Decisive Battle a Century Ago

The Battle of Amiens, also known as the Third Battle of Picardy (French: 3ème Bataille de Picardie), was the opening phase of the Allied offensive which began on 8 August 1918, later known as the Hundred Days Offensive, that ultimately led to the end of the First World War. Allied forces advanced over 11 kilometres (7 mi) on the first day, one of the greatest advances of the war, with Henry Rawlinson's British Fourth Army playing the decisive role. The battle is also notable for its effects on both sides' morale and the large number of surrendering German forces. This led Erich Ludendorff to describe the first day of the battle as "the black day of the German Army". Amiens was one of the first major battles involving armoured warfare and marked the end of trench warfare on the Western Front; fighting becoming mobile once again until the armistice was signed on 11 November 1918.

Prelude

On 21 March 1918, the German Army had launched Operation Michael, the first in a series of attacks planned to drive the Allies back along the length of the Western Front. With the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with revolutionary-controlled Russia, the Germans were able to transfer hundreds of thousands of men to the Western Front, giving them a significant, if temporary, advantage in manpower and materiel. These offensives were intended to translate this advantage into victory. Operation Michael was intended to defeat the right wing of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), but a lack of success before Arras ensured the ultimate failure of the offensive. A final effort was aimed at the town of Amiens, a vital railway junction, but the advance had been halted at Villers-Bretonneux by British and Australian troops on 4 April.^[6]

Subsequent German offensives—Operation Georgette (9–11 April), Operation Blücher-Yorck (27 May), Operation Gneisenau (9 June) and Operation Marne-Rheims (15–17 July)—all made advances elsewhere on the Western Front, but failed to achieve a decisive breakthrough.

By the end of the Marne-Rheims offensive, the German manpower advantage had been spent and their supplies and troops were exhausted. The Allied general, General Ferdinand Foch, ordered a counteroffensive which led to victory at the Second Battle of the Marne, following which he was promoted to Marshal of France. The Germans, recognising their untenable position, withdrew from the Marne to the north. Foch now tried to move the Allies back onto the offensive.

The Battle of Amiens

The battle began in dense fog at 4:20 am on 8 August 1918. Under Rawlinson's Fourth Army, the British III Corps attacked north of the Somme, the Australian Corps to the south of the river in the centre of Fourth Army's front, and the Canadian Corps to the south of the Australians. The French 1st Army under General Debeney opened its preliminary bombardment at the same time, and began its advance 45 minutes later, supported by a battalion of 72 Whippet tanks. Although German forces were on the alert, this was largely in anticipation of possible retaliation for their incursion on the sixth and not because they had learned of the preplanned Allied attack. Although the two forces were within 460 metres (500 yd) of one another, gas bombardment was very low, as the bulk of the Allied presence was unknown to the Germans. The attack was so unexpected that German forces only began to return fire after five minutes, and even then at the positions where the Allied forces had assembled at the start of the battle and had long since left.

In the first phase, seven divisions attacked: the British 18th (Eastern) and 58th (2/1st London), the Australian 2nd and 3rd, and the Canadian 1st, 2nd and 3rd Divisions. Parts of the American 33rd Division supported the British attackers north of the Somme.

The attackers captured the first German position, advancing about 3.7 km (4,000 yd; 2.3 mi) by about 7:30 am. In the centre, supporting units following the leading divisions attacked the second objective a further 3.2 km (2.0 mi) distant. Australian units reached their first objectives by 7:10 am, and by 8:20 am, the Australian 4th and 5th Divisions and the Canadian 4th Division passed through the initial breach in the German lines. The third phase of the attack was assigned to infantry-carrying Mark V* tanks; however, the infantry was able to carry out this final step unaided. The Allies penetrated well to the rear of the German defences and cavalry now continued the advance, one brigade in the Australian sector and two cavalry divisions in the Canadian sector. Aircraft fire by the new RAF and armoured car fire kept the retreating Germans from rallying.

The Canadian and Australian forces in the centre advanced quickly, pushing the line 4.8 km (3.0 mi) forward from its starting point by 11:00 am. The speed of their advance was such that a party of German officers and some divisional staff were captured while eating breakfast. A gap 24 km (15 mi) long was punched in the German line south of the Somme by the end of the day. There was less success north of the river, where the British III Corps had only a single tank battalion in support, the terrain was rougher and the German incursion of 6 August had disrupted some of the preparations. Although the attackers gained their first objectives, they were held up short of the Chipilly Spur, a steep wooded ridge.

The British Fourth Army took 13,000 prisoners, and the French captured a further 3,000. Total German losses were estimated to be 30,000 on 8 August. The British, Australian and Canadian infantry of the Fourth Army sustained about 8,000 casualties, with further losses by tank and air personnel, and French forces.

