Category: News Feeds

One of the world’s largest drugmakers will acquire a firm developing a drug for cholesterol for nearly $10 billion.

Basel, Switzerland-based Novartis said Sunday it would acquire Parsippany, New Jersey-based The Medicines Company for $9.7 billion, or $85 per share. Shares of The Medicines Company opened 22.5 percent higher on the Nasdaq Monday morning following the news.

The Medicines Company’s lead product candidate is inclisiran, which it is developing under a partnership with Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. The drug is an RNA-interference agent designed to prevent production of PCSK9, which is the molecular target of two approved drugs made by Amgen and a partnership between Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Amgen’s drug is Repatha (evolocumab), while Sanofi and Regeneron’s is Praluent (alirocumab). Inclisiran is administered twice per year, whereas Repatha and Praluent are administered once every two to four weeks.

“With tens of millions of patients at higher risk of cardiovascular events from high LDL-C, we believe that inclisiran could contribute significantly to improved patient outcomes and help healthcare systems address the leading global cause of death,” Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan said in a statement. “The prospect of bringing inclisiran to patients also fits with our overall strategy to transform Novartis into a focused medicines company and adds an investigational therapy with the potential to be a significant driver of Novartis’ growth in the medium to long term.”

Two weeks ago, The Medicines Company presented data at the American Heart Association’s annual meeting from the Phase III ORION-9 and ORION-10 studies of inclisiran, respectively testing the drug in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). In ORION-9, inclisiran achieved 50 percent lowering of LDL cholesterol with time-adjusted reductions of 45 percent over 18 months. In ORION-10, it showed a 58 percent lowering, with time-adjusted reductions of 56 percent sustained over 18 months of treatment. Both studies compared the drug against placebo.

The company said that it expects to file for Food and Drug Administration approval during the fourth quarter of this year, followed by European filings in Europe in the first quarter of 2020.

In a note to investors Monday, B. Riley FBR analyst Mayank Mamtani wrote that inclisiran’s reduced cost, medication burden and logistics are particularly attractive in the context of the primary care setting, which accounts for around 70 percent of patients with high cholesterol and 95 percent of prescriptions for lipid-lowering drugs. Mamtani pointed to several factors driving that attractiveness. In particular its overall pricing comes in below that of antibodies and is competitive with oral drugs, It is available as a pre-filled syringe and doesn’t require refrigeration, which would enable long-term storage in the clinic or even at home, enabling healthcare providers to offer in-home administration enabled by technology platforms like Uber and Google. And the buy-and-bill mechanism comes into play, with providers motivated to participate in patient care and patients not bogged down with out-of-pocket co-pays.

Photo: Kritchanut, Getty Images

Woohoo. The days before Thanksgiving — and (hopefully) some well-deserved time off — threatened to drag out like a game a Quidditch with a missing snitch, but thankfully a Biglaw firm decided to drop a bonus memo and snap us out of the doldrums.

And which firm has decided to delight its associates (well, at least the ones in New York, D.C. and Sao Paulo)? It’s Allen & Overy, who issued a match of the Milbank scale today. That grid is as follows:

Class of 2019 – $15,000 (pro-rated)
Class of 2018 – $15,000
Class of 2017 – $25,000
Class of 2016 – $50,000
Class of 2015 – $65,000
Class of 2014 – $80,000
Class of 2013 – $90,000
Class of 2012 – $100,000
Class of 2011 – $100,000

Bonuses will paid on January 15, 2020. (Full memo on the next page.)

Remember, we depend on your tips to stay on top of important bonus updates, so when your firm matches, please text us (646-820-8477) or email us (subject line: “[Firm Name] Matches”). Please include the memo if available. You can take a photo of the memo and send it via text or email if you don’t want to forward the original PDF or Word file.

And if you’d like to sign up for ATL’s Bonus Alerts (which is the alert list we also use for all salary announcements), please scroll down and enter your email address in the box below this post. If you previously signed up for the bonus alerts, you don’t need to do anything. You’ll receive an email notification within minutes of each bonus announcement that we publish. Thanks for your help!

---

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

When a prospect faces a choice between different law firms, the decision can come to rest on one critical factor: Trust. But that trust must extend to every level of the law firm, from the top attorney to the receptionist. And trust comes from professional credibility.

