To contact us Click HERE
This posting was written by CCH Trade Regulation staff.
FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz welcomed Joshua D. Wright as an FTC Commissioner at a swearing-in ceremony January 11. President Obama named Wright, a Republican, to a term that ends on September 25, 2019. He was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on January 1, 2013, and will replace J. Thomas Rosch, who served as a Commissioner beginning in January 2006.
Before joining the FTC, Wright was a Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law. Wright previously served as the inaugural Scholar in Residence at the FTC Bureau of Competition, from January 2007 to July 2008. Prior to GMU, Wright taught at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy and clerked for Judge James V. Selna of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
He received a B.A. in Economics at the University of California, San Diego and a J.D. and a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), where he was Managing Editor of the UCLA Law Review. According to Truth on the Market blog, Wright would be the first J.D./Ph.D. to serve as an FTC Commissioner and only the fourth economist.
25 Şubat 2013 Pazartesi
UPS Drops Planned Acquisition of TNT Express in Light of EC Concerns
To contact us Click HERE
This posting was written by Jeffrey May, Editor of CCH Trade Regulation Reporter.
United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) announced on January 14 that it is dropping its plans to acquire competing delivery company TNT Express N.V. in response to European Commission (EC) antitrust concerns over the deal. UPS said that the EC had informed the companies that it was working on a decision to prohibit the transaction. Upon prohibition by the EC, UPS will withdraw its offer and pay the Dutch firm € 200 million.
According to a statement from TNT released today, the EC case team investigating the proposed acquisition informed the companies that on the basis of UPS’s current remedy proposal it was working towards proposing a prohibition decision. TNT went on to say that it was informed that UPS “sees no realistic prospect that EC clearance can be obtained and that UPS will not pursue the transaction on any other basis.”
In March 2012, the parties announced the proposed transaction to “create a global leader in the logistics industry.” The parties had initially hoped to complete the acquisition by the end of 2012.
The EC disclosed in July 2012 that it had opened an in-depth investigation into the combination. At that time, the EC said that its preliminary investigation indicated potential competition concerns in the markets for small parcel delivery services, in particular international express services, in numerous member states, where the parties would have very high combined market shares.
The parties announced in October that they had received a statement of objections from the EC. The parties offered proposed remedies to resolve the EC's concerns regarding the competitive effects of the proposed merger on the international express small package market in Europe. Obviously, the commitments were not enough to resolve the antitrust concerns. The EC has until early February to issue its decision.
United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) announced on January 14 that it is dropping its plans to acquire competing delivery company TNT Express N.V. in response to European Commission (EC) antitrust concerns over the deal. UPS said that the EC had informed the companies that it was working on a decision to prohibit the transaction. Upon prohibition by the EC, UPS will withdraw its offer and pay the Dutch firm € 200 million.
According to a statement from TNT released today, the EC case team investigating the proposed acquisition informed the companies that on the basis of UPS’s current remedy proposal it was working towards proposing a prohibition decision. TNT went on to say that it was informed that UPS “sees no realistic prospect that EC clearance can be obtained and that UPS will not pursue the transaction on any other basis.”
In March 2012, the parties announced the proposed transaction to “create a global leader in the logistics industry.” The parties had initially hoped to complete the acquisition by the end of 2012.
The EC disclosed in July 2012 that it had opened an in-depth investigation into the combination. At that time, the EC said that its preliminary investigation indicated potential competition concerns in the markets for small parcel delivery services, in particular international express services, in numerous member states, where the parties would have very high combined market shares.
The parties announced in October that they had received a statement of objections from the EC. The parties offered proposed remedies to resolve the EC's concerns regarding the competitive effects of the proposed merger on the international express small package market in Europe. Obviously, the commitments were not enough to resolve the antitrust concerns. The EC has until early February to issue its decision.
Subway Sued For Misrepresenting Length of “Footlong” Sandwiches
To contact us Click HERE
This posting was written by Jody Coultas, Editor of CCH State Unfair Trade Practices Law.
A Subway customer filed a nationwide class action lawsuit in the federal district court in Chicago, alleging that Subway violated the consumer protection statutes of all 50 states and the District of Columbia, after measuring a “Footlong” sandwich purchased from Subway and realizing it was less than 11 inches long (Buren v. Doctor’s Associates, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00498, January 22, 2013).
Subway advertises and sells submarine sandwiches labeled as “Footlong” subs. The complaint alleges that, because the actual length of the sandwiches falls short of 12 inches, customers pay more than they should have in reliance on Subway’s advertising. Advertising on television, in print, on the radio, and on the Internet allegedly misleads consumers into believing that they are receiving a 12-inch sandwich when they actually receive less.
In marketing and advertising materials, Subway references the length of the “Footlong” subs by having actors or artists’ renderings hold their hands approximately one foot apart, and includes a graphic between the actors’ hands indicating that the hands are one foot apart.
The customer, Nguyen Buren, alleged a class action on behalf of “All persons in the United States who purchased SUBWAY® ‘Footlong’ submarine sandwiches that were less than 12 inches long.”
The complaint sought to enjoin Subway from using the allegedly deceptive advertising and requested restitution, actual damages, treble damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs of suit.
Other Lawsuits
Similar lawsuits have been filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County and in New Jersey Superior Court, Burlington County.
The Pennsylvania complaint alleges a state-wide class action brought under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) “over identical, false, affirmative misstatements of material fact and knowing material omissions made by Subway regarding its trademarked ‘Footlong’ sandwich” starting in January 2007 and continuing to the present (Roseman v. Subway Sandwich Shops, Inc., No. 130102647, January 24, 2013).
“The discrepancy in size between the uniform statements in Subway’s signs, menus and advertising regarding the size of this sandwich and the actual size of this sandwich is not an accident nor is it the result of any variation in size among such sandwiches,” the complaint charged. “Rather, Subway has admitted in communications with the press that this sandwich is made according to exacting, uniform procedures and specifications imposed by Subway upon its franchisees and stores, all of whom are required by Subway to use specified ingredients in specified amounts.”
The action “aims at obtaining redress under the Pennsylvania UTPCPL for those persons in Pennsylvania who received less than what they were promised when they purchased a ‘Footlong’ sandwich in Pennsylvania between January 24, 2007 and the present.” It asks the court to certify the class, enter an order for injunctive and declaratory relief, assess damages and trebled damages, and award attorney fees and costs.
A Subway customer filed a nationwide class action lawsuit in the federal district court in Chicago, alleging that Subway violated the consumer protection statutes of all 50 states and the District of Columbia, after measuring a “Footlong” sandwich purchased from Subway and realizing it was less than 11 inches long (Buren v. Doctor’s Associates, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00498, January 22, 2013).
Subway advertises and sells submarine sandwiches labeled as “Footlong” subs. The complaint alleges that, because the actual length of the sandwiches falls short of 12 inches, customers pay more than they should have in reliance on Subway’s advertising. Advertising on television, in print, on the radio, and on the Internet allegedly misleads consumers into believing that they are receiving a 12-inch sandwich when they actually receive less.
In marketing and advertising materials, Subway references the length of the “Footlong” subs by having actors or artists’ renderings hold their hands approximately one foot apart, and includes a graphic between the actors’ hands indicating that the hands are one foot apart.
The customer, Nguyen Buren, alleged a class action on behalf of “All persons in the United States who purchased SUBWAY® ‘Footlong’ submarine sandwiches that were less than 12 inches long.”
The complaint sought to enjoin Subway from using the allegedly deceptive advertising and requested restitution, actual damages, treble damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs of suit.
Other Lawsuits
Similar lawsuits have been filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County and in New Jersey Superior Court, Burlington County.
The Pennsylvania complaint alleges a state-wide class action brought under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) “over identical, false, affirmative misstatements of material fact and knowing material omissions made by Subway regarding its trademarked ‘Footlong’ sandwich” starting in January 2007 and continuing to the present (Roseman v. Subway Sandwich Shops, Inc., No. 130102647, January 24, 2013).