German Army Chief of Staff Paul von Hindenburg noted the Allies' use of surprise and that Allied destruction of German lines of communication had hampered potential German counter-attacks by isolating command positions. The German General Erich Ludendorff described the first day of Amiens as the "Schwarzer Tag des deutschen Heeres" ("the black day of the German Army"), not because of the ground lost to the advancing Allies, but because the morale of the German troops had sunk to the point where large numbers of troops began to capitulate. He recounted instances of retreating troops shouting "You're prolonging the war!" at officers who tried to rally them, and "Blackleg!" at reserves moving up. Five German divisions had effectively been engulfed. Allied forces had pushed, on average, 11 km (6.8 mi) into enemy territory by the end of the day. The Canadians gained 13 km (8.1 mi), Australians 11 km (6.8 mi), the French 8 km (5.0 mi), and the British 3.2 km (2.0 mi).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amiens_(1918)

Blood Thinners

Anticoagulants, commonly referred to as blood thinners, are chemical substances that prevent or reduce coagulation of blood, prolonging the clotting time. Some of them occur naturally in blood-eating animals such as leeches and mosquitoes, where they help keep the bite area unclotted long enough for the animal to obtain some blood. As a class of medications, anticoagulants are used in therapy for thrombotic disorders. Oral anticoagulants (OACs) are taken by many people in pill or tablet form, and various intravenous anticoagulant dosage forms are used in hospitals. Some anticoagulants are used in medical equipment, such as test tubes, blood transfusion bags, and dialysis equipment.

Anticoagulants are closely related to antiplatelet drugs and thrombolytic drugs by manipulating the various pathways of blood coagulation. Specifically, antiplatelet drugs inhibit platelet aggregation (clumping together), whereas anticoagulants inhibit the coagulation cascade by clotting factors that happens after the initial platelet aggregation.

Common anticoagulants include warfarin and heparin.

Medical Uses

The use of anticoagulants is a decision based upon the risks and benefits of anticoagulation. The biggest risk of anticoagulation therapy is the increased risk of bleeding. In otherwise healthy people, the increased risk of bleeding is minimal, but those who have had recent surgery, cerebral aneurysms, and other conditions may have too great of risk of bleeding. Generally, the benefit of anticoagulation is prevention of or reduction of progression of a disease. Some indications for anticoagulant therapy that are known to have benefit from therapy include:

• Atrial fibrillation — commonly forms an atrial appendage clot
• Coronary artery disease
• Deep vein thrombosis — can lead to pulmonary embolism
• Ischemic stroke
• Hypercoagulable states (e.g., Factor V Leiden) — can lead to deep vein thrombosis
• Myocardial infarction
• Pulmonary embolism
• Restenosis from stents

In these cases, anticoagulation therapy can prevent formation of dangerous clots or prevent growth of clots.

The decision to begin therapeutic anticoagulation often involves the use of multiple bleeding risk predictable outcome tools as non-invasive pre-test stratifications due to the potential for bleeds while on blood thinning agents. Among these tools are HAS-BLED, ATRIA, and CHA2DS2-VASc.

Adverse effects

Patients aged 80 years or more may be especially susceptible to bleeding complications, with a rate of 13 bleeds per 100 person-years. Depletion of vitamin K by coumadin therapy increases risk of arterial calcification and heart valve calcification, especially if too much vitamin D is present. In a meta-analysis studying the effects of warfarin use in patients with end stage renal disease and atrial fibrillation, there was no increased risk of stroke incidence with warfarin use, but there was a significantly increased risk of all-cause bleeding, compared to alternate treatments (aspirin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban) or no warfarin use. Although poor adherence to anticoagulation therapy is associated with a higher risk of stroke among high-risk patients (i.e. those with a CHA2DS2‐VASc score ≥2), the benefits of anticoagulation therapy may not outweigh the harms in patients with CHA2DS2‐VASc score 0 or 1.

Interactions

Foods and food supplements with blood-thinning effects include nattokinase, lumbrokinase, beer, bilberry, celery, cranberries, fish oil, garlic, ginger, ginkgo, ginseng, green tea, horse chestnut, licorice, niacin, onion, papaya, pomegranate, red clover, soybean, St. John's wort, turmeric, wheatgrass, and willow bark. Many herbal supplements have blood-thinning properties, such as danshen and feverfew. Multivitamins that do not interact with clotting are available for patients on anticoagulants.

However, some foods and supplements encourage clotting. These include alfalfa, avocado, cat's claw, coenzyme Q10, and dark leafy greens such as spinach. Their intake should be avoided whilst taking anticoagulants or, if coagulability is being monitored, their intake should be kept approximately constant so that anticoagulant dosage can be maintained at a level high enough to counteract this effect without fluctuations in coagulability.

Grapefruit interferes with some anticoagulant drugs, increasing the amount of time it takes for them to be metabolized out of the body, and so should be eaten only with caution when on anticoagulant drugs.

Anticoagulants are often used to treat acute deep vein thrombosis. People using anticoagulants to treat this condition should avoid using bed rest as a complementary treatment because there are clinical benefits to continuing to walk and remaining mobile while using anticoagulants in this way. Bed rest while using anticoagulants can harm patients in circumstances in which it is not medically necessary.

Types

A number of anticoagulants are available. The traditional ones (warfarin, other coumarins and heparins) are in widespread use, which are commonly known as vitamin K anticoagulants/vitamin K antagonist; since the 2000s a number of new agents have been introduced that are collectively referred to as the novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) or directly acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs)/Non vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants. These agents include direct thrombin inhibitor(dabigatran) and factor Xa inhibitor (rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban) and they have been shown to be as good or possibly better than the coumarins with less serious side effects. The newer anticoagulants (NOACs/DOACs), are more expensive than the traditional ones and should be used with care in patients with kidney problems. Additionally, there is no antidote for the factor Xa inhibitors, so it is difficult to stop their effects in the body in cases of emergency (accidents, urgent surgery). Idarucizumab was FDA approved for the reversal of dabigatran in 2015.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticoagulant

The Stagnant Humanities

Humanities Enrollment Is in Free Fall
By Alex Berezow

American Council on Science and Health – July 31, 2018 -- The humanities are in big trouble. That's the conclusion drawn by Benjamin Schmidt, an Assistant Professor of History at Northeastern University. He has the data to back it up.

