• Care Plus and its Entities Agree to Pay $7.2 Million Against Anti-Kickback Allegations

      On April 13, 2022, Care Plus Management, LLC (“Care Plus”), its founders Paul D. Weir and John R. Morgan, MD, along with eighteen other anesthesia entities which were owned and operated by Care Plus, agreed to pay a whopping amount of $7.2 million as consideration to resolve allegations which claimed that they entered into kickback arrangements with referring physicians. It was alleged that Care Plus and its entities did so in exchange for the referral of the physicians’ patients for anesthesia services. Also, Weir and Morgan shared the revenue received from anesthesia services with the referring physicians and provided subsidies on drug supplies and equipment to the referring physicians’ outpatient surgical centers. United States ex rel. Douglas, et al., v. Care Plus Management, LLC, et al., No. 1:16-cv-4439-WRM (N.D. Ga. Apr 13, 2022)

      It is seen that anesthesia providers usually depend on hospitals and outpatient surgery centers for their income. If an anesthesia provider is able to enter into an exclusive agreement with such centers, it is guaranteed a steady stream of patient referrals. Thus, anesthesia providers compete aggressively for these contracts.

      The U.S. Government alleged that between the years 2012 and 2016, Weir and Morgan, through Care Plus, appeased physician owners of outpatient surgery centers to award these exclusive service agreements to them by offering partial ownership in the entities owned and operated by Care Plus. Under the terms of this agreement, the physician owners received compensation in the form of a portion of the revenue from the anesthesia services. The Government also alleged that Weir, Morgan, Care Plus, and its anesthesia companies subsidized the cost incurred by surgery centers for drugs, supplies, and equipment in order to induce the physician owners of those centers to grant exclusive anesthesia service agreements to Care Plus’s anesthesia companies. 

      As per the Government allegations, the arrangements violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b), and caused the submission of false claims in violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq. The Anti-Kickback Statute is a criminal statute that prohibits an exchange or offers to exchange of anything of value, in consideration to the referral of business reimbursable by federal health care programs. While under the False Claims act, a private citizen may bring suit for false claims on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery obtained by the government.

      The original complaint filed in 2016 included more than fifty medical entities operating across several states and numerous unnamed individuals. However, the U.S. Government and the State of Georgia intervened only against the Care Plus Parties. This case was investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and the Georgia Attorney General’s Office Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. The settlement agreed upon by the parties resolved a lawsuit originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act.

      Research and Writing By: Team Draft n Craft

      Draft n Craft is a premier outsourcing firm that offers its legal, paralegal, and medical support solutions to law firms, insurance companies, and corporate and in‐house legal departments throughout the United States. The strength and openness in our relationship help our clients to maximize the benefits of outsourcing.

      Want to achieve maximum ‘ROI’ at minimum cost, provide 24 x 7 hours of work environment with the highest standards of integrity, maintain utmost confidentiality, and employ a diverse workforce that adds value to your day‐to‐day business?

      Visit: www.draftnctaft.com | info@draftncraft.com | +1 6463676958 & 75

  • Copper Creek (Marysville) | Washington Court of Appeals on Effect of Bankruptcy Discharge on Statute of Limitations

      On April 11, 2022, the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 granted the motion for reconsideration and withdrew its opinion dated January 18, 2022. Respondents had filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking reversal of summary judgment quieting title in favor of the Appellants (Copper Creek). Copper Creek (Marysville) Homeowners Ass’n v. Kurtz, No. 82083-4-I (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2022). The Court held that the trial court erred in determining that the statute of limitations rendered the respondents’ deed of trust unenforceable.

      As per the facts of the case, in 2007, Shawn and Stephanie Kurtz bought a real property with a note of $303,472.00 which was secured by a deed of trust. Shawn was engaged in active duty in the United States military at that time and continued with the same till September 2020. The purchased property was within the Copper Creek (Marysville) Homeowners Association and Shawn and Stephanie Kurtz were obligated to pay annual assessments of $400. However, in January 2008, Shawn and Stephanie separated and the latter moved out of the property. Thereafter, the Kurtez did not pay on the note in either 2008 or 2009. In 2010, Stephanie filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and included the property. On the debtor’s statement of intention, she noted the mortgage and her intention to surrender the property. She thereby received a discharge, which included the property. A year later, in 2011, Shawn filed a separate Chapter 7 bankruptcy and surrendered the property as well. He included Copper Creek as a creditor holding a secured claim for homeowner’s dues in the amount of $1,826.50. The bankruptcy was discharged after a few months.

      In 2008, Copper Creek recorded a notice of claim of lien against the property in the amount of $15,278.68 in assessments, fees, interest, and attorney fees and costs that had accrued on the property, and filed for judicial foreclosure to recover the delinquent assessments. In April 2019, Copper Creek and the Kurtzes entered an agreed order with the court for the appointment of a custodial receiver. Copper Creek recorded the order appointing the receiver with Snohomish County Superior Court. The receiver spent $22,470.24 rehabilitating the property and began renting it at a fair market value. After completion of the repairs, the Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington (QLS) tried to enforce the terms of the note as secured by the DOT through nonjudicial foreclosure which prompted Copper Creek to bring the action to quiet title.

      Upon refusal, Copper Creek filed a motion to restrain the sale, and a complaint against the Kurtzes, respondents, and QLS for lien foreclosure, restraint of the trustee sale, wrongful foreclosure, and quiet title. It then filed a motion for summary judgment. The same was opposed by the respondents and a motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed. The trial court concluded that the SCRA tolling provision did not apply to the foreclosure action, which allowed the statute of limitations to run on the DOT. The SCRA tolls statutes of limitations in lawsuits involving service members.

      However, the Court held that the SCRA applied and tolled the statute of limitations until Shawn no longer had personal liability on the note. That occurred on July 13, 2011, the date of the discharge of his personal liability on the debt. Therefore, the statute of limitation began on all of the past installments on July 13, 2011. Further, the bankruptcy eliminated only Shawn’s personal liability on the note. The debt, the note, and the payment schedule remain unchanged. The notice of nonjudicial foreclosure was given on October 20, 2019, prior to the November payment coming due. Any outstanding installments prior to November 2013, were not enforceable in the foreclosure action due to the six-year statute of limitations. But, enforcement of the DOT was not barred as to the remainder due under the note. Thus, the trial court erred by quieting title in Copper Creek.

      Research and Writing By: Team Draft n Craft

      Draft n Craft is a premier outsourcing firm that offers its legal, paralegal, and medical support solutions to law firms, insurance companies, and corporate and in‐house legal departments throughout the United States. The strength and openness in our relationship help our clients to maximize the benefits of outsourcing.

      Want to achieve maximum ‘ROI’ at minimum cost, provide 24 x 7 hours of work environment with the highest standards of integrity, maintain utmost confidentiality, and employ a diverse workforce that adds value to your day‐to‐day business?

      Visit: www.draftnctaft.com | info@draftncraft.com | +1 6463676958 & 75

  • Federal District Court, California Dismisses Class Action Suit for Lack of Specific Jurisdiction

      On April 01, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled in dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed against Netgain Technology, on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction over the business. Lee v. NetGain Tech., 21cv1144-LL-MSB (S.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2022).

      The lead plaintiff was a resident of South Carolina, while Netgain Tech is a Minnesota-based company. Plaintiff filed the class action alleging a data breach that affected personal and medical information of patients at Caresouth Carolina, a community health center. The Netgain Tech was the cloud-hosting service for the health center along with many other organizations. As a patient of Caresouth, Plaintiff was required to provide Netgain and Caresouth with personal medical information and was given the assurance that the provided information would be kept safe from unauthorized access. However, on December 03, 2020, network servers of Netgain and Caresouth were infiltrated and access was gained to such network servers. Netgain had to pay a significant amount of money in exchange for a promise that the attackers would delete copies of the data that had been stolen. The same was conveyed to the Plaintiff through a letter on May 17, 2021.

      As the matter came before the Court, Netgain filed a motion to dismiss the putative class action for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).  The provision states that a suit may be dismissed by a district court for lack of personal jurisdiction.

      In response to the same, Plaintiff argued that it had filed the suit under specific jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction exists where “the defendant’s suit-related conduct . . . . create[s] a substantial connection with the forum State.” Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014). In order for a federal court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant it considers following things: (1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.

      Plaintiff contended that Netgain conducted a major portion of its business in the state of California. Further, it also has an office and employees residing in California. Moreover, it circulates its advertisements and provides services to the residents of California. Therefore, Plaintiff argued that the District Court was the proper forum for the matter in hand.

