Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Theresa May 'full of optimism' The prime minister says the EU endorsement of her Brexit deal marks the start of "a crucial national debate."
It’s been nine years since the release of the world’s first ever ‘Cryptocurrency’, Bitcoin, so how will law adapt towards the new and ever-developing virtual financial system in times to come? Experts at Hudson McKenzie give Lawyer Monthly the run down on the potential for crypto regulation.
At present, the ‘legal status’ of cryptocurrencies varies between countries, especially with the continual progression of the technology associated with it. However, In the opposite direction, some countries have even gone to the extent of banning the use of cryptocurrencies altogether, as is seen in UAE.
Therefore, can cryptocurrency ever be a plausible means of financial transactions on a worldwide scale and if so, how will law fit into this, given its ‘unregulated’ nature?
What exactly is ‘Cryptocurrency’?
‘Cryptocurrency’ was designed predominantly as a virtual means of financial exchange, in which ‘cryptography’ is used so to secure all financial transactions made via digital cryptocurrency.
Cryptography is important for securing digital financial transactions, especially as a defence against ‘cryptanalysis’, in which is a method of analysing information systems so to reveal what may be hidden within them. For example, a cryptanalysis’s main objective is to know as much about data before it is encrypted.
However, one of the key aspects that makes cryptocurrency stand out from other forms of currencies, especially digital, is that it uses a ‘decentralised control’ via ‘blockchains’, in which acts as a public financial transaction database, rather than the more common ‘centralised’ digital currency or central banking systems.
So, what are the legal concerns?
The possibility of a digitalized global economy with an unregulated decentralized financial system brings with it many concerns, especially for the legal sector.
For instance, Law on a national level faces challenges alone with the regulation and compliance with other laws in other countries – therefore, a globalized unregulated economy can bring with it many misnomers, in which could lead to mass economic and financial chaos on a global scale – with one of the key threats being tax evasion and lack of financial transactional transparency.
Can global cryptocurrency ever work?
If cryptocurrency was to be regulated to a greater extent (beyond the blockchain) on a global scale – could it alternatively become a positive means to enhancing unity and global international relations to a greater degree, rather than an unregulated threat to national societies?
For instance, law can positively prompt the use of cryptocurrencies by ensuring the key role of the legal sector in the regulation of financial transactions, bringing national law into a new cosmopolitan limelight.
As nations compete to be new world leaders in the ‘FinTech Market’, perhaps the alternative means to global leadership is a unification of nations under a global regulated digitalized financial system such as cryptocurrencies. However, it appears that at present, the world is far from this idealist technological dream.
Cutting the cost of doing business is something that every law firm will have to consider at some point. According to Law Crossing, the average law firm spends between 45% and 50% of its client fee on office expenses. Based on this, a £100 per hour charge would result in approximately £50 being spent on operating costs. Naturally, there will always be operating costs of some sort. However, with computers now able to handle many of today’s more time-intensive tasks, it’s possible to reduce the amount spent on things such as admin. Indeed, in addressing the issue of spiralling costs, Legal Management Consultants Olmstead & Associates cited headcount as one area companies often overlook.
“This is the largest area for potential savings. Downsizing is a strategy that has been used by many firms this past year. However, it can have long term negative consequences for revenue and talent management. Consider all levels – non-productive partners, associates, paralegals, and staff. Be prudent and sensitive in implementation,” reads the advice.
Using Tech to Create an Efficient Workforce
"Robot" (CC BY-SA 2.0) by b4ey
Clearly, striking the balance between staff and efficiency is crucial. To this end, technology has become more significant for the average law firm. One of the most interesting uses of modern tech in recent years is robotic process automation. Otherwise known as RPA, this technology allows companies to delegate workflow tasks to computerised systems. For example, the Kryon RPA Platform provides a virtual workforce that can be configured to suit a company’s individual needs. This could be anything from remote access and monitoring to setting up tasks such as payroll, timesheets and billing.
In fact, what RPA tools are able to do in addition to repetitive tasks is to learn. Using artificial intelligence and machine learning, RPA tools can analyse large data sets and help to optimise things such as media campaigns and costs. The implementation of RPA tools also gives law firms the option to either reduce their headcount or make better use of the personnel they do have. Overall, the end result is cost savings and, over time, a more efficient workforce.
