Podcasts about gravamen

Rigoberta Bandini firma nuestro disco de la semana con "Jesucrista Superstar", su segundo y ambicioso trabajo. Escuchamos varias de sus canciones en un programa cargado de actualidad musical. Las novedades nacionales las protagonizan Dorian, Sen Senra, Depresión Sonora, Va Salva Sal, Maria de Juan, Mike G69, Anora Kito, Calibre 91, Extasis, Nadadora, Veloce, Colorado, La Paloma, Kanfurneira, Pequeño Mal, Sr Bizarro, Da Loma, Nievla y Por Las Noches. Además Elyella hacen aparición para presentarnos su nuevo single junto a Besmaya. La actualidad internacional la protagonizan Mighty Joe Castro and the Gravamen, Silverlakerodeo, Sharon Roter, Cami Tal, Emilio, Atario y LeoPardo. La versión de la semana la firman Carletti Porta y Curro Violero llevándose a su terreno el clásico "Un buen día" de Los Planetas y el toque más bailable lo pone DJ Clandestino con su nuevo remix de Sexy Zebras. Además recordamos el pasado Festival de les Arts de Valencia, te hablamos de los próximos Mallorca Live Festival y Mediterrànea de Gandía y recomendamos conciertos de los artistas que escuchamos.

As a small-firm owner, James d'Apice is walking the road less travelled – not just in terms of his marketing and revenue distribution but also in terms of how he views the firm as an entity. In this episode of The Boutique Lawyer Show, host Jerome Doraisamy welcomes back Gravamen founder and principal James d'Apice to discuss his firm's journey since its recent inception, its success thus far, whether he's had a clear vision in mind or has figured the business approach out along the way, what has surprised him about the experience of being a firm owner, and why he has viewed the running of the firm as a “side hustle”. d'Apice also delves into how his mindset aligns with his perception of himself and his purpose as a lawyer, why he donates firm proceeds to chosen charities, navigating pressure points, making hiring decisions for the best interests of the firm, and what excites him about the future. If you like this episode, show your support by  rating us or leaving a review on Apple Podcasts (The Lawyers Weekly Show) and by following Lawyers Weekly on social media: Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. If you have any questions about what you heard today, any topics of interest you have in mind, or if you'd like to lend your voice to the show, email editor@lawyersweekly.com.au for more insights!

Primer grupo de refugiados palestinos llega a México57 de cada 100 cédulas profesionales corresponden a mujeresMás información en nuestro Podcast

“Don't call the meeting to sell those shares!”___P was a shareholder in D1. D1 owned Techshares, shares in TechCo: [1]D1 did not trade. Its purpose was holding Techshares: [16] The Techshares were illiquid: [25], [26]A GM of D1 was called proposing D1 would either (i) sell the Techshares to a specified purchaser or (ii) failing that, go into MVL: [2]P sought injunctions restraining D1 from calling the meeting: [3]P said: P had made a purchase offer more favourable to D1 than the proposed offer, and inadequate time had been given to consider proposal (i): [6](An earlier injunction had been granted, restraining D1 from issuing further shares that would dilute P's holding: [9], [10])Following the costs of the initial part of this litigation, D1's dirs represented that it would need funding or D1 would be placed in VA or MVL with the Techshares sold for “fire sale” prices: [19], [20], [24]D1 hoped to obtain TechCo's shareholder list to sell the Techshares. TechCo resisted, instead proposing Offeror: [30] - [32]Offers were made by Offeror: [34], [36]D1 sought TechCo's approval to “shop” Offeror's offer to other TechCo shareholders, but TechCo made no response: [39]Another, apparently more attractive offer, was made by another party backed by P's controlling mind: [42]Interestingly, P (having changed its name, leading to brief confusion) made a further more attractive offer: [47] - [51]The D1 dirs reviewed all offers and (including because of some opacity with P's finances) recommended that Offeror's (apparently less attractive) offer be accepted: [65]P provided evidence to show it had the assets to underpin its offer: [70] - [73]Further corro was exchanged regarding the P's (and the P's controlling mind's) ability to fund the offer: [74] - [78]The evidence put forward did not convince the Court of P's ability to fund the offer: [79]RE (i) the Court found no serious Q in part because P's argument (“a summary is not sufficient. The full offer should have been disclosed”) did not ID any part of the offer not disclosed in the offer summary: [87] - [91], [97], [101]With that, balance of convenience for (i) became irrelevant: [114]RE (ii) and the P's previous application re share dilution the Court was prepared to proceed as if there was a serious question to be tried: [119]The Court found the BoC favoured a limited injunction; a short delay on the SHs' ability to appoint a liquidator while they negotiated: [126]The outcome would have been different if P had sought a longer, or indefinite, injunction: [127]___Please follow James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and Gravamen on your favourite platform!www.gravamen.com.au

CJNG, el ganador de la guerra Chapitos-Mayitos. Gravamen a remesas en EU, mina de oro para el narco. Él es “Doble R”, sospechoso de asesinato de Valeria Márquez. ¿Cómo consiguió MrBeast permiso del INAH para grabar en sitios arqueológicos?Un podcast de EL UNIVERSAL Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Trump promueve enojo social en MX, ahora con gravamen a remesasEnlace para apoyar vía Patreon:https://www.patreon.com/julioastilleroEnlace para hacer donaciones vía PayPal:https://www.paypal.me/julioastilleroCuenta para hacer transferencias a cuenta BBVA a nombre de Julio Hernández López: 1539408017CLABE: 012 320 01539408017 2Tienda:https://julioastillerotienda.com/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Analizamos el tema de la adopción del CUI en lugar del NIT, y el tema del gravamen a los pequeños negocios en Guatemala #guatemala #pyme #contabilidad #pequeñocontribuyente #agricola #EmprendimientoRural #Decreto31_2024 #Impuestos #CUI #sat

José Pakomio, presidente de la Cámara Nacional de Comercio, abordó en Canal 24 Horas los aranceles globales anunciados por el presidente de Estados Unidos, Donald Trump.

“That loan was for a purpose. Pay it back!”___P sued natural persons and Cos. D1 was not served and D2 was bankrupt, leaving P to pursue Cos only: [9]P's dad spoke with D1 and D2 about an investment. P later transferred $9.2m to one of the DCos: [3], [5]There was no written agreement: [6]In 2017, all agreed the $9.2m would be used for property investment, that if the property bought was then sold in a year 35% would be returned, and if unsold the funds would be returned: [6]In 2018, when the principal was not returned, the parties made a loan agreement, requiring repayment and interest: [8], [61]Repayments were not made. P sued: [9]P said the money was advanced to buy a specific property; and so was held in a purposive “Quistclose” trust. P said the money transferred to the other Cos was done with knowledge and so was recoverable: [11]The Ds denied a trust and said if there was one, then the loan agreement extinguished it: [12]The Ds served no evidence: [15]P had to prove the 2017 agreement, WITH a mutual intention that the funds would be used for a specific purpose, to be held on trust and returned if the purpose was not achieved: [21]P never discussed the proposed sum, proposed property or properties, location, or property size: [24]P said some docs sent after P's dad's the discussion were a representation that the money would be used for specific land: [29] - [31]There was no evidence of the purchase price being referable to specific properties or of any intention to purchase a specific property: [32] - [34]In this case, there was no intention to create a trust: [36], [41], [48], [54]That's because: the creation of a JV vehicle did not prove a trust creation intention [49], the potential of co-mingled funds absent a “trust account” points away from a trust [50], absence of language like “solely” or “exclusively” [51], and the parties treated the funds as loaned rather than held in trust [53]The Court then considered IF there was a trust, was it brought to an end by the loan agreement: [55]The Court held the loan extinguished the trust rights (if any) because (i) the loan came after and was inconsistent with a trust, (ii) the loan showed the parties abandoning the earlier agreement, and (iii) the loan's operation saw existing rights surrendered in exchange for additional terms secured under the loan: [65]The Court then considered the position if (a) there was a trust, and (b) that trust survived the loan: [68]Even if both criteria were met, the Court found no basis to order recovery against the DCos: [69] - [109]P's claim failed. Costs followed the event: [110]___Please follow James d'Apice, Gravamen, and Coffee and a Case Note on your favourite platform!www.gravamen.com.au

