Source: http://vonhennigs.blogspot.com/2012/
Timestamp: 2019-01-20 13:12:12
Document Index: 367584911

Matched Legal Cases: ['EuG', 'EuG', 'Art. 19', 'EuG', 'EuG', '§6', '§75', '§6', '§6']

BridgehouseLaw ; American - German Business Law: 2012
Russian Parliament Bans Adoptions by Americans
Dima Yakovlev Act vs. Magnitsky Act
(c) photo: freedigitalphoto.net
The Upper House of Russia's Parliament voted unanimously on a measure that would ban the adoption of Russian children by American families. In the Parliament 420 voted for, and only 7 members against the bill. Called the “Dima Yakovlev Act”, it was named after a Russian orphan who had been adopted by an American family and died of heatstroke when his parents had forgotten the boy in a parked car. The case had been widely reported in Russia and sparked tremendous outrage. According to a survey, 56 percent of Russians are for the new law, banning U.S. adoption, oftentimes because they think U.S. parents are violent and cruel towards their adopted children.
Adoption laws in Russia had already been very strict. In 2004 it was estimated that 6,000 Russian children were adopted by US families. This number has dropped to only around 1,000 children in 2012. More than 60,000 children have been adopted by US families over the past 20 years and according to UNICEF there are 740,000 abandoned or orphaned children in Russia.
After the vote of the Parliament the new measure now has to be signed into law by President Putin. It is likely that Putin will sign the new bill. (Update from Dec. 28, 2012: Putin signed Dima Yakovlev Act) He had called the measure an “legitimate response” to a recently signed U.S. law that calls for sanctions against human rights violations in Russia. This U.S law was dubbed the “Magnitsky Act”, after Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, a 37-year old who died in a Russian detention centre in 2009. He had exposed a multimillion dollar fraud of officers of Russia's Interior Ministry and was therefore awaiting trial.
Posted by LEHien at 4:53 PM No comments:
Labels: adoption ban, Dima Yakovlev, Magnitsky Act, orphan, Russia
End of Bush Era Tax Cuts
The Bush tax cuts, dubbed after former President George W Bush, enacted in 2001 and 2003 will expire by the end of the year. In 2010 the tax cuts have been extended by the Obama Administration and in order for them to remain in effect, Congress would have to vote on an extension. Additionally, a payroll tax holiday signed by President Obama and other measures enacted as part of the economic stimulus in 2009 will expire in January. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that the tax burden for the average American could rise by as much as $3,446 in 2013.
With the political bickering and bipartisanship in Washington, a solution to the problem seems more and more unlikely. Some of the most significant changes if the Bush era tax cut expire are:
Individual income tax rates will go up in 2013, the 10 percent tax rate will be eliminated all together. Income that is taxed at 10 percent at the moment will increase to 15 percent, the top income tax bracket will increase from 35 to 39.6 percent;
The maximum child credit for dependent children under the age of 17 is currently $1,000 and will decrease to $500;
The standard deduction for married couples filing jointly be reduced by $200, from currently $11,900 to $9,900;
Dividend income rates which are currently as low as 15 percent will increase to up to 39.6 percent;
Depending on the tax bracket, long term capital gain will be 10 percent for people in the 15 tax bracket or below (currently 0 percent) and will be taxed at 20 percent for people above tax bracket 15 (currently 15 percent);
The 2 percent rollback on the employee portion of FICA taxes will expire (FICA = Federal Insurance Contributions Act, taxation on income earned, funds are used for federal benefit programs);
College education credits will be eliminated.
Autor: Laura Hien
Posted by LEHien at 3:56 PM 1 comment:
Labels: Bush tax cuts, extension of tax cuts, Tax Policy Center
Everybody knows that law enforcement can't just storm into your house and rummage through your desks and drawers. They need a warrant that shows that they have probable cause to search your belongings. But how about your emails, facebook pictures and stored items in the cloud? Nowadays so much of our communications, our whole life is online, that's it's worth to take a closer look. How private are your emails?
