Fracking and the Legal Challenges: what the UK can learn from US precedents and practices

Guest PostFracking ventures in the UK are several years behind such developments in the USA. As every country of the world struggles to produce energy resources that are both ethical and at the same time efficient, today is a salutary moment to consider what the UK can learn from the US example.

Fracking is controversial. Its supporters cite its cheapness and contribution to economic expansion. Its critics emphasise its environmental negatives, especially the threat to local water contamination and increased heavy traffic disruption. Economists celebrate its contribution to economic growth and savings in US fuel costs. At this moment, the UK is years behind the USA in exploiting its potential shale gas/fracking resources. However, it seems likely that the same environmental and legal debate will follow the US precedent. This article will consider what lessons the UK might learn from the US precedent.

So why today to ask this question? Only because today it was announced that the latest fracking venture in the UK would be off-shore. Cuadrillo has been granted licences to start fracking off the coast of Lancashire. This might please environmentalists in that it would avoid potential pollution of local water supplies. Equally it might bypass the problems of acrimonious negotiations with concerned local councils, communities and landholders. Controversial cases running through the US courts have pivoted around these issues.

Where fracking ventures in the UK have been on land rather than off-shore, they have met with venomous opposition from local environmental pressure groups. Foremost of these was the example of Balcombe in Surrey in 2013. So strong was the opposition that the venture was abandoned. Also in Sussex is the site of Fernhurst in Sussex. Local residents worry about the pollution effects of increased freight transport on their local network. Residents fear the unknown. Water contamination concerns are cited. These environmental challenges conflict with capitalist and economic objectives. New and cheap energy resources are vital to all economies, be they developing or established. Western economies are searching new and innovative ones. It might be alright for eastern producers such as China to flout environmental concerns. The more sophisticated, established and mature economies of countries such as the USA and the UK cannot be so cavalier.

A survey of litigation and US legal cases about fracking is a large one. The plethora of such cases includes ones from Pennsylvania, Texas, Wyoming, Minnesota, Colorado, West Virginia.. Even an urban area like New York has faced the challenge. The challenge has not only been between environmentalists and growth economists, In the USA most cases have been tried by state courts. However, there have been conflicts between town and county laws, before cases have reached the Court of Appeal.

So what does the UK need to learn from the US precedent.. Certainly it will be political, especially with a general election pending in 2015 and energy bills looking to be a top manifesto issue. On the whole the Obama administration has supported the environmentalists in this dichotomy. Fundamentally the debate is between environmental and economic issues but politics will play its part. In the final instance the debate will be decided in the courts. UK litigators will do well to learn from the plethora of US examples that have already explored these issues. However, they must not forget that for them in the UK the precedent and rules for much environmental litigatuin are embedded in European law.

This article was provided on behalf of Vannin Capital, one of the UK’s leading specialist litigation funding providers.

Using Trusts To Protect Your Estate: An Easy Guide

Guest Post

Unfortunately, many people consider trusts a rich person’s domain. It’s actually easy for anyone to benefit from a tax-saving trust (and avoid probate).

How Trusts Work

An owner of an estate can protect their assets in a trust by handing over the legal title to a trustee. This is to benefit one or more people detailed in the trust (the beneficiaries). There are two types of trusts: revocable/irrevocable.

Revocable Trusts

A revocable trust can be…you guessed it…revoked. The government then considers this fair game for taxation. You may have to pay estate taxes on any assets that are left behind upon your death. During your lifetime, you might have to shell out for income taxes on any revenue you make inside your revocable trust.

Irrevocable Trust
All assets are permanently removed from an estate and transferred into a trust. Usually, these assets are exempt from estate taxes, as they aren’t considered part of the grantor’s estate, upon their death. Many revocable trusts become irrevocable upon the grantor’s death or mental disability.

The Trustee’s Role

The grantor names a trustee that handles most things, as well as manages the portfolio. Often, the grantor can make all of the big decisions alongside the trustee, or the trustee can have full power over the assets. The trustee is often a friend, relative or accountant, but there are plenty of specialists that can manage your trust.

Different Trusts

It’s really worth picking out your trust carefully, as different trusts cater for different needs. There are plenty to choose from, so do some research.

The Living Trust

You are both the trustee and the beneficiary of the trust, while you’re alive. This means that you have control of all your assets until you die. When you pass away, your designated successor will share your assets by following the terms of the trust. This avoids will-related probate. Speak to a solicitor about will-related probate. In the event that you become incapacitated during your lifetime, your successor or co-trustee will take the reins.