Become a Virtual Office
"cloud computing" (CC BY 2.0) by Bruce Clay, Inc
Beyond these tools, the Law Society points to cloud computing as another way of streamlining a firm’s operating costs. By moving IT infrastructures to a cloud server, companies can not only free up physical space and resources but also their tech team. Because IT staff don’t have to worry about maintaining physical servers, they can spend more time on improving the actual software employees are using. Additionally, cloud computing makes remote access possible. By allowing employees to work from home, business owners can reduce staffing costs by hiring freelancers and even their company more attractive.
Indeed, a study by IWG found that 70% of people globally now work remotely at least one day per week. With technology improving and working habits changing, this figure is only going to increase. Therefore, any law firm that wants to remain competitive will have to embrace cloud computing in the coming years. Although this type of technology requires a certain amount of initial investment, the long-term benefits far outweigh the costs. Staying afloat in an increasingly tough market isn’t easy. However, with the proper use of technology, any law firm can remain profitable.
Aziz Rahman, of Rahman Ravelli, argues that those waging the war against money laundering are missing the real targets.
So the European Commission wants to give the European Banking Authority (EBA) powers to ensure money laundering is investigated more consistently.
This could mean the EBA being able to ask national anti-money laundering supervisors to investigate suspected laundering and take specific action. There are also plans for national anti-money laundering supervisory authorities, improved information sharing and enhanced cooperation with non-EU countries on cross-border cases.
Could this bring results? Possibly. But it ignores the huge money laundering elephant that is set slap bang in the EU’s room. The elephant that will tell anyone who will listen that if each and every bank and enforcement agency was genuinely concerned about money laundering we wouldn’t have the need for constant EU handwringing and proposals. But they appear not to be. So we have an endless procession of procedures and tough talk. And all the while the examples of unchecked money laundering on a vast scale keep coming to light.
September saw Thomas Borgen resign as CEO of Danske Bank, as the bank finally admitted that most of the €200 billion (£178 billion) that had passed through its Estonian branch between 2007 and 2015 was laundered money being moved illegally out of Russia, the UK and the British Virgin Islands. Weeks earlier, the Dutch bank ING paid €775M to settle an investigation that it had failed to detect money laundering. Last year saw Germany’s Deutsche Bank fined almost $700M for helping wealthy Russians move $10 billion out of the country and recent months have been punctuated by high-profile money laundering cases at banks in Malta, Latvia and Spain.
In any other situation where criminal activity was known to be being conducted repeatedly on a large scale, the authorities would swoop. And they wouldn’t just make some enquiries and then hand out a large fine to an organisation. They would follow the chain of evidence, identify the individual or individuals responsible and prosecute them.
As a hypothetical example, if a group of three people who worked for the same bank could be proven to have murdered a number of people, they would be arrested, charged, prosecuted and (if the trial went as the authorities hoped) would be convicted and likely to spend a large number of years in prison. There wouldn’t be a lengthy enquiry that saw the bank they worked for given a hefty financial penalty while the three bad guys were left free to keep committing the crimes. So why is that the case with money laundering?
Regardless of whether the new EU proposals are introduced, the question has to be asked: are the authorities genuinely bothered about bringing to book the people who facilitate money laundering? There is little doubt that the powers that be are keen to strip people of what they believe to be the proceeds of crime. In our experience they often seem misguided or overzealous in doing this. But how many people working in the financial services industries have been prosecuted for laundering money for those who have earned it through crime? Have there been any?
Tough talk about laundering may have some merit. After all, close cooperation between authorities must surely result in more effective detection of laundering. Yet detection hardly seems to be the answer. We already know that while one major money laundering operation is being uncovered the likelihood is that many, many more are functioning safe in the knowledge that they may never be detected. And those involved in the banking side of such operations can, it seems, continue to launder with impunity. Everything we know about laundering points to the fact that while the banks they work for may receive a costly slap on the wrists they themselves will escape prosecution.
So my argument is not that more measures to identify money laundering are unwelcome or unnecessary. It is that they are always going to be hugely ineffective as a deterrent if those who physically do the laundering are never prosecuted.