In his analysis, Dr. Schmidt depicts several graphs, all of which show a fairly striking trend: Students are rejecting the humanities. The most striking graph, which includes data for English, Languages, History, and Philosophy, shows that the number of college degrees in these fields awarded as a percentage of all college degrees fell from roughly 7.5% in the 2000s to under 5% today.

While some humanities fields -- such as cultural, gender and ethnic studies -- have escaped the devastation, most others have not. Indeed, Dr. Schmidt reveals that enrollment is down in nearly every field considered part of the humanities.

Dr. Schmidt also writes, "The social science fields that most closely resemble humanistic ones -- sociology, anthropology, international relations, and political science -- have also seen serious drops." What's going on?

The professor notes that the decline began around 2008 or shortly thereafter, which coincided with the financial crisis. Though he doesn't explicitly state this, it is hard to believe that is merely coincidental. College is expensive, and students may be driven toward fields that they believe are worth the money. As it so happens, Dr. Schmidt says that some of the biggest increases in enrollment occurred in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics), as well as health professions like nursing.

His analysis, however, misses the mark in one major way: Dr. Schmidt rejects the notion that the quality of the subject matter has driven students away. He writes, "Stop complaining about 'postmodernism,' or African-American studies." I quite strongly disagree.

Why Are the Humanities Collapsing?

There is probably not much data available on why students choose the majors they do. So, we are largely left to speculate. However, it is difficult to avoid discussing some broad cultural changes in both academia and society as a whole.

1. There is a widespread belief that humanities degrees should be avoided. Linking a master's degree in art history to working as a barista at Starbucks has become a punchline. Even President Obama mocked art history. The criticisms are exaggerated, but there's enough truth to them to scare prospective students away. A study by the National Center for Education Statistics shows that humanities majors earn less money than other students and are more likely to be unemployed.

2. The humanities generate too much nonsensical research. Postmodernist beliefs absolutely have ruined the humanities. For the uninitiated, postmodernism is essentially a form of moral and epistemic relativism. Right and wrong are relative, and truth itself is relative. When a field can no longer distinguish truth from lies -- or worthwhile knowledge from dubious anecdotes -- then it is flirting with catastrophe. The problem is so bad that there is a satirical postmodernist generator that randomly strings together essays. They are utterly nonsensical, but then so is some actual humanities research. 

3. The humanities, and academia in general, are politically biased. The political skew among the humanities is laughably absurd. A paper in Econ Journal Watch showed that in history departments, Democrats outnumber Republicans more than 33 to 1. Overall, academia is getting worse. The Democratic:Republican ratio among the oldest professors (over age 65) is a "mere" 10 to 1, but among the youngest professors (under age 36), it is nearly 23 to 1.

Taken together, the collapse of the humanities should have been foreseen. If you’re a parent, why would you encourage your child to be indoctrinated with a skewed worldview? If you're a student, why would you voluntarily sign up for a major that demonstrably has poorer job and earnings prospects but the same mountain of debt?

The tragedy in all this is that the humanities are important. But we're watching as an entire academic discipline digs its own grave, but doesn't know why it's digging it.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/07/31/humanities-enrollment-free-fall-13243

Class Action Lawsuits

A class action, class suit, or representative action is a type of lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member of that group. The class action originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, but Canada, as well as several European countries with civil law have made changes in recent years to allow consumer organizations to bring claims on behalf of consumers.

Description

In a typical class action, a plaintiff sues a defendant or a number of defendants on behalf of a group, or class, of absent parties. This differs from a traditional lawsuit, where one party sues another party for redress of a wrong, and all of the parties are present in court. Although standards differ between states and countries, class actions are most common where the allegations involve a large number of people (usually 40 or more) who have been injured by the same defendant in the same way. Instead of each damaged person bringing his or her own lawsuit, the class action allows all the claims of all class members—whether they know they have been damaged or not—to be resolved in a single proceeding through the efforts of the representative plaintiff(s) and appointed class counsel.

History

England

The antecedent of the class action was what modern observers call "group litigation", which appears to have been quite common in medieval England from about 1200 onward. These lawsuits involved groups of people either suing or being sued in actions at common law. These groups were usually based on existing societal structures like villages, towns, parishes, and guilds. Unlike modern courts, the medieval English courts did not question the right of the actual plaintiffs to sue on behalf of a group or a few representatives to defend an entire group.

From 1400 to 1700, group litigation gradually switched from being the norm in England to the exception. The development of the concept of the corporation led to the wealthy supporters of the corporate form becoming suspicious of all unincorporated legal entities, which in turn led to the modern concept of the unincorporated or voluntary association. The tumultuous history of the Wars of the Roses and then the Star Chamber resulted in periods during which the common law courts were frequently paralyzed, and out of the confusion the Court of Chancery emerged with exclusive jurisdiction over group litigation. By 1850, Parliament had enacted several statutes on a case-by-case basis to deal with issues regularly faced by certain types of organizations, like joint-stock companies, and with the impetus for most types of group litigation removed, it went into a steep decline in English jurisprudence from which it never recovered. It was further weakened by the fact that equity pleading in general was falling into disfavor, which culminated in the Judicature Acts of 1874 and 1875. Group litigation was essentially dead in England after 1850.