“The discrepancy in size between the uniform statements in Subway’s signs, menus and advertising regarding the size of this sandwich and the actual size of this sandwich is not an accident nor is it the result of any variation in size among such sandwiches,” the complaint charged. “Rather, Subway has admitted in communications with the press that this sandwich is made according to exacting, uniform procedures and specifications imposed by Subway upon its franchisees and stores, all of whom are required by Subway to use specified ingredients in specified amounts.”
The action “aims at obtaining redress under the Pennsylvania UTPCPL for those persons in Pennsylvania who received less than what they were promised when they purchased a ‘Footlong’ sandwich in Pennsylvania between January 24, 2007 and the present.” It asks the court to certify the class, enter an order for injunctive and declaratory relief, assess damages and trebled damages, and award attorney fees and costs.
Michigan Motor Dealers Act Amendments Do Not Apply Retroactively to Require Prior Notice of Opening New Dealership
To contact us Click HERE
This posting was written by Tobias J. Gillett, J.D., LLM, contributor to Antitrust Law Daily.
Kia Motors may open an automobile dealer within nine miles of an existing Michigan dealership without providing notice to the dealer, despite a 2010 amendment to Michigan’s Motor Dealers Act requiring manufacturers to provide notice and an opportunity to bring a declaratory judgment action to dealers within nine miles of the new dealer, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has ruled (Kia Motors America, Inc. v. Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc., February 7, 2013, McKeague, D.).
Kia and the Michigan dealer entered into their dealer agreement in 1998, when the statute specified a six-mile zone requiring notice rather than a nine-mile zone, and the amendment did not apply retroactively.
Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc. is a Southfield, Michigan automobile dealer. In 1998, Kia and Glassman entered into a nonexclusive Dealer Sales and Service Agreement appointing Glassman as an authorized Kia dealer. The agreement stated that “[a]s permitted by applicable law, [Kia] may add new dealers to, relocate dealers into or remove dealers from the [Area of Primary Responsibility] assigned to [Glassman].”
In 1998, Michigan’s Motor Dealers Act required manufacturers to provide written notice to existing dealers within six miles of a proposed new dealer before establishing the dealer, and permitted the existing dealer to bring a declaratory judgment action within thirty days of receiving notice “to determine whether good cause exists for the establishing or relocating of” the proposed new dealer. In 2010, the Michigan legislature amended the Act to extend this zone to nine miles from existing dealers.
Shortly after the amendment became effective, Kia informed Glassman that it intended to establish a new dealer in Troy, Michigan, about seven miles from Glassman. Glassman protested the lack of written notice from Kia, and Kia filed an action for a declaratory judgment that the 2010 amendment did not require it to give notice to Glassman.
The district court granted summary judgment to Kia, concluding that the amendment did not operate retroactively to require Kia to give notice. Glassman appealed.
Contract Argument
On appeal, Glassman contended that the parties had intended to incorporate changes to the law, such as the 2010 amendment, by including the “as permitted by applicable law” language. The appeals court initially noted that the language might not apply to this case, since the language limited Kia’s ability to establish new dealers within Glassman’s “Area of Primary Responsibility,” a term distinct from the “relevant market area” term in the Act. Kia had stated that the new dealer would not be established within Glassman’s “Area of Primary Responsibility.”
Even if it did apply, however, the court observed that changes to the law are generally not incorporated into an agreement unless the language of the agreement clearly indicates the intent of the parties to include such changes. Since “as permitted by applicable law” could refer to the provision of the Act in effect when the contract was signed as easily as it could refer to the current provision, the language did not clearly indicate the intent of the parties to incorporate changes in the law.
Glassman also argued that the 2010 amendment should apply, since other provisions in the agreement required Glassman to comply with applicable consumer-protection, safety, and emission-control laws, and since Kia agreed that those provisions required Glassman to comply with current laws as well as those in effect when the agreement was signed. However, the court of appeals observed that those provisions referred to Glassman’s responsibilities to the general public, and did not “significantly change the parties’ bargain.” Since the dealer establishment provision “directly concern[ed] the relationship between Kia and Glassman,” it differed fundamentally from the other provisions, in the court’s view.
Statutory Argument
Having determined that the agreement did not include the 2010 amendment, the court proceeded to address whether the Michigan legislature intended the 2010 amendment to apply retroactively. The court noted that Michigan statutes are generally presumed to operate only prospectively “unless the contrary intent is clearly manifested.” However, procedural statutes that “neither create new rights nor destroy, enlarge, or diminish existing rights are generally held to operate retrospectively unless a contrary legislative intent is manifested.”
Since the legislature had not manifested a clear intent for the amendment to apply retrospectively, the only issue was whether the amendment was substantive or procedural. Glassman had argued that the amendment was procedural “because it constituted a minor change to the definition of relevant market area,” and did not “create new substantive rights.” However, the court concluded that the amendment, by requiring Kia to provide notice if it established a dealer more than six miles from an existing dealer, did impose a new duty on Kia, and “provide[d] a new substantive right that did not previously exist.”
The court also rejected an argument that, since Kia was intending to establish a new dealer after the 2010 amendment, the amendment would not have to be applied retrospectively, finding that the amendment would “affect[] Kia’s rights under a contract that predates the amendment.”
In addition, the court noted that its decision would permit it to avoid the constitutional question whether applying the 2010 amendment retroactively would violate the Contracts Clauses of the United States and Michigan Constitutions. The court therefore concluded that the 2010 amendment should not be applied retroactively to the agreement, and affirmed the district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings to Kia.
Kia Motors may open an automobile dealer within nine miles of an existing Michigan dealership without providing notice to the dealer, despite a 2010 amendment to Michigan’s Motor Dealers Act requiring manufacturers to provide notice and an opportunity to bring a declaratory judgment action to dealers within nine miles of the new dealer, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has ruled (Kia Motors America, Inc. v. Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc., February 7, 2013, McKeague, D.).
Kia and the Michigan dealer entered into their dealer agreement in 1998, when the statute specified a six-mile zone requiring notice rather than a nine-mile zone, and the amendment did not apply retroactively.
Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc. is a Southfield, Michigan automobile dealer. In 1998, Kia and Glassman entered into a nonexclusive Dealer Sales and Service Agreement appointing Glassman as an authorized Kia dealer. The agreement stated that “[a]s permitted by applicable law, [Kia] may add new dealers to, relocate dealers into or remove dealers from the [Area of Primary Responsibility] assigned to [Glassman].”
In 1998, Michigan’s Motor Dealers Act required manufacturers to provide written notice to existing dealers within six miles of a proposed new dealer before establishing the dealer, and permitted the existing dealer to bring a declaratory judgment action within thirty days of receiving notice “to determine whether good cause exists for the establishing or relocating of” the proposed new dealer. In 2010, the Michigan legislature amended the Act to extend this zone to nine miles from existing dealers.
Shortly after the amendment became effective, Kia informed Glassman that it intended to establish a new dealer in Troy, Michigan, about seven miles from Glassman. Glassman protested the lack of written notice from Kia, and Kia filed an action for a declaratory judgment that the 2010 amendment did not require it to give notice to Glassman.
The district court granted summary judgment to Kia, concluding that the amendment did not operate retroactively to require Kia to give notice. Glassman appealed.
Contract Argument
On appeal, Glassman contended that the parties had intended to incorporate changes to the law, such as the 2010 amendment, by including the “as permitted by applicable law” language. The appeals court initially noted that the language might not apply to this case, since the language limited Kia’s ability to establish new dealers within Glassman’s “Area of Primary Responsibility,” a term distinct from the “relevant market area” term in the Act. Kia had stated that the new dealer would not be established within Glassman’s “Area of Primary Responsibility.”
Even if it did apply, however, the court observed that changes to the law are generally not incorporated into an agreement unless the language of the agreement clearly indicates the intent of the parties to include such changes. Since “as permitted by applicable law” could refer to the provision of the Act in effect when the contract was signed as easily as it could refer to the current provision, the language did not clearly indicate the intent of the parties to incorporate changes in the law.
