E-commerce firms approach RBI, seek relaxed FDI norms; Cabinet approval soon for National IPR policy: Sitharaman
E-commerce firms approach RBI, seek relaxed FDI norms; Cabinet approval soon for National IPR policy: Sitharaman
Patent licence-agreement registration not mandatory for filing infringement-suit; Quashes Single Judge adjournment-order
Division bench of Delhi HC sets aside Single Judge's order whereby patent infringement suit (patent related to method/device for preventing electrical transformer against explosion and fire) filed by patent-licensee ('plaintiff') was adjourned sine die; Single Judge had observed that since licence agreement was not registered, plaintiff did not have any right to seek relief for un-registered document u/s 69(5) of Patent Act (the Act), and directed Controller of Patents to decide plaintiff's pending application for registration of license agreement and adjourned the suit sine die; Division Bench notes that Sec 68 of the Act (post 2005 amendment) does not mandate registration for the document to be valid, execution of written document was sufficient, holds that since in instant case licence agreement was executed, Single Judge should not have adjourned the suit till registration of agreement; Further observes that Sec 69(5) does not restrict to admit an un-registered as evidence of title, it just requires the Court to form an opinion with reasons whether such document should be admitted or not; Holds that, "Without forming an opinion in terms of section 69(5) of the Act, the suit could not have been adjourned sine-die, pending the decision of the said application for registration. If the learned single Judge forms an opinion to take the said unregistered agreement into account in terms of section 69(5), he should proceed with the suit and only where he forms an opinion not to admit the said assignment as a document of title, he may have adjourned the suit sine die, if at all.":Delhi HC
The ruling was delivered by Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed.
Senior Advocate Sudhir Chandra and Advocates Pravin Anand and Aditya Gupta argued on behalf of Appellant ('plaintiff') while Advocate Rahul Lamba represented respondent ('defendant').
'Desi Boys' common words, not 'literary work'; Quashes complaint against film-title 'Desi Boyz'
SC sets aside Bombay HC's order that refused to quash complaint, pending before Metropolitan Magistrate, filed by Mr. Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta ('respondent') against Krishika Lulla ('appellant', film producer), alleging copyright infringement in title of synopsis of his story "Desi Boys"; Notes that appellant had released a movie titled as 'Desi Boyz', however, holds that no copyright exists in title, thus, respondent could not claim copyright over 'Desi Boys'; Peruses Sec 13 of Copyright Act, observes copyright subsists in an 'original literary work', and a title does not qualify as 'work', also holds that, "combination of the two words "Desi" and "Boys" cannot be said to have anything original in it. They are extremely common place words in India."; Refers to Oxford Dictionary for meaning of word 'literary', states that common words like 'Desi' & 'Boys' cannot qualify for being described as 'literary', thus, holds that, "The title in question cannot therefore be considered to be a 'literary work' and, hence, no copyright can be said to subsist in it, vide Section 13; nor can a criminal complaint for infringement be said to be tenable on such basis", and quashes the complaint before Magistrate; Relies on Privy Council's ruling in Francis Day & Hunter Ltd. v. Twentieth Century Fox Corporation Ltd. and Ors., Madras HC ruling in E.M. Forster and Anr. v. A.N. Parasuram, Delhi HC ruling in the matter of Kanungo Media (P) Ltd. v RGV Film Factory & Ors.:SC
The ruling was delivered by Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice S.A. Bobde.
The married owners of a Louisiana tax preparation business are facing dozens of felony charges for a fraud scheme that cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.
James Terry Chester and Constance Brown-Chester of Lafayette, La., have been accused by prosecutors of filing fraudulent state income tax returns for their clients and themselves.
Investigators with the Louisiana Department of Revenue said the Chesters, owners of C&B Tax Service, submitted state tax returns containing fabricated business losses for clients who had sustained no losses and in many cases were not business owners. In addition, Constance Brown-Chester filed returns on behalf of C&B Tax Service claiming business losses that could not be verified with any documentation.
James Chester
The scheme resulted in $226,000 in fraudulent income tax refunds.
James Chester was charged with five counts each of computer fraud and filing or maintaining false public records. Constance Brown Chester was charged with 11 counts each of computer fraud and filing or maintaining false public records. Each was booked on Wednesday into the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison.
Constance Brown-Chester
The arrests bring to 52 the number of suspects charged under a joint anti-fraud initiative of the Louisiana Department of Revenue and the state Attorney General's Office.