      However, Judge Linda Lopez held that the Court was not an appropriate forum for the present matter. The Court stated that the complaint filed by the Plaintiff revolved around the allegation that Netgain failed to secure information of Caresouth patients. Therefore, the complaint had nothing to do with the company’s operations in San Diego, California. The Court also rejected the motion filed for jurisdictional discovery. It was filed with the reason to establish that the San Diego location was at least partially responsible for the alleged data breach. The same was dismissed by the Court for the reason that the Plaintiff had no evidence to support his claim.

  • Southern District of Florida Grants Motion to Dismiss in Mass Class Action

      On April 5, 2022, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has granted motion to dismiss in favor of defendant Huntsman Corporation in Andres v. Raytheon Techs. Corp & Others Civil Action,No. 21-61757-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2022). The case was brought by the son of Plaintiff John R. Andres against 51 defendants. Mr. Andres died because of malignant mesothelioma. Plaintiff’s son asserted that over the course of working with defendants, Mr. Andres handled and contacted with number of products containing asbestos which were highly dangerous and contributed to Mr. Andres’s death.

      On the contrary, Defendant Huntsman Corporation filed a motion to dismiss contending that they were not subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida. Defendant alleged that Plaintiff’s complaint has not made specific allegations concerning Huntsman’s business or conduct, instead the Plaintiff pled jurisdictional allegations common to all Defendants. For instance, the complaint comprises defendants, who were either Florida residents or had conducted business in Florida.

      In addition to this, Joe Hamor, an assistant treasurer to Defendant Huntsman, filed a declaration in favor of defendant. He asserted that Huntsman Corporation is only a holding company incorporated in Delaware with a principal place of business in Texas. Plaintiff in its reply stated that Huntsman has proper jurisdiction in Florida. Defendants targeted sale of its product as well as possessed a physical facility in Pensacola, Florida. Huntsman also owned the trademark to two products that are sold in Florida. These products potentially contributed to Mr. Andres’ alleged asbestos exposure.

      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), a plaintiff seeking personal jurisdiction over a nonresident bears the initial burden of alleging sufficient facts in the complaint to establish a prima facie case of jurisdiction.

      After hearing the arguments, the court found that plaintiffs failed to contend a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over Huntsman and allowed Huntsman’s motion to dismiss. The court also said that the plaintiffs had failed to prove jurisdiction by affidavits, testimony, or documents while submitting reply to Huntsman’s rebut.

      Research and Writing By: Team Draft n Craft

      Draft n Craft is a premier outsourcing firm that offers its legal, paralegal, and medical support solutions to law firms, insurance companies, and corporate and in‐house legal departments throughout the United States. The strength and openness in our relationship help our clients to maximize the benefits of outsourcing.

      Want to achieve maximum ‘ROI’ at minimum cost, provide 24 x 7 hours of work environment with the highest standards of integrity, maintain utmost confidentiality, and employ a diverse workforce that adds value to your day‐to‐day business?

      Visit: www.draftnctaft.com | info@draftncraft.com | +1 6463676958 & 75

  • First Department Ordered New Trial in Personal Injury Damages Lawsuit

      On March 29, 2022, the Appellate Division, First Department, decided in Miller v. Camelot Communications Group, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 02091 (1st Dept. Mar 29, 2022) that the trial judge erroneously precluded the defendants from using the deposition transcript from the prior lawsuit and therefore ordered a new trial to be held on the issue of damages.  

      The facts state that on December 13, 2014, when Plaintiff Linda Miller, a pedestrian crossing the street on Broadway at an intersection, was struck by a van. She filed a case against the at-fault van driver and accordingly awarded for damages in the total sum of $4,030,000 for pain and suffering and for future medical expenses

      Approximately 18 months before this accident, Plaintiff sustained a head injury at Lincoln Center when an usher swung a door open and hit her in the head. Consequently, she filed a complaint against the Lincoln Center and claimed head-related injuries which included seizure and a concussion, dizziness and memory issues and pain in her neck and shoulder. The case was settled for an undisclosed sum in 2015.

      At trial in the new lawsuit, the defense attempted to introduce into evidence Ms. Miller’s deposition transcript from the Lincoln Center lawsuit (held just two months before the new accident). Plaintiff argued in favor of preclusion because the defense had failed to disclose that they intended to use the transcript. The judge in the new lawsuit precluded the defendants from using the transcript.