In the UK, we are seeing increased efforts by the authorities to take the assets of those who are believed to have obtained them from crime. Unexplained wealth orders are just the latest attempt to put anyone with suspect sources of wealth “on the spot’’. And that is an understandable strategy. But anyone with expensive houses, cars and a vast array of other costly assets bought with tainted money has only been able to do so because someone in a bank has helped launder that money. So would it not be more effective to go for them?
Efforts are constantly being made to respond to certain countries being awash with laundered money. But the priority seems to be taking that wealth from those who possess it while fining the banks involved. Would it not make more sense to go after the individuals in the banks who have enabled laundered cash to flood into countries? Maybe then the tap can be turned off and the flood of laundered money would become a trickle.
The gold mining industry has becoming increasingly constrained by the scarcity of the precious metal. The difficulty in finding gold has caused a rise in operating costs as mining companies have to look in more remote locations and drill to unprecedented depths. The amount of gold discovered has not met expectations, and forecasts predict that gold supply could decline even further over the next few decades.
The situation is likely to be exacerbated by growing demand for gold from emerging economies and nations such as Russia. The imbalance between supply and demand is predicted to lead to a significant rise in the price of gold.
With so much potential for volatility, trading provider IG is taking a look at what could be next for the gold market. The firm’s presenter Sara Walker will be speaking to Simon Popple, director of Brookville Capital, and Ross Norman, CEO of Sharps Pixley, to discuss a range of topics including:
There will be a live Q&A during the session, so viewers can put forward any topics they’d like Simon and Ross to discuss, or any questions they want answered. They can post questions to the #IGCommodityChat Community page, or by using #IGCommodityChat on Twitter or Facebook.
To watch the live video stream, tune in at 1pm (UK time) on Thursday 22 November via IG’s trading platform, or the company’s YouTube, Facebook or Twitter pages. For more information, please contact Irene Castaneda (irene.castaneda@ig.com).
About IG: IG empowers informed, decisive, adventurous people to access opportunities in over 15,000 financial markets. With a strong focus on innovation and technology, the company puts client needs at the heart of everything it does.
IG’s vision is to be a global leader in retail trading and investments. Established in 1974 as the world’s first financial spread betting firm, it continued leading the way by launching the world’s first online and iPhone trading services.
IG is now an award-winning, multi-platform trading company, the world’s No.1 provider of CFDs* and a global leader in forex. It provides leveraged services with negative balance protection, and offers an execution-only share dealing service in the UK, Australia, Germany, France, Ireland, Austria and the Netherlands. IG has recently launched a range of affordable, fully managed investment portfolios, to provide a comprehensive offering to investors and active traders.
It is a member of the FTSE 250, with offices across Europe, Africa, Asia-Pacific and the Middle East – plus the US, where it offers on-exchange limited risk derivatives via the Nadex brand.
Risk warning: Spread bets and CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 79% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading spread bets and CFDs with this provider. You should consider whether you understand how spread bets and CFDs work, and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.
* Based on revenue excluding FX (published financial statements, February 2018).
The plight of the Rohingya in Myanmar is said to be a “human rights catastrophe”, with extensive violations of both humanitarian and international law. According to Eleri Griffiths, a Barrister at One Pump Court chambers, these violations have not gone unnoticed by the international community. Below, Eleri talks to Lawyer Monthly, shining a spotlight on the constrained role of the International Criminal Court in punishing grave human rights violations.
In September, the UN human rights council (UNHRC) presented its full account on the independent fact-finding mission on Myanmar. Formed to establish the facts and circumstances of alleged recent human rights violations by the military (‘Tatmadaw”) and security forces, the Mission concludes that systematic targeting and clearance operations have occurred in Myanmar and that the human rights violations committed are of such gravity that a referral to the International Criminal Court (ICC) should be made.
However, as Myanmar does not recognise the ICC and is not a State Party to the Statute of Rome, the case once again raises questions on the role and limitations of the ICC as arbitrator of the most serious human rights offences.