According to the the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) from 1986 – when, by the way, most people hadn't had emails and social media was not invented – law enforcement does not need a warrant for emails older than six months. The lawmakers back in 1986 assumed that if somebody hadn't downloaded and deleted an email within six months it could be considered “abandoned” and would therefore not require strict privacy protections. Of course they did not know that email providers would also offer large storage for their users. Under the law, all the police need to search your inbox and read all emails that are older than six months or have previously been opened, is a subpoena issued without a judge's approval.
In late November the Senate Judiciary Committee voted in favor of the requirement for police to obtain a warrant before getting access to people's emails and other forms of online communications. Some lawmakers are already proposing amendments to the measure. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa suggested email searches without a warrant for time sensitive investigations like abductions, child pornography and rape cases. The senate is likely going to vote on the measure next year.
Posted by LEHien at 3:14 PM No comments:
Labels: ECPA, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, email, privacy protection, Senate Judiciary Committee
Land der unbegrenzten Waffen
Spätestens seit dem Amoklauf von Newtown, Connecticut, ist der Fokus wieder auf die lockeren Waffengesetze in den USA gerichtet. Am 14. Dezember 2012 hatte der 20-jährige Adam Lanza in der Sandy Hook Grundschule ein Massaker angerichtet. Der Täter hatte zuerst seine Mutter in deren Haus getötet und sich dann auf den Weg in die Grundschule gemacht. Er hatte drei Waffen bei sich: eine halbautomatische .223 Bushmaster, eine Glock und eine Sig Sauer. Die drei Waffen waren von der Mutter des Schützen legal erworben worden. Nicht nur Amerikaner, Menschen auf der ganzen Welt beteiligen sich an der Diskussion. Deutsche Medien berichten über das Thema, die Deutschen drücken Ihre Anteilnahme über Twitter und auf Blogs aus. Die Debatte wird in aller Welt mit Bedauern und Verständnislosigkeit verfolgt.
Was in Deutschland kaum vorstellbar ist, ist in den USA ganz normal. Auf Waffenmessen und in Supermärkten und Sportgeschäften wie Walmart oder Dick's Sporting Goods, kann sich fast jeder eine Waffe besorgen. Und es gibt nicht nur Handfeuerwaffen und Pistolen, auch halbautomatische Waffen – die kaum zur Jagd verwendet werden können - sind frei zu erwerben.
Das Recht sich zu verteidigen und eine Waffe zu besitzten ist im Zweiten Verfassungszusatz der amerikanischen Verfassung festgelegt: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Alle bisherigen Versuche dieses Recht zu begrenzen, sind in der Vergangenheit von der NRA (National Rifle Association) und großen Teilen der Bevölkerung verhindert worden.
Im Jahr 1994 hatte der damalige U.S. Präsident Bill Clinton den „Assault Weapons Ban“ verabschiedet. Dieser hatte den Verkauf von militärischen Sturmgewehren wie AK-47s, Uzis und TEC-9s an Privatpersonen verboten. Obwohl sich diese Regelung erst einmal gut anhört, gab es auch hier viele, denen das Verbot nicht weit genug ging. Schlupflöcher erlaubten es den Waffenherstellern viele der „verbotenen“ Waffen durch Namensänderungen oder geringfügigen Änderungen einiger Details auch weiterhin zu verkaufen. Eine Klausel des Assault Weapons Ban hatte besagt, dass das Verbot nach 10 Jahren vom Kongress erneuert werden muss, ansonsten würde das Verbot auslaufen. Dies ist im Jahre 2004 geschehen. Das Verbot lief aus, es wurde weder erneuert noch von einem anderen ersetzt.