United States

Class actions survived in the United States thanks to the influence of Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story, who imported it into U.S. law through summary discussions in his two equity treatises as well as his opinion in West v. Randall (1820). However, Story did not necessarily endorse class actions, because he "could not conceive of a modern function or a coherent theory for representative litigation".

The oldest predecessor to the class action rule in the United States was in the Federal Equity Rules, specifically Equity Rule 48, promulgated in 1842.

Where the parties on either side are very numerous, and cannot, without manifest inconvenience and oppressive delays in the suit, be all brought before it, the court in its discretion may dispense with making all of them parties, and may proceed in the suit, having sufficient parties before it to represent all the adverse interests of the plaintiffs and the defendants in the suit properly before it. But in such cases the decree shall be without prejudice to the rights and claims of all the absent parties.

This allowed for representative suits in situations where there were too many individual parties (which now forms the first requirement for class action litigation – numerosity). However, this rule did not allow such suits to bind similarly situated absent parties, which rendered the rule ineffective. Within ten years, the Supreme Court interpreted Rule 48 in such a way so that it could apply to absent parties under certain circumstances, but only by ignoring the plain meaning of the rule. In the rules published in 1912, Equity Rule 48 was replaced with Equity Rule 38 as part of a major restructuring of the Equity Rules, and when federal courts merged their legal and equitable procedural systems in 1938, Equity Rule 38 became Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Modern developments

A major revision of the FRCP in 1966 radically transformed Rule 23, made the opt-out class action the standard option, and gave birth to the modern class action. Entire treatises have been written since to summarize the huge mass of law that sprang up from the 1966 revision of Rule 23. Just as medieval group litigation bound all members of the group regardless of whether they all actually appeared in court, the modern class action binds all members of the class, except for those who choose to opt out (if the rules permit them to do so).

The Advisory Committee that drafted the new Rule 23 in the mid-1960s was influenced by two major developments. First was the suggestion of Harry Kalven, Jr. and Maurice Rosenfield in 1941 that class action litigation by individual shareholders on behalf of all shareholders of a company could effectively supplement direct government regulation of securities markets and other similar markets. The second development was the rise of the civil rights movement, environmentalism and consumerism. The groups behind these movements, as well as many others in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, all turned to class actions as a means for achieving their goals. For example, a 1978 environmental law treatise reprinted the entire text of Rule 23 and mentioned "class actions" 14 times in its index.

Businesses targeted by class actions for inflicting massive aggregate harm have sought ways to avoid class actions altogether. In the 1990s, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a number of decisions which strengthened the "federal policy favoring arbitration". In response, lawyers have added provisions to consumer contracts of adhesion called "collective action waivers", which prohibit those signing the contracts from bringing class action suits. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5–4 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class action lawsuits, which will make it more difficult for consumers to file class action lawsuits. The dissent pointed to a saving clause in the federal act which allowed states to determine how a contract or its clauses may be revoked.

In two major 21st century cases, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 against certification of class actions due to differences in each individual members' circumstances: first in Wal-Mart v. Dukes (2011) and later in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend (2013).

Companies may insert the phrase "may elect to resolve any claim by individual arbitration" into their consumer and employment contracts to use arbitration and prevent class action lawsuits.

Statistics

As of 2010, there was no publicly maintained list of nonsecurities class action settlements, although a securities class action database exists in the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and several for-profit companies maintain lists of the securities settlements. One study of federal settlements required the researcher to manually search databases of lawsuits for the relevant records, although state class actions were not included due to the difficulty in gathering the information. Another source of data is U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, which offers statistics for the year 2005.

Advantages of Class Action Lawsuits

Proponents of class actions state that they offer a number of advantages because they aggregate a large number of individualized claims into one representational lawsuit.

First, aggregation can increase the efficiency of the legal process, and lower the costs of litigation. In cases with common questions of law and fact, aggregation of claims into a class action may avoid the necessity of repeating "days of the same witnesses, exhibits and issues from trial to trial". Jenkins v. Raymark Indus. Inc., 782 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1986) (granting certification of a class action involving asbestos).

Second, a class action may overcome "the problem that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights". Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997) (quoting Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 388, 344 (7th Cir. 1997)). "A class action solves this problem by aggregating the relatively paltry potential recoveries into something worth someone's (usually an attorney's) labor." Amchem Prods., Inc., 521 U.S. at 617 (quoting Mace, 109 F.3d at 344). In other words, a class action ensures that a defendant who engages in widespread harm – but does so minimally against each individual plaintiff – must compensate those individuals for their injuries. For example, thousands of shareholders of a public company may have losses too small to justify separate lawsuits, but a class action can be brought efficiently on behalf of all shareholders. Perhaps even more important than compensation is that class treatment of claims may be the only way to impose the costs of wrongdoing on the wrongdoer, thus deterring future wrongdoing.

Third, class action cases may be brought to purposely change behavior of a class of which the defendant is a member. Landeros v. Flood (1976) was a landmark case decided by the California Supreme Court that aimed at purposefully changing the behavior of doctors, encouraging them to report suspected child abuse. Otherwise, they would face the threat of civil action for damages in tort proximately flowing from the failure to report the suspected injuries. Previously, many physicians had remained reluctant to report cases of apparent child abuse, despite existing law that required it.