      Further, the defendant contended that most of the complaints (such as traumatic brain injury, right arm/shoulder, left knee – torn meniscus, right wrist – carpal tunnel syndrome; surgery, keloid scarring to face and leg, and depression – were largely due to impact on acting career) claimed by the plaintiff were related to her Lincoln Center lawsuit. On the contrary, Plaintiff asserted that after her prior accident she was physically and socially active. But the new accident greatly affected her health. She was largely sedentary, lost her career and was in constant pain, and was clinically depressed.

      Keeping all these arguments in mind, the appellate court ordered a new trial on the issue of damages and stated that the trial judge erred in giving the defendants a chance to use the deposition transcript from the earlier lawsuit.

      Research and Writing By: Team Draft n Craft

      Draft n Craft is a premier outsourcing firm that offers its legal, paralegal, and medical support solutions to law firms, insurance companies, and corporate and in‐house legal departments throughout the United States. The strength and openness in our relationship help our clients to maximize the benefits of outsourcing.

      Want to achieve maximum ‘ROI’ at minimum cost, provide 24 x 7 hours of work environment with the highest standards of integrity, maintain utmost confidentiality, and employ a diverse workforce that adds value to your day‐to‐day business?

      Visit: www.draftnctaft.com | info@draftncraft.com | +1 6463676958 & 75

  • Supreme Court of Georgia Rules out Product Liability due to Third Party’s Wrongful Behavior

      The Supreme Court of Georgia on March 15, 2022, decided in Maynard v. Snapchat, Inc., Case that a complaint alleging a product liability claim could survive a motion to dismiss when a third-party user of the product engaged in intentionally wrongful behavior.

      In this case, Mr. Maynard filed a complaint about the injuries he suffered in a motor vehicle accident when Christal McGee rear-ended Mr. Maynard’s vehicle while driving over 100 miles per hour. In an inquiry, it was found that Ms. McGee was using a “Speed Filter” feature of the Snapchat app to estimate her speed and wanted to post it on her social media apps including Snapchat. Mr. Maynard alleged in his complaint that such applications are poorly designed and neglect user warnings.

      However, the Georgia Court of Appeals had upheld the dismissal of Maynard’s complaint, concluding that a manufacturer had no duty to design a product to accommodate a user’s intentional misbehavior. [See Maynard v. Snapchat, Inc., 357 Ga. App. 496, 500, 502 (851 SE2d 128) (2020)]. In addition to this, the Supreme Court of Georgia in its certiorari review concluded that the complaint stated a product liability claim.

      The Supreme Court of Georgia stated that it is the duty of every product manufacturer to provide adequate information regarding the product and protect users against any kind of harm. The manufacturers are also obliged to invent sensible designs to avoid such harm. 

      The court’s decision says more about Georgia’s minimal notice pleading standard than about Georgia’s substantive product liability law. Mr. Maynard rightly pled that the driver’s misuse of the Speed Filter was reasonably foreseeable, that the Speed Filter was defective, and that the defect was the proximate cause of his injury. He had adequately pled a product liability claim. Therefore, his complaint survived a motion to dismiss. 

      Further, the supreme court of Georgia also mentioned that when the case reaches the summary judgment stage, and the case is better framed by the evidence of what happened, they will have a clear idea about what Georgia law needs from a manufacturer when a product user engages in intentional misbehavior.

      Research and Writing By: Team Draft n Craft

      Draft n Craft is a premier outsourcing firm that offers its legal, paralegal, and medical support solutions to law firms, insurance companies, corporate and in‐house legal departments throughout the United States. The strength and openness in our relationship help our clients to maximize the benefits of outsourcing.

      Want to achieve maximum ‘ROI’ at minimum cost, provide 24 x 7 hours of work environment with the highest standards of integrity, maintain utmost confidentiality, and employ a diverse workforce that adds value to your day‐to‐day business?

      Visit: www.draftnctaft.com  |  info@draftncraft.com  |  +1 6463676958 & 75

  • Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA): Employers fate to be decided in 2022

      On December 15, 2021, the United States Supreme Court announced to review the most consequential PAGA case Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573 (Dec 15, 2021). The step has been taken after almost a decade. The Supreme Court repeatedly denied requests to decide the same issue and now finally agreed to review the rule prohibiting California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) waivers in individual arbitration agreements. In Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, since 2014, the PAGA-only representative actions have flooded the courts and frustrated employers.  The argument presented was that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) should have pre-empted the current situation, an argument that the California Supreme Court has rejected. 