As part of a series of three talks together, James d'Apice recently joined eminent senior junior barrister Jonathon Dooley of Greenway Chambers to discuss the law of Corporate Oppression.This is Jonathon's and James' first talk about the big ticket items when advising your shareholder clients whether they want to *stay* or whether they want to *go*.The three talks they gave on this topic were:1. Corporate oppression (this talk!)2. Derivative actions (to be released in future)3. Just and equitable winding up (to be released in future)Hope this one brings you some value. As you may be able to tell, James and Jonathon had good fun presenting!___Jonathon's profile can be found here: https://www.greenway.com.au/jonathon-dooley/BenchmarkTV's website is here for all of your CLE needs: https://benchtv.com.au/And of course, James' firm Gravamen has its website is here: www.gravamen.com.au

"You need to show good faith to sue on the Co's behalf!"___A sought to bring a derivative suit on behalf of TCo. TCo was trustee of a trust. A was a principal benef of the trust: [3]Pursuant to the trust deed, absent a resol from TCo the trust's income would be paid to the trust's principal benefs: [3]From 1988 to 1994 A was a director of TCo: [3]Broadly, as former director A sought to bring a claim on TCo's behalf re a 2005 transaction that saw the Rs (or entities related to them) acquire valuable land. A claimed the opportunity to acquire that land was TCo's and the Rs breached their duties to TCo by directing that away from TCo: [4]At first instance A was denied leave on the basis the application was not brought in good faith: [5]A appealed.The Rs resisted on the basis of a previous judgment of the CoA, relevant real property law, and a statute bar: [23]A said that the previous judgment (which required a link between the status an applicant relies on, and the loss they seek to vindicate for the company) added a gloss on the s237 criteria. A also said the evidence weighed in their favour: [24]What amounts to “good faith” is context dependent: [29]The right to bring a derivative action is granted to vindicate a right of the company. An application made for another reason it is not made in good faith: [31]If there is no connection between an applicant's capacity and the loss alleged, it is difficult to find an application was brought in good faith: [32]The greater the lapse in time between an applicant occupying the relevant role, and the application, the more difficult it is to prove good faith: [32]Crucially, if an applicant, relying on their status as director, seeks to bring an action on behalf of trustee company where they are beneficiaries of the trust they will need to prove they are attempting to advance the interests of the company itself, and not merely their interests as a benef: [35]Unexplained delay may suggest ulterior purpose. A genuine application to vindicate the company's rights might be expected to be brought as soon as the applicant is aware of a claim: [36]The CoA found A was attempting to advance their interests as benef, and not TCo's interests because: (i) A took no steps at the time of the relevant transaction, (ii) A did not adequately explain their delay, (iii) A has separately commenced proceedings in their capacity as benef suggesting A is more interested in their rights than TCo's, and (iv) A has had no connection with TCo for many years providing a “compelling” reason to find the application was not brought to vindicate TCo's interests: [38]The Court dismissed A's appeal. Costs followed the event: [39] - [41]___Thanks for reading! Please head to www.gravamen.com.au to learn about my firm, and look for James d'Apice, Gravamen, and Coffee and a Case Note on your favourite platform!#gravamen #auslaw #coffeeandacasenote

“Repay that tax refund into the trust!”___P was a Unit TeeCo incorporated by D1. D3 (whose sole dir and s/holder was D1) was the sole unitholder. D2 was D1's spouse: [1] - [3]D1 incorporated P to buy a valuable piece of land (“Property”). P borrowed the funds from Lender for that: [4]After completion, D1 caused P to lodge a BAS. The resultant refund of ~$2.6m was paid to P: [5]P sued seeking repayment: [8], [10]The Ds said $1.1m of it was a “Success/Performance Fee” for D1 and $1.5m was a “Management/Performance Fee” for D1: [13]D1 was an experienced property developer whose usual practice was to incorporate SPVs (similarly to P) to exploit development opportunities: [14] - [16]Typically, as with P, the SPVs would have no funds of their own and would get third party finance: [17]Sometimes, as with P, D1 would not create a new bank account for a new SPV and would instead use D1's own: [16], [36]In around 2022 D1 identified the Property and began speaking to the Lender: [22] - [24]A loan agreement followed and in 2023 the purchase of the Property for ~$30m completed: [25] - [30], [61]After completion the Lender realised any profit calculations were absent GST tax refunds: [59]In October 2023 the ~$2.6m GST refund was paid into D1's account (remembering P did not have its own account): [64]Shortly after, $9m (which included the ~$2.6m) was transferred from D1's account to the D1/D2 joint account: [66], [67]These funds were then applied to buy a $22m Bronte property in D2's name: [69] - [71]The Lender chased D1 in relation to the GST refund position. D1 was evasive; at time dishonestly so: [72] - [83]The Lender appointed receiver managers demanding repayment of the BAS Refund to P. D1 did not comply: [87]The parties agreed D1 held the BAS Refund on trust for P: [89]D1 said the BAS Refund was then paid to D1 as fees “determined” by D1 as sole dir of P; but not pursuant to any written or oral agreement: [93]There was no evidence of an invoice, agreement, accounting entry etc. describing a fee to be paid to D1. Nor was there evidence for two types of fee: [97] - [100]There was written contemporaneous evidence against D1's case seeing D1: (i) declaring there were no related party transactions [112] and failing to declare the purported fees in the relevant BAS: [114]The only evidence supporting the Ds' view was D1's affidavit. D1's credibility was damaged by D1's dishonesty in dealing with Lender regarding the BAS Refund: [115] - [118]The Ds failed to establish a basis for fees, those transfers therefore being a breach of trust and of DDs: [119], [120], [155]Separate claims against D2 and D3 were not successful: [145], [148]The question of costs had complexity (P's success against D1, and failure against D2 and D3) and was saved for another day: [156], [157]___If you have made it this far please consider following James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and my firm Gravamen on your favourite platform!www.gravamen.com.au

Concretamente, le preguntamos por esas deducciones ante el escenario de prórroga presupuestaria. Mollinedo lanza un mensaje tranquilizador, porque las deducciones podrán ser aprobadas con carácter retroactivo —dice— bien porque se llegue a un acuerdo sobre las cuentas de la Región, bien porque se aprueben vía decreto.

"Pay the trust's funds to the estate!" ___ A Tee was the trustee of a trust with about $2.8m in assets. The trust had two beneficiaries, Spouse 1 and Spouse 2: [2], [8] Spouse 1 died in 2014 bequeathing their estate entirely to Spouse 2: [2], [11] The Tee lost the trust deed: [2] While general law dictated some of the terms of the trust, having lost the trust deed the Tee has no certainty about the beneficiaries of the trust (aside from Spouse 1 and Spouse 2): [3] The Tee was incorporated in 1982 and some evidence suggesting a deed settling the trust was entered into at or around that time: [5], [6] ATO records showed the trust was used for investment activity and that it distributed income to Spouse 1 and Spouse 2, and no one else: [10] Spouse 2 died in 2022 and an interim administrator of their estate was appointed: [12] At the time of their death, Spouse 2 was sole dir and shareholder in the Tee, which was also trust of the Spouses' SMSF: [13] An independent IP was appointed director of the Tee: [14] The IP gave evidence of numerous searches and enquiries conducted in relation to the trust deed, which did not lead to its being found: [15] This case was distinguished from usual trust deed cases (which sometimes deal with a photocopied deed, an unsigned deed, or a deed relied upon in relation to a very similar trust) noting that there was no evidence of any deed at all. Nor was there any evidence of the deed's terms: [16] The Court found that without the deed, the trust's benefs could not be identified meaning (without certainty of object) the trust failed. A resulting trust arose in favour of Spouse 1. Spouse 2, as Spouse 1's benef, stood to take in those circs: [17] The Court accepted as common knowledge of the general practice that a trust deed for a “family” trust will inevitably include more members of that family than the “main beneficiaries”, typically the relevant spouses: [20, [21] Having taken judicial notice of this, the Court considered that there would be more beneficiaries of the trust than Spouse 1 and Spouse 2 but - due to the absence of the deed - there could be no certainty as to who those beneficiaries might be.Whether due to their status as (likely) settlor of the trust or the conclusion that Spouse 1 did not intend to divest themselves of the assets in the corpus of the trust then - the trust having failed for uncertainty - a resulting trust arises in favour of Spouse 1: [25] - [27] The Court advised that (Spouse 1 having died, and Spouse 2 being sole benef of Spouse 1's estate) the Tee would be justified in paying the corpus of the trust into Spouse 2's estate: [30] ___ Please follow James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and Gravamen on your favourite platform! www.gravamen.com.au

“Hey! You can't transfer your shopping centre stake to them!” ____ Two contracts governed the relationship between co-owners of a large, suburban shopping centre: [1] In 2012 the co-owners were P as to 50%, and two other entities in the same group for 25% each: [2] The arrangement contained rights regarding share transfers; the breach of which allowed the non-breaching party to automatically buyout the breaching party's stake: [5] In 2014, after some compliant share transfers, the ownership structure became 50/50: [7], [8] In 2022, following a restructure of middling complexity (to this humble litigator!), P's co-owner transferred its shares to another entity in that group: [10], [25] - [34] Crucially the transferee (who was one of the Ds) did not fall within the relevant definition “Related Corporation”: [35] P said this transfer was a breach and triggered P's rights to buy their co-owners out of the property: [11] The operation of the clauses dealing with transfers of interests were considered closely: [13] - [24] P and the Ds exchanged (chiefly by emails between their solicitors) corro with the Ps asserting the transfer was a Prohibited Disposal (as defined) and pressing for a sale at $830m: [40] - [54] The sale did not proceed. P commenced proceedings: [55] The Ds resisted, including on the basis of the operation of technical parts of the documents, the structure of the transactions, and the service requirements in relation to the relevant notices: [61] The Court briefly restated the principles that applied to commercial contractual construction; congruence, the avoidance of commercial inconvenience, avoiding a capricious outcome etc: [70] The Court found that the a co-owner performing a Prohibited Disposal, and thereby being in default, exposed the entirety of its interest (and not merely, say, a severable proportion) to being bought out: [95] Regarding notice, notice in writing including email was sufficient - with no additional formal or ceremonial requirement: [103], [106] From the time the Ds received the notice from their lawyers, compliant notice was provided to the Ds: [109] Further in relation to the notice question, the Court found that an estoppel contended for by P did not arise whereby giving notice to the Ds' lawyers was sufficient to comply with the contract was not made out: [115], [116] (However, as mentioned, relevant notice requirements were complied with.) The Court found P was entitled to specific performance of the contract for P's purchase of the relevant D's interest in the shopping centre: [117] ___ Please follow James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and Gravamen on your favourite platform! www.gravamen.com.au

“The partnership's book is a liability, not an asset!” ___ A and R operated an insolvency practice in partnership. Like many such businesses, it would build up “WIP” in a matter and that WIP would be paid (or not) over time: [3], [4], [6] The business was profitable: [49] In September 2014, A ended the partnership electing to go out on their own with most of the business's book of work: [7] - [10] A number of pieces of litigation followed. Some led to orders for an account of the partnership to be taken: [5], [14] This process included the valuation of the partnership's book *after* the September 2014 dissolution: [12] A relied on two experts: [19] The primary judge took little value from A's experts' evidence: [20] Further: the experts gave no evidence of market transactions [22]; it was unlikely that a purchasing IP could demand a “discount” for purchasing the book [23]; and it was unlikely an outgoing IP would pay a purchaser a “discount” sum for taking on the administrations when the outgoing IP could simply resign: [24], [25] A appealed. A did so on 5 grounds: (i) a “discount” payment might be available and so should be borne in mind in a valuation [27]; (ii) the nature of the valuation - a hypothetical sale on complicated terms - meant a criticism for a lack of evidence of similar market transactions was inappropriate [28], [29]; (iii) the judge erred in not accepting the evidence of A's experts [30], [31]; (iv) the judge erred in finding the Court's power to appoint a replacement IP meant a discount would never be payable [32]; (v) and a failure on the part of the judge to evaluate individually each administration to then determine whether a discount would arise: [36] The dispute put another way might be that A argued the book was a liability, where R argued it was an asset: [38] RE (i): After reviewing IPs's professional obligations, the CoA concluded no hypothetical purchaser of the book could require or accept a “discount” payment without breaching them: [61] RE (ii): Similarly, this ground was not sufficient to disturb the primary judge's finding: [66] RE (iii) and (iv): A's experts failed to grapple with an IP's ability to resign from unfunded administrations. Elaborate analysis of the evidence was not required due to this failure to address the real issues: [68], [79], [80] RE (v): a vendor would not pay a “discount” to a purchaser for buying the IP business, first, because it would be a breach of their professional obligations and, second, (noting the opportunity they have to retire) it would make no financial sense as it would be cheaper to just resign from unwanted administrations: [73] The position was similar in relation to the bankruptcy trustee appointments: [77], [78] A's appeal was dismissed: [1], [81], [82] ___ Please follow James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and Gravamen on your favourite platform! www.gravamen.com.au

"Is it the tree that's held in trust, or just the fruit?" ___ The Ps came to Court arguing that one D - a trustee, DTee - held shares in the other D, a Co, on trust for the Ps: [1], [3], [4] The Ps further sough for the shares be transferred to the Ps: [2]The Co's defence essentially put the Ps to proof - a “non admission”: [5] DTee took a more expansive approach: [5] - [8] After particulars of its defence were sought, DTee asserted that if the Ps were benefs of a trust including shares in the Co, the Ps were entitled only to the “benefit” of those shares (e.g. dividends and franking credits) rather than the shares themselves: [9], [14], [15] The assets underpinning the structure related to property development: [10] Evidence suggested the Ps had made some financial contribution, despite opacity as to the structure of the transaction: [11] In 2023, the parties entered into Declarations of Trust: [20] DTee pointed to evidence suggesting that a unit trust was contemplated by the parties abrogating the need for trust decs. The Court found that even if the trust decs were illogical or unnecessary, they bound the parties and would need to be considered: [18] Dividend statements suggesting dividends and franking credits passed to the Ps were referred to, absent an explanation as to how this was possible noting the Ps were not shareholders: [19] The trust decs and the Co's conduct were consistent with the shares, and not merely the “benefit” of the shares, being held on trust for the Ps: [21] - [23] That is: the corpus of the trust included the tree, and not merely the fruit of the tree: [20] The Ps said the trust decs unambiguously referred to the shares, and now called for their transfer whether pursuant to Saunders v Vautier or the terms of the decs themselves: [25], [26] After considering the application principles of construction, the Court founds the trust decs were clear and that (i) they extend to a trust over the shares themselves (not merely the “benefit” of them); and (ii) create a covenant to transfer the shares on demand: [29] DTee queried whether the corpus of the trust was sufficiently certain, noting DTee held a “pool” of shares and that none of the shares in the pool could be attributed precisely to an individual P: [30], [34] The Court disagreed, finding that a beneficiary could have a beneficial interest in a specified number of a larger parcel of shares: [31] - [34] Having so found, the Court considered orders transferring the shares back to the Ps (whether pursuant to Saunders v Vautier or the terms of the trust decs) were appropriate: [35] ___ Please follow James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and Gravamen on your favourite platform! www.gravamen.com.au

La negociación de los presupuestos en Madrid se calienta en varios frentes que alcanzan intereses vascos. El lehendakari Imanol Pradales recuerda que los tributos hay que concertarlos con Euskadi, y lo hacía en un foro de Madrid....

“We need to *wind up* the trust and sell the farms!” ___ The Ps and the Ds each owned 50% of the units in a unit trust: [1] TCo owned substantial real property - farms. The Ps sought to have the trust ended and distribute the assets. The Ds took the opposite view: [5] The Ps said: 1. there was an agreement or estoppel that if one party wanted to exit, the assets would be sold; 2. the trust deed allowed a unit holder to terminate; 3. the TCo's conduct was oppressive; and 4. a receiver should be appointed to trust assets: [7] The Ps and Ds were bankers who, after a time, resolved to add valuable farmland to their portfolio: [15] - [18] They sought advice on structuring: [19] - [30] TCo was incorporated and established as trustee, with Ps and Ds funding TCo's purchase of the land: [31], [32] A unit holders agreement was considered but not signed: [33] - [36] Once commenced, the parties considered: which farm management services Co was best, the possible acquisition of further properties by TCo, the Ds frustration with the Ps' acquisition of a farm themselves and not for TCo, and the looming threat of drought: [39] - [53] As the drought intensified, arguments arose about: (i) whether to de-stock or borrow to buy feed: [54] - [65], (ii) the Ps stretching their finances to make their own acquisitions thereby depriving TCo of a source of funds to buy land, and (iii) the Ps standing in the way of the Ds buying some land for themselves: [54] - [72] The relationship deteriorated.In 2021 and 2022 the Ps put purchase offers to the Ds. The Ds accepted neither: [87] - [89] Later in 2022, the Ps served a notice purporting to “wind up” the trust: [90] Re 1., the Ps said there was an agreement, or representations founding an estoppel, that each party could unilaterally terminate the JV on notice: [107], [109] The Court found no evidence of a “one out / all out” arrangement: [122] Re 2., the unit holders has a present entitlement to trust capital; a position adopted for land tax purposes: [126], [136] The Ps failed on this point; incl because the Deed did not give rise to a present entitlement for *each unit holder separately* rather than the unit holders together: [168], [184] Re 3., the Court accepted oppression can occur with a trustee Co, with the relevant member protecting their family's beneficiary interest: [202] - [204] None of the pleaded oppression bases was made out: [209] - [255] Ps' complaints arose from disagreements re management of the farms through drought, and the lack of an exit strategy - neither proved commercial unfairness: [256] - [258] Re 4., the trust property was not in jeopardy and TCo appeared to be performing satisfactorily: [266] The Court was not moved by the Ps' analogies to partnerships or s461 applications, leaving no basis for the appointment of a receiver: [267] - [283] The Ps' application was dismissed: [286] __ Please give James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and James' firm Gravamen a follow on your favourite platform! www.gravamen.com.au