PCAOB Warns of Deficiencies in Audit Firms' Risk Assessment
Washington, D.C. (October 15, 2015)
By Michael Cohn
The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board issued a report Thursday warning about significant deficiencies it is seeing in auditing firms' assessment of risks in their clients.
James Doty
The report details concerns about registered audit firms' implementation of and compliance with certain auditing standards related to the auditor's assessment of and response to risk in an audit as observed during 2012-2014 inspections.
Auditing Standards No. 8 through No. 15, known collectively as the risk assessment standards, were adopted in 2010 and are designed to address the auditor's assessment of and response to risk of material misstatements and the auditor's evaluation of the results of procedures performed in an audit.
The report discusses findings under the eight standards for inspections conducted in 2012, 2013 and 2014.
The PCAOB said it is concerned with the number and significance of deficiencies in compliance with these auditing standards.
"Because risk assessment underlies the entire audit process, it is critical that audit firms address these findings of weaknesses in compliance with the risk assessment standards," said PCAOB Chairman James R. Doty in a statement.
The eight auditing standards address procedures performed in all stages of the audit, from initial planning through the evaluation of audit results to support an opinion.
The risk assessment standards include:
• AS No. 8, Audit Risk
• AS No. 9, Audit Planning
• AS No. 10, Supervision of the Audit Engagement
• AS No. 11, Consideration of Materiality in Planning and Performing an Audit
• AS No. 12, Identifying and Assessing Risks of Material Misstatement
• AS No. 13, The Auditor's Responses to the Risks of Material Misstatement
• AS No. 14, Evaluating Audit Results
• AS No. 15, Audit Evidence
• AS No. 9, Audit Planning
• AS No. 10, Supervision of the Audit Engagement
• AS No. 11, Consideration of Materiality in Planning and Performing an Audit
• AS No. 12, Identifying and Assessing Risks of Material Misstatement
• AS No. 13, The Auditor's Responses to the Risks of Material Misstatement
• AS No. 14, Evaluating Audit Results
• AS No. 15, Audit Evidence
In 26 percent of the 632 engagements inspected in 2012 where the risk assessment standards were applicable, inspections staff found an audit deficiency related to one or more of those standards that contributed to an insufficiently supported audit opinion. That rate increased to 27 percent for the 848 engagements inspected in 2013.
A preliminary analysis of 2014 inspection data indicates that a high rate of audit deficiencies related to the risk assessment standards continued to be identified in 2014 inspections.
Audit deficiencies related to the risk assessment standards spanned a wide variety of issuers and firms and most frequently related to AS No. 13, AS No. 14 and AS No. 15.
Examples of common deficiencies under those auditing standards include failing to perform substantive procedures specifically responsive to fraud risks and other significant risks identified, not evaluating the accuracy and completeness of financial statement disclosures, and not testing the accuracy and completeness of information produced by the company.
The report also explores the potential root causes of noncompliance with the risk assessment standards and potential remedial actions firms can take to remain in compliance with the auditing standards.
Audit deficiencies are occurring other areas as well. Separately, the Atlanta-based valuation and litigation consultancy firm Acuitas released an analysis Thursday of recent PCAOB inspections and found that 43 percent of all audits inspected by the PCAOB in 2013 had deficiencies, compared to 16 percent in 2009. The number of fair value measurement and impairment deficiencies as a percentage of the total continued to be significant in 2013, representing 31 percent of all audit deficiencies in 2013.
As in a similar survey last year, the fair value measurement audit deficiencies attributable to mergers and acquisitions activity increased to 49 percent in 2013, up from 45 percent in 2012 and an average of 9 percent from 2008 to 2011. The number of deficiencies caused solely by failures to assess risk and test internal controls remained high in 2013, at 45 percent of all deficiencies for the top 25 firms. In comparison, such failures were present in 22 percent of fair value measurement deficiencies between 2008 and 2012.
"We have seen a significant shift from the years where FVM deficiencies were largely the result of financial instruments to the current trend of business combinations and a failure to test or understand financial assumptions," said Acuitas managing director Mark Zyla. "This shift has likely been caused by audit improvements for financial instruments that resulted from the PCAOB inspection process and by increased merger activity in recent years. The auditing community should certainly be concerned about the continuing increase in deficiencies caused by a failure to assess risk and internal controls, and the PCAOB's assessment that they are caused by 'a lack of due professional care.'"
Sebi bans 4 companies in investors' complaint case; slaps fine on 1
By PTI | 16 Oct, 2015, 05.47PM IST
These entities would also be required to get their SCORES (Sebi online Complaints Redress System) authentication.
