Mirena, approved for use and sale by the FDA in 2000, is a plastic device that is T-shaped, and released a synthetic progestogen into a woman’s uterus to prevent pregnancy.  The device was to remain in a woman’s body for up to five years, and recommended to women who already had children, and after that period, the device would be replaced during a doctor’s visit.  Beginning in 2009, it was revealed that Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, a Mirena manufacturer, had made unsubstantiated claims in its promotional materials regarding Mirena’s “Simple Style” program, and representations regarding the device’s enhancement of a woman’s sexual drive.  The US Health and Human Services Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications revealed that, in fact, Mirena carriers a risk of decreased sex drive, weight gain and acne.  Mirena’s required warnings do include a risk of perforation during insertion, but not any risk of the device migrating. Some cases involve the device becoming adhered to the bowels or diaphragm after its migration, and some women claim that they are now infertile because of the uterine perforations.

Women who have the Mirena IUD devices need to be vigorous in having your physician evaluate whether you might be suffering from any of these known problems associated with a migration of the device.  Our office has is actively handling claims involving the use of Mirena IUD devices that have migrated and caused related injuries, and anticipate filing cases in the MDL in the near future.

David Freedlander called me yesterday to get my thoughts about the Associated Press scandal in which the Department of Justice secretly subpoenaed and obtained the phone records of journalists thought to be involved in stories based on leaks of classified information.  Mr. Freedlander is a senior political correspondent for Newsweek and the Daily Beast.  This week, in response to uproar over this First Amendment intrusion, the White House suggested Congress try again to pass a “shield law” for journalists to protect them from being forced to testify about confidential sources—in certain circumstances.  As a former journalist with personal experience in the consequences of protecting confidential sources, I keep this issue close to my heart.  The call took me back to the late 1990s.

Back then, in my former life, I was held in contempt of court for refusing to divulge confidential sources for a sealed settlement in a federal environmental contamination lawsuit, and ordered to prison.  At the time, I was working here in Wilmington covering courts for the Morning Star (now the Star-News).  Needless to say, I have some opinions about shield laws and the current mess.

Attorney General Eric Holder’s recusal from the leak investigation resulted in a deputy approving the AP subpoenas and then acting on them without informing the AP, as required by law.  This highlights the problem with the current system, in which the government is very reluctant to intrude on journalistic privilege and only does so under an unpredictable system in which the nation’s top lawyer is by department policy (not law) supposed to sign off on any such requests.  That makes such intrusions haphazard and subject to the type of overreaching that occurred here.  It is noteworthy that this internal policy doesn’t apply to independent counsel when they are appointed to handle a specific matter, which resulted in New York Times reporter Judith Miller spending a famed 85 days in jail without need for approval by the attorney general.  As another example of that problem, Attorney General Janet Reno declined to prosecute me and a colleague at the Morning Star in our case, but the federal judge involved appointed a special prosecutor to do so and we were tried for criminal and civil contempt regardless of Justice Department policies.  The point is that a shield law is necessary to protect reporters across the country who are doing their jobs covering stories that have nothing to do with national security.  This is increasingly imperative because big corporations are increasingly aggressive in pursuing reporters who ferret out information they prefer kept secret.

A shield law should be designed to cover everyone who claims to be a “journalist,” including bloggers and others working to publish information for general consumption.  But that poses concerns about covering just anyone who may publish properly classified national security information that is leaked.  This is why the bill now being revived by the White House was allowed to die a few years ago—the Pentagon, CIA, NSA and anyone with an intelligence function protested that the likes of Wikileaks might claim coverage under the shield for journalists without any regard for the safety and welfare of the United States.  This is an understandable concern.

First, it is crucial to note that Washington is awash in “classified information.”  If the Pentagon could get away with classifying the Northern Virginia Yellow Pages to avoid taking phone calls, it would do so.  Just because something gets stamped “classified” doesn’t necessarily make it a dangerous piece of information that should override press freedom under the First Amendment, although the public position of the Pentagon and CIA is to the contrary.  In my opinion, if a court is convinced that a leak of classified information that is demonstrably damaging to national security has occurred, then whether the recipient “journalist” should be required to identify his or her source is a question that should depend on whether the journalist is someone who has exhibited fundamental principles of the practice of journalism and is not just some rogue operative working for interests that do not serve either the United States or the First Amendment.

These principles include a track record of publishing information for general consumption; past use of a deliberative process balancing the value of information with the potential risks of publication; an established practice of verification of the information’s authenticity and accuracy; transparency of the journalist’s motives for publication and potential for manipulation; and evidence within the report at issue and in past reports demonstrating an intent to publish newsworthy information to the general public in a reasonably transparent a manner, such as negotiated identifications of confidential sources (such as “a western diplomat” rather than a “source”).

Make no mistake, this idea would not sit well with many journalists who take a purist position that a reporter’s privilege must be absolute, but I’m willing to give a little to get a lot.

The bill before Congress is not so nuanced, but even as it stands it would help many journalists ensure they can function with less fear of being hauled into court and threatened with prison when they do their jobs well.   The choice between keeping your promises and going to jail is an awful one.  In my case, after I refused to answer questions about who told me how much a billion-dollar oil company paid to quietly settle claims for contaminating local well water, causing health problems in children and adults, I was ordered to surrender to federal marshals.  Every criminal lawyer in the local courthouses seemed compelled to remind me that “all those stories about prison are true.”  My girlfriend at the time, now my spouse, was pretty upset about being taught how to pay my bills and feed my fish while I was away for an indefinite period of incarceration.  That should not be the price paid for learning and publishing newsworthy information that someone else—often a wrongdoer—would simply rather keep secret. Fortunately, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned my contempt order, but the law has since changed in ways that I believe might result in my going to prison under the same circumstances today.

Most states, including North Carolina, have a shield law but there is no protection in federal cases. Hopefully this AP debacle will finally result in shield law that balances the everyday needs of reporters with the government’s need to protect true national security secrets. But let’s not kid ourselves; the bill as it stands would not have prevented the AP subpoenas, which is an end-run around a reporter’s privilege to protect sources by refusing to identify them.  This bill should require such media subpoenas to be subjected to the same standards as compelled testimony of a reporter.  The White House is offering an olive branch, but it has not yet offered peace.

For more information please visit: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/16/media-balks-at-band-aid-shield-law.html

The defendant, Regency Court, LLC, which hired Rizzo, negotiated directly with D.R. Horton without Rizzo’s knowledge and then refused to pay any commissions.  After a two-week trial, the jury awarded commissions on 23 lots already transferred to D.R. Horton, out of 54 under contract, and punitive damages of more than $41,000.  The jury found that punitive damages were warranted on the grounds that the evidence showed Regency Court had destroyed evidence after learning that Rizzo may bring a legal claim.

Attorney Cory Reiss said that Rizzo would continue to seek commissions on the lots under contract but not yet transferred to D.R. Horton pursuant to the jury’s findings that Rizzo was the procuring cause of the sale contract.  Rizzo Realty is owned by Joe Rizzo, a former Denver Broncos linebacker on the team’s famous 1970s Orange Crush defense.

Chairman Martin Gruenberg, presented the FDIC’s fourth-quarter update on the industry’s health, saying the current period of robust income — driven by lower loan-loss expenses — appears to be winding down. Admitting that there is room for further income growth, Greenberg said “we don’t expect the pace of earnings growth to continue at these levels.”

Although banks are lending (having increased their loan balances for the sixth time in seven quarters) and attracting record numbers of deposits, they continue to face eroding net interest margins from the effects of prolonged record-low interest rates, as well as further uncertainty about the nation’s fiscal situation.

So even though they earned their second highest ever full-year profit in 2012 ($141.3 billion), banks saw their lowest quarterly amount for net interest income since late 2009. In recent quarters, bank incomes have benefited from lower loss provisioning.  Gruenberg notes that while some further reductions in loss provisions are possible, most of the trend is played out, and he says the industry’s recent profit surges are likely not sustainable without further expansions of loan portfolios. Going forward, we think industry earnings are really going to depend on increased credit by the industry,” Gruenberg said.

After the FDIC’s briefing, James Chessen, the American Bankers Association’s chief economist, said the results were “a signal that the industry is gaining health very quickly.” But, he noted, the impact of low interest rates and declining margins is “the big problem now and for the next few years.”

The Federal Reserve Board’s interest rate policy is designed ”to stimulate more aggressive behavior for people to take loans out at low interest rates,” Chessen said. At current rates, however, there is not a lot of great opportunity for banks. Banks are keeping their lending curtailed because they know in two or three years the Fed is going to increase rates, probably dramatically.

The pre-dissolution problems can involve infidelity to the company and its partners by one or more members of the company usurping corporate opportunities, such as by stealing customers or diverting product lines for their own benefit. Unequal financial spending by partners, or even outright embezzlement, can also also be a root of the problem. Or the problems may be traced solely to an economic downturn. The list of potential issues is seemingly endless. Whatever the cause of the problems, Shipman & Wright has many years of experience in handling and resolving business divorces.

Shipman & Wright offers a wide variety of ways to help clients resolve business disputes – ranging from an initial company analysis to dissolution negotiations, mediations, arbitrations, and finally to full blown litigation. We will work closely with you, and our attorneys’ wealth of business, accounting and tax expertise will help you assess options and decide which is appropriate for your particular situation. These options not only include assessing the financial situation of the company and its partners and the handling of the division of the company’s assets, but also addressing the the post-divorce problems that may range from how to account for outstanding business debts, to addressing unpaid tax liabilities, and remedying unearthed financial irregularities. If you and your partners need to dissolve your company and/or your company is having financial difficulties, please contact our our office to set up a consultation with me.

The group said it designed its ranking of the 50 largest US cities to measure livability for all ages, including children, young adults and seniors. In fact, balance among the various age groups was a key factor in determining each city’s ran. Also important were marital status and growth in the cities’ populations of children, reflecting families forming and then raising children. Housing for families was also a top factor, as were home prices and other basic costs of living.

The group also noted that educational factors weighed heavily in the ranking. The Human Life Project took into account the quality of K-12 schooling and the proportion of people with high school degrees.

Perhaps not surprisingly, cities in Texas — which welcomed more than 427,000 newcomers from August 2011 to July 2012, according to the U.S. Census Bureau — dominated the list. But, fourth on the list is the boomtown of Raleigh, N.C. Situated between Raleigh and nearby Durham is the Research Triangle Park, where more than 170 companies have outposts, including major corporations like EMC, Cisco and First Citizens National Bank.

Raleigh is also home to a multitude of universities and colleges, helping create a highly educated population: Roughly 50% of residents ages 25 and older have college degrees. Over the past two decades ending in 2010, the Raleigh area’s population and jobs market grew at some of the highest rates in the U.S. The population is currently expanding at a rate of more than 3% annually and job growth was 2.3% in 2012.

A percentage growth score is based on average percent employment growth over the past twelve, six, and three months, taking acceleration or deceleration into account. A volume growth score is based on average volume of employment growth over the same period. States with smaller populations are more likely to have higher percentage growth scores, while states with larger populations are more likely to have higher volume growth scores.

Like North Carolina, Shipman & Wright is growing.  Contact us in Wilmington or Raleigh for your legal needs. Shipman & Wright: Problem Solved.

Small businesses must plan ahead to avoid some of the foreseeable clogs in their income stream. The first and foremost would be to have a professional business lawyer on your side, one who has experience with small business, and debt collection. Having an attorney perform tasks of a general counsel will allow for them to serve as legal advisor, but much more of a business role including a strategist.  Some tips for debt collection:

• Whenever sending out a bill or invoice, whether it is to a company or an individual, make sure that you write the due date every time.
• Give a payment period requirement as well.
• When sending invoices to clients, send them out immediately, the longer your business waits the longer they have to forget and your company loses money.
• Keep in contact with those you do business via: phone calls, emails, and personal contact.

Small businesses should create a policy and procedure as to how you handle the payment process and dealings with debts. A skilled business attorney can assist to ensure that the proper laws are being followed while continuing to protect your business’s rights. A companywide procedure makes sure everyone is one the same page when the issue of debt payments comes up. A consistent procedure and an educated staff will help in the long run of a business.

Your company has the right to fight for what is rightfully yours, at Shipman & Wright, LLP, we are committed to helping our clients have what is rightfully theirs and protect their rights.