Fourth, in "limited fund" cases, a class action ensures that all plaintiffs receive relief and that early-filing plaintiffs do not raid the fund (i.e., the defendant) of all its assets before other plaintiffs may be compensated. See Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999). A class action in such a situation centralizes all claims into one venue where a court can equitably divide the assets amongst all the plaintiffs if they win the case.

Finally, a class action avoids the situation where different court rulings could create "incompatible standards" of conduct for the defendant to follow. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A). For example, a court might certify a case for class treatment where a number of individual bond-holders sue to determine whether they may convert their bonds to common stock. Refusing to litigate the case in one trial could result in different outcomes and inconsistent standards of conduct for the defendant corporation. Thus, courts will generally allow a class action in such a situation. See, e.g., Van Gemert v. Boeing Co., 259 F. Supp. 125 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).

Whether a class action is superior to individual litigation depends on the case and is determined by the judge's ruling on a motion for class certification. The Advisory Committee Note to Rule 23, for example, states that mass torts are ordinarily "not appropriate" for class treatment. Class treatment may not improve the efficiency of a mass tort because the claims frequently involve individualized issues of law and fact that will have to be re-tried on an individual basis. See Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) (rejecting nationwide class action against tobacco companies). Mass torts also involve high individual damage awards; thus, the absence of class treatment will not impede the ability of individual claimants to seek justice. See id. Other cases, however, may be more conducive to class treatment.

The preamble to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, passed by the United States Congress, found:

Class-action lawsuits are an important and valuable part of the legal system when they permit the fair and efficient resolution of legitimate claims of numerous parties by allowing the claims to be aggregated into a single action against a defendant that has allegedly caused harm.

Criticism of Class Action Lawsuits

There are several criticisms of class actions. The preamble to the Class Action Fairness Act stated that some abusive class actions harmed class members with legitimate claims and defendants that have acted responsibly, adversely affected interstate commerce, and undermined public respect for the country's judicial system.

Class members often receive little or no benefit from class actions. Examples cited for this include large fees for the attorneys, while leaving class members with coupons or other awards of little or no value; unjustified awards are made to certain plaintiffs at the expense of other class members; and confusing notices are published that prevent class members from being able to fully understand and effectively exercise their rights.

For example, in the United States, class lawsuits sometimes bind all class members with a low settlement. These "coupon settlements" (which usually allow the plaintiffs to receive a small benefit such as a small check or a coupon for future services or products with the defendant company) are a way for a defendant to forestall major liability by precluding a large number of people from litigating their claims separately, to recover reasonable compensation for the damages. However, existing law requires judicial approval of all class action settlements, and in most cases class members are given a chance to opt out of class settlement, though class members, despite opt-out notices, may be unaware of their right to opt out because they did not receive the notice, did not read it, or did not understand it.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 addresses these concerns. Coupon settlements may be scrutinized by an independent expert before judicial approval in order to ensure that the settlement will be of value to the class members (28 U.S.C.A. 1712(d)). Further, if the action provides for settlement in coupons, "the portion of any attorney’s fee award to class counsel that is attributable to the award of the coupons shall be based on the value to class members of the coupons that are redeemed". 28 U.S.C.A. 1712(a).

Ethics

Class action cases present significant ethical challenges. Defendants can hold reverse auctions and any of several parties can engage in collusive settlement discussions. Subclasses may have interests that diverge greatly from the class, but may be treated the same. Proposed settlements could offer some groups (such as former customers) much greater benefits than others. In one paper presented at an ABA conference on class actions in 2007, authors commented that "competing cases can also provide opportunities for collusive settlement discussions and reverse auctions by defendants anxious to resolve their new exposure at the most economic cost".

Defendant Class Action

Although normally plaintiffs are the class, defendant class actions are also possible. For example, in 2005, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon was sued as part of the Catholic priest sex-abuse scandal. All parishioners of the Archdiocese's churches were cited as a defendant class. This was done to include their assets (local churches) in any settlement. Where both the plaintiffs and the defendants have been organized into court-approved classes, the action is called a bilateral class action.

See Also

• Arbitration clause, a contract clause that attempts to prevent lawsuits by requiring arbitration in a private forum
• Bill of Peace, an English predecessor to class actions
• Class Action 1991 American legal drama film
• Collective redress, a similar legal framework currently under development in the European Union
• Dukes v. Wal-Mart, the largest civil rights class-action lawsuit to date
• List of class action lawsuits
• Securities Class Action
• Public Interest Litigation, a similar system adopted in India

                                                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action

 

Disney and 21st Century Fox

Proposed Acquisition of 21^st Century Fox by Disney

On December 14, 2017, The Walt Disney Company announced a bid to merge with 21st Century Fox for $52.4 billion in stock. Assets being assumed by the merger include the Twentieth Century Fox film and TV studios, Fox Networks Group (along with cable networks such as FX Networks), stakes in National Geographic Partners, Indian satellite TV group Star India, Hulu, UK-based satellite TV group Sky plc, and other key assets. 21st Century Fox will spin-off Fox News, the Fox Business Network, FS1, FS2, Fox Deportes, the Big Ten Network, the Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox Television Stations, and MyNetworkTV into the "New Fox" company.