With 77% of consumers saying that they want to know about a lawyer’s experience and credentials before they make their choice, it’s clear that credibility plays a crucial role. 

Establishing credibility isn’t something you can achieve overnight, but there are several steps you can take to start building a strong reputation for your firm.

Provide a great customer experience

Delivering a great experience at every touchpoint is one of the most effective ways to establish credibility for your business. Your reputation is built on the experience of your clients, so it’s crucial that their impression of you is positive. 

Talking to people in a caring and professional manner is a vital part of excellent customer service, and this is especially true in the legal profession. It’s important to remember that people are often calling in difficult circumstances, so combining efficiency and empathy is key. People want to feel their concerns are being taken seriously and know you will be with them every step of the way. 

Just as important, however, is maintaining that professional experience across every stage. If the first phone call goes well but you don’t follow up, clients will start to lose trust. Eighty-two percent of people say that a timely response when they first contact a lawyer is important to them, so don’t forget about consistency. 

A case management system like Clio or PracticePanther can be a great way to keep everything organized so that nothing slips between the cracks. Using technology to streamline your processes can help you stay on top of things and enable your firm to be more proactive about different client touchpoints. 

Above all else, people simply want to feel heard. From a new prospect’s very first call to ongoing correspondence with clients, people need to know that when they choose your firm, they’ll be taken care of. Prove it to them in the very first impression and always remember that the first impression could be the last impression. 

Client reviews

More great reviews = more credibility. Reviews allow people to see at a glance whether or not they can trust you. With 92% of consumers saying they hesitate to make a purchase when there are no customer reviews, it’s clear that reviews are a hugely influential factor when it comes to business credibility. 

Well-known third-party reviews provide a stronger form of social proof than anything you post on your own website, so try to ensure there are a few different ways for people to leave reviews of your business, such as Google, Trustpilot, and Facebook. 

Of course, we all want reviews that describe us as geniuses, miracle workers, and superstars, but the reality is not everyone will deliver such high praise. 

But negative reviews can still be a great opportunity to build credibility and trust. For one thing, a total absence of negative reviews can appear suspicious. But negative reviews are also an opportunity for you to reply to and address concerns. By responding to negative reviews in a thoughtful way, you can demonstrate your compassion and ability to take feedback. It might even result in better ratings overall, so don’t be disheartened. 

Testimonials and success stories

A more in-depth version of reviews, testimonials and client success stories are great ways to demonstrate your value to potential clients. By showcasing detailed examples of your work, you can take the reader on a journey and allow them to get a clearer view of how you could help them.

It’s best to focus on clients with whom you have the strongest relationships for these types of endorsements, as they’re likely to make the best case studies. If you know that your firm added value to someone and had a positive impact, don’t be afraid to ask them to feature. 

The more endorsements and testimonials you are able to show, the more people will be able to visualize themselves having the same great experience. 

Deliver on your promises

When you’re trying to build credibility for your practice, it’s important to ensure that you can deliver on your promises. People value an honest approach, so your messaging should be consistent and realistic. 

Don’t make any overly bold claims on your website — it’s great to showcase your achievements, but don’t cross the line into exaggeration and embellishment.

Demonstrating that your work is consistent, reliable, and caring is the best way to build respect and credibility for your firm. People will see through you if you claim that you can move mountains, so avoid anything that sounds over-the-top or boastful, and let your real accomplishments shine through. 

Be available

To enhance your credibility, you need to make yourself available. Forty-two percent of consumers say that if they like the first lawyer they speak with, they won’t need to speak with any others. So if you want to make a great impression, you’ll have to pick up the phone in the first place. 

Eighty percent of people hang up on a business when they reach a voicemail. It’s easy to miss the opportunity to show prospective clients why you’re the best person to represent them. If nobody answers your phone or your availability is inconsistent, clients are unlikely to trust you in their time of need. 

A live legal answering service can enhance your business credibility, allowing every caller to be met with a caring, professional receptionist who will help you build and maintain strong client relationships. It’s also crucial that a live person answers your calls 24 hours a day because many times people call during the off hours. Missing these calls can mean missing the opportunity for the case in turn hurting your credibility. A legal reception service like LEXReception can help with your calls. Visit LEXReception to find out how trained legal receptionists can help your firm to provide exceptional customer service, every time. 