Qualified Personal Residence Trust

You can remove a residence from your estate and into a trust with conditions applied. For example, a holiday home can be visited according to your terms, but still belongs to the trust and its beneficiaries. Gift tax is reduced because you still have rights to the property.

Generation-Skipping Trust

This trust is used to give money to your grandchildren. There is a generation-skipping tax exemption (of up to $5.12 million). It’s similar to the federal estate tax exclusion.

Charitable Lead Trust

You might want to be a force for good after you die and leave your assets to a charitable association. A trustee can sell anything donated and set-up an annuity that will be paid to you and your heirs until the end of your life expectancy. Any remaining assets go to charity.

Above The Law: How The Rich Can Buy Themselves Out Of Trouble

Guest Post

Image from: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8110/8496877807_4089b9864e_o.jpg 

16 year old Ethan Crouch attained notoriety when he killed four people and seriously injured two in a devastating drunk driving incident. Instead of receiving jail time, Crouch was sentenced to spending an undefined amount of time in a luxury rehabilitation facility. His probation is limited to 10 years, during which he has to refrain from consuming drugs or alcohol and cannot drive.

Psychologists blamed the wealthy, privileged parents for overly coddling and letting the kid run wild without restrictions. The judge maintains that this assessment didn’t play a part in her ruling.

 The rehabilitation centre, which costs a massive $450,000 a year, will be paid for by Crouch’s parents. If Crouch breaks the terms of his probation, he could face up to ten years in jail, but otherwise, he won’t have to spend any time in a juvenile prison.

 Crouch obviously had some top motoring lawyers, working on his case.

 Irreparable Damage

Prosecutors called for the maximum 20 year sentence and were shocked when Crouch received no jail time at all. Sergio Molina and Soliman Mohmand were knocked around in Crouch’s car on impact – Mohmand received internal injuries and broken bones, whereas Molina is likely to be paralysed for life. Molina’s family have already amassed one million dollars in medical costs and will have to constantly care for Sergio from now onwards.

Even though Crouch’s blood-alcohol levels were three times over the legal limit, Crouch has shown no remorse for what he’s done and didn’t apologise for the incident. A little remorse on his part would have at least marginally comforted the victims.

It’s hoped that Crouch will get the therapy he needs at the centre, rather than none behind bars. But for Eric Boyles (who lost his wife and daughter in the incident), and Sergio Molina’s family (who now have to look after their paralysed son), this doesn’t go far enough. They believe that Crouch was given a forgiving sentence because he could afford the expensive defence team, experts to comment on the case, and the rehabilitation fees.

Mr Loophole

Rich members of society have always gotten off lightly, when it comes to driving offences. Mr Loophole, Nick Freeman, is famous for getting celebrities off the hook (if they can afford him). Most recently, Coronation Street actress Barbara Knox. Some other famous clients include Alex Ferguson (who avoided a traffic jam by driving down the hard shoulder of a motorway), Andrew Flintoff (accused of driving 87mph in a 50mph zone), David Beckham (again, speeding), and Jimmy Carr (spotted on his mobile phone).

Celebrities are often caught committing crimes, but rarely go to jail. Is this because they have the money for expensive lawyers? Wealth undoubtedly plays a part in the justice system, but this can’t be fair. When it comes to legal sentencing, the poor and the rich should receive equal treatment, otherwise justice isn’t justice. If Crouch had been from deprived circumstances, would he receive the same punishment? Are the rich really above the law? 

‘Holiday head’ and legal practice

From the London Evening Standard 22/04/14:

It starts with bewilderment. Then sadness sets in, followed by waves of fear. Sound familiar? I’m afraid you are suffering from a case of “holiday head”. After a gloriously long Easter weekend away from the office, returning can be quite a shock — even worse than the usual Monday misery.

Holiday head. Ah – that’s what it’s called then. Glad I’m not the only one.

A lawyer friend says: “All my holiday jollity and Zen ebb away as soon as I reach my desk.

What rot. A lawyer who professes to be full of jollity and Zen seems pretty unlikely to me. Zen! I ask you.

“There’s a general scary feeling of ‘What is this thing I do every day and how is it done?’”

That’s a normal feeling for a lot of lawyers in practice, I reckon. And yes, I speak from experience.

Another sufferer is so terrified of holiday head that she avoids taking time off altogether because it’s simpler than dealing with the big return. The break just isn’t worth that painful readjustment afterwards.

I’ve said that myself on several occasions, actually. Still, there comes a point when you’ve got to take a sensible pill; never taking annual leave isn’t really a viable solution.

These anxious workers are not alone. A recent study of 2,000 British employees found that 70 per cent need more than two weeks to recover from a post-holiday downer, with half the people saying they go through their photos endlessly to try to recapture some of that all-too-fleeting happiness.

Psychologist Emma Kenny recommends mentally going back to work the night before, in preparation. She says: “Think about what might come up and prioritise what is important. That helps you feel on the ball when you arrive and ready to work through your list. That will feel good because it gives a sense of achievement.”

No, I’ll feel stressed out and exhausted from having pitched myself into a series of panic attacks instead of getting a good night’s sleep. Keep your advice to yourself, please, Emma.

The article goes on to recommend good preparation to help shake off those ‘back to work blues’.

Then, when you have managed to wake up in time for the commute, dress for battle. [T]his is a day for a crisp white shirt to make you feel together and strong.

Really? Does wearing a white shirt make someone feel ‘together and strong’? What a load of baloney.

Easter eggs ‘destroyed’ by overzealous airport staff

From BBC News 16/04/14:

Children were left "devastated" after staff at Bristol Airport destroyed their Easter eggs in a security check.

I think ‘destroyed’ is a bit strong. But a broken egg, is a broken egg – however you, erm, slice it.

The youngsters were returning home to Italy after visiting their grandfather Tom Marsland in Cornwall when a security officer searched the bags of the children.

After an Easter egg hunt with their grandfather the children collected six Easter eggs which they planned to take home.

But during a search the eggs were pierced by the fingers and thumbs of a security officer.

Chocolate butter fingers!

Bristol Airport has apologised and said a full internal investigation is due to take place.

They said replacement Easter eggs are also due to be sent to the children.

Good show.

Airport security staff aren’t particularly known for their delicate touch and sensitive nature. Still – at least the eggs weren’t left to the mercy of baggage handlers!  They’d have been smashed to smithereens by rough handling or eaten by the handlers during one of their countless work breaks had the eggs not have been packed as hand luggage.

Court stenographer apes Jack Torrance from The Shining

Well, in some respects.

From the New York Post 03/04/14:

An alcoholic Manhattan court stenographer went rogue, channeling his inner “Shining” during a high-profile criminal trial and repeatedly typing, “I hate my job, I hate my job” instead of the trial dialogue, sources told The Post.

Heeeres Johnnny! 

The bizarre antics by Daniel Kochanski, who has since been fired, wreaked havoc on some 30 Manhattan court cases, sources said, and now officials are scrambling to repair the damage.

One high-level source said his “gibberish” typing may have jeopardized hard-won convictions by giving criminals the chance to claim crucial evidence is missing.

A source familiar with the case said Kochanski’s transcripts of that trial were a total mess.

“It should have been questions and answers — instead it was gibberish,” the source said.

And in a scene right out of 1980’s “The Shining,” where Jack Nicholson’s off-the-rails writer repeatedly types “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy,” a source said of Kochanski: “He hit random keys or wrote, ‘I hate my job. I hate my job. I hate my job,’ over and over.”

I can see why court reporting might do that to someone. 

How to Protect Yourself from Money Laundering

Guest Post

^{Graphic from: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Credit-cards.jpg}

Purely by providing your bank account to facilitate money laundering, you’re acting illegally. Unfortunately, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law, leading to potential jail time, unless your money laundering solicitor provides a credible defence against your apparent misdemeanours.

Be wary of any job offers that have come from nowhere, especially if they are based overseas – you will struggle to verify their legitimacy if they’re not based in this country. Always check that the company that you’re dealing with is legitimate and trustworthy. Never give away your bank details to an organisation that you don’t trust and know.

As soon as you start feeling suspicious about money laundering, contact your bank. If you’ve been given an opportunity to make ‘easy money,’ it’s likely to be too good to be true. Although each job position may be advertised differently, you will specifically have to hand over your bank account details to receive and move money.

Sometimes it can be initially challenging to spot a money laundering scheme. Always be wary about adverts that are full of poor English or contain obvious grammar and spelling mistakes. If you receive any emails which look like a scam, do not click on any of the links in the text and delete the correspondence.