Glassman also argued that the 2010 amendment should apply, since other provisions in the agreement required Glassman to comply with applicable consumer-protection, safety, and emission-control laws, and since Kia agreed that those provisions required Glassman to comply with current laws as well as those in effect when the agreement was signed. However, the court of appeals observed that those provisions referred to Glassman’s responsibilities to the general public, and did not “significantly change the parties’ bargain.” Since the dealer establishment provision “directly concern[ed] the relationship between Kia and Glassman,” it differed fundamentally from the other provisions, in the court’s view.
Statutory Argument
Having determined that the agreement did not include the 2010 amendment, the court proceeded to address whether the Michigan legislature intended the 2010 amendment to apply retroactively. The court noted that Michigan statutes are generally presumed to operate only prospectively “unless the contrary intent is clearly manifested.” However, procedural statutes that “neither create new rights nor destroy, enlarge, or diminish existing rights are generally held to operate retrospectively unless a contrary legislative intent is manifested.”
Since the legislature had not manifested a clear intent for the amendment to apply retrospectively, the only issue was whether the amendment was substantive or procedural. Glassman had argued that the amendment was procedural “because it constituted a minor change to the definition of relevant market area,” and did not “create new substantive rights.” However, the court concluded that the amendment, by requiring Kia to provide notice if it established a dealer more than six miles from an existing dealer, did impose a new duty on Kia, and “provide[d] a new substantive right that did not previously exist.”
The court also rejected an argument that, since Kia was intending to establish a new dealer after the 2010 amendment, the amendment would not have to be applied retrospectively, finding that the amendment would “affect[] Kia’s rights under a contract that predates the amendment.”
In addition, the court noted that its decision would permit it to avoid the constitutional question whether applying the 2010 amendment retroactively would violate the Contracts Clauses of the United States and Michigan Constitutions. The court therefore concluded that the 2010 amendment should not be applied retroactively to the agreement, and affirmed the district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings to Kia.
Insurer States RICO Claim Against Personal Injury Scammers; Counterclaim Too Bare to Survive
To contact us Click HERE
This posting was written by E. Darius Sturmer, contributor to Antitrust Law Daily.
A physician and a pair of physical therapy clinics, along with their principals, could have violated the federal RICO Act by orchestrating an alleged scheme to defraud State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. through the filing of claims for physical therapy services that were medically unnecessary or not actually performed, the federal district court in Ann Arbor, Michigan has decided (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Physiomatrix, Inc., February 12, 2013, O’Meara, J.).
A motion to dismiss filed by the defendants was denied, while motions by State Farm and two of its employees to dismiss the defendants’ RICO counterclaims was granted. Michigan’s Commissioner of Insurance, Kevin Clinton, and Secretary of State Ruth Johnson were also entitled to dismissal of a declaratory judgment action filed by the defendants, seeking to force them to order State Farm to cease its allegedly illegal conduct and suspend, revoke, or limit the insurer’s authority to act in Michigan.
In the suit, State Farm alleged that the defendant physician provided fraudulent diagnoses and prescriptions to patients who had been involved in motor vehicle accidents and were eligible for Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits under State Farm policies. These allowed them to obtain unnecessary physical therapy treatment at the defending clinics. The defendants’ counterclaims asserted that State Farm and two of its employees had violated their civil rights and federal RICO by fraudulently issuing blanket denials of legitimate PIP claims.
McCarran-Ferguson Act Preemption
At the outset, the court rejected an argument by the defendants that State Farm’s RICO claims were reverse preempted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The Act provides that “[t]he business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.” There was no need to undertake an analysis of whether the conduct constituted the business of insurance, the court said, because the application of RICO would not impair Michigan’s No-Fault Act.
There was no legal authority suggesting that the insurance code had abrogated a common law action for fraud. State Farm did not have an “exclusive remedy” under the Michigan Insurance Code for fraud that would conflict with the application of RICO, and there was no evidence that the application of RICO would impair the state’s regulatory scheme. To the contrary, RICO augmented Michigan’s regulatory scheme.
Adequacy of plaintiff’s RICO Claim. State Farm adequately pleaded a claim for violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(c) of the RICO Act, the court ruled. The insurance company sufficiently alleged the existence of a RICO enterprise and the defendants’ participation in it. It described the purpose of the conspiracy, the relationships between those associated with the enterprise, and sufficient longevity (from 2007 to the present) to permit the enterprise’s purpose. Addressing the claims specifically in the context of the defending physician’s motion, the court noted State Farm’s further allegation that the physician’s role was essential to the success of the scheme, given state laws requiring prescriptions for physical therapy services.
In addition, the court rejected the defendants’ contention that State Farm failed to plead mail fraud with particularity. The insurer’s providing of attachments to the complaint listing the claims at issue, examples of the physicians’ allegedly fraudulent disability certificates, and his initial examination findings, together with its specification of the overall fraudulent scheme in the complaint, sufficed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
Defendants’ RICO Counterclaim
The defendants’ RICO counterclaim against State Farm and its employees—which contended that the insurer, its employees, and purported “independent” medical examiners conspired to wrongfully issue automatic claim denials—could not similarly survive dismissal, in the court’s view. The claim, which was essentially that State Farm did not remit payment as required under its insurance policies sounded in contract, not fraud, the court noted.
The countercomplaint alleged that in 2011, the insurer and its co-conspirators commenced their predetermined pattern of activity to wrongfully deny each and every claim submitted through the two physical therapy clinics. This consisted of issuing, through the United States Mail, form ‘investigation letters’ at various stages of the claim process and then predetermined explanation-of-benefit letters, all of which contained false and misleading information and statements as to the propriety of the charges sought to be paid to the clinics.
The clinics alleged that the information contained in the investigation letters implying a basis to deny claims and the information denying such claims “was false, was false when made, and was known by the author of such letters to be false when made.” They did not specify, however, what “information” in the investigation letters or explanation of benefit letters was false. Nor did they specify the claims that State Farm had allegedly fraudulently denied. Such bare allegations of fraud did not satisfy Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement and did not sufficiently allege predicate acts of racketeering to state a claim under RICO, the court concluded.
Further details will appear in RICO Business Disputes Guide. Further information regarding the Guide appears here.
A physician and a pair of physical therapy clinics, along with their principals, could have violated the federal RICO Act by orchestrating an alleged scheme to defraud State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. through the filing of claims for physical therapy services that were medically unnecessary or not actually performed, the federal district court in Ann Arbor, Michigan has decided (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Physiomatrix, Inc., February 12, 2013, O’Meara, J.).
A motion to dismiss filed by the defendants was denied, while motions by State Farm and two of its employees to dismiss the defendants’ RICO counterclaims was granted. Michigan’s Commissioner of Insurance, Kevin Clinton, and Secretary of State Ruth Johnson were also entitled to dismissal of a declaratory judgment action filed by the defendants, seeking to force them to order State Farm to cease its allegedly illegal conduct and suspend, revoke, or limit the insurer’s authority to act in Michigan.
In the suit, State Farm alleged that the defendant physician provided fraudulent diagnoses and prescriptions to patients who had been involved in motor vehicle accidents and were eligible for Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits under State Farm policies. These allowed them to obtain unnecessary physical therapy treatment at the defending clinics. The defendants’ counterclaims asserted that State Farm and two of its employees had violated their civil rights and federal RICO by fraudulently issuing blanket denials of legitimate PIP claims.
McCarran-Ferguson Act Preemption
At the outset, the court rejected an argument by the defendants that State Farm’s RICO claims were reverse preempted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The Act provides that “[t]he business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.” There was no need to undertake an analysis of whether the conduct constituted the business of insurance, the court said, because the application of RICO would not impair Michigan’s No-Fault Act.
There was no legal authority suggesting that the insurance code had abrogated a common law action for fraud. State Farm did not have an “exclusive remedy” under the Michigan Insurance Code for fraud that would conflict with the application of RICO, and there was no evidence that the application of RICO would impair the state’s regulatory scheme. To the contrary, RICO augmented Michigan’s regulatory scheme.
