Hill Dickinson is examining the role of its outside providers and has launched an outsourcing pilot as part of a cost cutting review being rolled out across the firm.
Managing partner Peter Jackson and financial director Colin Wardale launched a review of the firm's practices over the summer in a bid to cut back on expenses. As part of the project, the national firm is attempting to cut money spent on outside providers in areas including training, education and business development resources.
The firm stressed the process was not with a view to making redundancies but an attempt to go over budgets with each of the seven practice group heads.
The move comes after the firm kicked off a business process outsourcing pilot earlier in the year across part of its secretarial function to see if it can boost savings. The pilot, led by head of HR Andrew Rushworth, is being conducted in Hill Dickinson's claimant and professional services teams with two different outsourcers in the UK.
Jackson (pictured) commented: "When we first started our large expansion plans [six years ago] we didn't have the infrastructure to support the business; now we are thinking that we may have too much. We are not taking a knife to the business and cutting out major things but we are objectively analysing whether everything we are spending our money on is necessary."
Jackson and Wardale are likely to present their findings to the board at the end of the year.
The firm is also considering whether it should take advantage of its geographical position and act as an outsourcer for the major City firms.
http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/news/1730605/hill-dicks-pilots-business-outsourcing-reviews-outside-providers
Ankit Rawal
Banks to allow local groups to buy foreclosures -- By ALAN ZIBEL AP Real Estate Writer
The Obama administration says local officials could benefit from acquiring these properties and using the land for redevelopment projects. Congress has provided $7 billion in money to buy the homes.
These groups have been outbid by speculators who are snapping up foreclosures.
The administration says the largest mortgage lenders in the country, including Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. have agreed to let the groups purchase the properties ahead of private speculators.
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/f/1310/09-01-2010/20100901070502_07.html
Former Halliwells partners on the hook for further bank loans -- By Claire Ruckin
Second cash call and St James's deal leave some liable for £500k
Halliwells partners look set to be asked to repay more than £2m in additional bank loans taken in 2010 as further details of the now-defunct firm's finances and partner liabilities emerge.
The firm conducted a voluntary cash call at the beginning of the year which saw 28 partners contribute a total of £2.3m, facilitated by professional practice loans (PPLs) taken out from The Co-operative Bank.
Partners put in varying amounts depending on whether they had received a payout on completion of the firm's new offices in Spinningfields. Those who received the windfall contributed £20,000 per equity point, while those who did not put in £10,000 per point.
The capital raising was at the request of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and came at the same time that the firm renegotiated £19.8m of loan facilities with the bank.
The cash injection came in addition to a mandatory capital raising conducted in 2008, when partners doubled what they had in the firm. At the time PPLs were taken out with Handelsbanken.
Partners will now be expected to pay back outstanding loans with The Co-op, Handelsbanken and RBS - with some partners liable for in excess of £500,000.
A spokesperson for The Co-op commented: "We can confirm that The Co-operative Bank does have professional practice loans in place with Halliwells partners. However, due to customer confidentiality we are unable to discuss specific details."
News of the additional cash call comes as it emerges that the former 40-strong Halliwells equity partnership is facing liabilities of up to £3m on its former Manchester premises at St James's Court.
The firm agreed to a rental contract with a break clause in 2013; however, it left the premises in 2007 when it relocated to Spinningfields. A number of partners including litigation partner Paul Thomas and former senior partner Alec Craig acted as guarantors for the 40,000 sq ft space.
Thomas has sent letters of demand to meet rent liabilities to former equity partners. The firm is hoping to negotiate a discount with the landlord, but it is likely partners will owe at least £25,000 each.
Thomas has also contacted the London Court of International Arbitration and is hoping that former Halliwells partners will agree to participate in an arbitration process. He has instructed John McGhee QC of Maitland Chambers to advise on the matter.
In addition to Thomas and Craig, former Halliwells partners Matt Wightman and Chris Phillips are also named as guarantors on the St James Court lease. However, both are disputing this, given they left the firm in 2009 under the assumption their role as guarantors would be passed onto existing members within the firm.
Phillips left to become a consultant at Keoghs, while Wightman became chief executive of HL Interactive, the bulk legal services business which demerged from Halliwells last year. The duo have instructed Walker Morris to advise.