While establishing credibility is a long-term strategy, by following these steps, you can start building a reputation to be proud of. 

For the last four decades or so, the American metanarrative has more or less blindly accepted that deregulation is the answer to everything. America deregulated the airlines… and gutted routes to small and mid-sized airports while creating airline gate monopolies while claiming to have lowered ticket prices (which it mostly did not, the invention of high bypass ratio turbofans and automation did). America deregulated cable companies and stacked the FCC with industry stooges… and now those companies function as geographic monopolies that are getting taken to court for actively subverting local governments. The cheerleaders for deregulation prefer to use struggling immigrant small-business owners as a fig leaf for oligarchic corporations, but for every irrational regulation on a nail salon, there’s a swath of dying employees to remind us why we had those regulations in the first place.

Like every other industry, the legal profession has gotten the deregulation bug lately and true to the deregulation story, it’s all about the “widows and orphans” on the wrong side of the access to justice gap. “If only we didn’t have all these regulations on the practice of law, they could get the legal help they need!” It’s a well-meaning argument and there’s no denying that a lower cost alternative is necessary for the growing gap — which now extends beyond the indigent — but opening up the floodgates is not a particularly attractive solution.

Andrew Arruda of ROSS Intelligence recently took on this subject:

The legal system has been regulated so tightly that it has led to a world where only a fraction of the citizens who require legal services can access them. Consequently, the current regulatory scheme has led to a black market of legal services and innovation stagnation in the evolution of legal services.

Unfortunately, as Arruda points out, the anecdotal tales of black market scams are hyperbolic and are often presented in ways that play on thinly veiled racism. When some unscrupulous actor tried to take advantage of poor immigrants by offering doomed legal advice for a fee, it often gets framed as a reason to lock out anyone willing to offer legal help to these communities rather than a sign that many more people are trying to offer genuine assistance and are hamstrung by the current regulatory framework.

But the answer isn’t to unleash professional anarchy on the most vulnerable. The legal industry needs to begin from the premise that regulation is good and necessary to protect the public and then recognize that the current regulatory regime is incredibly bad and replace it.

We need to reregulate as it is clear that our current framework, which requires an all-out prohibition of legal assistance by anyone other than a lawyer, only serves to strengthen the systemic racism that these groups already face on a daily basis.

In typical lawyer fashion, we have allowed perfect to become the enemy of good. A lack of tiering and specialization of labor in the legal industry then creates an innovation vacuum as lawyers have been forced to become jacks of all trades and are unable to collaborate, delegate, or systematize their practices. Through an absolute prohibition on nonlawyer ownership of law firms, we have created a system where an individual who has worked hard to earn their Juris Doctor must also simultaneously perform the functions of someone who has earned a degree in business, in accounting, in computer science, in social work, and in psychology. How can we expect thoughtful innovation, with or without technology, within law when we freeze out those who specialize in what lawyers most need assistance with? I imagine a world where an attorney can team up with an MBA recipient, a social worker, and a computer scientist to open a highly profitable law firm where each of them benefits equally as owners. Again, our professional regulation as it currently stands does not allow this.

Arruda and the IAALS Unlocking Legal Regulation project is not aiming to just remove prohibitions, but to transform them. The industry should have tiered practitioners the way medicine does. State bars should be devising regulatory schemes to allow that in a manner that protects against abuse. These licensing programs should be able to move out of the law schools to 4-year and even community colleges that meet appropriate standards to allow practitioners to be trained without carrying a debt-load that prevents them from making a living serving the community.

The deregulation mindset takes as a given that if any regulatory policy is bad, then all regulations must be severely curtailed. It’s thoroughly busted logic and usually peddled cynically by folks trying to take advantage of the resulting anarchy. The cure for bad regulation is good regulation — or at the very least better regulation — not no regulation. That’s a lot harder work than just tearing everything down, but thankfully there are some people out there willing to take it on. Now the rest of the profession has to join in.