The situation in Myanmar
Amongst its conclusions, the Mission found that military forces in Myanmar use Rakhine men, women and children for forced or compulsory labour, soldiers having subjected women to sexual violence, forced evictions through land confiscation, arbitrary arrest and detention, and violations of the rights to life, to physical and mental integrity, and to property.
Systematic “targeted and terrorising attacks” on the entire Rohingya population was termed a “clearance operation” by the authorities, but a “human rights catastrophe” by the mission. This included mass killing, abductions and rape and other sexual violence perpetrated on a “massive scale”, including gang rape of women and girls (sometimes up to 40 raped together and in front of families and the community) and people burnt to death in their homes. Rape victims were “often marked by deep bites”. Many children were shot, stabbed or burned by military forces acting with complete impunity and absence of accountability. Ethnic armed organisations have also violated human rights, though not generally systemically.
Oppression of Rohingya was considered severe, systemic and institutionalised from birth to death. violence and human rights violations fuelled by the silencing of critical voices by the Myanmar authorities. This and other violations has led to a mass exodus of Rohingya into nearby Bangladesh.
In light of its findings, the Mission called for both diplomatic and humanitarian action by the international community to protect Myanmar’s people from genocide. In particular, it concluded that there is sufficient information for the ICC to determine liability for genocide, crimes against humanity (including murder; imprisonment; enforced disappearance; torture; rape, sexual slavery and other forms of sexual violence; persecution; and enslavement (with additional crimes in Rakhine State)), and possible finding of apartheid or war crimes.
Can the ICC intervene?
The ICC was established to deal with incidents of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, or the crime of aggression. Its involvement is considered necessary in Myanmar due to deeply entrenched impunity in Myanmar’s political and legal system and the government being demonstrably unwilling and unable to investigate and prosecute the crime, the latter being a precondition to prosecution at the ICC.
A clear jurisdictional issue is raised by Myanmar not being a State Party to the Statute of Rome; the ICC can only exercise powers relating to crimes occurring on the territory (or by nationals) of a State Party by special agreement with the state or by the UN Security Council referral.vii Absent a Security Council referral, crimes which took place in Myanmar would not usually fall within the Court’s jurisdiction unless Myanmar accepted it, which seems unlikely given the government’s lack of co-operation with the Mission.
The key in this case is the allegation of forcible deportation of nearly 700,000 Rohingya from Myanmar to Bangladesh, which is a state party to the statute. “Deportation or forcible transfer of population” (through expulsion or other coercive acts) is explicitly identified as a crime against humanity. By preliminary ruling sought for the first time by the Officer of the Prosecutor, the Court determined that it does have jurisdiction over deportation initiated within a non-party state (in this case Myanmar), but completed in a state party (Bangladesh). It also ruled that the same rationale may apply to persecution connected with the deportation or other inhumane acts intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health, such as the refusal to readmit Rohingya to Myanmar.
What happens next?
The Officer of the Prosecutor has opened a preliminary examination of the events in Myanmar to decide whether there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation. This included the questions of admissibility and the interest of justice. If a prosecution is intended, a warrant must be obtained for the accused’s arrest.
Getting further than that is more problematic. Enforcing an arrest warrant issued by the Court is a requirement imposed upon on State Parties, which Myanmar again is not. Non-party states can be invited to co-operate, but are not obliged to do so under the statute and Myanmar has already disputed the Court’s jurisdiction making that, again, unlikely. Whilst charges can be confirmed in the accused’s absence in some circumstances, he/she must be present during the trial. Therefore, without a voluntary surrender or movement to a State Party where they can then be arrested, it is difficult to see how, realistically, the Court will secure the presence of alleged perpetrators from Myanmar, stifling any prosecution.
Even if perpetrators do travel into a state party, arrest will not necessarily follow. For example, Omar Al Bashir, President of Sudan, is subject to two arrest warrants from 2009 and 2010 for crimes committed in Darfur. He remains at large has allegedly travelled unhindered to state and non-state parties without being surrendered to the Court, despite the Court Registry’s advance reminder of the state’s obligations. A further 15 Defendants remain at large, some over 13 years after arrests warrants were issued.