Comcast (whose division NBCUniversal includes Universal Pictures, DreamWorks Animation, Illumination Entertainment and Universal Parks & Resorts) counter-offered on June 13, 2018, with a $65 billion all cash proposal to acquire the Fox assets that Disney was set to purchase, touching off a major bidding war between the two companies. A week later, Disney counterbid with a $71.3 billion offer. Comcast officially ended its bidding war with Disney to acquire Fox on July 19, in order to focus on acquiring a controlling stake in Sky plc. Disney and Fox shareholders approved the merger between both companies on July 27. If approved by all international regulators, the merger is estimated to be completed in the first half of 2019.

History

2017

On November 6, 2017, CNBC reported that The Walt Disney Company was negotiating a deal with Rupert Murdoch to acquire 21st Century Fox's filmed entertainment, cable entertainment, and direct broadcast satellite divisions, including 20th Century Fox, FX Networks, and National Geographic Partners. The deal would reportedly exclude the Fox Broadcasting Company, 20th Century Fox's studio lot, Fox Television Stations, Fox News, the Fox Business Network, and Fox Sports, which would be spun off into a new independent company run by the Murdoch family.

It would also include film rights to certain franchises, including X-Men and Fantastic Four, and the distribution rights to Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope, which are not owned by Disney. Talks had stalled for the day without a deal being finalized, but it was reported on November 10 that the prospected deal had yet to be fully abandoned.

On November 16, 2017, it was reported that Comcast (parent company of NBCUniversal), Verizon Communications, and Sony had also joined Disney in a bidding war for 21st Century Fox. During a recent shareholders meeting, 21st Century Fox co-chairman Lachlan Murdoch stated that Fox was not a "sub-scale" company "finding it difficult to leverage their positions in new and emerging video platforms", but had "the required scale to continue to both execute on our aggressive growth strategy and deliver significant increased returns to shareholders".

Because Disney owns the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), Comcast owns the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), and 21st Century Fox owns the Fox Broadcasting Company, a full acquisition of Fox by either Disney or Comcast would be illegal under the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'s rules prohibiting a merger between any of the four major broadcast networks.

On November 28, 2017, while mentioning a rumor that the rumored negotiations between Disney and Fox were progressing at a rapid pace, Mike Fleming Jr. of Deadline Hollywood commented that "given how Disney made the Marvel and Lucasfilm deals under the cone of silence, if this happens we'll probably only know it when it's announced. It is certainly being talked about today."

Rumors of a nearing deal continued on December 5, 2017, with additional reports suggesting that the FSN regional sports networks would be included in the sale (assets that would likely be aligned with Disney's ESPN division).

On December 11, 2017, Comcast announced it was dropping its bid on the Fox assets. On December 14, however, Disney and Fox confirmed a $52.4 billion deal to merge the two companies, pending approval from the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division.

Early 2018

In February, CNBC reported that, despite the Disney-Fox deal, Comcast might take action to outbid Disney's $52.4 billion offer, once the AT&T–Time Warner merger went through. Despite this, Fox president Peter Rice stated he was content with the Disney offer and that the Fox assets were "a great fit for Disney."

Later that month, Comcast made an offer to purchase British broadcast network Sky plc for about $31 billion (£22.1 billion) with £12.50 a share, a move that some analysts speculated could trigger a bidding war between Fox, Disney, and Comcast for Sky.

Early in March, the non-profit group Protect Democracy Project Inc filed a lawsuit against the United States Department of Justice on the hopes to seek any records of communications between the two groups over Disney's pending acquisition of Fox. The lawsuit also sought "any related antitrust enforcement efforts by the DOJ, to find out whether the president or his administration is improperly interfering with the independence of the DOJ out of favoritism for a political ally." Donald Trump congratulated Murdoch for the Disney-Fox deal while attacking AT&T's acquisition of Time Warner, particularly over the ownership of CNN, which he frequently criticized due to alleged bias.

Weeks later, Sky plc entered into a confidentiality agreement with both Fox and Disney to assess and obtain certain antitrust and other regulatory approvals if necessary. The following month, 21st Century Fox made two proposals regarding the Sky acquisition; they would either sell Sky News to Disney (which would be a separate transaction from the Disney-Fox merger) or separate Sky News from Sky plc.

Later that month, the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers ruled that Disney had to acquire all of Sky within 28 days of fully acquiring Fox if the latter's acquisition of Sky is not completed by the time the merger is done, or if Comcast's counter-offer isn't accepted. The same day, Rice revealed that the merger was expected to close by summer 2019.

On April 25, Comcast started a bidding war with Fox for the acquisition of Sky plc. By May, it was reported that Comcast spoke to investment banks about topping Disney's offer to acquire Fox. Shortly afterwards, Bob Iger stated he was willing to drop Sky plc from the deal to ensure the Fox acquisition.

Several Fox investors said that they would be open to terminate the company's agreement with Disney if Comcast followed through on its plan to launch a rival all-cash bid for $60 billion. Murdoch's family trust controlled 39% of Fox due to shares it held with special voting rights. However, under the company's by-law, those special rights did not apply to a vote on the Disney/Fox deal when the Murdoch trust only controlled 17% of the vote, making it easier for other shareholders to defeat him, which was expected as early as next month. Days later, it was confirmed that Lachlan Murdoch, rather than James Murdoch, would take charge of the New Fox company.