Reregulation, Not Deregulation [IAALS]

---

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Sometimes making the right call doesn’t mean getting the right result.  This is how the grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Google v. Oracle feels to me right now. As I have written before here, the dispute between Google and Oracle regarding the copyrightability of application programming interfaces (APIs) is a big deal for business.  Let’s face it — virtually every business today uses some form of software in providing its goods and services to its customers. From custom-developed mobile applications to software-as-a-service solutions, computer software no longer serves a supporting role, but is in many cases the leading business need.  So it is no surprise that the ongoing battle between Google and Oracle on this issue has reached the SCOTUS; however, it is the result that they will inevitably reach that has me worried.

The background of this battle demonstrates the inevitability of SCOTUS review.  Although previously written about here, a quick summary is in order for context.  As part of Google’s ongoing mobile platform development after Google purchased Android, Inc. in 2005, Google sought compatibility of Java programs within its Android mobile operating system environment.  Notwithstanding a majority of Java being available via open source, not all of it was publicly available, so Google tried to license the remaining Java components from Oracle’s predecessor-in-interest, Sun Microsystems.  Unfortunately, the parties could not come to terms so Google did the next best thing — write its own version of Java.  In so doing, Google essentially copied the same names, organization, and functions as the Java APIs, ostensibly to save development time.  Oracle Corporation purchased Sun Microsystems (and its Java assets) a few years later, and Oracle proved even less inclined to come to license terms with Google for the remaining Java components.  This action for copyright infringement followed not long thereafter.

The dispute essentially pivots around whether APIs are protectable copyrightable expression, and if so, whether Google’s use of the Java APIs constitutes “fair use” under copyright law. The last Federal Circuit opinion summarizes the procedural history best:

Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) filed suit against Google Inc…. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Google’s unauthorized use of 37 packages of Oracle’s Java application programming interface (“API packages”) in its Android operating system infringed Oracle’s patents and copyrights. [In] the first trial, the jury found that Google infringed Oracle’s copyrights in the Java Standard Edition platform, but deadlocked on the question of whether Google’s copying was a fair use. After the verdict, however, the district court found that the API packages were not copyrightable as a matter of law and entered judgment for Google. Oracle appealed that determination to [the Federal Circuit] court, and [the Federal Circuit] reversed, finding that declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization (“SSO”) of the Java API packages are entitled to copyright protection. [The Federal Circuit] remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury’s infringement verdict and for further proceedings on Google’s fair use defense and, if appropriate, on damages.

Google subsequently filed a petition for certiorari on the copyrightability determination…[but the] Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2015.

Upon remand, the lower court found in favor of Google on its fair use defense; however, the Federal Circuit overturned the lower court’s finding of fair use by Google (again) and Google sought review by SCOTUS (again) to hopefully settle the issue once and for all. Well, they got their wish.

What SCOTUS will (hopefully) address is the nature of what an API really is, and if copyrightable, whether Google’s use constitutes fair use.  The arguments on both sides are vocal, with Google’s arguments parsing the two key components of APIs (the “declaration” and the “implementing code”) as making all the difference.  I won’t get into detail regarding that position (as I did so previously here), but suffice it to say that eminent computer scientists (and Google) feel strongly that APIs should be rated differently than programs because they do not “run” per se — they only specify what a program does, not how it does it.

I realize that some pretty informed minds disagree with Google’s position (and if you do, you are in good company), but the issue from my perspective cannot be viewed in a programming vacuum.  Instead, it revolves around what APIs are intended to do.  The whole point of APIs is to facilitate interoperability.  What this means is that APIs, by their very nature, help interface one software program (or platform) to another.  The whole point of APIs is to allow this interoperability to occur.  Restricting API use without an express license goes against the intended purpose of APIs — if a company did not intend for another company’s programs to interface with it, why have the API set? At the very least, access to the APIs can be restricted without a license. It’s no wonder Google feels strongly that copyright should not extend to APIs under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act (as well as the merger doctrine), and if it does, re-implementing APIs should be fair use — a reasoned analysis that the lower courts took pains to address that Google feels the Federal Circuit did not appreciate or understand.

I respect that a good number of you may disagree with my take on this issue (and in the interests of full disclosure, my experience in the industry may be influencing me accordingly).  That said, I can understand the other side of the argument in favor of copyrightability and the owner’s exclusive rights to determine how such elements should be licensed. In fact, the United States (in its amicus curaie brief) argued against the need for SCOTUS review. My concern is that this issue is a nuanced one that, quite frankly, SCOTUS may not fully elucidate.  I don’t know whether this case will represent “the copyright case of the decade” (as Google puts it), but it is definitely worth watching.  How SCOTUS will rule is anyone’s guess, but when it comes to waiting for this decision,  I know for sure is that I won’t be the only one doing so.

---

Tom Kulik is an Intellectual Property & Information Technology Partner at the Dallas-based law firm of Scheef & Stone, LLP. In private practice for over 20 years, Tom is a sought-after technology lawyer who uses his industry experience as a former computer systems engineer to creatively counsel and help his clients navigate the complexities of law and technology in their business. News outlets reach out to Tom for his insight, and he has been quoted by national media organizations. Get in touch with Tom on Twitter (@LegalIntangibls) or Facebook (www.facebook.com/technologylawyer), or contact him directly at tom.kulik@solidcounsel.com.

This struck me when I worked for a huge law firm, more than a decade ago.

We had to schedule some jury research.  We were inviting the whole world — a collection of lawyers from the firm and a collection of in-house lawyers.  The jury research was impossible to schedule.  We finally found a date that was good for everyone — a Friday some months off.

The lawyers at my firm were delighted that the jury research had been set for a Friday.  That would let you work all week and then fly home either late Friday night or early Saturday.  Everyone naturally preferred to travel during dead time on a weekend.

A couple of weeks later, one of the in-house lawyers called:  “I just noticed that we scheduled the jury research for a Friday.  That’s ridiculous.  We’d have to fly home late on a Friday night or on a Saturday.  I’m not going to miss a Friday night or a Saturday for work.  Please reschedule the jury research.”

We did.

But it got me to thinking.

Maybe a good way to test the work ethic (or the insanity) of an institution is to see whether people prefer to fly on weekdays or weekends.

If everyone is itching to fly on Sunday, to start work bright and early Monday morning, your place is on the industrious side.

Conversely, if everyone refuses to fly on Sunday — “Why would I fly on one of my days off?” — and plans to fly during the workweek, we’ll put your joint on the more leisurely side.

My test may not apply to an institution as a whole.  At a law firm, for example, the lawyers may prefer to fly on weekends, but the folks who don’t generate revenue — the IT staff, for example — may be weekday fliers.  Or maybe it depends whether the IT staff is paid on an hourly or annual basis.

At corporations, you may see differences between revenue-generators and non-revenue generators; between folks who are frantically busy at work and folks who are less busy; between people who are childless, rearing children, or whose kids are in college or beyond; and so on.

But the “when do you prefer to fly” test is a pretty good one, helping you to judge whether a person aggressively prefers to devote time to business or personal affairs.

Have I told you something about yourself?

Or maybe you could innocently work this question into your job interviews and get a sense of how institutions view work-life balance.

---

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Inside Straight: Advice About Lawyering, In-House And Out, That Only The Internet Could Provide (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.

* Justice Ruth Bader Gisnburg has been released from the hospital after being admitted for chills and a fever. Wishing RBG a speedy recovery! [Wall Street Journal]

* A New York lawyer is seeking to break up his firm over his partner’s affairs with employees and other inappropriate conduct. [New York Post]

* A Canadian judge has dismissed Subway’s $150 million lawsuit against the CBC for claims relating to the percentage of actual chicken in Subway products. Guess they have free speech rights in Canada too. [Fox News]

* In-N-Out Burger has been accused in a lawsuit of starting a 2017 California wildfire. Never been there myself, but my West Coast friends tell me the place is on fire… [NBC News]

* A lawyer who criticized a Manhattan judge for not disclosing campaign donations made by his adversary Marc Kasowitz has been canned by his client. [New York Daily News]

* Damon Dash, a co-founder of Roc-A-Fella Records (I had to look this up!), has been sanctioned for unruly conduct at a deposition. [TMZ]

---

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

South Africa’s International Relations Minister Naledi Pandor identified Zimbabwe’s political and economic crisis as being caused by the hostility between its political leaders. Addressing a symposium on Zimbabwe in Pretoria, he said: ‘We would be greatly assisted in playing a positive role if we knew there was a shared notion in Zimbabwe of what must be done.’

He continued: ‘This is an extremely important point for us because, while indeed as the South African government, we work very closely with the government of Zimbabwe, it would be difficult for us to be seen as playing a role only with the government . . . We need to be provided with a path that indicates that as we enter to provide support, all the parties, all groups and all stakeholders in Zimbabwe are at one with that assistance that support must be.’

MDC leader Nelson Chamisa said he was heartened by Dr Pandor’s ‘correct diagnosis of the major problem in Zimbabwe as toxic politics’. He said: ‘We, in the MDC, stand ready to welcome South Africa and SADC’s mediation in Zimbabwe to end the suffering that has gone on for far too long, and give our people hope. In the face of provocation and persecution, our commitment to a sustainable, peaceful outcome has not shrunk.’ (See: https://www.newsday.co.zw/2019/11/ed-chamisa-must-talk-sa/.)

Chamisa was speaking just hours after police used teargas to disperse party supporters who had gathered at the MDC’s headquarters in Harare. Many people were savagely beaten with baton sticks. A senior American official, Tibor Nagy condemned what he described as the ‘unprovoked use of force against peaceably assembled Zimbabweans’.

Other points

• A report tabled in Parliament by the Public Accounts Committee said the government had taken US$3.2 billion from depositors’ bank accounts before introducing the bond notes in 2016. The Committee, chaired by former MDC Finance Minister Tendai Biti said the Central Bank used the money to finance government operations without parliament’s approval (see: https://www.theindependent.co.zw/2019/11/22/rbz-raids-us32bn-in-depositors-funds/).
• In another embarrassment for the government, China has complained that the recent budget understated Chinese aid to Zimbabwe. The budget said China had provided US$3.6 million in the first 9 months of the year while the real figure was closer to US$137 million.
• The government has decided to name roads in in all the provinces after President Mnangagwa. Other Zanu PF leaders are also being honoured. Tendai Biti tweeted: ‘The public hospital system has collapsed. Citizens are dying like flies. The power blackouts are now permanent. Hyperinflation has spiralled out of control. But they sat and named roads after themselves. Easily the worst government in the history of governments.’ (See: https://www.zimlive.com/2019/11/22/in-hurry-to-secure-space-in-history-mnangagwa-names-10-roads-after-himself/.)
• Another week another demonstration. Thousands of people – many of them Chinese – staged a protest in London over China’s heavy-handed treatment of Hong Kong. Many of them stopped at the Vigil.
• The Vigil gazebo arrived today and was put up without mishap. Thanks for further contributions from Alice Majola and Casper Nyamakura.
• Thanks to those who came early to help set up the front table and put up the banners: Yvonne Jacobs, Alice Majola, Chido Makawa, Benjamin Molife, Richard Munyama, Esther Munyira, Fungisai Mupandira and Casper Nyamakura. Thanks to Alice and Benjamin for looking after the front table, to Fungisai for handing out flyers, to Chido for drumming and photos.
• For latest Vigil pictures check: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zimb88abwevigil/. Please note: Vigil photos can only be downloaded from our Flickr website.

FOR THE RECORD: 13 signed the register.

EVENTS AND NOTICES:

• ROHR Reading Christmas Party Fundraiser. Saturday 30^th November from 6.30 – 11 pm. Venue: The Spice Oven Buffet Restaurant, 2 – 4 Church Street, Reading RG4 8AT. Theme: to restore dignity to the suffering people of Zimbabwe. Tickets: £20 per adult, free entry for children under 5 years. For more information, contact: Deborah Harry 07578894896, Nicodimus Muganhu 07877386792, Joshua Kahari 07877246251, Josephine Jombe 07455166668.
• ROHR fundraising dinner dance in aid of women living with HIV/AIDS in rural Zimbabwe. Saturday 7^th December from 7 pm till late. Venue: Lee Chapel South Community Centre, The Knares, Basildon SS16 5SA. Formal dress code. Tickets £30. Contact organisers: Esther Munyira 07492058109, Simbarashi Jingo 07722998848, Rangarirai Chivaviro 07378429599 and Patience Chimba 07896496379.
• The Restoration of Human Rights in Zimbabwe (ROHR) is the Vigil’s partner organization based in Zimbabwe. ROHR grew out of the need for the Vigil to have an organization on the ground in Zimbabwe which reflected the Vigil’s mission statement in a practical way. ROHR in the UK actively fundraises through membership subscriptions, events, sales etc to support the activities of ROHR in Zimbabwe. Please note that the official website of ROHR Zimbabwe is http://www.rohrzimbabwe.org/. Any other website claiming to be the official website of ROHR in no way represents us.
• The Vigil’s book ‘Zimbabwe Emergency’ is based on our weekly diaries. It records how events in Zimbabwe have unfolded as seen by the diaspora in the UK. It chronicles the economic disintegration, violence, growing oppression and political manoeuvring – and the tragic human cost involved. It is available at the Vigil. All proceeds go to the Vigil and our sister organisation the Restoration of Human Rights in Zimbabwe’s work in Zimbabwe. The book is also available from Amazon.

• Facebook pages:

  Vigil: https://www.facebook.com/zimbabwevigil
  ROHR: https://www.facebook.com/Restoration-of-Human-Rights-ROHR-Zimbabwe-International-370825706588551/
  ZAF: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Zimbabwe-Action-Forum-ZAF/490257051027515

The Vigil, outside the Zimbabwe Embassy, 429 Strand, London, takes place every Saturday from 14.00 to 17.00 to protest against gross violations of human rights in Zimbabwe. The Vigil which started in October 2002 will continue until internationally-monitored, free and fair elections are held in Zimbabwe. http://www.zimvigil.co.uk.

Post published in: Featured

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES SERIES 43/2019

Open Committee Meetings Monday 25th to Friday 29th November

There will be seven committee meetings open to the public.

The meetings will be held in Parliament Building, Harare, on the dates and at the times and venues indicated below.

Members of the public may attend these meetings – but as observers only, not as participants, i.e. they may observe and listen but not speak. If attending, please use the entrance to Parliament on Kwame Nkrumah Ave between 2nd and 3rd Streets. Please note that IDs must be produced.

The details given in this bulletin are based on the latest information from Parliament. But, as there are sometimes last-minute changes to the meetings schedule, persons wishing to attend should avoid disappointment by checking with the committee clerk that the meeting concerned is still on and open to the public. Parliament’s telephone numbers are Harare 2700181 and 2252940/1.

Reminder: Members of the public, including Zimbabweans in the Diaspora, can at any time send written submissions to Parliamentary committees by email addressed to [email protected] or by letter posted to the Clerk of Parliament, P.O. Box 298, Causeway, Harare or delivered at Parliament’s Kwame Nkrumah Avenue entrance in Harare.

Monday 25th November at 9.00 am

Public Accounts Committee [PAC]

Oral evidence from the Grain Marketing Board on payments made by Government for Command Agriculture and Presidential Input Support Scheme.

Venue: Committee Room No. 1.

The PAC is also due to meet on Friday to hear oral evidence from others on the same subjects [see below].

Tuesday 26th November at 10.00 am

Portfolio Committee: Foreign Affairs

Oral evidence from the Minister of Finance and Economic Development on ZIMTRADE funding status.

Venue: Committee Room No.  4.

Thursday 14th November at 10.00 am

Portfolio Committee: Energy and Power Development

Oral evidence from Independent Power Producers – Great Zimbabwe Hydro Power Ltd, Shilands Enterprises, Tsanga Power Station, Harava Solar Park – and ZERA, on the state of affairs in the Renewable Energy Sector.

Venue: Committee Room No.  311.

Portfolio Committee: Information, Media and Broadcasting Services

Oral evidence from the Zimbabwe Media Commission on the Zimbabwe Media Commission Bill and to discuss issues on working conditions of commissioners.

Venue: Senate Chamber.

Portfolio Committee: Youth, Sports, Culture and Recreation

Oral evidence from the  Minister of Youth, Sport, Arts and Recreation on progress made in drafting the National Youth Bill.

