it as a normal laptop. For games, turn it into a tablet with an HD screen. Or for watching movies or presentations, just flip it to any convenient angle.
Sleek yet More Powerful and Faster
Great Style, Elegant Look.
Hairline-textured surfaces give ASUS Transformer Book Flip an elegant look. Packed with features, it offers intuitive computing, easy mobility, and a style you'll love. With a luxury feel and effortless usability, ASUS Transformer Book Flip focuses on useful details, powerful performance, and unrivalled functionality.
Impressive Inner Strength
Power through your daily tasks with speed and responsiveness. The speedy Intel Core i5 4210U dual-core processor operates at 1.70 GHz. Together with up to 6GB of RAM, it deliver sufficient power to seamlessly handle demanding applications and multitasking. The premium integrated Intel HD Graphics 4400 make everything smoother and more fluid with great video quality. You can even play games without lags, making it ideal for work or pleasure.
Out-of-your-seat Entertainment
Gorgeous HD Screen with ASUS Splendid Technology
Enjoy the best visual experience. The 15.6" display features a high resolution of up to 1366 x 768 to present clear, crisp images, while utilizes ASUS Splendid technology to automatically adjust color gamut and color accuracy. This ensures pristine image quality with vibrant colors whatever the application, whether it's movies, games or photos.
Thrill to Clear and Powerful Sound
The world is full of living sound and every note is important. ASUS SonicMaster goes beyond just function into indulging all your senses with immersive experiences. Enjoy smooth, rich, and detailed sound in music, movies, voice, and even gaming. SonicMaster combines design, superior hardware, and optimized software for stunning professional-grade audio.
ASUS AudioWizard has five selectable modes to meet your preferences and listening environment. Enjoy lifelike sound in music, movies, and games, with all modes fine-tuned by the ASUS Golden Ear team. The unique interface puts you first, so it's utterly user-friendly, offering quick and direct access to your content. It's so flexible, you can change the way it looks and feels in seconds.
Stay Productivity
The World at Your Fingertips
ASUS takes great pride in perfecting the user experience, and the multi-touch display in Transformer Book Flip will enhance your Windows 8 experience whatever screen angle you choose. Exclusive ASUS touch sensor technology means that the display is more accurate and responsive than conventional touch-screens, too.
Smart Gesture Makes Touchpads as Smooth as a Mouse
Flip's large multi-point touchpads with Smart Gesture technology offer fingertip-natural computing. It delivers natural-feeling, simple but precise interaction, with scrolling and right-clicking for accessing advanced functions without a mouse. Exclusive enhanced palm rejection technology improves accuracy and responsiveness for smoother input. So whether you're scrolling through a web page or rotating images, the screen doesn't get in the way of your experience.
Keyboard Comfort, Precision, and Reliability
The ergonomic keyboard is crafted for effortless typing, with precisely-tuned key mechanisms for greater comfort and faster typing, even for prolonged periods. ASUS Transformer Book Flip provides superbly accurate and ergonomic typing experiences, reducing the risk of errors. The chiclet-style keyboard blends seamlessly with the flip design and is engineered for an extra-solid feel. It's also resistant to dust and debris accumulation to ensure long-lasting quality.
USB 3.0 is Ten Times Faster
ASUS Transformer Book Flip has a USB 3.0 port for data transfers that are up to ten times faster than on USB 2.0. Imagine moving a 50GB file — the equivalent of a Blu-ray movie — in less than two minutes. USB 3.0 isn't just quicker, it's also more reliable, stable, and can provide more power to devices. USB 3.0 is backwards-compatible with all your existing USB 2.0 devices.
Instantly Accessible, Totally Secure
ASUS Transformer Book Flip features two-second Instant On resume from sleep. Get straight back to work or enjoyment where you left off, and with no need to worry about losing data while in standby mode for days — your data is automatically backed up when the battery drops to 5% charge. Files and tasks are kept safe in memory, waiting for your return.


text:
Miami Dade County Jail Photos
December 6, 2011 by staff
Miami Dade County Jail Photos, Oneal Ron Morris (30), the fake doctor from Miami who allegedly performed life threatening surgeries injecting her patients with cement, mineral oil and flat-tire sealant, was released from custody Monday night, after posting a $15000 bail.
Morris had been on the run for a year and was arrested Nov. 18. She was charged for practicing medicine without a license and so causing serious bodily injury to her victims.
Another victim of Morris has come forward, narrating the horrifying story of her condition after she was injected with cement and tyre sealant on her face.
Rajee Narinesingh, 48, from Miami, Florida, narrated how her face was deformed and ruined after the surgery.
Narinesingh admitted that she heard of Morris through word of mouth from the transgender community and turned to her for surgery because she did not have money to pay a licensed plastic surgeon. The surgery resulted in acutely lumpy cheeks along with a deformed chin and upper lip.
Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of U.S.S.POST.