Halliwells issued notice of intention to appoint administrators in June, concluding the break-up and sale of its business the following month.
http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/news/1730588/former-halliwells-partners-hook-bank-loans
Halliwells partners look set to be asked to repay more than £2m in additional bank loans taken in 2010 as further details of the now-defunct firm's finances and partner liabilities emerge.
The firm conducted a voluntary cash call at the beginning of the year which saw 28 partners contribute a total of £2.3m, facilitated by professional practice loans (PPLs) taken out from The Co-operative Bank.
Partners put in varying amounts depending on whether they had received a payout on completion of the firm's new offices in Spinningfields. Those who received the windfall contributed £20,000 per equity point, while those who did not put in £10,000 per point.
The capital raising was at the request of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and came at the same time that the firm renegotiated £19.8m of loan facilities with the bank.
The cash injection came in addition to a mandatory capital raising conducted in 2008, when partners doubled what they had in the firm. At the time PPLs were taken out with Handelsbanken.
Partners will now be expected to pay back outstanding loans with The Co-op, Handelsbanken and RBS - with some partners liable for in excess of £500,000.
A spokesperson for The Co-op commented: "We can confirm that The Co-operative Bank does have professional practice loans in place with Halliwells partners. However, due to customer confidentiality we are unable to discuss specific details."
News of the additional cash call comes as it emerges that the former 40-strong Halliwells equity partnership is facing liabilities of up to £3m on its former Manchester premises at St James's Court.
The firm agreed to a rental contract with a break clause in 2013; however, it left the premises in 2007 when it relocated to Spinningfields. A number of partners including litigation partner Paul Thomas and former senior partner Alec Craig acted as guarantors for the 40,000 sq ft space.
Thomas has sent letters of demand to meet rent liabilities to former equity partners. The firm is hoping to negotiate a discount with the landlord, but it is likely partners will owe at least £25,000 each.
Thomas has also contacted the London Court of International Arbitration and is hoping that former Halliwells partners will agree to participate in an arbitration process. He has instructed John McGhee QC of Maitland Chambers to advise on the matter.
In addition to Thomas and Craig, former Halliwells partners Matt Wightman and Chris Phillips are also named as guarantors on the St James Court lease. However, both are disputing this, given they left the firm in 2009 under the assumption their role as guarantors would be passed onto existing members within the firm.
Phillips left to become a consultant at Keoghs, while Wightman became chief executive of HL Interactive, the bulk legal services business which demerged from Halliwells last year. The duo have instructed Walker Morris to advise.
Halliwells issued notice of intention to appoint administrators in June, concluding the break-up and sale of its business the following month.
http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/news/1730588/former-halliwells-partners-hook-bank-loans
Botox Maker to Pay $600 Million in Settlement Over Off-Label Uses -- By Sue Reisinger
Allergan, Inc. Wednesday said it has agreed to pay $600 million in criminal and civil penalties and plead guilty to one misdemeanor count of "misbranding" its drug Botox as part of a global settlement (pdf) with the federal government over off-label uses of the drug.
As part of the plea deal, the Irvine, Calif.-based drug company agreed to drop its First Amendment legal action against the U.S. government. This action, filed last fall, contended that the government's legal position -- that it's a crime for a drug company to communicate truthful information to physicians about off-label uses of its products -- violates the First Amendment and is inconsistent with the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act.
(Also See: Allergan Press Release (pdf))
At the time the action was filed, critics said it threatened the entire federal regulation of pharmaceuticals.
But one of the top First Amendment experts in the country, Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe, said at the time, "I think that Allergan has a strong First Amendment case for a right to market lawful but off-label uses for its drugs in a truthful and non-misleading way." But now the suit is dead.
Tony West, U.S. assistant attorney general in the civil division, said Allergan had also paid kickbacks (pdf) to doctors to try off-label uses. West trumpeted the size of the settlement as "impressive, to be sure."
But Allergan is paying only a fraction of the record $2.3 billion that Pfizer Inc. paid last year to settle misbranding allegations over its pain killer, Bextra. A Pfizer subsidiary also had to plead guilty to a felony in that case.