In August 2024 James was invited to appear on Glover Lane's ESG podcast, 'What Keeps You Up At Night?' This interview traverses Gravamen's journey to becoming a firm that tries to live its values by donating $1,000.00 per month to charity; and reflects on what the future might hold. It's also a great primer for anyone hoping to understand ESG a little better. You can find Rebecca Barry's firm Glover Lan here: https://www.gloverlaneconsulting.com.au/

“Some of these debts are trivial… do I still have to pay the really small ones?” ___ 2,653 clients deposited money with a Co, who was a trustee. Only 74 of those beneficiary clients had a balance worth over $100: [2], [3] A liquidator, P, was appointed to the Co: [1] P approached the Court seeking advice as to whether (i) the benefs with a

“Bring the company back from the dead so we can go to Court!” ___ P approached the Court to seek the reinstatement of a deregistered Co: [1] In 2010 the Co was incorporated. Shortly afterwards P and D1 - who were siblings - were the 2 Dirs and 2 equal shareholders: [4], [5] P said that at about this time P and D1 agreed the Co would purchase some property, each funding 50% of the purchase, each owning a 50% share, and each entitled to 50% of the rent. The property was tenanted by D1: [7] Shortly after this, the Co became the registered proprietor of the property: [8] In 2012 (leaving aside the parties' confusion as to whether the Co was a trustee) forms were lodged with ASIC recording P's retirement as director. (P could not recall consenting or not.) From this time D1 managed the property for the Co: [9], [10] In 2021 terse emails were exchanged between P and D1. P sought information. D threatened to “transfer out” some of the Co's assets: [11] In 2022 the Co transferred the property to OtherCo with nil consideration recorded on the transfer. OtherCo's directors and shareholders were D1 and their spouse: [12], [13] Shortly after, in 2022, D1 paid to P half the purported net proceeds of a sale of the property which D1 said was sold for $1.7m: [14], [15] Some evidence showed that in August 2021 D1 had emailed P a valuation for the property at ~$2.4m and then attempted to recall that email; re-sending it with a valuation of $1.7m to $2.0m: [16] In August 2022 D1 caused the de-registration of the Co, with P alleging P had no knowledge of D1 doing so: [17], [18] P alleged the Co ought to have received around $1.6m in rental income over the period the Co owned the property. P said P had seen only $91K of this: [19] All Ds consented to the Co's reinstatement pursuant to s601AH: [20], [21] The Court considered the relevant principles relating to an application brought by a “person aggrieved” by reregistration: [23], [24] Where reinstatement is sought to bring legal proceedings, the Court need not forensically scrutinise the claim. There must be “some level of arguability” by the threshold is “very low”: [26] P said they met this threshold as the Co's deregistration prevented both an oppression claim and a derivative suit against D1 in the name of the Co: [28] The Court agreed: [29] In the normal course, D1 would be Dir upon reinstatement. D1 agreed to immediately retire on reinstatement: [31] The parties consented to P and P's nephew being appointed Dirs on reinstatement: [33] - [35] The Co was reinstated, P and nephew were appointed Dirs, and the costs of the application were reserved to the contemplated oppression and / or derivative action proceedings: [39] ___ Please following James d'Apice and his firm Gravamen on your favourite platform! www.gravamen.com.au

“Valuation is art not science; so let the partnership's receiver sell it.” ___ 10 partners - 5 family members and their spouses - planned to run a blueberry farming and forestry business on land owned by the partnership: [2], [5] 8 partners, the Ps, sued the other 2, the Ds: [3] In 2007 the partners purchased the Property and entered into a deed: [4], [6] The deed required that forestry profits and losses be shared equally; but that each partner would take berry farming profits and bear losses in relation to their own plots on the Property: [12] It was agreed partners would contribute equally to a partnership bank account for mortgage payments, rates, water, bills etc. Each partner agreed to pay for their own stock and machinery: [15] Over time, the partners did not contribute equally to this account: [16] Disputes began early about plot allocation, apparently excessive use of water by some partners etc: [17] The partnership did not sell blueberries (each partner did, with those blueberries having been grown on their own plot). No forestry business was ever operated: [18], [19] In 2020 the relevant regulator found the dams on the Property to be unlawfully large. Remediation works reducing dam capacity were done. From this time the Ps gave up farming the Property. The Ds continued: [22] The Ps commenced proceedings seeking the dissolution of the partnership and the appointment of a receiver. The Ds cross-claimed seeking to buyout the Ps for $1.5m, but later resiled from this position: [23], [24], [29] The Ps amended their claim their claim to propose two Ps buy the partnership assets for $2m: [26] There was no dispute that the partnership should be dissolved, that the Property was a partnership asset, or that the final distribution ought to account for the unequal contributions of each partner to the bank account: [32] - [34] The principal issue was: should the Ps' $2m buyout order be made?: [45] The Property was valued at ~$1.85m and the timber on it valued at ~$150K, those figures underpinning the Ps' proposal: [47] - [51] The Ps emphasised the saving in agent's fees that would be made, and the “purchasing Ps” longstanding relationship with the Property: [52] The Court noted its broad discretion on how a sale of partnership property should be effected: [54] The Court did not make the Ps' requested buyout: [56] The valuation evidence before the Court was 15 months old. Neither valuer was required for XX, but the Court was not bound to accept the evidence: [61] The Court had no evidence about property or timber prices in the ensuing 15 months meaning it could have no real confidence that the $2m sale price was beneficial to all partners: [62], [63] (The Court noted “valuation is an art, not a science”: [62]) The Court appointed a receiver who would be best placed to realise the full value of the partnership assets: [66], [75] ___ Please consider following James d'Apice, James' firm Gravamen, and Coffee and a Case Note on all your favourite platforms...

Conversamos sobre el gravamen de Airbnb en Guatemala y de las aplicaciones streaming que está planteando la administración tributaria en el país. #guatemala #educacionfinanciera #impuestos #airbnb #sat

 @thesacredpodcast    Peter Hitchens: Is Post-God Britain Beyond Saving? https://youtu.be/sJjAokiuwNY?si=5UI2rBARszLfPOoD    @UnHerd  Richard Dawkins vs Ayaan Hirsi Ali: The God Debate https://youtu.be/DBsHdHMvucs?si=WltCKK4fNk_f0W_C    Paul Vander Klay clips channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX0jIcadtoxELSwehCh5QTg Bridges of Meaning Discord https://discord.gg/JpHtVgXW https://www.meetup.com/sacramento-estuary/ My Substack https://paulvanderklay.substack.com/ Estuary Hub Link https://www.estuaryhub.com/ If you want to schedule a one-on-one conversation check here. https://calendly.com/paulvanderklay/one2one There is a video version of this podcast on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/paulvanderklay To listen to this on ITunes https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/paul-vanderklays-podcast/id1394314333  If you need the RSS feed for your podcast player https://paulvanderklay.podbean.com/feed/  All Amazon links here are part of the Amazon Affiliate Program. Amazon pays me a small commission at no additional cost to you if you buy through one of the product links here. This is is one (free to you) way to support my videos.  https://paypal.me/paulvanderklay Blockchain backup on Lbry https://odysee.com/@paulvanderklay https://www.patreon.com/paulvanderklay Paul's Church Content at Living Stones Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh7bdktIALZ9Nq41oVCvW-A To support Paul's work by supporting his church give here. https://tithe.ly/give?c=2160640 https://www.livingstonescrc.com/give