Adequacy of plaintiff’s RICO Claim. State Farm adequately pleaded a claim for violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(c) of the RICO Act, the court ruled. The insurance company sufficiently alleged the existence of a RICO enterprise and the defendants’ participation in it. It described the purpose of the conspiracy, the relationships between those associated with the enterprise, and sufficient longevity (from 2007 to the present) to permit the enterprise’s purpose. Addressing the claims specifically in the context of the defending physician’s motion, the court noted State Farm’s further allegation that the physician’s role was essential to the success of the scheme, given state laws requiring prescriptions for physical therapy services.
In addition, the court rejected the defendants’ contention that State Farm failed to plead mail fraud with particularity. The insurer’s providing of attachments to the complaint listing the claims at issue, examples of the physicians’ allegedly fraudulent disability certificates, and his initial examination findings, together with its specification of the overall fraudulent scheme in the complaint, sufficed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
Defendants’ RICO Counterclaim
The defendants’ RICO counterclaim against State Farm and its employees—which contended that the insurer, its employees, and purported “independent” medical examiners conspired to wrongfully issue automatic claim denials—could not similarly survive dismissal, in the court’s view. The claim, which was essentially that State Farm did not remit payment as required under its insurance policies sounded in contract, not fraud, the court noted.
The countercomplaint alleged that in 2011, the insurer and its co-conspirators commenced their predetermined pattern of activity to wrongfully deny each and every claim submitted through the two physical therapy clinics. This consisted of issuing, through the United States Mail, form ‘investigation letters’ at various stages of the claim process and then predetermined explanation-of-benefit letters, all of which contained false and misleading information and statements as to the propriety of the charges sought to be paid to the clinics.
The clinics alleged that the information contained in the investigation letters implying a basis to deny claims and the information denying such claims “was false, was false when made, and was known by the author of such letters to be false when made.” They did not specify, however, what “information” in the investigation letters or explanation of benefit letters was false. Nor did they specify the claims that State Farm had allegedly fraudulently denied. Such bare allegations of fraud did not satisfy Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement and did not sufficiently allege predicate acts of racketeering to state a claim under RICO, the court concluded.
Further details will appear in RICO Business Disputes Guide. Further information regarding the Guide appears here.
24 Şubat 2013 Pazar
Small Spaces etc. - Trying On Tiny
To contact us Click HERE
This week's Small Spaces is an introduction to one couples' blog called Trying On Tiny wherein they chronicle their experience of living in a tiny home. They introduce themselves in this way:
From the beginning this past fall, Audrey writes candidly about the stress, struggles and disappointment with the contractor and the mismatch of what they got compared with what they thought they would be getting for a tiny home. Tomas' illustrates this in his own way.
At the beginning of January the couple details the things they love. Tomas begins:
Encinitas would be the perfect community to build an eco-living village that could include tiny homes on wheels, among other alternatives for small space living, as an eco-tourist experience. Special rates for Encinitas residents to try on this kind of lifestyle for size? Above all we have the perfect setting for a lifestyle that encourages living outside as the preferred pattern, a pattern that can't be enjoyed in the colder climates.
This week's Small Spaces is an introduction to one couples' blog called Trying On Tiny wherein they chronicle their experience of living in a tiny home. They introduce themselves in this way:Audrey Addison:
She moved to Portland, OR 7 years ago and has recently decided to ‘try on’ a tiny home and to embrace a simpler way to live in the world. She feels lucky to have the support of family and friends and feels even luckier to have a partner who shares her dream. She’s a lover of nature, learning, and bikes.
Tomas Quinones:
Recently turned freelance illustrator with a focus on children’s literature, Tomas became interested in tiny houses and simplifying his life after leaving an unfulfilling IT job in 2008. Since then he started ditching the unimportant stuff in his life and focusing more on experiences rather than collecting.
From the beginning this past fall, Audrey writes candidly about the stress, struggles and disappointment with the contractor and the mismatch of what they got compared with what they thought they would be getting for a tiny home. Tomas' illustrates this in his own way.
At the beginning of January the couple details the things they love. Tomas begins:What do I love most about living in my Tiny House? Audrey may share many of these sentiments, but I thought I’d share my own opinion.
- Simple & Cozy
- Owning Less Stuff
- We Own It
- We Can Modify It
- It’s Brought Out My Inner Bob Vila
- Using Fewer Resources
- Peace & Quiet
- Frugal Living
- Clean-up is Quick
- It’s Everything I Need, Nothing More
Things I love Part IIThey both delve deeper into what they mean here with the kind of detail they've laid out their entire experience. It is an entertaining read.
Great idea, Tomas! Here are the top things that I LOVE about living in our tiny home.
- In-line With My Beliefs, Values, and Ideals
- Tomas’s Inner Bob Villa
- Community Support
- Mindfulness
- Home Ownership
- Closeness to Nature
- Cozy, Quiet, and Quick to Clean
- Changeable
- Helpful to Others
- A Good Start
Encinitas would be the perfect community to build an eco-living village that could include tiny homes on wheels, among other alternatives for small space living, as an eco-tourist experience. Special rates for Encinitas residents to try on this kind of lifestyle for size? Above all we have the perfect setting for a lifestyle that encourages living outside as the preferred pattern, a pattern that can't be enjoyed in the colder climates.
So God made a banker
To contact us Click HERE
To be read in the voice of Paul Harvey. (source: Market Watch)
And on the eighth day God looked down on his planned paradise and said, “I need someone who can flip this for a quick buck.”
So God made a banker.
God said, “I need someone who doesn’t grow anything or make anything but who will borrow money from the public at 0% interest and then lend it back to the public at 2% or 5% or 10% and pay himself a bonus for doing so.”
So God made a banker.
God said, “I need someone who will take money from the people who work and save, and use that money to create a dotcom bubble and a housing bubble and a stock bubble and an oil bubble and a commodities bubble and a bond bubble and another stock bubble, and then sell it to people in Poughkeepsie and Spokane and Bakersfield, and pay himself another bonus.”
So God made a banker.
God said, “I need someone to build homes in the swamps and deserts using shoddy materials and other people’s money, and then use these homes as collateral for a Ponzi scheme he can sell to pensioners in California and Michigan and Sweden. I need someone who will then foreclose on those homes, kick out the occupants, and switch off the air conditioning and the plumbing, and watch the houses turn back into dirt. And then pay himself another bonus.”
God said, “I need someone to lend money to people with bad credit at 30% interest in order to get his stock price up, and then, just before the loans turn bad, cash out his stock and walk away. And who, when asked later, will, with a tearful eye, say the government made him do it.”
God said, “And I need somebody who will tell everyone else to stand on their own two feet, but who will then run to the government for a bailout as soon as he gets into trouble — and who will then use that bailout money to help elect a Congress that will look the other way. And then pay himself another bonus.”
So God made a banker.
Brett Arends is a MarketWatch columnist. Follow him on Twitter @BrettArends.
To be read in the voice of Paul Harvey. (source: Market Watch)
And on the eighth day God looked down on his planned paradise and said, “I need someone who can flip this for a quick buck.”
So God made a banker.
God said, “I need someone who doesn’t grow anything or make anything but who will borrow money from the public at 0% interest and then lend it back to the public at 2% or 5% or 10% and pay himself a bonus for doing so.”
So God made a banker.
God said, “I need someone who will take money from the people who work and save, and use that money to create a dotcom bubble and a housing bubble and a stock bubble and an oil bubble and a commodities bubble and a bond bubble and another stock bubble, and then sell it to people in Poughkeepsie and Spokane and Bakersfield, and pay himself another bonus.”
So God made a banker.
God said, “I need someone to build homes in the swamps and deserts using shoddy materials and other people’s money, and then use these homes as collateral for a Ponzi scheme he can sell to pensioners in California and Michigan and Sweden. I need someone who will then foreclose on those homes, kick out the occupants, and switch off the air conditioning and the plumbing, and watch the houses turn back into dirt. And then pay himself another bonus.”