      It sure seems likely that a newly formulated conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court prompted this move.  A decision is expected in mid-2022. In other words, the Court will decide whether employers may limit PAGA actions by way of employment arbitration agreements with representative action waivers, the same way they limit class actions through class action waivers.

      PAGA allows a Court to award a penalty for each pay period that includes a wage-and-hour violation.  It does not include the damages for the underlying violation, just the discretionary penalty, which starts at $100 per employee per pay period, and increases to $200, and even $250 (or in extreme cases of knowing violations, $1000).

      This change is also focused on various lobbying groups (including the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Restaurant Association, the California New Car Dealers Association, and the Western Growers) who had made all the efforts to repeal PAGA so that no one can file a representative action in the shoes of the state and recover civil penalties (and hence related attorneys’ fees). This initiative entitled the Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act of 2022, would place greater enforcement responsibilities on the DLSE (Division of Labor Standards Enforcement), and require sufficient funds for that purpose. The only purpose of this initiative is the attorneys who file PAGA claims or the state cannot recover any money. This initiative has a long road ahead, but if any employer would like to be proactive about PAGA, they can certainly support the lobbying effort or join the signature-gathering effort that will be required to get on the ballot in 2022.

      So, we can expect there may be some PAGA relief in 2022 and employers can only wish that this does not happen.

      Research and Writing By: Team Draft n Craft

      Draft n Craft is a premier outsourcing firm that offers its legalparalegal and medical support solutions to law firms, insurance companies, corporate and in‐house legal departments throughout the United States. The strength and openness in our relationship help our clients to maximize the benefits of outsourcing.

      Want to achieve maximum ‘ROI’ at minimum cost, provide 24 x 7 hours of work environment with the highest standards of integrity, maintain utmost confidentiality and employ a diverse workforce that adds value to your day‐to‐day business?

      Visit: www.draftnctaft.com  |  info@draftncraft.com  |  +1 6463676958 & 75

  • New Jersey Lawmakers Advance Bill To Allow Pandemic Insurance

      A New Jersey Assembly committee on Wednesday advanced legislation that would permit insurers to offer coverage to policyholders for losses stemming from a pandemic like the coronavirus outbreak under provisions that state regulators would have to review on an expedited basis.

      NJ Lawmakers Advance Bill To Allow Pandemic Insurance

      With businesses across the Garden State struggling to secure such coverage amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the Assembly Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee approved A.B. 4551, which would enable insurance companies to offer a policy “rider” that would extend coverage for “global virus transmission or pandemic, or both.”

      The legislation, which was introduced in August, tackles a coverage issue that has sparked litigation in New Jersey state and federal courts after insurers refused to cover pandemic-related losses for businesses that took financial hits in the wake of government restrictions aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19.

      The legislation, which was introduced in August, tackles a coverage issue that has sparked litigation in New Jersey state and federal courts after insurers refused to cover pandemic-related losses for businesses that took financial hits in the wake of government restrictions aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19.

      The legislation would take effect immediately and apply to insurance policies issued on or after the date when the DOBI commissioner approves such a rider.

      Source: https://www.law360.com/newjersey/articles/1390340/nj-lawmakers-advance-bill-to-allow-pandemic-insurance

  • Tech groups criticize Florida’s social media law as Unconstitutional.

      Tech groups criticize Florida’s social media law as unconstitutional, setting the stage for legal action.

      Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a bill Monday aiming to punish social media companies for their moderation decisions. The law would fine Internet companies if they suspend political candidates in the run-up to elections. It also would also make it easier for the Florida state attorney general and individuals to bring lawsuits when they think tech companies have acted unfairly.

      Legal experts say they expect to see lawsuits challenging the measure. Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University Law School in California, described the bill as bad policy and warned that some of its provisions are “obviously unconstitutional” because they restrict the editorial discretion of online publishers. He said some aspects of the law also would be preempted by a federal Internet law known as Section 230 that shields Internet companies from lawsuits over posts, photos and other content shared on their services.

      The Texas Senate has approved legislation like Florida’s that would prevent large tech companies from blocking or discriminating against users based on their viewpoints or location within Texas. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has expressed support for that bill. North Carolina and Louisiana state lawmakers have introduced similar measures.

      Florida lawmakers created a special exemption for companies that own theme parks, which could apply to websites operated by Disney. Disney World is a major Florida tourist attraction, while Comcast owns Universal Studios Florida.

      Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/25/technology-202-tech-groups-criticize-florida-social-media-law-unconstitutional-setting-stage-legal-action/

  • New York ‘HERO’ Act requires employers to establish airborne infectious disease safety protocols.

      New York ‘HERO’ Act

      The New York HERO Act (S.1034-B/A.2681-B), a critical bill requiring businesses to have enforceable safety standards to prevent further spread of coronavirus and other airborne diseases, was signed into law by Governor Cuomo. Under the new law, employers are required to implement several workplace safety measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

      The NY HERO Act, or the New York Health and Essential Rights Act, requires the Departments of Labor and Health to implement enforceable minimum standards for workplace safety. The regulations must include protocols on testing, PPE, social distancing, hand hygiene, disinfection, and engineering controls. Workers would also be given a direct role in monitoring and reporting violations through workplace health and safety committees and employees would be protected from retaliation for utilizing their rights under the law.

      After the NY DOL issues its model standards, each New York employer must choose to either adopt the model standard that applies to its industry or establish its own airborne infectious disease exposure prevention plan that equals or exceeds the model standard. Employers must also provide their airborne infectious disease prevention plan in writing to their employees, including their plan in their employee handbooks, and post their plan in a prominent location in the workplace.

      New York employers should watch for the NY DOL to issue model airborne infectious disease prevention standards by June 4, 2021, and should prepare to issue and post airborne infectious disease prevention plans and update their handbooks accordingly. In the meantime, New York employers should continue to comply with all state and local safety protocols as employees return to work.

      Source: https://www.lexblog.com/2021/05/25/new-york-hero-act-requires-employers-to-establish-airborne-infectious-disease-safety-protocols/

  • Cost-padding, profit shedding law firms! Are you one of them?

      Cost padding happens when a business deliberately inflates its costs than what it has incurred and then passes it over to its consumers. However, there are costs that get passed over by the businesses unintentionally due to the high operating expenses, can this be considered as cost padding as well?

      Legal Services - Draft n CraftEven if it is, yes, should your law firm really be worried if the additional expenses are anyways getting rolled over to your clients ultimately?

      In today’s time, operating costs has become inversely proportional to the profit. Higher the cost, the lesser the profit, and vice-versa.

      With the advent of technology and the increase in competition, it has almost become impossible to pass over these costs to the clients, as there is always a fear of losing them out to the competition. Therefore, cost-padding is eventually leading to profit-shedding because if you are not optimizing your expenses, your practice will be bearing the inflated expenses out of its profit margins, making it extremely difficult for it to survive in the longer run.

      Whilst managing the cost of operating business is easier said than done, it’s literally a serious challenge for law firms because it was not very long ago that they were just not being questioned on their costs by their clients at all.

      Outsourcing of monotonous and tedious tasks is one way of reducing your operating expenses. It will not only give you the cost benefits, but it will also lead to an increase in efficiency, help you operate in a 24*7 environment, and will help you manage the uneven work-flow effectively. Last but not the least, it will also allow you to accept more cases that you might have turned-down otherwise due to a lack of resources. All of this, however, will happen only if you collaborate with a reliable and experienced vendor.

       

      Draft n Craft has been serving US law firms for over 12 years and has collaborated with over 200 US law firms over the years. The company has been supporting both plaintiffs as well as defense law firms and is not only helping them manage their costs but has also been instrumental in developing credible processes which in turn is reducing their case cycles as well.

      So if you are one of those law firms who is looking to be a cost-shedding, profit-making practice, don’t just wait, please feel free to connect at info@draftncraft.com for a free consultation.

  • India is not lacking behind in arbitration, we were rather the pioneers – Mr. Rakesh K Sharma, Chairman – Legal Services, SEPC & CEO Draft n Craft

      “India is not lacking behind in arbitration; we were rather the pioneers. We have had Panchayats for many years” Mr. Rakesh K Sharma, Chairman, Legal Services of Services Export Promotion Council (SEPC) – India || CEO at Draft n Craft Legal Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd. & Partner at Draft n Craft Law Firm, speaking at the one day Conference on “International Arbitration – An Indian Perspective” at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi, India.

      Left to right – Advocate MJS Rupal | Dr. Abhay Sinha, DG SEPC | Dr. Karan Rathore, VC SEPC | Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Member NCLT | Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt, Supreme Court of India | Mr. Rakesh K Sharma, Chairman – Legal Services SEPC & CEO Draft n Craft | Mr. Gourab Banerji, Senior Advocate

      New Delhi, India: “International Arbitration – An Indian Perspective,” a one-day conference organized by the Services Export Promotion Council (SEPC) set up by the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, the Government of India, and an apex body to facilitate services exporters from India, on 14th May 2022 at Plenary Hall, Vigyan Bhawan in New Delhi, India.