“Our parents' citrus farm is a partnership asset!” ___ Two siblings in partnership, P and D, ran a citrus farming business, having received it from their parents in the 2000s: [1] (P, the parents' exec, sought access to the parents' privileged documents after death. As exec, P could waive privilege, however doing so was for themselves and not in the interests of the estate or benefs. Noting an exec's duty to avoid conflict, access was denied: [4] - [10]) In the 1990s the parents gifted D the “Lot”, a part of the citrus farm: [29] - [31], [45], [50], [268] In 1999, P bought a nearby farm with the parents providing both deposit and guarantee. P rented the house on the nearby farm out and continued to live with the parents at the citrus farm: [54], [60] The orchards on the nearby farm were deployed in the parents' business but there was no suggestion P's nearby farm was a partnership asset: [55], [149] In 2001, the parents gifted P and D the citrus farm and the business: [61], [62] The farm was transferred before the commencement of P and D's partnership and, being a gift, was not paid for with partnership funds: [142] From around 2018 relations between D and P soured: [104] - [107] As P's nearby farm was not providing fruit for the partnership (and even though P continued to work for the partnership) payments to P were reduced: [121], [122] Valuations were obtained as part of a potentially unwinding process. During this, P's lawyer shared comments on a Deed (apparently made on P's instructions) acknowledging P's ownership of the Lot: [123] P said that, in 2022, they attended D's home to demand their share of partnership profits and were rebuffed. Police became involved and an AVO was obtained: [125], [126] From around this time P was not paid by the partnership and did no further work for it: [129] Shortly after this, P's lawyer asserted the farm, including the Lot, was an asset of the partnership: [131] The Court found the partnership ended on the date of the altercation, noting that from that time, P did no work and received no payment: [140] P sought a declaration that the citrus farm, including the Lot, was a partnership asset: [141] Although the evidence was imperfect, the Court was not convinced by P's argument that the citrus farm was a partnership asset. This was based in part on its tax treatment via instructions given by P and D to an accountant over the years: [153] P was found to have an equitable interest in the farm, namely in the Lot: [155] - [223] The Court declined to make an s66G order and instead made a Woodson order, requiring P to offer their remaining interest in the farm to D at market value. If D was not willing or able to buy, a sale should proceed: [249] ___ Please give James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note and James' firm, Gravamen, a follow on your favourite platform! www.gravamen.com.au

Today marks the beginning of Synod 2024 and delegates have begun arriving at the campus of Calvin University for a weekend of deliberations and discussion. In this week's episode Pastor Mark and Pastor Zac get into some of the weightier matters about to be worked through in the crucial week ahead.   Visit www.almondvalley.org for information about Almond Valley Christian Reformed Church in Ripon, CA. Music by Jonathan Ogden used with permission.       Visit www.almondvalley.org for information about Almond Valley Christian Reformed Church in Ripon, CA. Music by Jonathan Ogden used with permission.

Host Roger Christie spoke with James d'Apice - founder at law firm Gravamen - about how he uses social media with such authenticity, and what some of the pros and cons have been. James shared an interesting insight into how he has used detractor comments to fuel his own content strategy. (Tune in to episode 43 of the Your Digital Reputation podcast to learn more about his story).This insight serves as the inspiration for today's practical reflection episode where Roger explains how leaders can greatly reduce the risk of trolling through three simple steps.TIMESTAMPS:[00:01:48] - The Elephant in the Room: Trolling[00:03:03] - Reducing Risk and Fear[00:04:39] - Strategy 1: Get Clear on Your Purpose[00:07:56] - Strategy 2: Be Selective with Your Network[00:10:34] - Strategy 3: Listen More Than You Talk[00:11:58] - Overcoming DiscomfortTHE DIGITAL REPUTATION ACADEMY: LINKEDIN™ FOR LEADERSThe Digital Reputation Academy is Propel's new online learning platform providing practical training to help professionals protect and enhance their digital reputation. The Academy's signature course, LinkedIn™ for Leaders will open for learning 1 June 2024. Led and developed by Propel MD, Roger Christie, this brand new course will take leaders from clear > confident > competent in their understanding and application of LinkedIn.For more information head to: www.digitalreputationacademy.com. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Gaaaah! James got to be the first ever private practice lawyer on Mel Storey's incredible in-house counsel themed podcast, Counsel! This pod was recorded IMMEDIATELY after James launched his firm Gravamen at the Happy Lawyer Happy Life retreat in November 2023. Grab yourself a mimosa and enjoy this incredible chat. A link to Mel's podcast is here: https://www.counselpodcast.com

In this episode of Your Digital Reputation, host Roger Christie explores the value of leaders being authentic online with James d'Apice, founder of law firm Gravamen and host of the successful Coffee and a Case Note movement. They discuss the benefits and challenges of simply being yourself on social media - the opportunities that come from being trolled, and how compliments can be crippling. James - who embodies the very rare combination of law firm partner, podcaster, vlogger, former radio host, and rapper - shares his expertise on maintaining authenticity in the professional services industry. Tune in to hear his insights on how leaders - even those in conservative, risk averse industries - can "change the trajectory of their lives" online.[00:02:10] Authentic content creation struggles.[00:05:30] Niche popularity on social media.[00:12:58] Professional norms and likability.[00:15:53] Warmth in social media.[00:22:23] Dealing with online criticism.[00:25:33] Handling mistakes and feedback.[00:30:33] Authenticity in content creation.[00:42:35] Building confidence through challenges.THE DIGITAL REPUTATION ACADEMY: LINKEDIN™ FOR LEADERSThe Digital Reputation Academy is Propel's new online learning platform providing practical training to help professionals protect and enhance their digital reputation. The Academy's signature course, LinkedIn™ for Leaders will open for learning 1 June 2024. Led and developed by Propel MD, Roger Christie, this brand new course will take leaders from clear > confident > competent in their understanding and application of LinkedIn.For more information head to: www.digitalreputationacademy.com. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

“Give me back my job selling diamonds!” ___ A Co that sold diamonds and jewellery had 4 shareholders, entities related to the Co's directors who were P1, D2, D3, and D4: [1], [9] P1 and their sibling, P2, were fired by the Co from their roles as CEO and sales director respectively: [3] The Ps (including P1's shareholding entity) sued alleging the Co's conduct was oppressive to P1 and seeking inter alia P1 and P2's reinstatement on the basis of s232 oppression: [4], [5] A Terms Sheet and employment contract governed P1's relationship with the Co and Dirs: [11], [12] Following slackening performance the Dirs met in Nov 2023. They resolved to reduce P1's salary by 11%. P1 mentioned that P1 and P2 may not be compatible with the Dirs into the future: [24], [25] In December 2023 P1 offered to sell their and P2's shares (on the basis P2's option had vested) for $750K: [27], [28] D2 responded that P1 could expect a response in January 2024: [29] Apparently with no further word in the intervening period, in April 2024 P1 and P2 received letters purporting to terminate their employment immediately: [30], [31] P1 and P2 sought reinstatement and were then prevented from entering the Co's premises: [35] The Co's Sydney office was closed. An industry publication informed other jewellers of P1's and P2's departure. Allegations were made regarding P1's use of their Co credit card: [37], [38], [40] The Court had to consider (i) whether there was a serious question to be tried, and (ii) whether the balance of convenience weighed in favour of reinstatement: [41] - [43] The Court accepted there was a serious question to be tried because - apparently in breach of the Terms Sheet - a resolution was reached to terminate P1 and P2, and to close the Sydney office, in the absence of P1: [48] A complexity arose: P1's employment contract gave the Co broad termination rights that, arguably, meant the Co's approach was not oppressive: [50] - [52] The Ps failed on their balance of convenience argument for four reasons: (i) the inconsistency between an interlocutory order for reinstatement and final order for a share buyout [54] - [56]; (ii) damages being adequate, noting any final share valuation will account for oppressive behaviour [57]; (iii) reinstatement would upset, not maintain, the status quo as new people were performing P1's and P2's roles [58]; and (iv) generally, the Court's reluctance to make reinstatement orders over the wishes of majority business owners: [59] - [62] The Court declined to order the interlocutory relief sought: [63] ___ Please consider giving Coffee and a Case Note, James d'Apice and Gravamen a follow on your favourite platform! #auslaw #gravamen