God said, “I need someone to lend money to people with bad credit at 30% interest in order to get his stock price up, and then, just before the loans turn bad, cash out his stock and walk away. And who, when asked later, will, with a tearful eye, say the government made him do it.”
God said, “And I need somebody who will tell everyone else to stand on their own two feet, but who will then run to the government for a bailout as soon as he gets into trouble — and who will then use that bailout money to help elect a Congress that will look the other way. And then pay himself another bonus.”
So God made a banker.
Brett Arends is a MarketWatch columnist. Follow him on Twitter @BrettArends.
Women Dancing All Day Today
To contact us Click HERE
Update: Live coverage from the Guardian.
Last week the announcement for 1 Billion Rising proclaimed February 14 as a global demonstration. This one-day event will be held today, a call for one billion women around the world to walk away from their homes, businesses, and jobs, and join together to dance in a show of collective strength. The word "billion" refers to the one billion women who are survivors of abuse.
Trigger Warning: Artists from around the world have interpreted rising up against violence in many different ways. If you are triggered by viewing violence, be aware.
Cape Town contribution:
Infographic on Rape (click to enlarge)
Update: Live coverage from the Guardian.
Last week the announcement for 1 Billion Rising proclaimed February 14 as a global demonstration. This one-day event will be held today, a call for one billion women around the world to walk away from their homes, businesses, and jobs, and join together to dance in a show of collective strength. The word "billion" refers to the one billion women who are survivors of abuse.
Trigger Warning: Artists from around the world have interpreted rising up against violence in many different ways. If you are triggered by viewing violence, be aware.
Cape Town contribution:
Infographic on Rape (click to enlarge)
Haters Don't Lie, They Multiply (Return of the Little Hater)
To contact us Click HERE
On being creative, and the little voices that get inside your head and stop you from shining.
From Jay Smooth's Ill Doctrine where there is a huge collection of videos on the toughest of our culture's subjects most toxic lessons handled with great heart and insight. Little hater is Jay's term for self doubt.
Dedicated to all who are trying to creatively relate to the problems in the world we all share. Sometimes it is really hard. (Unlike the Pope or Palin, let's not quit.)
On being creative, and the little voices that get inside your head and stop you from shining.From Jay Smooth's Ill Doctrine where there is a huge collection of videos on the toughest of our culture's subjects most toxic lessons handled with great heart and insight. Little hater is Jay's term for self doubt.
Dedicated to all who are trying to creatively relate to the problems in the world we all share. Sometimes it is really hard. (Unlike the Pope or Palin, let's not quit.)
Why I Call Myself a Commoner
To contact us Click HERE
A day in the life
Each day I walk out of my Minneapolis house into an atmosphere protected from pollution by the Clean Air Act. As I step onto a sidewalk that was built with tax dollars for everyone, my spirits are lifted by the beauty of my neighbors’ boulevard gardens. Trees planted by people who would never sit under them shade my walk. I listen to public radio, a nonprofit service broadcast over airwaves belonging to us all, as I stroll around a lake
in the park, which was protected from shoreline development by civic-minded citizens in the nineteenth century.
The park, like everything else I have mentioned so far, is a commons for which each of us is responsible.
Frequently I visit the public library, where the intellectual, cultural, scientific, and informational storehouse of the world is opened to me for free—and to anyone who walks through the door. My work requires me to constantly keep up with new knowledge. My best tool is the Internet. The library and Internet, too, are commons.
Returning home I stop at the farmer’s market, a public institution created by local producers who want to share their fare. The same spirit prevails at our local food co-op, of which I am the owner (along with thousands of others), and at community-run theaters and civic events. These commons-based institutions provide us with essential services, the most important of which is fun. Living in the commons isn’t only about cultural and economic wealth; it’s also about joy.
Candido Grzybowski, the Brazilian sociologist who co-founded the World Social Forum, advises, “If we want to work for justice, we should work for the commons.” Protecting and restoring precious gifts from nature and from our foreparents for future generations is one the greatest privileges of a being a commoner.
—HARRIET BARLOW CO-FOUNDER OF ON THE COMMONS
AND FOUNDING DIRECTOR OF THE BLUE MOUNTAIN CENTER
Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.
 |
| Harriet Barlow (Photo by David Morris) |
Each day I walk out of my Minneapolis house into an atmosphere protected from pollution by the Clean Air Act. As I step onto a sidewalk that was built with tax dollars for everyone, my spirits are lifted by the beauty of my neighbors’ boulevard gardens. Trees planted by people who would never sit under them shade my walk. I listen to public radio, a nonprofit service broadcast over airwaves belonging to us all, as I stroll around a lake
in the park, which was protected from shoreline development by civic-minded citizens in the nineteenth century.
The park, like everything else I have mentioned so far, is a commons for which each of us is responsible.
Frequently I visit the public library, where the intellectual, cultural, scientific, and informational storehouse of the world is opened to me for free—and to anyone who walks through the door. My work requires me to constantly keep up with new knowledge. My best tool is the Internet. The library and Internet, too, are commons.
Returning home I stop at the farmer’s market, a public institution created by local producers who want to share their fare. The same spirit prevails at our local food co-op, of which I am the owner (along with thousands of others), and at community-run theaters and civic events. These commons-based institutions provide us with essential services, the most important of which is fun. Living in the commons isn’t only about cultural and economic wealth; it’s also about joy.
Candido Grzybowski, the Brazilian sociologist who co-founded the World Social Forum, advises, “If we want to work for justice, we should work for the commons.” Protecting and restoring precious gifts from nature and from our foreparents for future generations is one the greatest privileges of a being a commoner.
—HARRIET BARLOW CO-FOUNDER OF ON THE COMMONS
AND FOUNDING DIRECTOR OF THE BLUE MOUNTAIN CENTER
Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.23 Şubat 2013 Cumartesi
Anouska Shankar to Encinitas and the World
To contact us Click HERE
Anouska Shankar tells of sexual abuse as a child in Encinitas on Democracy Now today. She also spells out why she is a part of one billion rising along with millions of others around the world.
Also a guest,
Eve Ensler, award-winning playwright and creator of “The Vagina Monologues” and of V-Day, a global movement to stop violence against women and girls. Today marks the movement’s 15th anniversary, and the culmination of the "One Billion Rising" campaign that was started months ago.
Anouska Shankar tells of sexual abuse as a child in Encinitas on Democracy Now today. She also spells out why she is a part of one billion rising along with millions of others around the world.Also a guest,
Eve Ensler, award-winning playwright and creator of “The Vagina Monologues” and of V-Day, a global movement to stop violence against women and girls. Today marks the movement’s 15th anniversary, and the culmination of the "One Billion Rising" campaign that was started months ago.
Were You There 10 Years Ago Today?
To contact us Click HERE
The February 15, 2003 anti-war protest was a coordinated day of protests across the world, with millions of people expressing opposition to the then-imminent Iraq War. It was part of a series of protests and political events that had begun in 2002 and continued as the war took place.
To quote Noam Chomsky,
The February 15, 2003 anti-war protest was a coordinated day of protests across the world, with millions of people expressing opposition to the then-imminent Iraq War. It was part of a series of protests and political events that had begun in 2002 and continued as the war took place.Sources vary in their estimations of the number of participants involved. According to BBC News, between six and ten million people took part in protests in up to sixty countries over the weekend of the 15th and 16th; other estimates range from eight million to thirty million.
Some of the largest protests took place in Europe. The protest in Rome involved around three million people, and is listed in the 2004 Guinness Book of World Records as the largest anti-war rally in history. Madrid hosted the second largest rally with more than 1½ million people protesting the invasion of Iraq, whereas Mainland China was the only major region not to see any protests, but small demonstrations attended mainly by foreign students were seen later.From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To quote Noam Chomsky,
Take the U.S. invasion of Iraq, for example. To everyone except a dedicated ideologue, it was pretty obvious that we invaded Iraq not because of our love of democracy but because it’s maybe the second- or third-largest source of oil in the world, and is right in the middle of the major energy-producing region. You’re not supposed to say this. It’s considered a conspiracy theory.The greatest superpower, the world's people, remains the only hope for change.
The Trouble with Stuff
To contact us Click HERE
COMMONER
Filmmaker Annie Leonard finds people want to be liberated from overconsumption
Annie Leonard is one of the most articulate, effective champions of the commons today. Her webfilm The Story of Stuff has been seen more than 15 million times by viewers. She also adapted it into a book.
Drawing on her experience investigating and organizing on environmental health and justice issues in more than 40 countries, Leonard says she’s “made it her life’s calling to blow the whistle on important issues plaguing our world.” On the Commons recently asked Leonard a few questions about the commons.
How did you first learn about the commons?
I first learned about the commons as a kid using parks and libraries. I didn’t assign the label “commons” to them, but I understood early on that some things belong to all of us and these shared assets enhance our lives and rely on our care.
Like many other college students, my first introduction to the word “commons” was sadly in conjunction with the word “sheep” and “tragedy.” That lousy resource management class tainted the word for me for years, until I heard Ralph Nader address a group of college students. He asked them to yell out a list of everything they own. This being the pre-i-gadget 1980’s, the list included “Sony Walkman...boombox... books...bicycle...clothes...bank account.” When the lists started to peter out, Ralph asked about National Parks and public airwaves. A light went off in each of our heads, and a whole new list was shouted out: rivers, libraries, the Smithsonian, monuments. That’s when I realized that the commons isn’t an overgrazed pasture; it really is all that we share.
What do you see as the biggest obstacle to creating a commons-based society right now?
There are so many interrelated aspects of our current economic and social systems which undermine the commons. Some obstacles are structural, like government spending priorities that elevate military spending and oil company subsidies over maintenance of parks and libraries. Others are social, including the erosion in social fabric and community-based lifestyles. Actually, even those have structural drivers; for example, land use planning which eliminates sidewalks and requires long commutes to work contribute to breakdown of social commons by impeding social interactions. It’s all so interconnected!
A huge obstacle is the shift toward greater privatization and commodification of physical and social assets. Many things that used to be shared—from open spaces for recreation to support systems to help a neighbor in need—have been privatized and commodified; they’ve been moved out of the community into the market place. This triggers a downward spiral. Once things become privatized, or un-commoned, we no longer have access to them without paying a fee. We then have to work longer hours to pay for all these things which used to be freely available—everything from safe afterschool recreation for kids to clean water to swim in to someone to talk to when you’re feeling blue. And since we’re working longer hours and spending more time alone, we have less time to contribute to the commons to rebuild these assets: less volunteer hours, less beach-clean-up days, less time for civic engagement to advocate for policies that protect the commons, less time to invite a neighbor over for tea. And on it goes.
What is the greatest opportunity to strengthen and expand the commons right now?
In spite of real obstacles, we have a lot on our side as we advance a commons-based agenda. First, we have no choice. There’s a very real ecological imperative weighing down on us. Even if we wanted to continue this overconsumptive, hyper individualistic and vastly unequal way of living, we simply can’t. We have to learn to share more and waste less, to find joy and meaning in shared assets and experiences rather than in private accumulation, to work together for a better world, rather than to build bigger walls around those who can. And the good news is that these changes not only will enable us to continue to live on this planet, but they will result in a happier, healthier society overall.
There’s another shift emerging which offers some real opportunities for building support for the commons. People in the overconsuming parts of the world are getting fed up with the burden of trying to own everything individually. We used to own our stuff and increasingly our stuff owns us. We work extra hours to buy more stuff, we spend our weekends sorting our stuff. We’re constantly needing to upgrade, repair, untangle, recharge, even pay to store our stuff. It’s exhausting.
The shift I see emerging is from an acquisition focused relationship to stuff, to an access- focused relationship. In the acquisition framework, the more stuff we had, the better, as captured in the 1990s bumpersticker “He Who Dies with the Most Toys Wins.” Having spent a couple decades being slaves to our stuff, we are rethinking. Now it is “He Who dies with the Most Toys Wasted His Life Working to Buy Them and Lived in a Cluttered House When He Could have been Investing in Community with which to Share Toys.”
Increasingly people want access to stuff, not all the burden that comes with ownership. Instead of owning a car and dealing with all that comes with it, we get one just when we want through city car share programs. Instead of hiring a plumber, we swap music lessons with one through skillsharing networks. Why buy something to own alone, when we can share it with others? Why signup for an even more crushing mortgage for a house with a big back yard, when we can instead share public parks? From coast to coast, there’s a resurgence of sharing, so much that it even has a fancy new name: collaborative consumption. I’m really excited about this. A whole new generation of people is realizing that access to shared stuff is easier on one’s budget and on the planet, then individual ownership. Now, that’s liberating.
—JAY WALLJASPER
Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.
COMMONER
Filmmaker Annie Leonard finds people want to be liberated from overconsumption
Annie Leonard is one of the most articulate, effective champions of the commons today. Her webfilm The Story of Stuff has been seen more than 15 million times by viewers. She also adapted it into a book.
Drawing on her experience investigating and organizing on environmental health and justice issues in more than 40 countries, Leonard says she’s “made it her life’s calling to blow the whistle on important issues plaguing our world.” On the Commons recently asked Leonard a few questions about the commons.
How did you first learn about the commons?
I first learned about the commons as a kid using parks and libraries. I didn’t assign the label “commons” to them, but I understood early on that some things belong to all of us and these shared assets enhance our lives and rely on our care.
Like many other college students, my first introduction to the word “commons” was sadly in conjunction with the word “sheep” and “tragedy.” That lousy resource management class tainted the word for me for years, until I heard Ralph Nader address a group of college students. He asked them to yell out a list of everything they own. This being the pre-i-gadget 1980’s, the list included “Sony Walkman...boombox... books...bicycle...clothes...bank account.” When the lists started to peter out, Ralph asked about National Parks and public airwaves. A light went off in each of our heads, and a whole new list was shouted out: rivers, libraries, the Smithsonian, monuments. That’s when I realized that the commons isn’t an overgrazed pasture; it really is all that we share.
What do you see as the biggest obstacle to creating a commons-based society right now?
There are so many interrelated aspects of our current economic and social systems which undermine the commons. Some obstacles are structural, like government spending priorities that elevate military spending and oil company subsidies over maintenance of parks and libraries. Others are social, including the erosion in social fabric and community-based lifestyles. Actually, even those have structural drivers; for example, land use planning which eliminates sidewalks and requires long commutes to work contribute to breakdown of social commons by impeding social interactions. It’s all so interconnected!
A huge obstacle is the shift toward greater privatization and commodification of physical and social assets. Many things that used to be shared—from open spaces for recreation to support systems to help a neighbor in need—have been privatized and commodified; they’ve been moved out of the community into the market place. This triggers a downward spiral. Once things become privatized, or un-commoned, we no longer have access to them without paying a fee. We then have to work longer hours to pay for all these things which used to be freely available—everything from safe afterschool recreation for kids to clean water to swim in to someone to talk to when you’re feeling blue. And since we’re working longer hours and spending more time alone, we have less time to contribute to the commons to rebuild these assets: less volunteer hours, less beach-clean-up days, less time for civic engagement to advocate for policies that protect the commons, less time to invite a neighbor over for tea. And on it goes.
What is the greatest opportunity to strengthen and expand the commons right now?
In spite of real obstacles, we have a lot on our side as we advance a commons-based agenda. First, we have no choice. There’s a very real ecological imperative weighing down on us. Even if we wanted to continue this overconsumptive, hyper individualistic and vastly unequal way of living, we simply can’t. We have to learn to share more and waste less, to find joy and meaning in shared assets and experiences rather than in private accumulation, to work together for a better world, rather than to build bigger walls around those who can. And the good news is that these changes not only will enable us to continue to live on this planet, but they will result in a happier, healthier society overall.