In its recent ruling, the Court drew attention to the duty of a UN member states to co-operate with the ICC where the Security Council so requires, that being a duty deriving from its UN membership as opposed to acceptance of the statute. Whether this will impact on Myanmar’s co-operation will remain to be seen. In the meantime, fact finding missions, investigations and arrest warrants may all serve to show the world that crimes of the nature seen in Myanmar are not acceptable. But if moving the case beyond the pre-trial stages is stifled by the accused’ non-attendance, a clear question mark remains over whether justice for the Rohingya will ever be delivered.
In 2018, we have seen a number of high-profile retail restructurings and common to many is the use of a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA). After much press comment, which tended to focus on the plight of landlords, R3, the Association of Business Recovery Professionals, produced a report in May 2018 entitled, ‘Company Voluntary Arrangements: Evaluating Successes and Failures', which comments on the use of CVAs as effective restructuring procedures. This report highlights the existing strengths and notes development potential for the current CVA process.
However according to Phil Duffy, Managing Director at Duff & Phelps, a CVA might not be the only route for an insolvent company and now might be the right time to review how CVAs are operating in the UK.
Encouragingly, the R3 report confirms that a CVA is an effective tool in many situations, citing its flexibility as its greatest strength, but suggests it is not a panacea for every company. Most criticism seems to revolve around the lack of transparency and the initial planning by directors not being sufficiently robust to deliver the restructuring plan. Equally, to have the best chance of delivering an agreed upon outcome for all stakeholders, the nominees must be thorough in their assessment of the CVA plan with their roles and duties clearly articulated.
In considering both recent general comment and the findings from the R3 report, there should be an enhanced degree of transparency in the construction and implementation of CVAs if all stakeholders are to maintain confidence in the process. For example, it has been recently argued that retail CVAs are simply focussed on restructuring lease liabilities and to focus solely on this class of creditor is both short-sighted and weakens the CVA’s chances of survival.
While there is little argument that a CVA is a legitimate step on the road to restructure, it is not the only tool available. What often appeals to company directors is that the CVA mechanism ensures they can keep control of the business throughout the restructuring process, unlike other insolvency tools, which will see the business placed in the hands of an Administrator. An important question is whether or not an independent Administrator would be better placed to carry out the necessary restructuring under the protection of the court and then offer a CVA to creditors.
There are, of course, other routes available to insolvent companies, including a Scheme of Arrangement, which is a compromise or arrangement between a company and its members or creditors under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 (formerly section 425 of the Companies Act 1985). However, this route can be costly and uncertain.
A Scheme of Arrangement can be used to affect a solvent reorganisation of a company or group structure as well as to enable insolvent restructurings such as debt for equity swaps or by a wide variety of other debt-reduction strategies. This requires approval by at least 75% in value of each class of the members or creditors who vote on the scheme.
Duff & Phelps promotes setting out and testing the evidential base of a CVA. As a result, we have developed our own ‘CVA Framework’ for companies in an insolvent position looking for the most effective way forward. Integral to this is whether the CVA itself is the correct route as a first stage in the recovery process and then detailing the rationale in a robust Nominee report.
The CVA was originally designed as a consensual restructuring vehicle with none of the apparent stigma that was historically associated with administration, but it is also one of the least transparent. The British Property Federation provides independent scrutiny for its members where there are multiple units, identifying provisions in the CVA, which would cause landlords problems.
In a similar vein, now may be the time to review the existing CVA framework to bring into the process a higher threshold for Nominees and the content of their reports. In the event that this fails to move the needle towards more successful CVAs, it then may become necessary for third-party Insolvency Practitioner to review the CVA proposal and provide a critique of the Nominees’ report. This would add much needed transparency to an opaque process, but inject a second, professional opinion and sanity check on whether the CVA route is the correct one for that individual company.
What would happen if by granting Artificial Intelligence (AI) a ‘legal person’ status, the law eventually took sides with an artificial creation over a human being? Experts at Hudson McKenzie explain below.
The European Commission (EC) recently refused the European Parliament (EP) request to grant Artificial Intelligence (AI), such as robots, an “electronic personality”, in which would thus give AI and therefore robots a legal personality.
This means that as a ‘legal person’, robots and AI would therefore have the same rights, duties and obligations as humans – creating an ultimate synchronization between humans and AI altogether.