“I've retired as a partner. I want market value with no discounts!” ___ In 2018, 4 Cos entered into a partnership agreement. The business related to growing and selling tea: [1], [5] P retired from the partnership. The agreement provided that the partnership would not be dissolved on a partner's retirement: [2] The question was: what value should P receive for its partnership stake?P argued for, in essence, a pro rata distribution according to its 19% stake: [3] The Ds, who were the remaining partners, argued for a market value approach i.e. including discounts for P's lack of control and the lack of marketability of P's stake: [4] The partnership agreement provided that the partners were entitled to the property and goodwill of the partnership in their respective shares: [8] P sued, and initially applied for the appointment of a receiver to the partnership's assets without pressing this application: [21] By consent, the parties sought orders appointing a referee, a valuer, to value P's interest in the partnership including goodwill at the date of retirement: [22] - [24] The valuer sought further instruction on the basis of the valuation; fair value, market value, equitable value etc: [25] Following an informal conference with the parties and the valuer the details of which were not in evidence, the valuer prepared their report on the market value basis: [27] P's view of what a market valuation entailed differed from the D's views in that P resisted the suggestion that a discount ought to be applied for lack of control and a lack of marketability; or if those discounts were to be applied they ought to be reduced: [27] The Ds said P had “agreed” to the more traditional market value approach: [28] P said it was entitled to recover its share from the partnership as a debt due: [33] The Ds denied P was entitled to an account and instead considered the valuation as a “stepping stone” to a potential transaction or (if their valuation position was accepted) grounds for a Syers order requiring P to sell to the Ds at the relevant value: [34] The Court was receptive to P's suggestion that if P were forced into a minority discount, and the Ds then sold the partnership's business the Ds would enjoy a windfall: [50] The Court accepted P's entitlement to an account noting the parties could have agreed on a different outcome if they wished: [51] The Court found the P did not “agree” to the minority discount as part of the market valuation process, having openly argued against it through the valuation process: [52] -[57] The Court accepted P's view on valuation of its interest and considered as a preliminary matter that legal costs be paid from the assets of the partnership: [65], [68] The parties were invited to provide SMOs reflecting the outcome: [74] ___ Please consider giving Coffee and a Case Note, James d'Apice and Gravamen a follow on your favourite platform! www.gravamen.com.au #auslaw #gravamen

Join and Support us on Substack: https://themessyreformation.substack.com/   Check out the Abide Project:  https://www.abideproject.org   We love the Christian Reformed Church; we want to see reformation in our denomination; and we recognize that reformation is typically messy. So, we're having conversations with pastors throughout the CRC about what reformation might look like.   Intro Music by Matt Krotzer 

James d'Apice is a commercial and litigation lawyer who recently launched a new law firm, Gravamen. James is also passionate about sharing engaging and nuanced legal updates through his video series 'Coffee and a Case Note' which you can find wherever you get your social media fix. Mel gets the inside scoop from James on everything from rap battles to his new law firm and working with external counsel. Connect with James: Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jamesdapice/ Instagram: @coffeeandacasenote Connect with Mel: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/theinhouselawyer/ Counsel Podcast Page on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/67479008/admin/feed/posts/ Instagram & TikTok: @theinhouselawyer

“You tried to kick me out of the law firm partnership!” ___ A partnership operated a law firm. A deed governed the partners' relationship. The partners were either fixed draw (“salaried”) partners or (often more lucrative) capital partners: [1], [2] Each partner was a trustee of a separate trust: [2] P was a capital partner, purportedly expelled from the partnership in November 2020: [5] P said the purported expulsion was contrary to the deed; meaning P remained a partner or was entitled to damages: [6] The Ds characterised the partnership as “easy in, easy out” - partners did not make a contribution to join, and were not “paid out” on their exit: [13] When a capital partner exited, that exit was a “complete, forced, and absolute divorce from the firm”: [29] The Ds proposed P's expulsion by email with a “voting button” mechanism and also proposed that the technical requirements for expulsion (e.g. the giving of 7 days notice) be waived or abridged: [38] - [40] Crucially, only one button was required to be pressed in order to vote on both proposed Extraordinary Resolutions (which the deed said needed 80% of the vote to pass): first (i) expulsion, and then (ii) waiver of technical requirements: [39] P said this process was invalid because (i) the waiver of technical requirements (like notice) should come before the substantive expulsion vote, and (ii) the question of waiver and the substantive expulsion vote should have had separate voting buttons, allowing partners to vote separately on each resolution: [41] The Court found the requirement of notice was for a purpose including, potentially, the marshalling of support by the capital partner at risk of expulsion: [48] The Court found it undermined the seriousness of the consequences of expulsion for the question to be bundled up with the technical variation resolution (or, in the alternative) before it: [49] The Court found what had taken place was a “plainly invalid process”: [50] P's expulsion from the partnership was, therefore, invalid: [51], [101] - [103] This view was bolstered by the Court's finding that the Extraordinary Resolution (as defined in the deed) required 80% of all partners to vote in its favour in order to be passed.This was by contrast to the Ds' position, who asserted that only 80% of the *voting* partners were needed for such a resolution to pass: [52] - [57] Noting the solemnity of the outcome of an Extraordinary Resolution, and based on the general tenets of commercial construction, the Court found 80% of the partnership was required to pass an extraordinary resolution, not merely 80% of partners engaging in the vote: [58], [59] P therefore succeeded in their liability argument, with a cost order made in their favour: [122] The argument about damages was saved for another day. ___ If you get a moment please give Coffee and a Case Note, James d'Apice, and / or Gravamen a follow on your favourite platform.

“Compensate the company. Then pay that money to me!” ___ P, a former shareholder, sought to bring a claim on behalf of the Co and then have the proceeds paid to themselves: [1] - [3] s237(2)(a): the Co was not going to bring the claim itself: [8] s237(2)(d): the Court considered (i) whether the pleaded case could be proved, and (ii) if so whether that would ground the relief sought: [12] When practising, P was the sole shareholder of the Co and principal benef of the trust the Co operated. That way, P's work earned income for the Co: [16] P chose that structure, and form of income distribution, likely due to financial advantages P considered arose - and so was bound to the risks arising from that choice: [17] P made an agreement with some the Ds that would see advisory work referred to the Co, and would see NewCo established to do additional work: [19] From 2013 the relationship between P and the Ds deteriorated with the Ds allegedly not referring work to NewCo and otherwise breaching the agreement: [24] The Ds purported to remove Co from controlling NewCo thereby displacing P NewCo and diverting NewCo's business to themselves: [31] In 2017 P was made bankrupt, and later removed as beneficiary of the trust with the Ds buying P's shares in Co from P's bankruptcy trustee: [37], [53] Despite a contract claim being out of time, it appeared there was “apparent unlawfulness” and claims that the Ds breached their duties to NewCo: [32], [35] Importantly, the relief P sought chiefly was for distribution to be made to them as former benef of the trust, requiring the Co to on-pay its compensation to the P: [36], [40] P attempted to characterise the Co's loss as P's loss due to their benef status at the time: [44] P was unable to show (i) the Co's income would inevitably be distributed [45], (ii) that if distributed that it would go to P solely, noting she was not the sole beneficiary [47], or (iii) that all the money paid to the Co would be distributed and not otherwise applied to e.g. costs of administering the trust etc: [48] The Court found there was no entitlement to the distribution relief sought by P: [49] An argument that P's bankruptcy trustee may have entitlement did not require determination: [51] The Court found there was no serious question to be tried as to P's final relief, leaving other prayers arguably intact. However the problems with the relief meant the s237(2)(c) best interests test was not met: [56[ s237(2)(c): P's claim was only for P's benefit and without regard for the Co's other obligations or objectives. It was not in the best interests of the Co that it be brought: [58] - [65] s237(2)(b): In seeking an unlitigated determination that the Co pay all compensation to her the Court found P was not coming in good faith: [82], [83] Having failed to meet the s237(2) criteria, P's application was dismissed: [90] ___ Please follow, James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note and Gravamen whereever you can! (If you'd like!)

El Pleno del Consejo General del Poder Judicial ha aprobado hoy jueves su informe crítico con la ley de amnistía que impulsa el PSOE y que está pendiente de tramitación en el Senado. En el informe, que ha elaborado Wenceslao Olea, se afirma que la Constitución, al excluir de manera consciente la amnistía, exige que se justifique si una iniciativa de este tipo se adapta a los valores y condiciones que la norma fundamental impone a la potestad legislativa, lo que no se aprecia en la norma planteada. El líder del PP, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, ha apremiado de nuevo al presidente del Gobierno, Pedro Sánchez, a explicar la relación comercial, empresarial o de amistad de su mujer, Begoña Gómez, con Air Europa en medio de las negociaciones para el rescate de esta aerolínea. El presidente del Gobierno, Pedro Sánchez, ha devuelto el ataque instando al líder de la oposición a que plante cara y le exija la dimisión a la presidenta de la Comunidad de Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, ante el escándalo de corrupción que le afecta a ella personalmente.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

El Pleno del Consejo General del Poder Judicial ha aprobado hoy jueves su informe crítico con la ley de amnistía que impulsa el PSOE y que está pendiente de tramitación en el Senado. En el informe, que ha elaborado Wenceslao Olea, se afirma que la Constitución, al excluir de manera consciente la amnistía, exige que se justifique si una iniciativa de este tipo se adapta a los valores y condiciones que la norma fundamental impone a la potestad legislativa, lo que no se aprecia en la norma planteada. El líder del PP, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, ha apremiado de nuevo al presidente del Gobierno, Pedro Sánchez, a explicar la relación comercial, empresarial o de amistad de su mujer, Begoña Gómez, con Air Europa en medio de las negociaciones para el rescate de esta aerolínea. El presidente del Gobierno, Pedro Sánchez, ha devuelto el ataque instando al líder de la oposición a que plante cara y le exija la dimisión a la presidenta de la Comunidad de Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, ante el escándalo de corrupción que le afecta a ella personalmente.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to another insightful episode of Personal Branding Unlocked, where hosts Josh Lawlor and Monica Walmsley dive deep into the world of legal expertise and personal branding. In today's episode, we are joined by James d'Apice, a seasoned commercial and litigation lawyer renowned for his unique approach to the legal world and the mastermind behind Gravamen.   What You'll Learn:   The journey of James d'Apice into the legal profession and the founding of Gravamen. The significance of authenticity in building a personal brand. Insights into the art of balancing rigorous legal practice with approachability. The evolution of Gravamen and its niche in handling co-ownership disputes. Strategies for effective personal branding and marketing in the legal industry. Episode Highlights: 00:00 - Introduction and casual catch-up with Josh and Monica. 04:15 - James d'Apice discusses his path into the legal profession and the origins of Gravamen. 12:30 - The power of authenticity in personal branding and professional success. 21:05 - James delves into the niche focus of Gravamen and its unique approach to legal disputes. 33:50 - Marketing strategies and the importance of social media presence in the legal sector. 47:10 - The future of Gravamen and James's vision for work-life balance. Quotable Moments:   James on personal branding: "Authenticity is the foundation of any successful personal brand. It's about being yourself in every aspect of your professional presentation." Monica on recruitment: "Understanding the industry from both sides provides a unique advantage in legal recruitment and personal branding consultancy." Resources Mentioned: Gravamen's website: https://gravamen.com.au/ Coffee and Case Notes video series by James d'Apice: https://www.instagram.com/coffeeandacasenote/  https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=1466677013 Connect with Us: Visit our website at www.personalbrandingunlocked.com.au for more episodes and resources to help you build your personal brand. Follow us on our social media channels to stay updated and engage with our community. Thank you for tuning in to Personal Branding Unlocked with Josh Lawlor and Monica Walmsley. Don't forget to subscribe, rate, and leave us a review. Keep crafting your professional identity because you are the brand that speaks volumes. Find Us: Check us out online and hit up our socials HERE.

“It's my wind-up application, so surely I should get my choice of liquidator...?”___The Ps brought an application to windup various entities on the s461(1)(k) just and equitable basis, and to appoint receivers to the assets of the associated trusts: [1], [2], [6]The various entities were variously incorporated and settled to develop a marina. That development did not progress as hoped: [3], [13]The relationship between Dir1 and Dir2, the 50-50 controlling minds and shareholders of the relevant entities, irrevocably broke down: [1], [4], [5]The Court found it was just and equitable that the various companies be placed into liquidation on the just and equitable basis, and receivers appointed to the associated trusts: [10]The sole area of dispute was the identity of the liquidator(s) to be appointed: [14]Generally, a Court will appoint a plaintiff's choice of liquidator, though will bear in mind partiality, fitness, qualification, cost, perceived independence etc. It is for a defendant to argue for a departure from that course: [15] - [18]The different hourly rates of the parties proposed IPs were found to be likely to lead to significantly different cost outcomes: [19]An argument that one IP had previous experience with marinas was “very thin” - especially noting that this venture did not proceed and that the Court was not provided with evidence of how this previous experience might assist: [20]The difference in the price of flights from Sydney or from Brisbane (to the venture's Bundaberg location) was a “minor consideration”, especially noting the Sydney IPs had offices in Brisbane staffed by employees who could assist: [21]The Court was troubled by the perception (*perception* only - no finding or criticism was made) of possible conflict where the Ds' proposed IP would likely use the advisory services of a firm who was the major shareholder in a proposed purchaser of the marina: [22]The Cos were wound up on the J and E basis, and relevant trust assets placed in receivership, with the Ps' preferred IPs appointed: [24], [25] ___ #auslaw #coffeeandacasenote #gravamen Please follow James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and James' firm Gravamen wherever you can!www.gravamen.com.au

Super excited to announce new guest, Mighty Joe Castro, to The Story!Based out of Philadelphia, PA, Ameripolitan rockabilly outfit, Mighty Joe Castro & The Gravamen is the latest musical project from accomplished collage artist and musician Mighty Joe Castro (ex-The Situation, The Lift Up). Influenced by 50's Rock and Roll and infused with post modern Easter eggs cribbed from old episodes of MTV's 120 Minutes, Mighty Joe Castro takes a modern, lyric driven approach to songwriting while The Gravamen layer on Jesus and Mary Chain-cover-Link Wray guitar atmosphere, booming doghouse bass and swinging beats. The quartet lurks at a crossroads where Sun Records and Creation Records meet.According to Joe Castro: “Our goal is to play original rock-n-roll, in the style of the pioneers, but update it lyrically and sonically. Take what we've learned, everything great that's come after and go apply it to that original sound. What if Buddy Holly had access to a stack of effects pedals and some Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds records? That's the ethos of the band.”Currently working on a new full length record, the band released the single Embers in the Ash in 2023. It's the first follow up to their 2020 debut full length album, Come On Angels. Both were recorded at Miner Street Recordings and produced by Brian McTear (Sharon Van Etten, Dr Dog, Dead Milkmen). Previously, they released their debut EP, Wake Up, You're Rockin'! in 2018.You can find Mighty Joe Castro and his projects here:Website: https://linktr.ee/MightyJoeCastroandtheGravamenFind The Story Podcast here: coryrosenproductions.com/podcastsSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/the-story/donations

“We can't order a share sale. Decide yourselves, or it's getting wound up!” ___ A number of plaintiffs applied for relief in relation to a shareholder dispute. Through the litigation the issues in dispute narrowed.Both the plaintiffs and defendants preferred for the Ds to buy out the Ps. A winding up order was all parties' second preference: [1] - [6], [19] Commencing in 2014, the Ps and Ds incorporated Co1 and Co2 to (i) operate a GF bakery and (ii) own the land the bakery was situated on: [8] - [10] Evidentiary wrinkles included one of the Ds seeking a higher salary, one of the Ps resisting, the Ds causing the salary to be paid, the P then causing the same amount to be paid to their entity, and the Ds causing *that* payment to be recorded as a loan: [11] The Court exercised caution in relation to a winding up, noting the Cos likely had more value as a going concern, than as assets sold via liquidation: [25] All parties accepted that the relationship between themselves had failed such that an order winding up the Cos on the just and equitable basis would be appropriate: [29] The Court accepted that it would be appropriate for the Cos to be wound up on the just and equitable ground (and the appointment of a receiver to the Cos' property held on trust: [30]) unless (noting s467) the Court was satisfied a buyout order could be made instead: [29] s467(1) grants the Court the power to make various orders on the hearing of a winding up application. The Court considered at length whether this power was broad enough to impose a forced share sale on litigants, eventually finding “with a degree of hesitation” it was not sufficiently broad: [37] - [51] The Ds sought a buyout order on the s233 “oppression” basis: [52] The Ds argued the Ps' failure to agree to Co1 entering into a formal lease with Co2 was oppressive. Noting a lease had not previously been required, with no formal advice and with the risk of a conflict of interest arising, the Ds were not able to show a failure to enter into a lease was oppressive: [62], [63] Taken together: whether pursuant to s467 or s233 there was no basis for the Court to make a buyout order. Though not strictly necessary (as no buyout order was made) the Court considered the expert evidence placed before it in relation to the value of both Cos - the trading entity and the property owning entity: [64] - [78] The Court ordered that the Cos be wound up, but stayed the order for 14 days to allow possible negotiation of a share sale: [80] ___ #auslaw #coffeeandacasenote #gravamen Please follow James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and James' firm Gravamen wherever you can! www.gravamen.com.au

In January 2024 James got to sit down and chew the fat with BB head honcho, Mike Bromley! They spoke about the founding of Gravamen, the dreaded work / life balance, and why James finds TikTok boring. You can find BB here: https://www.beyondbillables.com/blog

El comentario de José Carlos Díez, 'El faro económico', se centra en el impuesto extraordinario a la banca y otros tributos que ya paga el sector de la banca.

El comentario de José Carlos Díez, 'El faro económico', se centra en el impuesto extraordinario a la banca y otros tributos que ya paga el sector de la banca.