Dass die Empörung und Fassungslosigkeit bei dem Amoklauf an der Sandy Hook Grundschule größer war als sonst, hängt vor allem mit dem Alter der Opfer zusammen. Zwanzig der insgesamt 26 Opfer waren Grundschüler zwischen fünf und zehn Jahren. Doch auch Schiessereien und Amokläufe der Vergangenheit forderten in den USA immer wieder zahlreiche Opfer. Erst im Juli 2012 hatte James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado, bei einer Mitternachtsvorstellung des Filmes „The Dark Knight“ in einem Kino 12 Menschen erschossen. Im November 2009 feuerte Armee Psychiater Nidal Malik Hasan in Fort Hood, Bundesstaat Texas, in eine Gruppe von Soldaten die nach Irak und Afghanistan versetzt werden sollten. Dreizehn Menschen sterben. Der Amoklauf der bisher die meisten Todesopfer forderte, ereignete sich im April 2007 an der Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia. Ein 23-jähriger Student erschoss dort 32 Kommilitonen.
Neue Gesetze zum Recht auf Waffen, genauere Hintergrundüberprüfungen der Käufer, ein Verbot von militärischen Waffen – all dies liegt noch in der Zukunft. Ob sich die „gun culture“ in den USA, also die Verehrung von Waffen, ändern wird, ist fraglich und bleibt abzuwarten. Die Verkäufe von militärischen Sturmgewehren sind indes seit dem Massaker von Sandy Hook stark angestiegen – Waffenliebhaber wollen sich noch einmal eindecken, sie befürchten, dass die Regierung von Präsident Obama diese Art von Waffen bald verbieten könnte.
Posted by LEHien at 5:02 PM No comments:
Labels: Assault Weapons Ban, gun culture, halbautomatische Waffen, Newtown, Sandy Hook Grundschule, Waffengesetze
Stärkung des Gerichtsstandorts Deutschland: Abschaffung des Exequaturverfahrens im Rahmen der EuGVVO
Im Rahmen der Überprüfung der EuGVVO (Verordnung (EG) Nr. 44/2001 des Rates über die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit und die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen) wurde rege über die Abschaffung des Exequaturverfahrens diskutiert. Nun wird die Neufassung voraussichtlich im Laufe dieses Jahres in Kraft treten.
Während gem. Art. 19 der Europäischen Mahnverfahrensordnung das Exequaturverfahren für Europäische Zahlungsbefehle innerhalb der EU Mitgliedstaaten abgeschafft wurde, gilt dies für nationale Urteile bislang nicht. Deutsche Urteile bedurften zur Vollstreckung in einem anderen EU-Mitgliedsland bislang der Anerkennung und Vollstreckbarerklärung eines einheimischen Gerichts. Dies ist nach in Kraft treten der Neufassung der EuGVVO in Zukunft nicht mehr notwendig.
Vielmehr kann direkt aus dem deutschen Urteil vollstreckt werden.
Hierdurch werden zugleich die Abwehrmöglichkeiten des Beklagten im Vollstreckungsstaat erheblich beschränkt. Entgegen den Empfehlungen des Deutschen Richterbundes (Deutscher Richterbund, Informationsblatt Nr. 8/09, 2009) kann sich der Beklagte lediglich bei Verletzung des Anspruchs auf rechtliches Gehör oder bei entgegenstehenden früheren Entscheidungen der für ihn nachteilige Entscheidung erwehren.
Die Neufassung ist zu begrüßen und bedeutet eine erhebliche Stärkung für den Gerichtsstandort Deutschland.
Posted by LEHien at 4:14 PM No comments:
Labels: Deutscher Richterbund, EuGVVO, Exequaturverfahren, gerichtliche Zuständigkeit
You got Business Law questions? We got answers!
Q: Can I recover my attorney's fees with a lawsuit?
A: For most lawsuits, the answer to this question is no. In North Carolina, parties generally pay their own attorney's fees, regardless of who wins at trial, unless a state law provides otherwise. The handful of statutory exceptions that permit a party to request an award of attorney's fees are:
claims arising under a "note, conditional sale contract or other evidence of indebtedness." (NCGS §6-21.2) This includes promissory notes, lease agreements, etc. But even under this exception, the amount of attorney's fees that can be awarded is capped to 15% of the "outstanding balance" owed;
claims arising under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices statutes (NCGS §75-1.1, et seq.);
North Carolina has recently added one more exception to the "everyone pays their own attorney" rule, and it applies to business contracts entered into or on or after October 1, 2011.
