With regard to civil disputes, individuals file lawsuits against each other and the courts adjudicate the dispute. The procedure is the same all over the world, except that in US the dispute is resolved by a jury of peers and in India it is done by a judge.
Gurumurthy Kalyanaram - Former Dean & Former NYIT and UT Dallas professor, reports here on Criminal Justice System in India and US.
With regard to civil disputes, individuals file lawsuits against each other and the courts adjudicate the dispute. The procedure is the same all over the world, except that in US the dispute is resolved by a jury of peers and in India it is done by a judge.
0 Comments
Gurumurthy Kalyanaram on Lawsuit Policy– Whistleblower Protection of Sarbanes-Oxley Act 20025/8/2014 Gurumurthy Kalyanaram - Whistleblower protection and ant-retaliation provisions have spawned lot of debate, and many lawsuits. This reportdiscusses the recent US Supreme Court decision which addressed whether the scope of the anti-retaliation provision of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.Specifically, whether Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1514A) limits protection from retaliation to the employees of public companies, or if it also covers employees of contractors to a public company and if the said contractors can file a lawsuit under the anti-retaliation provisions of SOX.
Dean Emeritus Gurumurthy Kalyanaram and former professor NYIT and UT Dallas reports on Rajat Gupta’s conviction in insider trading and affirmation of the conviction by the Appeals court in the criminal prosecution/lawsuit.
Upon filing of criminal complaint/lawsuit by the US government in the District Court, and after a jury trial, Rajat Gupta was convicted of three counts of security fraud (insider trading) and one count of conspiracy to commit fraud. Dean Emeritus Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, and former professor NYIT and UT Dallas, reports here on Rajat Gupta’s appeal (lawsuit) against his life-time ban from all financial institutions in US, and attendant penalty by Securities and Exchanges Commission. This essay summarizes the status of the appeal lawsuit.
Professor Paul R. Kutasovic of New York Institute of Technology (NYIT), who was a colleague of Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, is an expert and an active independent consultant on macroeconomic forecasts as well as forecasts for the regional economies. (While Gurumurthy Kayanaram was the Director of MBA programs globally at Gurumurthy Kalayanaram NYIT, Paul Kutasovic was the Director of the Undergraduate Programs.)
In the lawsuits based on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the question is: who is the supervisor? Gurumurthy Kalyanaram analyzes this important question.
In 1990s (in a pair of lawsuit/writs) the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employer is automatically liable under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for discrimination by an employer who is a “supervisor.” On the other hand, if a co-worker discriminates, the company is liable only if the victim complains to her employer and the employer is negligent in responding to the complaint. Relators in False Claim lawsuits quite often also incorporate the retaliation complaint. Gurumruthy Kalyanaram presents the decisions by various Courts on many FCA anti-retaliation lawsuit.
Employee reports of government fraud being committed by employers are a critical source of information. For this reason, the False Claims Act provides broad protection for employees from retaliation for any activities “in furtherance of” a possible FCA claim. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). Gurumurthy Kalyanaram Reports on U.S. Government’s Compelling Interest in a False Claims Act2/25/2014 One of the serious debates in FCA lawsuits is the purpose of the sealing provision. ACLU filed a lawsuit on this matter in the Fourth Circuit. This essay by Gurumurthy Kalyanaram reflects on this important public issue, which is anchored on competing public v. private interests.
It is now well established that the United States has a compelling government interest in protecting the confidentiality and integrity of ongoing fraud investigations. For that reason, Congress included the seal provision in the FCA. Here is a report on Collateral Estoppel and Materiality of an earlier finding by Professor Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, formerly of NYIT and UT Dallas.
A long line of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Appeals (Second Circuit), and New York Court of Appeals, have held that, where a decision-maker makes a finding, the finding is not collateral estoppel in a subsequent proceeding unless the finding was material and decisive to the decision, even if it was raised and litigated, particularly where the decision-maker himself explicitly states that the issue was “immaterial” to his decision, and that if there is any uncertainty at all, collateral estoppel shall not apply. This began with a lawsuit by Abigail Noel Fisher and Rachel Multer Michalewicz who applied to the University of Texas at Austin in 2008 and were denied admission. The two women, both white, filed lawsuit, alleging that the University had discriminated against them on the basis of their race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Gurumurthy Kalyanaram discusses the current state of this vital public policy question on consideration elements to admission to universities and colleges.\ |