      Globalization by way of global trade, cross-border transactions, foreign investments has pushed us to frequently adopt Arbitration as an Alternate Dispute Resolution and thereby making way for the formation of the India International Arbitration Centre. While the way to International commercial arbitration in India was paved primarily by the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015, International arbitration has had a long history in India before the 2015 amendment.

      To have a single Act that would prove to be efficient for both domestic and international arbitration, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, of 1996 was enforced. This Act was based on the UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985.

      The focus of this one-day conference was to discuss several interconnected topics of international arbitration relating to India on a worldwide scale. The key insights that will aid and empower the legal service industry in planning, handling, managing, and implementing international arbitration processes and awards. An important issue that has always piqued the interest of policymakers and legal experts.

      The event brought together legal industry experts, senior government officials from various ministries, Justices of the Honorable Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi, SEPC’s worldwide ambassadors, prominent Indian lawyers, sponsors, and other stakeholders. Participation was also encouraged for young and energetic law students interested in international law and arbitration to broaden the reach of this conference. The conference started with the welcome remarks by Dr. Abhay Sinha, DG of the Services Export Promotion Council (SEPC) followed by the lighting of the lamp by the eminent guests.

      Left to right – Mr. Rakesh K Sharma, Chairman – Legal Services SEPC & CEO Draft n Craft | Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt, Supreme Court of India | Advocate MJS Rupal, Supreme Court of India

      Addressing the gathering, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Supreme Court of India delivered a comprehensive presentation about innovative techniques from around the world that would help in making arbitration time efficient. He shared knowledge on various tools, “Techniques such as hot tubbing, which originated in Australia and helps in streamlining the bounteous data for cases thus making the process of resolving legal procedures at a swifter pace. Such innovative and efficient techniques need to find a place in the legislature of India for us to become the hub of international arbitration.”

      Mr. Rakesh K Sharma, Chairman – Legal Services SEPC || CEO Draft n Craft Legal Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd. and Partner Draft n Craft Law Firm

      Setting the tone and context of the conference, Mr. Rakesh K Sharma, Convener of the Conference, Chairman – Legal Services, SEPC, CEO & Director at Draft n Craft Legal Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd. and Partner at Draft n Craft Law Firm, shared, “India is not lacking behind in arbitration; we were rather the pioneers. We have had Panchayats for many years”. The term Palm tree justice comes from Latin, but it also comes from Panchayat where we talk about how a wise man sitting under a palm tree serves as an arbitrator. We have come a long way and the journey has progressed from a man under a palm tree to panchayat and now to institutional arbitration.”


      Delivering an insightful talk, Dr. Abhay Sinha, Director General, SEPC said, “The global value of the dispute is 86 billion USD according to a 2018 report and continues to grow at a rate of 10%. The cases will continue to grow as our country opens to more global business. The three main aspects of the global value of disputes that we need to work upon are creating an international framework, spreading awareness globally about our strength and international arbitration, and sustaining effort so the graphs go onward and upwards.” He also explained the critical role that SEPC plays in taking Indian legal services to a global level through different modes of supply.

      Dr. R. J. R. Kashibhatla, Deputy Legal Advisor, Ministry of Law and Justice said that the topic of interim remedies under international arbitration is highly challenging and debatable. Across the globe, there is a huge controversial debate over assigning jurisdictions. Harmonious structuring of the provisions is required and is essential. It is held by the International Tribunal in several cases that in case of infringement of fundamental rights of the concerned party, domestic courts can evoke jurisdiction and can intervene and pass orders. It is time to think about issues of evoking domestic jurisdiction and the issue of evoking the foreign tribunal jurisdiction.


      Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan, High Court of Delhi congratulated SEPC for taking the step to organize a conference that focuses on legal services. The use of legal services and arbitration as tools to enable the business environment to flourish in international trade scenarios is very essential. He added “When we look back at Indian Arbitration Act, the first twenty years were quiet. However, in the last six years, three different amendments have been made. This is a telling fact that it is a work in progress. A conference like this one tells us where we need more work. To be an internationally competitive legal ecosystem we need to the issues of efficiency, integrity, and enforcement issues. These three issues are worth focusing on”.