Although the reasonings for rejections of the EP's proposal were based upon the nonsensical elements to granting AI a status of equality with humans, how far is this really a ridiculous measure of the EP to have suggested? For instance, especially in the Western World, every human being is now likely to live side by side with technology and AI within their daily lives – whether it be their mobile phone, tablet or some other machinery that is now integral to a human’s everyday functioning.
Thus, as so much AI has now taken over the average human’s daily habits, to the point where most cannot live a day without using AI, how long will it be before AI and human beings are indistinguishable, leading to the necessity for AI to be representative within law as a ‘legal person’?
Already, budding law students are being prompted to study coding as part of their law studies, with the increasing amount of AI being introduced into the legal arena – thus is by considering AI as a 'legal person' like a human being, simply the natural cause of events that are inevitable with the given rise of technology?
However at present, as under EU law only a Member State can determine who a ‘natural person’ is, could there be foreseeable amendments in the future in which AI will be regarded as a 'legal person' when considered as a double to an already existing natural legal person (a human being), who is directly associated with the specific AI in question?
For example, as a 'normal' human being now inputs most of their daily lives onto AI such as their own mobile phone, could each AI user become a double 'legal person’, in which their natural ‘legal person’ status is split between their ‘natural’ self and ‘artificial’ self from a legal perspective?
One of the possible foreseeable downfalls to this type of amendment could be that eventually the two double legal entities of one natural person may eventually merge back into one natural legal person, with the artificial side being synchronized completely into the human being.
Being so, this may ultimately cause vast legal complications, specifically regarding Human Rights, as AI and humans become one within law, meaning that a human could potentially loose valuable Human Rights if a court goes in favour of an artificial legal entity instead.
The High Court in London has issued a significant ruling in a case centred around the recovery of billions of dollars of assets belonging to an East European businessman who died in the UK.
Arkady Patarkatsishvili died 10 years ago at his mansion in Surrey. Patarkatsishvili, known as Badri, died without leaving a valid will and his death led to numerous legal proceedings over his estate, estimated to be worth several billion dollars.
The High Court has issued a judgment ruling that three men, including a prominent Georgian businessman and an English solicitor, took part in an unlawful conspiracy and breached ‘serious’ fiduciary duties to pursue the recovery of Badri’s fortune.
The decision means that legal proceedings will continue against the three men in an effort to recover fees and success payments they received while recovering Badri’s assets.
Following Badri’s death, a number of people including the Russian businessman, Boris Berezovsky, laid claim to his estate and legal proceedings ensued in a variety of jurisdictions.
The task of recovering Badri’s assets was initially entrusted by Badri’s family to Salford Capital Partners Inc (SCPI), which had been an adviser and partner to Badri for a number of years.
A number of senior SCPI employees, including CEO Eugene Jaffe, began to work to help Badri’s widow protect the estate. They also initially included Irakli Rukhadze, then director of SCPI and head of Salford Georgia, and now a prominent Georgian businessman, and subsequently Igor Alexeev and Ben Marson, an English solicitor based in London.
After three years of successful work, a dispute broke out between SCPI and Messrs Rukhadze, Alexeev and Marson, leading to a breakup in 2011.
Recovery Partners GP Limited and Revoker LLP, entities created by SCPI, undertook proceedings against the three men.
After nearly two years of litigation and a four week trial, in her judgment Mrs Justice Cockerill found that due to their actions the three individual defendants in the case had deprived the claimants of a maturing business opportunity. She found they conspired and took preparatory steps to split from SCPI and take for themselves the lucrative opportunity to pursue the recovery process. The judge stated: “In the circumstances I conclude that the requirements of conspiracy are made out as between the individual defendants.”[i]
The judge held that this was something they were not entitled to do and that they breached ‘serious’ fiduciary duties owed by them as senior employees of the claimants, stating: “There is no doubt in my mind that, in the context of the fiduciary duties owed these actions amounted to disloyalty, particularly when taken together with the actions which the defendants were taking to make themselves ready to continue the recovery services in a post-SCPI world. I conclude that each of the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties.”[ii]
Mrs Justice Cockerill also noted that Mr Marson’s “casual approach to the erroneous use of Statements of Truth on the Defences … indicated that his conduct fell below the levels that one would expect for a qualified solicitor.” [iii]
Following the split from SCPI, the three defendants completed the recovery of Badri’s estate and created a new firm, Hunnewell Partners, for that purpose. In the last few years, they have made a number of high-profile investments, including through Hunnewell, in Georgia, including buying substantial stakes in Liberty Bank, Rustavi Steel, Magti and Heidelberg Cement Georgia, and have established a litigation funding business. Lawyers for the successful claimants are now preparing to take further legal steps to secure the money owed. It is estimated that they recovered over $2 billion for the estate and earned hundreds of millions of dollars for themselves in the process.
