Legal Questions

The passing of the Forty Second Amendment to the Constitution of India in 1976, tribunals became key dramatis personae in the justice delivery system. In order to achieve the objectives of the amendment, which was to ensure speedy disposal of cases, an array of tribunals were set up. These included the Administrative Tribunals, the Rent Control Tribunals and also Tax Tribunals. The constitution and functioning of these tribunals have been controversial and intensely debated. The Constitution of the National Tax Tribunals, through the passing of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 in pursuance of Article 323-B (1) (a). The Act provides a machinery for the adjudication by the National Tax Tribunal of disputes with respect to levy, assessment, collection and enforcement of direct taxes and also to provide for the adjudication by that Tribunal of disputes with respect to the determination of the rates of duties of customs and central excise on goods and the valuation of goods for the purposes of assessment of such duties as well as in matters relating to levy of tax on service. The Act is bound to raise constitutional issues of immense significance as to validity of conferral of the power and functions of the Tribunal, the exercise of such powers and functions, and the concept of judicial review under the Constitution.

Read more

Your credit report is your private financial information. This information is every bit as private as any private financial information you keep in a locked drawer in your home or office. You have an absolute right to keep it private.

Your credit reports are maintained by various credit bureaus. The three largest and most famous credit bureaus are Transunion, Equifax and Experian.

Unlike a locked drawer in your home or office, however, the only thing someone needs to obtain your credit report from a credit bureau is an account with that bureau. Thus, anyone with an account has access to your credit report, whether or not you have given them permission to access it.

Examples abound where businesses have accessed credit reports wrongfully, without permission and without a proper purpose. I have heard of insurance industry law firms and insurance companies pulling credit reports for personal injury plaintiffs to find out if they’re financially strapped, and thus more likely to accept an insufficient settlement offer. Some unscrupulous companies pull credit reports to find out if you qualify for a loan they are offering, before they have even contacted you about the loan. Some pull it for less savory purposes yet, such as to determine where you shop and spend your money. These are all improper purposes for accessing someone’s private credit report.

All of this information is private and legally is supposed to remain private unless one of two things happens:

1. You give someone permission to pull your credit report, or,

2. The person pulling your credit report has a permissible purpose for pulling it.

There are very few permissible purposes. The law is really your only safeguard against unscrupulous persons pulling your credit report for improper purposes.

Examples of Giving Someone Permission to Pull Your Credit Report

Whenever you apply for a loan or a credit card, you normally sign a form which gives the prospective creditor permission to pull your credit report. This is the usual manner in which credit card companies, car dealerships and lenders access your credit report.

Beware, however, that some companies forge consumer signatures on forms to gain permission when they don’t have the consumer’s legitimate permission to pull your credit report. Thus, telemarketers cannot pull your credit report without your permission even if they are trying to sell you a loan. Car dealerships do not have permission to pull your credit report simply because you walk onto their lot to look at a few cars. If you pull your credit report and you find instances where companies have pulled your credit report without your permission, suspect that they may have done so by forging your signature. This happens more often than most consumers realize.

Examples of Permissible Purposes for Pulling Your Credit Report

There are very few: in response to a court order, in connection with an employment application and when a consumer actually applies for credit or insurance.

If you do not initiate the transaction, then a credit card company may only pull your credit report if they are making you a “firm offer of credit,” which is definitely quite a bit more than those endless letters from credit card companies telling us that we’ve been “Pre-Approved”, but we have to fill out an application anyway.

Persons or companies who pull your credit report must certify that they are pulling it for a permissible purpose. If a company pulls your credit report for a permissible purpose and then uses it for an impermissible purpose, then that company has violated your rights and the law. Companies may only pull and use your report for a permissible purpose.

In general, you need to pull your credit report and inquire into any credit entry for a credit card company, a finance company or an insurance company you do not recognize. It may well turn out that some company has pulled your credit report without your permission and without a permissible purpose.

How Do I Find Out if Someone Has Pulled My Credit Report Without A Permissible Purpose?

Pull your credit report from the three major credit reporting bureaus. They often share information among themselves, so negative credit entries to one bureau frequently find their way onto your credit reports with the other two bureaus.

If you see entries on your credit report concerning companies pulling your report without your permission, or companies you do not recognize, then you should inquire further as to whether someone has improperly accessed your credit report.

The answer, unfortunately, may well be a yes.

Why is Impermissible Access to One’s Credit Report Harmful?

Apart from being an invasion of your privacy, credit “pulls” actually lower your credit score. Someone who pulls your credit report without permission and without a legitimate purpose directly harms you by affecting your credit score.

What are My Remedies If I Discover that Someone Has Wrongfully Pulled My Credit Report?

If you have any questions or doubts, first contact the company which pulled your credit report and ask them, in writing, why their company name appears on your credit report. Sometimes there is an innocent explanation, but don’t be surprised if you get the run-around or if it turns out that this company did not have any permissible purpose when they pulled your credit report.