Venue: Committee Room No.  2

Thematic Committee: Indigenisation and Empowerment

Oral evidence from the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Women Affairs, Community, Small and Medium Enterprises and Cooperative Development on Empowerment Policies and Programmes for SMEs and Cooperatives in Zimbabwe.

Venue: Committee Room No.  3.

Friday 29th November at 9.30 am and 11.30 am

Public Accounts Committee
Venue: Committee Room No.  4

At 9.30 am

Oral evidence from the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development on payments made by Government for Command Agriculture and Presidential Input Support Scheme.

At 11.30 am

Oral evidence from Sakunda Holdings on payments made by Government for Command Agriculture and Presidential Input Support Scheme.

Veritas makes every effort to ensure reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied.

Post published in: Featured

ZANU-PF versus MDC-A : Chairing of Parliamentary Committees

Neither House has been sitting since the Budget was presented on Thursday the 14th, but MPs had a full programme of post-Budget meetings for last week.  The post-Budget Seminar was on Monday 18th November and for the rest of the week there were Portfolio Committee meetings.  These were for post-Budget consultations with relevant Ministries and stakeholders in preparation for the debate on the 2020 National Budget, which is due to resume in the National Assembly on Tuesday 26th November.

The scheduled Portfolio Committee meetings were, however, interrupted by further moves in the ZANU PF campaign against MDC-A MPs in retaliation for absenting themselves from Parliamentary events at which the President was present – such as the opening of Parliament and the Budget Speech.

As noted in Bill Watch 62/2019 [link], after the Budget presentation in the National Assembly on 14th November, a resolution was passed in the absence of MDC-A members, to establish a Committee of Privileges to look into alleged contempt of Parliament by MDC-A MPs.

The next day, ZANU PF committee members forced the abandonment of an important Public Accounts Committee  [PAC] meeting because they objected to the PAC chairperson, MDC-A MP Tendai Biti.

ZANU PF Chief Whip Pupurai Togarepi was later reported as warning that what happened at the PAC meeting was “just a teaser to what they should expect, I can guarantee you that no committee which is being chaired by an MDC-A member will proceed until they recognize President Mnangagwa”.

Targeting of MDC-A Committee Chairpersons is Continuing

Last week the same tactics were employed by ZANU PF committee members against MDC-A committee chairpersons, not always successfully.

On 20th November, in the Environment and Tourism Portfolio Committee meeting, ZANU PF members objected to MDC-A Consilia Chinanzvavana presiding and voted for Robson Mavenyengwa of ZANU PF to preside in her stead; MDC-A committee members present were outvoted 15-3.

Also on the 20th, in the Health and Child Care Portfolio Committee meeting, ZANU PF committee members objected to MDC-A’s Dr Ruth Labode chairing the meeting, but were outvoted by MDC-A members.

On Friday 22nd November a PAC meeting was hearing evidence from Mr Morland, head of Fertiliser, Seed and Grain Ltd, on payments for the Command Agriculture Programme when two ZANU-PF MPs Hon Nduna and Zhou, arriving late, caused such a disturbance that the committee was unable to proceed with its hearing.

Can a Committee Remove its Chairperson? – No

After her ouster from the chair of her committee, Hon Chinanzvavana commented that her ouster had been unconstitutional, not procedural and contrary to Parliament’s Standing Rules and Orders.

Hon Chinanzvavana was correct.

Section 139 of the Constitution states that Parliamentary proceedings must be regulated by Standing Rules and Orders which are drawn up by the Houses on the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on Standing Rules and Orders [CSRO].

According to the National Assembly’s Standing Rules and Orders, the chairpersons of all Portfolio Committees must be appointed by the CSRO – Standing Order 18.  The chairing and composition of Committees must take into account the number of MPS from each party in Parliament and also gender representation.

It is only if no chairperson has been appointed [which is not applicable in present circumstances] or if the appointed chairperson is absent, that committee members may elect a temporary chairperson for themselves [Select Committee Rules, rule 8].

It follows that only the appointing authority [the CSRO] may remove a chairperson from office, whether temporarily or permanently.

Veritas makes every effort to ensure reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied.

Post published in: Featured