A spokesman for Recovery Partners said: “This is a significant High Court judgment which enables us to pursue our rights in recovering substantial sums of money that would have been paid to us but for the actions of those who conspired to deny the SCPI of its legitimate business opportunity.
“The proceedings will now move forward into a second phase in which the court will determine what Salford has lost as a result of the defendants’ actions, alternatively what the defendants have illegitimately earned. At the end of that second phase, the court will make an order requiring the defendants to compensate us either by way of damages or by way of surrendering the sums and other benefits which they have earned by taking the business for themselves.”
A spokesperson for Hunnewell Partners commented: “While certain points of law may have been found against Hunnewell and related parties in this first instance hearing, at which no costs were ordered against Hunnewell, Hunnewell will be appealing the findings of the court. Corporations associated with the principal claimant, two of which are in insolvency due to unpaid debts, including those ordered by the court, have been entirely unsuccessful to date in their numerous and at times frivolous attempts to prevail in manifestly overly-aggressive proceedings against Hunnewell and its clients. Hunnewell remains confident of the ultimate outcome of these proceedings.”
(Source: Recovery Partners GP Limited)
[i] Para 447 of Approved Judgment [ii] Para 424 of Approved Judgment [iii] Para 29 of Approved Judgment
On the day the National Science and Media Museum in Bradford opens a new exhibition exploring internet connected devices, a survey of 2,000 people aged 16 and over reveals that more than two thirds of respondents believe there should be greater regulation of these devices in relation to issues such as data protection, age restrictions and online security.
72% of respondents across the UK agreed there should be greater regulation, 11% said they did not think greater regulation was required and 17% said they ‘didn’t know’ if there should be more.
The survey results are revealed as the National Science and Media Museum in Bradford opens its new free-to-enter exhibition Never Alone: What Happens when Everything is Connected? (16 Nov 2018 – 3 Feb 2019) which examines the recent proliferation of smart objects and connected devices. From the humble webcam to children’s toys, there is a growing list of connected items found in homes. It is estimated that more than 8 billion devices can now be found in households across the globe – more than the number of people on earth.
The questionnaire, conducted by Censuswide on behalf of the museum also revealed that from those surveyed it is households with teenagers aged 13 – 17 years old that are the most likely to have more than 10 internet connected devices, including computers, phones, smart speakers, smart watches, home controls and toys. 16% of households with teenagers have more than 10 devices, compared to 7% of all those questioned.
Other questions asked included whether manufacturers are doing enough to make their devices as secure as possible. Nationally, 40% of respondents believe they are, 29% said ‘no’ and 31% said ‘I don’t know’.
There was a generation gap apparent in responses to this question – only 3% of people aged 55+ said technology companies were ‘definitely’ doing enough, compared to 15% of 25-34 year-olds.
Another question demonstrated a difference in opinion across the age ranges: ‘If it were proved to be medically safe, would you have an implant that directly connects your brain to the internet?’. Only 6% of people asked aged 55+ said ‘yes’, compared to 31% of 16-24 year olds who said they would. Nationally, 20% of all respondents said they would have the implant.
Dr Sarah Rawlins, content developer for the Never Alone exhibition, said: “People seem to be aware of issues around internet connected devices, particularly on the question of regulation, however whatever the concerns, they do not seem to be stopping connected devices being increasingly used.
“In Never Alone we look at some of these issues, exploring the benefits and also potential consequences, as this technology becomes more and more prevalent in everyday life.”
(Source: National Science and Media Museum)