There’s another shift emerging which offers some real opportunities for building support for the commons. People in the overconsuming parts of the world are getting fed up with the burden of trying to own everything individually. We used to own our stuff and increasingly our stuff owns us. We work extra hours to buy more stuff, we spend our weekends sorting our stuff. We’re constantly needing to upgrade, repair, untangle, recharge, even pay to store our stuff. It’s exhausting.
The shift I see emerging is from an acquisition focused relationship to stuff, to an access- focused relationship. In the acquisition framework, the more stuff we had, the better, as captured in the 1990s bumpersticker “He Who Dies with the Most Toys Wins.” Having spent a couple decades being slaves to our stuff, we are rethinking. Now it is “He Who dies with the Most Toys Wasted His Life Working to Buy Them and Lived in a Cluttered House When He Could have been Investing in Community with which to Share Toys.”
Increasingly people want access to stuff, not all the burden that comes with ownership. Instead of owning a car and dealing with all that comes with it, we get one just when we want through city car share programs. Instead of hiring a plumber, we swap music lessons with one through skillsharing networks. Why buy something to own alone, when we can share it with others? Why signup for an even more crushing mortgage for a house with a big back yard, when we can instead share public parks? From coast to coast, there’s a resurgence of sharing, so much that it even has a fancy new name: collaborative consumption. I’m really excited about this. A whole new generation of people is realizing that access to shared stuff is easier on one’s budget and on the planet, then individual ownership. Now, that’s liberating.
—JAY WALLJASPER
Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.Small Spaces etc. - Micro Minimal
To contact us Click HERE
This week the most minimal of small spaces to date. The first is called One-Sqm-House. This one square meter (10 square feet) dwelling is an architect's prototype. This clip is via Alex at Tiny House Talk, whose tag line is "small spaces more freedom."
When I first saw this I thought of past competitions for architects and designers to produce temporary, emergency and homeless shelter.
The examples below are from one of these competitions 5 years ago. I've since lost the proper links to the source. Whoops.
There is a kind of hierarchy within the homeless population. There are those who have found temporary shelter within homes of family or friends, those who have an RV or car, those who have vouchers for temporary shelter and those simply fending for themselves on the street. Despite the most common picture of a homeless person being like the Banksy illustration at the beginning of this post or the guy above, it is women with children who are in fact the most vulnerable of homeless population.
The Babes of Wrath are two women, Diane Nilan and Pat LaMarche, who travel around the country and work with homeless children and families. You can follow their EPIC Journey (Everyday People In Crisis) here. They are interviewed here on the Young Turks.
Recently the homeless were counted in San Diego County, a local girl mounted a blanket distribution project for the homeless in memory of her uncle and housing strategies for lowest income has presumably been the subject of several years of General Planning Update citizen participation.
Aternet is currently running a series on the poor. Part 1's recent article, 2 Years in Jail for Sitting on a Milk Crate? The Shocking Ways America Punishes Poor People Living on the Street (Hard Times, USA) haunted me. I know from experience how few places there are to sit while walking in Encinitas. We aren't alone. Laws all over the country are designed solely to target the homeless. There are better solutions.
Part 2 is titled Hard Times, USA: Would You Consider Thinking Differently About Poverty and Poor and Homeless People? A huge number of Americans feel vulnerable every day of every week, their future unknown. What are you going to do about it? Both of these are really excellent articles and are recommended. The rest of this powerful series Hard Times USA is at Alternet this month.
There is one simple response (as the video illustrated) for what is the most important thing one could spend money on for the homeless? Houses. Simple but not easy to incorporate in our community dialog.
This week the most minimal of small spaces to date. The first is called One-Sqm-House. This one square meter (10 square feet) dwelling is an architect's prototype. This clip is via Alex at Tiny House Talk, whose tag line is "small spaces more freedom."
When I first saw this I thought of past competitions for architects and designers to produce temporary, emergency and homeless shelter.
The examples below are from one of these competitions 5 years ago. I've since lost the proper links to the source. Whoops.
There is a kind of hierarchy within the homeless population. There are those who have found temporary shelter within homes of family or friends, those who have an RV or car, those who have vouchers for temporary shelter and those simply fending for themselves on the street. Despite the most common picture of a homeless person being like the Banksy illustration at the beginning of this post or the guy above, it is women with children who are in fact the most vulnerable of homeless population.
The Babes of Wrath are two women, Diane Nilan and Pat LaMarche, who travel around the country and work with homeless children and families. You can follow their EPIC Journey (Everyday People In Crisis) here. They are interviewed here on the Young Turks.
Recently the homeless were counted in San Diego County, a local girl mounted a blanket distribution project for the homeless in memory of her uncle and housing strategies for lowest income has presumably been the subject of several years of General Planning Update citizen participation.
Aternet is currently running a series on the poor. Part 1's recent article, 2 Years in Jail for Sitting on a Milk Crate? The Shocking Ways America Punishes Poor People Living on the Street (Hard Times, USA) haunted me. I know from experience how few places there are to sit while walking in Encinitas. We aren't alone. Laws all over the country are designed solely to target the homeless. There are better solutions.
Part 2 is titled Hard Times, USA: Would You Consider Thinking Differently About Poverty and Poor and Homeless People? A huge number of Americans feel vulnerable every day of every week, their future unknown. What are you going to do about it? Both of these are really excellent articles and are recommended. The rest of this powerful series Hard Times USA is at Alternet this month.
There is one simple response (as the video illustrated) for what is the most important thing one could spend money on for the homeless? Houses. Simple but not easy to incorporate in our community dialog.
Haters Don't Lie, They Multiply (Return of the Little Hater)
To contact us Click HERE
On being creative, and the little voices that get inside your head and stop you from shining.
From Jay Smooth's Ill Doctrine where there is a huge collection of videos on the toughest of our culture's subjects most toxic lessons handled with great heart and insight. Little hater is Jay's term for self doubt.
Dedicated to all who are trying to creatively relate to the problems in the world we all share. Sometimes it is really hard. (Unlike the Pope or Palin, let's not quit.)
On being creative, and the little voices that get inside your head and stop you from shining.From Jay Smooth's Ill Doctrine where there is a huge collection of videos on the toughest of our culture's subjects most toxic lessons handled with great heart and insight. Little hater is Jay's term for self doubt.
Dedicated to all who are trying to creatively relate to the problems in the world we all share. Sometimes it is really hard. (Unlike the Pope or Palin, let's not quit.)
22 Şubat 2013 Cuma
Financial Fairs and Classes across Washington
To contact us Click HERE
It’s financial fair season.
Organizations across Washington are hosting financial fairs to assist individuals with their finances this tax season.
At many of these events you will find free tax preparation, financial education classes, local resources, and more.
Upcoming Fairs and Classes
It’s financial fair season. Organizations across Washington are hosting financial fairs to assist individuals with their finances this tax season.
At many of these events you will find free tax preparation, financial education classes, local resources, and more.
Upcoming Fairs and Classes
- February 9 - Tacoma Super Refund Saturday
http://associatedministries.org/2013-super-refund-saturday/ - February 9 – Bremerton Super Saturday
http://www.kcr.org/documents/SuperSaturday.pdf - February 9 – Vancouver Finance Smart Class
http://www.homecen.org/classes.new.html - February 13 – Spokane Money Management Class
http://www.snapwa.org/events - March 2 – Tacoma Financial Fitness Fair
http://associatedministries.org/2013-financial-fitness-fair/ - March 5 – Thurston County Financial Education Course Begins
http://www.enterpriseforequity.org/financial-education/ - March 9 – Seattle Financial Fitness Day
http://skcabc.org/FinancialFitnessDay/default.htm - April 27 – Pasco Financial Fitness Day
email financialfitnessday2013@gmail.com for more details.
DFI Expanding Investor Education In Your Workplace Program
To contact us Click HERE
We are pleased to announce that we are expanding the pilot program of the award-winning Investor Education in Your Workplace (IEiYW) program.