In separate orders today, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) has restrained the four firms from the capital market till they obtain SCORES registration and all pending investor grievances are resolved.
As per Sebi, 14 investors' complaint were pending against Prime Petro Products, Rusoday & Company (11), Pittie Finance (4) and Ratna Drugs (1).
"Failure to redress investor grievances, by a listed company adversely affects the confidence of investors in the securities market," the orders said.
While Sebi has slapped a fine of Rs 2 lakh on Hitkari Industries for failing to obtain registration with SCORES as well as not resolving pending investors' grievances, a case has been disposed of against Suprapti Plastics in the matter of investor complaint as the company is under liquidation.
Since the company is under liquidation and has been ordered to be wound up in 2012, "the investor complaints have been treated as closed and disposed of in SCORES", Sebi said.
The markets watchdog, in August 2012, had asked all listed companies to get SCORES authentication by September 14 of the same year, failing which they would have to face enforcement action.
SCORES, which was launched by Sebi in June 2011, provides a centralised database of all complaints, online movement of complaints to the concerned listed companies and online upload of Action Taken Reports by the concerned companies.
It also helps investors view, track and follow up the actions taken on their grievances. The online redressal system has significantly helped in reducing the processing time of complaints.
Penalizes promoters for Takeover Code violations, relies on Merchant Banker's certified Offer-Letter
SEBI penalizes listed co.'s promoters ('Noticees') for non-compliance of Reg. 8(1) and Reg. 8(2) of Takeover Regulations, 1997 for several years, relies on Offer Letter (certified by Merchant Banker) filed by acquirer for issuing show cause notice; Rejects Noticees' contention that allegations are merely on suspicions and conjecture based on details given in Letter of Offer and there has been no independent application of mind by SEBI, holds that "if such argument is to be accepted, then the basis of regulatory requirement of appointing SEBI-registered Merchant Banker for conducting due diligence in an open offer would become redundant and would also naturally raise the basic question on the raison d\'être of Merchant Banker"; Peruses SEBI (Merchant Banking) Regulations, observes that Merchant Banker is responsible for verification of contents of the Letter of Offer and is required to submit a due diligence certificate prior to opening of the issue, holds that Noticees have failed to appreciate the same while concluding on the non-compliance of Takeover Regulations; Rejects Noticees' contention that the violations are nearly 19 years old, and it is wholly unreasonable to level an allegation two decades later and expect innocence should be proven, holds that there is no limitation on initiation of adjudication proceedings for violation of various provisions of SEBI Act and SEBI Regulations, relies on SAT ruling in Radheyshyam Chiranjilal Goenka Vs. SEBI, Adjudicating Officer, SEBI; Holds that Noticees cannot absolve themselves by making disclosures under Listing Agreement in lieu of making necessary disclosures under Takeover Regulations as purpose and intent of both the laws are different, relies on SAT ruling in Premchand Shah and Others V. SEBI and Bindal Synthetics Private Limited Vs. SEBI:SEBI
The order was passed by Anita Kenkare, Adjudicating officer, SEBI
LSI Note:
Regulation 8(1) of SEBI Takeover Regulations, 1997 states that every person, including a person mentioned in Reg. 6 who holds more than 15% shares or voting rights in any company, shall, within 21 days from the financial year ending March 31, make yearly disclosures to the company, in respect of his holdings as on 31st March. Regulation 8(2) states that promoter or every person having control over a company shall, within 21 days from the financial year ending March 31, as well as the record date of the company for the purposes of declaration of dividend, disclose the number and percentage of shares or voting rights held by him and by persons acting in concert with him, in that company to the company.
 |
Let's learn law anywhere, anytime! | |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Latest News
- Consultative Committee, Labour and Employment Discusses "Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),Shram Suvidha Portal and Implementation of Building and other Construction Workers"
- Large number of criminal compoundable matters were settled in Lok Adalats held across the country yesterday
- Appointment of Additional Judges In Calcutta High Court
- Progress of 2nd Generation Reforms of ESIC (ESIC-2.0)
- D V Sadananda Gowda urges other ministries to start uploading their data on the web-based application - LIMBS
- Extension of validity of the Central Order in respect of pulses, edible oils and edible oilseeds beyond 30th Sept
- The 4th Annual National Conference on Contemporary Legal Scholarship 2015
- Appointment of Additional Judges in High Courts
- Declaration of NSCN(K) as an unlawful organisation for a period of five years under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention), Act 1967
- Approval to promulgate the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015
See 10 Notorious Tax Cheaters in US Link
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment