Author: TSA Press

Sabine Homann-Kee Tui is a social scientist with the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT).

People in Bulawayo’s townships in Zimbabwe primarily survive on maize. Even so, the year 2019 has hit them particularly hard, with the drought drying up the supply of grain to the city. Prices of staple foods have gone up.

“Many of us know what makes a balanced diet, but we don’t have the means to access those nutritious foods,” says Thembelihle E Ndlovu, a community health worker in Old Pumula township.

Gabriel Banda, a young father, explains, “I eat at home as few times as possible so that the food can go a long way to feed my family.” Many parents are forced to make the same choice, eating just one maize meal a day.

Stella Nyathi, who is currently nursing her baby, worries, “Once she is weaned, what can I afford my baby with the little income I make as a vendor?”

Often, the onus is on the grandparents. “In our home, me, my son and my grandson go many days without food. Often our sadza (maize meal) is only held with water and salt. On better days we have some vegetables, but not very often,” says Belinda Mpanza.

As education takes a backseat to feeding the family, there is an entire generation of school dropouts. “In Old Pumula or Makokoba townships, you’ll notice many children walking around during a school day. They should be at school,” says Dumisani Nyoni, Deputy Director of Agricultural Extension Services.

Adolescents are taking up prostitution and other harmful activities to help feed their families; teenage pregnancies are on the rise. Many of these girls live with their grandparents or look after their siblings as the parents have gone to South Africa in search for employment.

“There is a new generation of children with children. The young mothers are underaged and don’t qualify for birth certificates for their children; those children will not be eligible to enter school,” says Thembelihle.

Currently facing hyperinflation at 300% and high food costs (bread prices up by 60%), citizens of Zimbabwe are struggling to stay afloat. Particularly vulnerable are the urban poor.

But a collaborative research program is now on to improve health and nutrition in urban high-density areas such as the above townships.

The United Nations Human Settlement Programme (UN Habitat) projects that by 2050 about 60% of Africans will live in cities. In Zimbabwe, urban poverty has led to one-third of all children under the age of five suffer moderate or severe stunting; half of these children live in urban areas (FNC, 2019). Zimbabweans emigrate in search of greater prosperity elsewhere (IOM report 2018).

Urban malnutrition harms the very fabric of society. What is largely invisible and difficult to measure is the incidence of depression in a large percentage of the population owing to the circumstances.

A deep understanding of people’s food choices is essential but often lacking.

What can be done?

Against this background, scientists at ICRISAT, Zimbabwe, explore approaches for tackling malnutrition through healthier food choices in African cities.

The “Check It” project aims to explore options to improve dietary diversity in urban high-density areas across Eastern and Southern Africa.

Can we get civil society, health workers and the food industry together to ignite a social movement, with clear, comprehensible steps, to give a new meaning of food and nutrition? Can we bring in healthier grains such as sorghum, millets and legumes from rural supply chains and connect them to urban populations through small-scale processing efforts?

Terrence Mugova of Educate says, “The idea is to find an entry point into dialog and exchange with communities, to discover areas of needs that go beyond providing a meal. We need to mobilize people from different backgrounds to provide vulnerable communities with nutritious food.

Busisa Moyo, CEO, United Refineries Limited, says, “We need simple, replicable business models that can engage people and help them access quality foods.”

Post published in: Agriculture

Cramming for the CCPA

Cramming for the CCPA

Axiom & Above the Law

On my commute home last night to Cliffside Park, New Jersey (yes, I am one of those bridge and tunnel lawyers and no, I do not live on a specific exit off the Garden State Parkway), I was flipping through an Instagram page dedicated to memes about practicing law and attorney lifestyles, when I came across a seemingly lighthearted post. The post documented an outrageous interaction that the meme creator experienced in his recent litigation practice — the piece related to the signature block of an extremely busy attorney who would only answer calls for 30 minutes per day. I am sure most of you have already seen it. This got me thinking: Why does our profession not only tolerate but empower bad-temperedness? Civility is quickly fading in civil practice.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, the best and worst advice I have ever received from a supervising attorney: “If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts.” This is where the expression should stop, but it does not. “If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, yell louder than the other guy.” Our profession, which requires years of education and a documented history of a high ethical standard, prides itself on resolving matters for our clients in a civilized and intellectual manner. Yet our relations with our adversaries has devolved.

Spend a few hours in the hallways of 141 Livingston and you will swear that lawyers are paid to yell at each other rather than advocate for their clients. Fortunately, this is not the case in all courthouses, but even in the federal courts, civility is losing ground to underhanded tactics and routine abuse of adversaries.

Consider some of the worst abuse you have experienced at the hands of opposing counsel. More likely than not, you have a story about the adversary who made your blood boil. Now think whether the outcome of that case changed in any way due to opposing counsel’s behavior — it likely did not. As previously discussed, it is usually the facts that decide outcomes of cases. So why was such behavior necessary or appropriate in that scenario?

One of my colleagues and I were recently discussing some of the more boorish behavior we have experienced in the field. A few of the stories included a firm whose litigation practice resulted in opposing counsel being fired by his client, much to the delight of that firm; an attorney who would routinely notice motions for the day before court observed holidays so as to inconvenience opposing counsel; and a firm that made a practice of scheduling depositions for Friday afternoons to force additional fees to be incurred when out-of-state opposing counsel would inevitably need to stay over the weekend to conclude the deposition on the following Monday.

While these practices, and many like them, are on the border of what is permissible by our ethical duties, there is a deeper issue underlying them. Whether the root cause of this discourtesy is a lack of empathy among members of the legal profession, or a misguided belief that such actions somehow benefit our client’s goals — which they do not — the fact remains that we, as professionals, can do better.

Andrew C. Bershtein is an attorney at Balestriere Fariello who represents clients in in all stages of litigation, arbitration, and mediation. He focuses practice on complex commercial litigation, contract disputes, and real estate law. You can reach Andrew at andrew.c.bershtein@balestrierefariello.com.

Which Supreme Court justice was the first to have their oath-taking ceremony broadcast live on TV?

Hint: Cameras may not be allowed when the Court is in session, but that doesn’t mean the justices shy away from a TV moment.

See the answer on the next page.

—ADVERTISEMENT—

For partners in Texas considering a change, the time is now. After an unprecedented number of lateral partner movements in 2018, Texas continues to be a hotbed of activity.

There were a whopping 284 lateral partner movements in the Am Law 200 in Texas in 2018. The majority of these took place in the first two quarters, following a fairly typical pattern in years past.

Dallas beat out Houston, with 127 lateral moves to Houston’s 108. In Dallas, the majority of these moves were in corporate practices followed closely by litigation. In Houston, corporate, energy, and litigation were the top three practices areas on the move.

The high number of lateral moves in 2018 were in part driven by several office openings, including Shearman & Sterling LLP in Austin, Katten Muchin in Dallas, Reed Smith in Austin, and White & Case in Houston.

2019 is not quite at the frantic pace of 2018, but is still a very active year for lateral partners. Nearly 100 Dallas partners have lateraled to date, with close to 90 in Houston.

As we roll deeper into the fourth quarter, I expect lateral partner moves to pick up and carry over into the first two quarters of 2020 for several reasons:

1. With a potential recession looming in the background, it is more important than ever for partners to make sure the platform they are on is the absolute best one for their practice and clients.

2. The 1st and 2nd quarter are typically ideal times for partners to move after they have collected any holdbacks, true-ups, profit sharing, or bonuses which are usually paid around that time. As a lateral move can take several months, the high numbers of lateral partners moving in the 1st and 2nd quarter are a result of conversations that started happening around now, in the 4th quarter. The logistics of getting several busy schedules aligned for meetings, the lateral partner questionnaire, conflicts, and executive/management committee votes all take time.

3. A large number of Am Law 200 firms have moved into the market in the past five years in addition to several Texas firms that have been involved with major firm mergers. These big changes continue to have a ripple effect for years as partners evaluate whether their rapidly changing firm continues to make strategic sense for their client base.

4. Many partners with rate-sensitive practices are moving firms, particularly with patent prosecution and labor & employment. Regional or large firms with flexible hourly rates are using the opportunity to aggressively bulk up their groups.

Please reach out to me at mganguly@laterallink.com if you want to discuss Texas. I’m always happy to chat about the market, even if you are not actively looking.

Miranda Ganguly

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts from Lateral Link’s team of expert contributors. Miranda Ganguly is a Director based in Houston, where she focuses exclusively on lateral partner and group movements in major markets across the United States. She went straight into legal recruiting after completing her law degree, practiced law in the late 2000s, then returned to legal recruiting. Over the course of her career, she has placed attorneys in Am Law 200 law firms, Fortune 100 companies, and high-end boutiques in New York, California, Texas, D.C., and internationally in the U.A.E. and South America.

Lateral Link is one of the top-rated international legal recruiting firms. With over 14 offices world-wide, Lateral Link specializes in placing attorneys at the most prestigious law firms and companies in the world. Managed by former practicing attorneys from top law schools, Lateral Link has a tradition of hiring lawyers to execute the lateral leaps of practicing attorneys. Click ::here:: to find out more about us.

[It was never one of my career goals to be an] unemployed B-list celebrity. … Because it may distract you, I’m 6 feet, 8 inches tall, it’s a freak show.

— Former FBI Director James Comey, addressing “the elephants in the room” during a speaking engagement at the University of Chicago Law School earlier this week, where he encouraged students to become ethical leaders, his life’s mission ever since being fired by President Donald Trump. “I believe that lawyers and especially graduates of this law school are uniquely suited to be ethical leaders,” said Comey. “My hope for all of you is that you take this amazing education you are getting here, realize the value of it, and use it to participate in the life of institutions of all kinds.”

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Ed. note: This is the first article in a two-part series about recent case law related to the False Claims Act (FCA), which signals a heightened need for vigilance by companies (especially government contractors) around the security of their supply chains. Part two will address proactive steps that companies can take to reduce their FCA threat profile. 

When the FCA (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733) was enacted by Congress in 1863 in response to concerns about the sale of fraudulent goods (think: Wonky horses, faulty rifles, and rancid rations) to the Union Army, private citizens became empowered to act as whistleblowers by gaining standing and financial incentives to file civil claims (known as “qui tam” actions) against those contractors on behalf of the government. Today, the FCA is gaining ground by empowering whistleblowers (known as “relators” under FCA) to combat cyber threats in government supply chains.

In April 2019, network security company Fortinet paid the U.S. government $545,000 to resolve allegations that it violated the FCA.  Between 2009 and 2016, a Fortinet employee altered the label on certain products so that they would appear compliant with the Trade Agreement Act, which prohibits government contractors from purchasing products that are not entirely from, or “substantially transformed” in the United States or certain designated countries.  The Department of Justice expressed concern with the Chinese origin of the technology underlying the Fortinet components and the concordant need to combat “procurement fraud and cyber risk within U.S. Department of Defense programs.”

In May of this year, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued what appears to be the first decision to address the intersection between cybersecurity requirements and the FCA in a case against Aerojet, a supplier of rocket parts.  In this case, Aerojet’s former director of cyber security compliance and controls filed a lawsuit under FCA for Aerojet’s misrepresentation of its compliance with cybersecurity requirements relating to the award of several DOD and NASA contracts.  The whistleblower claims an outside consulting firm audited Aerojet’s compliance with the DOD and NASA cybersecurity requirements in early 2014 and found the company to be “less than 25 percent compliant” with the National Institute of Science and Technology and DFAR standards.  He consequently refused to sign documents affirming compliance with those standards and Aerojet terminated his employment.

Most recently, in July, a whistleblower earned $1.6 million from Cisco alongside a $8.6 million government settlement for exposing security flaws in a video security software product that was sold to the local, state and federal entities within the U.S. government.  The whistleblower had been terminated from his position at a Danish partner company after discovering a series of vulnerabilities and reporting them to Cisco.  These flaws were embedded in the software as early as 2008 and could have created backdoors into an organization’s computer network.  This is purportedly the first time a company has made a payment under the FCA for a failure to meet security standards.

With hundreds of false-claim suits filed every year and cyber flaws now fair game for whistleblowers, technology companies are increasingly at risk of violating the FCA. The sums can be substantial.  These incentives may also have the effect of driving insiders who are aware of internal organizational vulnerabilities towards government reporting and whistleblower rewards, and away from exhausting their company’s internal compliance measures.  Additionally, even though actual knowledge of noncompliance or reckless disregard are the requisite standards to progress a FCA claim, companies that may otherwise rely on a more lenient view towards compliance with government cybersecurity standards should plan to demonstrate more diligence in their compliance efforts.

The Changing Landscape of the Supply Chain

Advances in hardware and software have also significantly increased risk for FCA noncompliance. The more complex the supply chain grows, the harder it is to keep it secure, according to Doug Shepherd, Chief Security Officer at Nisos (disclosure: I work at Nisos). “As storage and computing power get increasingly compact, it’s easier to embed malice in a very small part of a supply chain,” he adds.

The criticality of information security protection in business practices has grown substantially especially in the wake of enforcement actions, causing a trickle-down effect. As noted by Mark Chandler, Cisco’s Executive Counsel: “As networked data becomes core to more and more activities, security failures can endanger national economic and physical security…. The standards by which suppliers are judged are also changing.”

At a CyberScoop talk in Washington, D.C., on October 24, 2019, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) director Chris Krebs described the recent creation of a CISA supply chain task force uniting both industry and government infosec leaders as a critical resource for protecting U.S. critical infrastructure, especially for companies with limited security budgets.  The newly formed task force on supply chain will propose improvements to the supply chain compliance model including developing a common framework for the sharing of supply chain risk information and criteria for evaluating products, services, and vendors.

“Ultimately, vendors who prioritize short cuts over national security should be held accountable,” says Chris Brewster, Administrative Counsel of the House of Representatives. “Government contractors have heightened responsibilities — whether associated with the supply-chain, government intellectual property rights or data protection requirements — that are integral to the contracting process under the Federal Acquisition Regulation.”

In part two of this series, I’ll draw upon the guidance of industry experts to address what companies can do to improve their supply chain risk model.  Until then, it’s important to keep in mind that in the eyes of regulators, legislators, judges, and whistleblowers alike, ignorance is far from blissful.  Training and due diligence coupled with accuracy and transparency will help organizations that contract with the government sidestep FCA sinkholes.

Jennifer DeTrani is General Counsel and EVP of Nisos, a technology-enabled cybersecurity firm.  She co-founded a secure messaging platform, Wickr, where she served as General Counsel for five years.  You can connect with Jennifer on Wickr (dtrain), LinkedIn or by email at dtrain@nisos.com.

Be careful what you wish for.

Alan Dershowitz publicly challenged the women who accused him of partaking in the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal to sue him for defamation. Virginia Giuffre went ahead and filed suit, prompting Dershowitz to complain that they have no basis to sue him. The judge told him that his argument was ridiculous, but in the process granted Dershowitz’s disqualification motion arguing that David Boies and Boies Schiller should be disqualified as Giuffre’s counsel because Dershowitz intends to accuse the firm of a conspiracy to blackmail him and that therefore makes them fact witnesses.

The “stratergy” here was a gamble that without Boies on the case, Giuffre would struggle to find competent counsel to keep the claim going. It’s why this disqualification argument was such troubling precedent — if pro bono counsel can get kicked off a case so easily, it can close doors to justice for many litigants. That said, I noted at the time that Giuffre was likely to find another top-notch litigator willing to take on this specific matter and that’s turned out to be true.

Chuck Cooper of Cooper & Kirk filed pro hac papers yesterday looking to take over Virginia Giuffre’s case. This means Dershowitz now faces a seasoned Supreme Court litigator that The National Law Journal ranks as one of the 10 best civil litigators in Washington.

A former Reagan administration DOJ official, Cooper is well-known for representing conservative bigwigs like Jeff Sessions and John Bolton and taking up right-wing causes in federal court from representing the NRA to defending religion in schools in Lee v. Weisman. Cooper was even considered a frontrunner for the Solicitor General post that eventually went to Noel Francisco. In fact, it was Cooper who argued on behalf of California’s Proposition 8 in the landmark marriage equality case won by Boies and Gibson Dunn’s Ted Olson (Cooper would go on to plan his own daughter’s same-sex wedding, so he’s probably happy in retrospect to have lost that one).

For Dershowitz, the defamation case will roll on with another thorough and aggressive heavy hitter in that plaintiff’s counsel seat.

Earlier: Judge Mocks That Bonkers Republication Argument Dershowitz Made
Alan Dershowitz Says He Has A ‘Perfect Sex Life,’ Answering The Question Literally No One Asked
Who’s Up For A Fun Night Out Watching Alan Dershowitz Talk About Sex Trafficking?
Dershowitz’s Motion To Disqualify Boies Schiller Immediately Dumped For Hilarious Reason
Harvard Law School’s Dershowitz Moves To Disqualify Boies Schiller In Sex Trafficking Case
Dershowitz Wanted A Trial Over Sex Trafficking Accusations — He’s Getting One
Some (Tentative) Good News For Alan Dershowitz… And Some More Bad News
I Just Had To Think About Alan Dershowitz’s Underwear And Now So Do You
Alan Dershowitz Says He Thinks He Should’ve Gotten Epstein A BETTER Deal In Wild Doubling-Down Interview
After Publicly Demanding His Accusers Sue Him, Dershowitz Is Arguing That His Accusers Have No Basis To Sue Him