We are making the program available to up to 600 state-chartered bank and credit union employees, military personnel, AmeriCorps leadership members, and financial education teachers throughout the state.
About the Program
IEiYW is an award-winning online financial and investment education program for employers to help educate their employees about long-term savings and investment options such as 401(k), 403(b) or related retirement plans.
The 10-week-long IEiYW program runs from May to August of this year. Participation will be on a first-come, first-served basis.
The IEiYW program already has been fielded tested nationwide by more than 15,500 employees working at nearly 400 companies.
Registration and Information
For more information about the program, contact Lyn Peters at 360-902-8731 or lyn.peters@dfi.wa.gov.
Interested parties can register for an informational webinar online at http://www.ieiyw.com/webinars. Webinar sessions will be held February 21, and February 28, March 5 and March 13 at noon PST.
We are pleased to announce that we are expanding the pilot program of the award-winning Investor Education in Your Workplace (IEiYW) program.We are making the program available to up to 600 state-chartered bank and credit union employees, military personnel, AmeriCorps leadership members, and financial education teachers throughout the state.
About the Program
IEiYW is an award-winning online financial and investment education program for employers to help educate their employees about long-term savings and investment options such as 401(k), 403(b) or related retirement plans.
The 10-week-long IEiYW program runs from May to August of this year. Participation will be on a first-come, first-served basis.
The IEiYW program already has been fielded tested nationwide by more than 15,500 employees working at nearly 400 companies.
Registration and Information
For more information about the program, contact Lyn Peters at 360-902-8731 or lyn.peters@dfi.wa.gov.
Interested parties can register for an informational webinar online at http://www.ieiyw.com/webinars. Webinar sessions will be held February 21, and February 28, March 5 and March 13 at noon PST.
Fixing Errors on Credit Reports
To contact us Click HERE
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently released the results of a 10-year study on the accuracy of credit reports. The study found that one in five consumers’ reports have errors.
The findings highlight the importance of checking your credit report.
Obtaining Your Free Credit Report
According to the FTC, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires each of the nationwide consumer reporting companies — Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion — to provide you with a free copy of your credit report, at your request, once every 12 months.
To order your free credit report, visit annualcreditreport.com or call 1-877-322-8228.
If You Find Errors, Dispute Them
If you find errors on your credit report, dispute them right away. Contact both the company and the credit reporting agency in writing about what you think is inaccurate. Credit reporting agencies must investigate the disputed information, usually within 30 days.
If that doesn’t work, you can file a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at www.consumerfinance.gov. They will review your complaint and update you along the way.
Resources
1. Federal Trade Commission – Disputing Errors on Credit Reports
2. AnnualCreditReport.com
3. Results of FTC Study
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently released the results of a 10-year study on the accuracy of credit reports. The study found that one in five consumers’ reports have errors.The findings highlight the importance of checking your credit report.
Obtaining Your Free Credit Report
According to the FTC, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires each of the nationwide consumer reporting companies — Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion — to provide you with a free copy of your credit report, at your request, once every 12 months.
To order your free credit report, visit annualcreditreport.com or call 1-877-322-8228.
If You Find Errors, Dispute Them
If you find errors on your credit report, dispute them right away. Contact both the company and the credit reporting agency in writing about what you think is inaccurate. Credit reporting agencies must investigate the disputed information, usually within 30 days.
If that doesn’t work, you can file a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at www.consumerfinance.gov. They will review your complaint and update you along the way.
Resources
1. Federal Trade Commission – Disputing Errors on Credit Reports
2. AnnualCreditReport.com
3. Results of FTC Study
Washington Saves Week – February 25 – March 2, 2013
To contact us Click HERE
Governor Jay Inslee has proclaimed February 25 – March 2, 2013 as Washington Saves Week.
Washington Saves Week is a part of the America Saves Week campaign coordinated by America Saves and the America Savings Education Council.
Started in 2007, the week is an annual opportunity for organizations to promote good savings behavior and a chance for individuals to assess their own saving status. Across the country, hundreds of organizations participate in the week reaching millions of people.
The campaign theme "Set a Goal. Make a Plan. Save Automatically." is aimed at reminding consumers to utilize the automatic payroll deduction options at their place of employment to begin building an emergency fund, create a retirement fund or develop a targeted savings fund for their future.
Resources for Washington Residents
We invite all Washington residents to participate in Saves Week, Feb. 25- March 2, 2013 by visiting dfi.wa.gov/financial-education/wa-saves and browsing the resources made available to you.
To find a money management class near you, visit our financial education calendar at www.dfi.wa.gov/financial-education/calendar.htm
Governor Jay Inslee has proclaimed February 25 – March 2, 2013 as Washington Saves Week.Washington Saves Week is a part of the America Saves Week campaign coordinated by America Saves and the America Savings Education Council.
Started in 2007, the week is an annual opportunity for organizations to promote good savings behavior and a chance for individuals to assess their own saving status. Across the country, hundreds of organizations participate in the week reaching millions of people.
The campaign theme "Set a Goal. Make a Plan. Save Automatically." is aimed at reminding consumers to utilize the automatic payroll deduction options at their place of employment to begin building an emergency fund, create a retirement fund or develop a targeted savings fund for their future.
Resources for Washington Residents
We invite all Washington residents to participate in Saves Week, Feb. 25- March 2, 2013 by visiting dfi.wa.gov/financial-education/wa-saves and browsing the resources made available to you.
To find a money management class near you, visit our financial education calendar at www.dfi.wa.gov/financial-education/calendar.htm
Washington Elementary Classrooms Sought for Reading Days
To contact us Click HERE
The Jump$tart Washington Coalition — a non-profit coalition dedicated to financial literacy for K-12 children — is sponsoring Financial Literacy Reading Days in Washington elementary classrooms April 20-27 during Washington Money Smart Week.
The program provides a venue for community leaders to step out of their offices and into one of their city’s elementary schools to read a financial education story to Washington youth. Previous Reading Days books have included “The King’s Chessboard,” the Berenstain Bears “Trouble With Money” and “Rock, Brock and the Savings Shock” by former FDIC Chair Sheila Bair.
Each community leader also will lead students in an activity that more fully explores the concepts raised in the book: such as the importance of and power in saving, compound interest, investing, donating, working for money, not spending more than you have, etc.
Previous community leaders have included Washington State Treasurer James L. McIntire, mayors, legislators and city council members. The visit time would be approximately 30-45 minutes in the classroom.
How to Participate
1) If you are interested in having a community leader read to one of your elementary classes, please select two dates during the school week of April 22-26 and two times for each day and Jump$tart will work to secure a community leader to bring a Financial Literacy Reading Day to your school.
2) Contact Lyn Peters at the Department of Financial Institutions by emailing Lyn.Peters@dfi.wa.gov or calling (360) 902-8731.
The Jump$tart Washington Coalition — a non-profit coalition dedicated to financial literacy for K-12 children — is sponsoring Financial Literacy Reading Days in Washington elementary classrooms April 20-27 during Washington Money Smart Week.The program provides a venue for community leaders to step out of their offices and into one of their city’s elementary schools to read a financial education story to Washington youth. Previous Reading Days books have included “The King’s Chessboard,” the Berenstain Bears “Trouble With Money” and “Rock, Brock and the Savings Shock” by former FDIC Chair Sheila Bair.
Each community leader also will lead students in an activity that more fully explores the concepts raised in the book: such as the importance of and power in saving, compound interest, investing, donating, working for money, not spending more than you have, etc.
Previous community leaders have included Washington State Treasurer James L. McIntire, mayors, legislators and city council members. The visit time would be approximately 30-45 minutes in the classroom.
How to Participate
1) If you are interested in having a community leader read to one of your elementary classes, please select two dates during the school week of April 22-26 and two times for each day and Jump$tart will work to secure a community leader to bring a Financial Literacy Reading Day to your school.
2) Contact Lyn Peters at the Department of Financial Institutions by emailing Lyn.Peters@dfi.wa.gov or calling (360) 902-8731.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)