N.C. Gen. Stat. §6-21.6 now permits a successful party to seek attorney's fees from the losing party if:
the contract is a business contract (as opposed to a consumer or employment contract or a contract with a government or governmental agency of the State);
the attorneys' fees are reciprocal and applicable to all parties; and
Q: How can I tell if this is a "business contract"?
A: North Carolina defines a "business contract" as a contract entered into primarily for business or commercial purposes. Contracts that are NOT business contracts include:
consumer contracts (for personal, family, or household purposes);
employment contracts (including traditional Employer/employee agreements and Principal/Independent Contractor agreements);
contracts involving the North Carolina Government or a governmental agency as a party.
Q: What if I signed the contract with an "electronic" signature or a stamp?
A: It is unlikely that electronic signatures, signature stamps or similar methods would satisfy the "signed by hand" requirement of NCGS §6-21.6. This rule is meant to cover contracts that are signed the traditional way: in ink and by the party's own hand.
Q: What if my opponent's legal fees exceed the value of the lawsuit itself?
A: While there is no limit to the amount of attorney's fees and expenses that can be recovered under this rule, the amount of attorney's fees cannot exceed the amount of money actually recovered by the winning party for their underlying claims.
Posted by LEHien at 3:26 PM No comments:
Labels: attorney's fees, business contract, business law, electronic signature, Lawsuit, NCGS
City Aviation Director Jerry Orr and the Charlotte Douglas International Airport in Charlotte
In it's latest edition, the Charlotte Business Journal named City Aviation Director Jerry Orr Charlotte Business Journal's Business Person of the year. CBJ chooses the winner by performance in the categories financial performance, personal qualities, managerial skills and contribution to Charlotte's strengths as a region. Orr has a Bachelor's degree in civil engineering from N.C. State. Before he became the City Aviation Director in 1989 he was Assistant Airport Manager from 1980 to 1989 and airport engineer from 1975 to 1980. From 1962 to 1975 he owned his own business, the T. J. Orr Surveyor in Charlotte.
Named after Ben Elbert Douglas Sr., construction on the first airport in Charlotte began in 1936 and since then had a long history of renovation. The first passenger terminal opened in 1954. The first international direct flights to London were offered in 1988 – this made the Charlotte Airport an international airport. Today, around 643 planes depart from the airport each day and each year approx. 33 million people fly in and out of Charlotte Douglas. Currently, construction is under way again and the airport will get a makeover that Orr has led from planning to execution. The ”CLT 2015 Development Program”, as it is officially called, includes the following areas:
Widen of airport entrance road (Little Rock Road)
Seven-level deck new hourly parking
Renovation of the baggage area
Expansion of the east-side terminal
Eight domestic carriers and two foreign ones operate out of Charlotte/Douglas International Airport. The domestic carriers include AirTrain, Continental, United, Delta, American, JetBlue, Northwest, and US Airways. Air Canada Jazz and Lufthansa German Airlines are the two foreign airlines.
The CBJ writes that under Jerry Orr the Charlotte Airport “turned from a teetering mid-sized airport into a major hub, and, as of three months ago, navigated the single busiest day in its history (the Friday after the Democratic National Convention ended) without a hitch.”
Posted by LEHien at 10:52 AM No comments:
Labels: CBJ, Charlotte Business Journal, Charlotte Business Person of the year, City Aviation Manager, CLT 2015 Development Program, Jerry Orr
Posted by LEHien at 9:54 AM No comments:
Labels: DOS, federal register, Immigrant fee, permanent residence, USCIS, visa
Stärkung des Gerichtsstandorts Deutschland: Abscha...
City Aviation Director Jerry Orr and the Charlotte...