If you do find out that there has been an impermissible pull of your report, or if you just cannot get good answers to your questions, then see a lawyer. You are entitled to a penalty per violation of your right to financial privacy, even if you do not directly suffer damage as a consequence of the improper pull. There is also the potential of punitive damages, as well as any out-of-pocket losses you have suffered. The statute also provides that the person who improperly pulled your credit report must pay for your attorney’s fees, so these cases are frequently affordable even to consumers who cannot otherwise afford an attorney.

Read more

Read more

The United States Attorney in Boston recently announced the settlement of a health-care-fraud case involving five urologists and TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., a major American pharmaceutical manufacturer. The government alleged that the urologists received illegal inducements from TAP to prescribe the drug Lupron in the 1990s.

Read more

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has proposed $138, 500 in penalties for a Cullman-based company for 31 safety and health violations.

Read more

(CNN Student News) — Students will examine Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech. Also, they will compose written responses to Dr. King in which they compare his historic vision of racial equality in the United States to the reality of present-day life.

Read more

When a university offers a women’s studies program but no men’s studies program, is it engaging in unconstitutional discrimination against men?  Yes, says Roy Den Hollander, a New York lawyer who’s suing Columbia University, a “bastion of bigotry against men.”  Hollander alleges that the university has “thrown its influence and prestige into violating the rights of men by offering a women’s studies program but no men’s studies program.”

Read more

Accountability of the judiciary at every level, in a democracy cannot be doubted. The need of an effective mechanism for the enforcement of judicial accountability, when needed, is a felt need and must be accepted.The method by which judges are selected has become a matter of considerable concern for the citizens of our state. Although judicial elections may always has been important and vital process, the selection process is now coming under particular scrutiny. Some believe that although imperfect, the process in place works well enough to need only minor adjustments; others claim that a major overhaul, even scrapping, of the system is necessary. Certainly attention to the issue is warranted: The provisions in place for judicial accountability all threatened by the spread and deepening of problems that, if left unattended, will erode the public’s confidence in our judiciary.

Objective —- A democracy is highlighted by the fact that each and every part of it is accountable to each other. In this situation, an independant judiciary which is the backbone of the efficient functioning of the democracy in India has come under a lot of scrutiny.  How far do we go to ensure the independance of judiciary when transparency is the shrill and persistent demand of the Time. The judiciary – especially the higher judiciary – has put itself up on Cloud Nine, wrapping itself in a cloak of inviolabilityHow are Judges appointed? Why are they appointed? What are their short-comings? How are these dealt with?These are some questions, the answers of which we would endeavour to reach analysing the various relevant provisions of The Constitution Of India.

Read more

Under applicable Federal laws, Employee Benefit Plans must include certain disclosures. This article shall address the Basic Disclosure Requirements for Employee Benefit Plans that are provided for in both the public and private sectors under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, commonly referred to as ERISA.

Most importantly under ERISA, each benefit plan must contain a summary of the plan description. This description serves as the primary vehicle for informing participants and beneficiaries about their plan and how it operates. It must be written for the average participant to understand and be sufficiently comprehensive to apprise covered persons of their benefits, rights, and obligations under the plan. This summary must be provided to participants and those pension plan beneficiaries, such as family members, who are receiving benefits. This summary must be sent to participants and beneficiaries within ninety (90) days of becoming covered by the plan.

The benefit plan must also contain a section addressing claims’ notices and explanation of benefits. This section must include information regarding benefit claim determinations. It should describe the determinations’ process, and inform the participant that adverse benefit determination must include the specific reason(s) for the denial of the claim, reference to the specific plan provisions on which the benefit determination is based, and a description of the plan’s appeal procedures.

An employee benefit plan should also include basic information about the employer’s health plan. Health benefits must be fully explained, and notice must be given in respect to the possibility of obtaining temporary health insurance for employees who lose their jobs, or whose employment is otherwise terminated as provided for in the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (commonly known as “COBRA”). COBRA provides for a temporary health plan that allows employees to keep their health coverage for a certain amount of time, usually six months, after the termination of their employment. Consequently, employee benefit plans must provide notice to the employee and covered spouses of their right to purchase a temporary extension of group health coverage when the group health plan coverage commences. They must also receive notice if COBRA is unavailable to them and a reason for this exclusion.

For employee benefit plans covering pensions, there are certain additional disclosures the drafter must include, such as a provision covering individual benefit statements must be included. These statements must include statements made to the participants and their beneficiaries of total accrued benefits that have accrued, and the earliest date on which the benefits become non-enforceable. If applicable, the participant must also be notified in the agreement whether or not their benefits are being suspended during certain periods of employment.

As you can see, ERISA grants employees several important rights. Most important are the right to receive important information about their pension or health benefit plans, to participate in timely and fair processes for benefit claims, to elect to temporarily continue group health coverage after losing coverage, to receive certificates verifying health coverage under a plan, and to recover benefits due under the plan. A drafter of an Employee Benefit Plan must be careful to address all of these concerns.

Read more

Read more