The following week, Comcast publicly announced it was looking into making an all-cash counter-offer for the Fox assets that Disney proposed to acquire. Shortly after, it was reported that Disney was looking into making its own all-cash counter-offer for Fox assets if Comcast went through with their offer.

The next day, Disney and Fox announced they had set their shareholder vote meetings for July 10, although both stated that Fox's meeting could be postponed if Comcast came through with their offer.

Mid-2018

On June 12, AT&T was given approval by District Judge Richard J. Leon to acquire Time Warner, easing concerns Comcast had regarding whether government regulators would block their bid for Fox. Consequently, the next day, Comcast mounted a bid of $65 billion for the 21st Century Fox assets that were set to be acquired by Disney.

On June 14, 2018, Bloomberg News reported that the Yankees were seeking to invoke a clause in Fox's purchase of stakes in YES Network, allowing them to buy back Fox's stake in the event of a change in ownership (and thus prevent it from being included in the sale).

On June 18, 2018, it was reported that Disney will add to its already existing $52 billion claim to contest Comcast's proposed counter-offer for the Fox assets.

On June 19, 2018, it was reported that Disney has agreed to acquire Sky News from Sky itself.

On June 20, 2018, Disney and Fox announced that they had amended their previous merger agreement, upping Disney’s offer to $71.3 billion (a 10% premium over Comcast's $65 billion offer), while also offering shareholders the option of receiving cash instead of stock. On June 21, 2018, Murdoch said in response to Disney's higher offer: "We are extremely proud of the businesses we have built at 21st Century Fox, and firmly believe that this combination with Disney will unlock even more value for shareholders as the new Disney continues to set the pace at a dynamic time for our industry." That still does not prevent other companies from making a bid, as the deal was needed to be voted on by shareholders.

Iger explained the reasoning behind the bid: "Direct-to-consumer distribution has actually become an even more compelling proposition in the six months since we announced the deal. There has just been not only a tremendous amount of development in that space, but clearly the consumer is voting—loudly."

On June 27, 2018, the United States Department of Justice gave antitrust approval to Disney under the condition of selling Fox's 22 regional sports channels, to which the company has agreed to. The next day, Disney and Fox boards scheduled July 27, 2018 as the day shareholders vote on Fox's properties being sold to Disney.

On July 9, 2018, a Fox shareholder filed a lawsuit to stop the acquisition from Disney citing the absence of financial projections for Hulu. On the same day, CNBC reported that Comcast was looking for companies that could take over Fox's Regional Sports Networks. This would make easier Comcast's legislative problems regarding the takeover of Fox assets, preparing to make a new all cash counter-offer before July 27, 2018.

On July 11, 2018, 21st Century Fox raised its bid to purchase Sky's assets to $32.5 billion, and $18.57 a share. In response, Comcast increased its bid to $34 billion, and $19.5 a share. At the same time, Fox was given clearance by the British government to purchase Sky. The bidding war for Sky led to some analysts speculating that Comcast could give up bidding for 21st Century Fox in favor of a smaller battle.

On July 12, 2018, the Department of Justice filed a notice of appeal with the D.C. Circuit to reverse the District Court's approval for AT&T acquisition of Time Warner (now WarnerMedia). Although analysts say that the chances of the DOJ win are small, they say it is the "final nail in the coffin for Comcast's Fox chase. This is a clear gift to Disney." On the next day, CEO of AT&T Randall Stephenson gave an interview with CNBC, about Comcast's bid for Fox: "It probably can't help it. You're in a situation where two entities are bidding for an asset, and this kind of action can obviously influence the outcome of those actions."

On July 13, 2018, Disney received the support of the Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis, the two most prominent proxy adviser firms in the world. Fox shareholders were recommended by the advisers as means to provide for Disney's future. Also on that same day, British regulators have decided that if Disney purchases Fox's assets before Sky's purchase from either Fox or Comcast, it will be forced to launch a bid for the full ownership of Sky, at a minimum of $18.6 a share.

On July 16, 2018, CNBC reported that Comcast was unlikely to continue its bidding war with Disney to acquire Fox. Instead, Comcast is likely to continue pursuing 61% stake of Sky. On July 18, 2018, Bloomberg reported that the Sky board also scheduled July 27, 2018 as the day shareholders vote on selling Sky properties. On July 19, 2018, Comcast officially announced that it was dropping its bid on the Fox assets in order to focus on its bid for Sky. The CEO of Comcast, Brian L. Roberts, said "I'd like to congratulate Bob Iger and the team at Disney and commend the Murdoch family and Fox for creating such a desirable and respected company."

On July 25, 2018, TCI Fund Management, the second largest shareholder of 21st Century Fox, indicated that they voted to approve the Disney-Fox deal. On July 27, 2018, Disney and Fox shareholders approved the merger between the two companies. The merger's completions should be in the first half of 2019. On the same day, Bloomberg reported that out of all 15 nations yet to approve the deal, China could become the biggest threat to the merger since the trade war with Donald Trump resulted in the merger between Qualcomm and NXP not being realized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fox_by_Disney

Jazz Pianist Djangirov

Eldar Djangirov (born January 28, 1987), also known as Eldar, is a US-American jazz pianist. He was born in Kyrgyz SSR, Soviet Union. He is of Volga Tatar and Russian descent. He grew up in Kansas City, MO from the age of 10. Born to Tanya and Emil Djangirov, he also lived in San Diego, California during his teenage years. As of 2016, he resides in New York City.