text:
An agreement sealed by leaders of the G8 nations meeting at Lough Erne in Northern Ireland will "rewrite the rules" on tax and transparency to benefit countries across the world and achieve "proper tax justice", according to David Cameron.
Speaking at a press conference in the resort, Mr Cameron said: "We have commissioned a new international mechanism that will identify where multinational companies are earning profits and paying taxes so we can track and expose those who aren't paying their fair share."
But the 10-point Lough Erne Declaration falls short of the demands of anti-poverty campaigners, who have called for tax information to be made available on public registers.
The declaration says only that developing countries "should have the information and capacity to collect the taxes owed to them", rather than guaranteeing them automatic access to the information.
And it says only that "tax collectors and law enforcers" should have access to information about the ultimate owners of companies, leaving it up to each individual G8 nation what information they should choose to release.
The White House said it would leave the decision to individual US states, while Chancellor George Osborne said the UK was "open" to the idea of public registers.


text:
Marketplace for January 10, 2011
Now that there are new rules for credit cards and overdraft fees, banks are trying to find money in other places. And as Stacey Vanek Smith reports, this means going after lower income customers, which in turn could move these customers out of the banking system altogether.
Governor Jerry Brown announced his budget plan this morning: a proposed $12 billion in spending cuts. There will be cuts in services like welfare and health care, and it's also expected that Brown may ask voters to raise taxes. Jeff Tyler reports.
Some world governments are considering a more holistic reflection of a country's well-being beyond GDP. But it may be a challenge to define what happiness and success is for a whole population.
In anticipation of Verizon unveiling its own iPhone, Kai Ryssdal talks with Marketplace Tech Report host John Moe about how prepared the company's network is to potentially handle a flood of iPhone users, and what this means for AT&T and other cell carriers.
Crumbs Bake Shop, a national cupcake chain, announced that it will be going public. The company plans on putting the money generated from listing shares on an exchange towards a major expansion. But is this just a fad? Alisa Roth reports.
Kai Ryssdal talks to author Eduardo Porter about why we spend the way we do, the subject of Porter's new book "The Price of Everything."
Tea has been an intrinsic part of Chinese culture for thousands of years, but with more urban Chinese demanding coffee, more tea farmers in China's tea-growing regions are also growing coffee.


text:
The Epson Original T0791 - T0796 - 6 Ink Cartridge Set contains the 6 six cartridges including the T0791 , T0792 , T0793 , T0794 , T0795 ,T0796 ink cartridges. The Epson T0791 - T0796 ink cartridge set contains high quality original inks using the Epson brand name. The 6 pack of ink cartridge also offers a saving on buying the ink cartridges individually. The Epson T0791 - T0796 Original Ink Cartridge 6 Pack contains:
Did we miss any relevant features for this product? Tell us what we missed. Would you like to give feedback on images or tell us about a lower price?
Unit 2-3 Debdale Lane Industrial
Debdale Ln,
Internet-ink is rated 4.8 stars by Reviews.co.uk based on 10878 reviews
(0115) 9371520
(0800) 6120874
Abitech Systems Limited
Registered Number: 4394134
VAT Number: 690343337
Printer and consumable manufacturer's names and logos are registered trademarks of their respective owners. Internet Ink uses cookies to create the most secure and effective website possible.


text:
Review: Prompt and efficient
I ordered a part for my tumble dryer door (the catch had broken so it wasn't shutting or turning on). The other option was for us to pay around £80 for an engineer so we looked on line and found the aprt on the yourspares for a fraction of the cost. I received regular e-mails to update me on the status of my order and the part arrived within a few days. My partner was able to fix the machine in about 10 minutes so we are very pleased with the service.
20 Dec 2011 by Amanda
View all Reviews