      This one-day conference on international arbitration talked about concerns and solutions of the Indian arbitration laws, gathered vital insights, and provided a platform to promote the Indian government’s notion of “Make in India” and transforming our country into a key player in the global market.

      This discussion also pressed the need that we must focus on augmenting a future where arbitration is used more in commercial matters regardless of the status and it also offered a unique opportunity to both industry experts and young, keen minds to understand and develop their skills in international arbitration and to perceive the realistic picture of the practice of international arbitration.

      India is swiftly moving towards becoming a global economic powerhouse.



      About Draft n Craft

      Draft n Craft – a leading alternate legal service provider supporting attorneys, law firms, and in-house legal departments. Its legal and paralegal support services include – Legal Drafting, Legal Research, Deposition Summary, Medical Records Summary, Contract Lifecycle Management, Multiple Data-Intensive Paralegal Services, and more

      Team – Draft n Craft’s core values are driven by a desire to support attorneys, law firms, and corporations and help them to achieve maximum ‘ROI’ at minimum cost, provide 24 x 5 hours of work environment with the highest standards of integrity, maintain utmost confidentiality, and employ a diverse workforce that adds value to our partner’s day‐to‐day business. The principles laid out by us are the guide to all our success.

      Please free to write us at info@draftncraft.com or call us at +1.646.367.6958 & 6975.

      For updates and insights, follow us via @draftncraft on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn.


      About Services Export Promotion Council (SEPC)
      Services Export Promotion Council (SEPC) is an Export Promotion Council set by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India has been instrumental in supporting the efforts of the Indian Service exporting community, and in positioning India as a reliable supplier of high-quality services. SEPC provides a global platform for increasing trade in services, enhancing strategic cooperation, and strengthening multilateral relationships between all stakeholders in the Industry.

      SEPC is:

      • Interface Between Service Sector and Government
      • Facilitating Grants and Schemes from the Government
      • Promoting Indian Services in Overseas Events
      • Facilitating Overseas Services Enquiries
      • Channelizing Communication and Publicity

  • Things You Must Know About Legal Research and Writing

      legal research and writing1

      Draft n Craft brings fully-integrated and integral Legal research and writing to the entire US. We are the industry leaders & have been assisting US clients with a variety of legal services and assistance. Our innovative and market-leading legal work has been able to gain profound respect and applause from previous clients. We are leading Legal research and writing and take care of intensive documenting while carrying out the legal processes and operations. With the combination of cutting-edge technology and years of legal expertise, we have been able to deliver budget-friendly, unmatched, and tailored services as per the client’s needs. 

      With teams of lawyers, technologies, and analysts, we have been delivering quality Legal research and writing to numerous US locations. Together, the teams can deliver seamless and all-around services with the assistance of various niches like Construction, Banking, Infrastructure, Energy, Government, Technology, Media, Mining, Real Estate, and various others. We hold a prominent position in these services catering to all these industries/sectors with potent legal assistance and services. 

      Client-Centric Legal research and writing

      Unlike other companies, Draft n Craft understands that every two clients have a unique set of requirements and challenges. Be it for the multiple needs, challenges, and priorities, our Legal research and writing are designed to deliver tailored solutions. Apart from the best-in-class legal advice & support, Draft n Craft can maintain competitive prices too. 

      A high budget is one of the major issues with any legal counsel, and we are dedicated to curbing the same. We possess the required expertise and experience in the matter that usually an internal team lacks. You can even choose one of the reputable Legal research and writing and start making the best usage of the internal team for efficient outcomes.  

      Why Should You Choose Draft n Crafts for Legal Research and writing?

      1. Continuity

      Draft n Crafts team of legal experts is assigned to a single client to manage the account, capture the organization’s knowledge, and lead all projects. The work process boosts the efficiency and value of Legal research and writing. 

      2. Expertise

      We can be a trustworthy partner for Legal research and writing. We have a huge skill-set and experience to reduce the training need and deliver continuous services. Not just with look and feel, Legal research and writing come with an assured guarantee. Our range of experts ranges from entity formation, business filings, private and public companies, litigation, and a lot more. 

      3. Cost-Effective: We are top-notch legal research writing provider and aim to boost the revenues and decrease the investment cost. We put up our end goal to boost efficiency while adding value to the clients. It also makes us a better option for assisting big service companies in improved communication channels and turnaround time.