In Allergan's plea deal, the company admitted that between 2000 through 2005, its marketing of Botox -- not to be confused with its cosmetic cousin -- resulted in intended but off-label uses for the treatment of headache, pain, spasticity and juvenile cerebral palsy.
In March 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved Botox for the treatment of adults with upper limb spasticity, and the company said clinical trials are under way to gain approval for the other uses.
Over 70 other countries already approve the use of the drug for juvenile cerebral palsy, and doctors in the U.S. can and do legally prescribe it. But it remains illegal for Allergan to discuss that off-label use with the doctors until the FDA approves it.
Of Allergan's penalty, $225 million will go to resolve civil claims asserted by the Department of Justice under the False Claims Act. The company continues to deny liability associated with the civil allegations.
"This settlement is in the best interest of our stockholders as it resolves all matters at issue in the investigation, avoids substantial costs of litigation, as well as the substantial risks to Allergan associated with government enforcement action," said Douglas Ingram, Allergan's executive vice president. Ingram was previously the company's chief legal officer dealing with the government's investigation and supervising the First Amendment suit.
The settlement still must be approved by the federal courts overseeing the criminal and civil cases. Allergan was represented by Paul Clement, a partner at King & Spalding in Washington, D.C., and a former U.S. solicitor general.
The deal also required the company to enter into a corporate integrity agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services. Under the agreement, Allergan will maintain its updated compliance program and undertake a series of compliance-related obligations, including additional monitoring, maintenance of specific written standards, auditing, training, education, reporting and disclosure, for five years.
The agreement also provides for an independent third-party review organization to assess and report on Allergan's compliance program.
Allergan estimated it will record pre-tax charges of between $610 million and $615 million in its third quarter in connection with the settlement. The amount includes interest and attorneys fees.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202471484515
As part of the plea deal, the Irvine, Calif.-based drug company agreed to drop its First Amendment legal action against the U.S. government. This action, filed last fall, contended that the government's legal position -- that it's a crime for a drug company to communicate truthful information to physicians about off-label uses of its products -- violates the First Amendment and is inconsistent with the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act.
(Also See: Allergan Press Release (pdf))
At the time the action was filed, critics said it threatened the entire federal regulation of pharmaceuticals.
But one of the top First Amendment experts in the country, Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe, said at the time, "I think that Allergan has a strong First Amendment case for a right to market lawful but off-label uses for its drugs in a truthful and non-misleading way." But now the suit is dead.
Tony West, U.S. assistant attorney general in the civil division, said Allergan had also paid kickbacks (pdf) to doctors to try off-label uses. West trumpeted the size of the settlement as "impressive, to be sure."
But Allergan is paying only a fraction of the record $2.3 billion that Pfizer Inc. paid last year to settle misbranding allegations over its pain killer, Bextra. A Pfizer subsidiary also had to plead guilty to a felony in that case.
In Allergan's plea deal, the company admitted that between 2000 through 2005, its marketing of Botox -- not to be confused with its cosmetic cousin -- resulted in intended but off-label uses for the treatment of headache, pain, spasticity and juvenile cerebral palsy.
In March 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved Botox for the treatment of adults with upper limb spasticity, and the company said clinical trials are under way to gain approval for the other uses.
Over 70 other countries already approve the use of the drug for juvenile cerebral palsy, and doctors in the U.S. can and do legally prescribe it. But it remains illegal for Allergan to discuss that off-label use with the doctors until the FDA approves it.
Of Allergan's penalty, $225 million will go to resolve civil claims asserted by the Department of Justice under the False Claims Act. The company continues to deny liability associated with the civil allegations.
"This settlement is in the best interest of our stockholders as it resolves all matters at issue in the investigation, avoids substantial costs of litigation, as well as the substantial risks to Allergan associated with government enforcement action," said Douglas Ingram, Allergan's executive vice president. Ingram was previously the company's chief legal officer dealing with the government's investigation and supervising the First Amendment suit.
The settlement still must be approved by the federal courts overseeing the criminal and civil cases. Allergan was represented by Paul Clement, a partner at King & Spalding in Washington, D.C., and a former U.S. solicitor general.