Career

He began playing the piano when he was three years old. The first piece he remembers learning was "C Jam Blues". He later took classical lessons and was "discovered" at age 9 by the late New York City jazz aficionado Charles McWhorter, who saw him play at a festival in Siberia. The family relocated to Kansas City, drawn there in large part by the city's jazz history. During his Kansas City years, even before reaching his teens, Eldar already started building a reputation as a child prodigy, appearing on Marian McPartland's NPR show, Piano Jazz, when he was only 12 years old, being the youngest performer to appear on her show. Eldar attended Interlochen Center for the Arts in his young teenage years. Eldar attended St. Elizabeth's grade school and the Barstow School in Kansas City. Eventually, the family moved to San Diego where he attended the Francis W. Parker School (San Diego), and then to the Los Angeles area where he attended University of Southern California's Thornton School of Music. Eldar's playing style is characterized by prodigious technique and musicality. Downbeat noted in a review by Bob Doershuk: "his command of the instrument is beyond staggering." He was signed to Sony Music at 18 and released 5 albums. One of the albums was nominated for a Grammy. Eldar has extensively toured throughout Europe, Asia, North America.

Djangirov has been variously compared to Art Tatum, Oscar Peterson, Herbie Hancock and more; yet he also seems to absorb harmonic expansiveness from McCoy Tyner and at times the lyrical sensitivity from Bill Evans. Djangirov performed at Grammy Awards telecast and was honored the first time in many years as a jazz artist. Eldar has also been seen on Conan O'Brien, CBS Saturday Early Show, Jimmy Kimmel Live and CBS Sunday Morning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldar_Djangirov

Official Website is at:  http://www.eldarmusic.com/

Practice of Law in the USA

In its most general sense, the practice of law involves giving legal advice to clients, drafting legal documents for clients, and representing clients in legal negotiations and court proceedings such as lawsuits, and is applied to the professional services of a lawyer or attorney at law, barrister, solicitor, or civil law notary. However, there is a substantial amount of overlap between the practice of law and various other professions where clients are represented by agents. These professions include real estate, banking, accounting, and insurance. Moreover, a growing number of legal document assistants (LDAs) are offering services which have traditionally been offered only by lawyers and their employee paralegals. Many documents may now be created by computer-assisted drafting libraries, where the clients are asked a series of questions that are posed by the software in order to construct the legal documents.

Practice of Law in the United States

In the United States, the practice of law is conditioned upon admission to practice of law, and specifically admission to the bar of a particular state or other territorial jurisdiction. The American Bar Association and the American Law Institute are among the organizations that are concerned with the interests of lawyers as a profession and the promulgation of uniform standards of professionalism and ethics, but regulation of the practice of law is left to the individual states, and their definitions vary.

Unauthorized practice of law

"Unauthorized practice of law" (UPL) is an act sometimes prohibited by statute, regulation, or court rules.

Definition

The definition of "unauthorized practice of law" is variable, and is often conclusory and tautological, i.e., it is the doing of a lawyer's or counselor's work by a non-lawyer for money. There is some agreement that appearing in a legally constituted court in a legal proceeding to represent clients (particularly for a fee) is considered to be unauthorized practice of law. But other variations are subject to interpretation and conflicting regulation, particularly as to the scope and breadth of the prohibition. Black's Law Dictionary defines unauthorized practice of law as "The practice of law by a person, typically a nonlawyer, who has not been licensed or admitted to practice law in a given jurisdiction."

The Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers notes:

The definitions and tests employed by courts to delineate unauthorized practice by non-lawyers have been vague or conclusory, while jurisdictions have differed significantly in describing what constitutes unauthorized practice in particular areas.

Certain activities, such as the representation of another person in litigation, are generally proscribed. Even in that area, many jurisdictions recognize exceptions for such matters as small-claims and landlord-tenant tribunals and certain proceedings in administrative agencies. Moreover, many jurisdictions have authorized law students and others not locally admitted to represent indigent persons or others as part of clinical legal education programs. . . .

What is more controversial is out-of-court activities, particularly drafting of documents and giving advice, and whether that is considered to be unauthorized practice of law. Some states have defined the "practice of law" to include those who appear as a representative in arbitration or act as arbitrators in disputes. For example, there is a growing conflict between the multijurisdictional practice of law in arbitration proceedings in the financial service industry and state regulation of lawyers. With a few exceptions, the general rule is that an appearance at an arbitration does not constitute the practice of law.

The United States bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of Tennessee has held that "providing clients with explanations or definitions of such legal terms of art ... is, by itself, giving legal advice." The North Carolina State Bar has held that "definition of lien law terms, warnings regarding time requirements, and reminders about sending out preliminary notices within five to ten days of beginning work, when combined with its preparation of legal documents [in the manner described], constitute providing legal advice."

Texas law generally prohibits a person who is not an attorney from representing a client in a personal injury or property damage matter, and punishes a violation as a misdemeanor.^[9] Some states also criminalize the separate behavior of falsely claiming to be lawyer (in Texas, for example, this is a felony).

Attorney participation

In the United States, the rules of professional conduct generally prohibit an attorney from assisting a non-attorney from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. An attorney therefore may not partner with or split fees with a non-attorney in the performance of any sort of legal work. Furthermore, an attorney may not employ a disbarred or suspended attorney in a legal practice where former clients of the disbarred or suspended attorney will be represented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_of_law