text:
Tagg is a 10 months old Pit Bull. He resides in San Bernardino City Shelter, CA. Well, I wouldn't call it a "residence," it reminds me more of a prison. The local rescues in CA are full and are facing a big trouble. Unwanted dogs, that don't find a loving home or a foster family soon, will be euthanized. Every year, nearly half a million Pit Bull-type dogs are killed in shelters. If you are local, please, consider adoption or fostering. If you are not, please, SHARE this video.
Out of 1.2 million dogs euthanized every year, approximately 40% of them are Pit Bulls. There are two primary reasons for Pit Bull intake in shelters being as high as it is. First is overpopulation. There is way too much breeding of Pit Bulls going on. These dogs tend to have large litters, anywhere from 6-12 puppies per litter. The second reason is Breed Specific Legislation and Pit Bull Prejudice. BSL is proven to be costly and ineffective. The research has shown that banning Pit Bulls does not decrease dog bites, in fact, statistics show the increase of dog bites from Labradors and Boxers. This proves that whatever statistics you can find about Pit Bulls attacking people more often than other dogs are an example of correlation, not causation. Pitties actually rate incredibly high in temperament tests. Even higher than Golden Retrievers. And still, many landlords refuse to rent to families with Pit Bulls. Many insurance companies cancel the coverage if a homeowner owns a Pit Bull. Pro-Pitties companies include State Farm, Farmers, United Services Automobile Association, Chubb Group, Amica, or Auto-Owners Insurance.
In the 90s, Pit Bull was mostly viewed as a fight dog. These days, with all the advocates' work, the breed is being viewed in a more positive light, which means less cities/counties/states pursue BSL.


text:
Australian PM announces closer ties with India
Australia's Prime Minister has signalled the potential for closer military ties with India.
During her visit to India, Julia Gillard has committed to continue joint naval exercises.
The leaders of both nations have also issued a joint statement recognising the importance of regional stability and maritime security.
Ms Gillard says Australia is open to other forms of military cooperation including exchanges and training.
"Our defence relationship if underdeveloped indeed we have stronger defence ties with China than we do with India. So naval exercising is good way of taking the relationship forward given our shared interest in the Indian Ocean," Ms Gillard said.
The Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she's committed to making India one of Australia's closest allies.
"In the modern age when we look at our economy, when we look at our strategic interests in our region of the world, it makes sense for us to look to India," she said.
The main focus of Julia Gillard's trip was the possible export of Australian uranium to India.
Ms Gillard's trip to India had gone without a snag until Wednesday morning while she was visiting a memorial to Mahatma Gandhi, when she fell over after the heel from her shoe stuck in the grass.
Luckily, she was unhurt and laughed the incident off.
Good start
Asian Politics lecturer at the University of Melbourne, Dr Pradeep Taneja, told Australia Network Ms Gillard's visit was successful as she "ticked all the right boxes."
"I think this was the best timing for any Australian Prime Minister to visit because this is the first time that we didn't really have any major obstacles," he said.
"When Kevin Rudd last visited India he had just changed the policy on uranium...soon after that we had the attacks on Indian students in Melbourne and now that's sort of in the past."
Dr Taneja says there will not be "a 360 degree turn-around" in relations but the visit is "a good start."
He says Ms Gillard's visits to slum children and announcement of scholarships - including one named after musician Ravi Shankar - are positive moves.
Dr Taneja says the awarding of an Order of Australia to Indian cricket great Sachin Tendulkar was a "stroke of genius."
"Most Indians have no idea what Order of Australia means.
"But they do know that it's an honour being conferred by a foreign government and that too, Australian government.
"Australia is very often seen as a peer competitor in cricket so for ordinary Indians and for the Indian media this was probably the best news."
Topics: business-economics-and-finance, india
First posted


text:
Geography Tutors in Fowlerville, MI
Find Private & Affordable Geography Tutoring in the Fowlerville Area!
Binghamton University - BA, Sociology , University of North Carolina at Wilmington - MA, Sociology and Criminology
Recent graduate of Michigan State University with a degree in history and education.
I graduated from Michigan State University in 2008 with a Bachelor's in Telecommunications. I am a Masters' graduate student in...
Michigan State University: Bachelor of Arts Interdisciplinary Studies in Social Science Education at the secondary level
Licensed Attorney at Law and Certified Michigan Civil Mediator Juris Doctorate of Law, MSU College of Law Masters of Educational...
Junior at Michigan State University majoring in Economics
International Studies Major with a minor in Psychology. 3.2 GPA.
Graduate Student Communicative Sciences and Disorders, Interdisciplinary Studies in Social Science, Education at MSU
Senior Elementary Education Major at Michigan State University.
Currently a History PhD Student at Michigan State University. Received MA in History from Oakland University in 2013. Received BA in...
Senior Packaging Engineering Major at Michigan State University
Senior Spanish and Interdisciplinary Studies in Health Studies Major at Michigan State University
Michigan State University; Education Major; 3.2 gpa
Senior, Vanderbilt University -Majoring in Anthropology and Classics -Anthropology Honors Program