The deal also required the company to enter into a corporate integrity agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services. Under the agreement, Allergan will maintain its updated compliance program and undertake a series of compliance-related obligations, including additional monitoring, maintenance of specific written standards, auditing, training, education, reporting and disclosure, for five years.
The agreement also provides for an independent third-party review organization to assess and report on Allergan's compliance program.
Allergan estimated it will record pre-tax charges of between $610 million and $615 million in its third quarter in connection with the settlement. The amount includes interest and attorneys fees.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202471484515
Calif. rejects ban on plastic shopping bags -- By ROBIN HINDERY Associated Press Writer
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - California lawmakers on Tuesday rejected a bill seeking to ban plastic shopping bags, after a contentious debate over whether the state was going too far in trying to regulate personal choice.
It would have been the first statewide ban, although a few cities already prohibit their use.
The Democratic bill had been the subject of a furious lobbying campaign by the plastic bag manufacturing industry, which called it a job killer.
The Senate took final action at the very end of the legislative session, reflecting how difficult it had been to muster support. The bill received just 14 votes in the Senate, seven short of the majority it needed.
Supporters of AB1998 said the 19 billion plastic bags Californians use every year harm the environment and cost the state $25 million annually to collect and transport to landfills.
Sen. Gil Cedillo, who carried the measure on the Senate floor, said it offered California an opportunity to emerge at the forefront of a global trend.
"If we don't solve this problem today, if we don't create a statewide standard, if we don't provide the leadership that is being called for, others will," the Los Angeles Democrat said.
A handful of California cities already ban single-use plastic bags, after San Francisco became the first to do so in 2007. Palo Alto, Malibu and Fairfax have since followed, while a ban approved in Manhattan Beach is tied up in litigation, said Matthew King, a spokesman for Heal the Bay, the Santa Monica-based nonprofit that sponsored AB1998.
The bill called for the ban to take effect in supermarkets and large retail stores in 2012. It would have applied to smaller stores in 2013.
Republicans and some Democrats opposed it, saying it would add an extra burden on consumers and businesses at a time when many already are struggling financially.
"If we pass this piece of legislation, we will be sending a message to the people of California that we care more about banning plastic bags than helping them put food on their table," said Sen. Mimi Walters, R-Lake Forest.
Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, was one of half a dozen Democrats to vote against the bill. She said the state instead should offer incentives for reducing the use of plastic bags before imposing a statewide mandate.
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/f/1310/09-01-2010/20100901000501_02.html
It would have been the first statewide ban, although a few cities already prohibit their use.
The Democratic bill had been the subject of a furious lobbying campaign by the plastic bag manufacturing industry, which called it a job killer.
The Senate took final action at the very end of the legislative session, reflecting how difficult it had been to muster support. The bill received just 14 votes in the Senate, seven short of the majority it needed.
Supporters of AB1998 said the 19 billion plastic bags Californians use every year harm the environment and cost the state $25 million annually to collect and transport to landfills.
Sen. Gil Cedillo, who carried the measure on the Senate floor, said it offered California an opportunity to emerge at the forefront of a global trend.
"If we don't solve this problem today, if we don't create a statewide standard, if we don't provide the leadership that is being called for, others will," the Los Angeles Democrat said.
A handful of California cities already ban single-use plastic bags, after San Francisco became the first to do so in 2007. Palo Alto, Malibu and Fairfax have since followed, while a ban approved in Manhattan Beach is tied up in litigation, said Matthew King, a spokesman for Heal the Bay, the Santa Monica-based nonprofit that sponsored AB1998.
The bill called for the ban to take effect in supermarkets and large retail stores in 2012. It would have applied to smaller stores in 2013.
Republicans and some Democrats opposed it, saying it would add an extra burden on consumers and businesses at a time when many already are struggling financially.
"If we pass this piece of legislation, we will be sending a message to the people of California that we care more about banning plastic bags than helping them put food on their table," said Sen. Mimi Walters, R-Lake Forest.
Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, was one of half a dozen Democrats to vote against the bill. She said the state instead should offer incentives for reducing the use of plastic bags before imposing a statewide mandate.
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/f/1310/09-01-2010/20100901000501_02.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)