On the show this week, we welcomed back the always outstanding James d'Apice, founder of Gravamen, and 'Coffee and a Case Note'. Today, we answer one fundamental question I get a lot - can social media help you grow a real business? For James, the answer is "absolutely"! As one of Australia's most prolific professional services content creators, James has been building a personal brand across social media for the last 5 years, and this ultimately has given him the ability to recently launch his law firm, Gravamen. We discuss his motivations for launching the firm, what he hopes to achieve professionally and personally, and what he has learned in the first 6 months in business. James spills many insights on social media for lawyers, and what he would do if he was starting out in 2024. Aside from business, we also discuss our motivations as parents, trying to create businesses that fit with our family lives, and how the 'juggle' is a constant WIP.

“Yep! You can sue the author to get the company's IP from them.”___A Co's Dir, P, sought to bring derivative proceedings against a Co's majority shareholder, D.P wanted declarations that the Co (and not D, who was also the book's author) was the owner of all intellectual property rights in relation to a book: [1], [6]P said that after D wrote the book, D and the Co entered into an agreement for the Co to acquire the IP in the book: [7]Alternatively, P said D was estopped from asserting they owned the IP. Both D and the Co conducted themselves (including by the Co's accounting and the collection of fees) as if D had assigned the IP. Indeed, in their capacity as co-director, D signed the relevant accounts reflecting this: [8], [10], [12]Evidence showed D received a real financial benefit in their corporate loan account on the basis of the transfer of IP having been made: [24]Evidence showed there had been negotiated of a written IP assignment agreement but that D had not signed it: [9]P attempted to commercialise the IP with one childcare provider. Conflict arose as D tried to do something similar with a competing childcare provider: [11]D did not lead evidence but said that, if leave was granted, they would defend the claim: [17]The Co being solvent, the Court then turned its attention to the five criteria regarding whether leave to bring derivative proceedings ought to be granted pursuant to the Corporations Act.(i) It was clear (from the deadlocked board and D's refusal) that the Co was not going to bring the proceedings: [19](ii) The Court accepted P was coming in good faith, bringing a claim P believed was well-founded, with reasonable prospects, and likely to bring value to shareholders if successful: [20](iv) The Court accepted, on the basis of the material before it, that there was a serious question to be tried: [21](v) Notice of the application was given to D: [31]This left the remaining criterion (iii) - whether it was in the best interests of the company for P to be granted leave to bring the application on behalf of the Co.The Court noted it appeared the Co paid for but had not obtained the value of the IP. The inference arose that the IP might be put to productive use in future; an inference reinforced by the fact that the IP is at the core of the Co's business purpose and - without it - it was not clear how the Co could pursue its business purposes: [25]D's suggestion that it was not in the Co's best interests to be in dispute with its majority shareholder was acceptable on its face, but did not take the D's argument very far noting this approach would serve only D's interests, and not the Co's: [26], [27]The Court considered the Co was better off pursuing the IP rights it paid for than going without them: [30]Noting the indemnity provided by the P for the Co's costs (an indemnity obtained in part from a related trustee), leave was granted to P to bring the derivative suit: [32], [34] ___ Please follow James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and James' new firm Gravamen on all your favourite platforms!

In Episode 43 of the Legal Genie Podcast, your host, Lara Quie, sits down with James D'Apiche, a multifaceted lawyer from Sydney, Australia. With his diverse background as a radio presenter, rapper aka Peach, journalist and lawyer, James discusses his journey from various creative pursuits to founding his own law firm, Gravamen. The episode delves into how he leverages his unique experiences and social media for business development, balancing professional rigor with approachability. The conversation also explores the evolving role of lawyers in the age of AI, emphasizing personal branding and the use of digital platforms to amplify one's potential reach. Listeners will learn strategies for building a personal brand, engaging audiences, and navigating the evolving landscape of digital marketing for lawyers. This is a must-listen for legal professionals seeking to enhance their online presence and effective client engagement.You can connect with James D'Apiche here:T: twitter.com/CoffeeandaCase1 I: instagram.com/coffeeandacasenote FB: facebook.com/CoffeeandaCaseNote YT: youtube.com/channel/UCzo6MrU2QQmwtLNGJ8kaBYAPodcast: https://anchor.fm/coffeeandacasenotePodcast 2: Spooko - FBi RadioLaw firm: Gravamen Law | Co-owner dispute specialistsLara Q Associates A boutique business and executive coaching consultancyDisclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.Support the show Also: · If you liked this episode, please rate the show, and leave a review wherever you listen to your podcasts to help the Legal Genie reach a wider audience. · Look out for the next episode coming soon. You can connect with Lara Quie: · On LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/laraquie · Website: https://www.laraqassociates.com · Or Email at Lara@LaraQAssociates.com

“Let's appoint an IP to chase the group's debts!”___The Ps were 48% shareholders of a group of Cos that owned luxury car dealerships. The Ds were directors representing 52% of shareholders.The 52% majority owed a judgment debt to the group. The Ps proposed a course for recovering the debt. The Ds used their votes at board level (including a casting vote) to vote down the Ps' course and vote up their own: [2]There was deep “anger” and “animosity” between the Ps and Ds and “very bitter and distrustful” feelings [58], [69]The Ps argued the Ds had a conflict of interest. The Ds said the Ps did too: [3]In previous litigation the Court found the Ds breached their duties to the group, pursuing litigation on the group's behalf that benefitted them personally as part of a coordinated strategy to defeat the Ps: [12]This led to the Ds' $19.8m judgment debt, plus costs incurred by the group: [13]To recover the debt the group needed to resolve: what were the group's costs and how should they be pursued?: [14]The Ds suggested an insolvency practitioner (IP) be appointed to by the group to recover the debt: [30]The Ps proposed that they form a sub-committee to recover the debt: [31]The Ds resisted on the basis the Ps were also conflicted: [32]The Ds were critical of the Ps' conduct in their dealings with the luxury car head franchisor, including providing them with Court documents and apparently paving the way for the Ps to take over the group's operation of the dealerships: [44] - [48]A reduced franchise term followed - from the usual 5 years to 1 year, apparently as a result of the Ps' conduct: [48]Despite the Ps' conduct being “unwise” the Court found it was engaged in in an attempt to find a reasonable separation from the Ds. It was not found to be malicious: [49]The franchisor later threatened perhaps reducing the term to 3 months or 6 months: [51]The Ps accepted that if they were in charge of pursuing the judgment debt then negotiating that debt could be intermingled with negotiating the share price they wanted to pay for the Ds' shares: [56], [57]The Court had regard to the “ongoing bitterness, conflict, and lack of trust” as reasons not to appoint the Ps to pursue the debt: [64], [65]The Court accepted the Ds' submissions RE the appointment of an independent IP: [71]The Ps' oppression claim failed with the Court noting that more than disappointment in the minds of minority shareholders is required to show a company's conduct is unfairly prejudicial: [77]The Court dismissed the Ps' claim and (noting the Ds were the majority and held the casting vote) was confident that the Ds' resolution to appoint an insolvency practitioner would pass: [83] ___ Please follow James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note and Gravamen on your favourite platform! www.gravamen.com.au

On 3 November 2023 James gave a speech on marketing and branding for lawyers similar to one he had given a number of time before. However, this time, he gave the speech with a live case study: the lauch of his own law firm, Gravamen! Many thanks to Clarissa Rayward and the whole Happy Lawyer Happy Life and Retreat team for making this happen! https://www.happylawyerhappylife.com/ ___ Please support James' new firm, Gravamen, on your favourite platforms. www.gravamen.com.au #auslaw #gravamen #auslaw #coffeeandacasenote

In November 2023 James d'Apice sat down to chat with Alex Nielsen of The Australian Law Student Podcast about his approach to practice, overcoming "fuck ups" including bad marks on exams, and the future of James' law firm Gravamen. You can find the Australian Law Student here: https://www.theauslawstudent.com

“Your share of the sale proceeds gets reduced for us dealing with your complaints!” ___ 3 siblings co-owned real property. They disagreed on what use it ought to have been put to. 2 siblings, the Ps, applied to appoint s66G Tees, successfully.The Tees sold the land and distributed the Ps' shares of the sale proceeds. The remaining sibling - the defendant, D - contested the Tees' fees and criticised their management of the sale: [1] - [4] The Tees applied to be paid further remuneration from the D's share (based on those costs arising from the D's conduct) and to retire as trustees: [5] The Tees took the view that they should have distributed the net proceeds (after paying themselves 2/3 of their fees) proportionally to the Ps, and that the costs of any dispute with the D be borne solely from D's share. The Court endorsed this approach: [11] The Tees retained the D's 1/3 share, and an amount on account of 1/3 of the remuneration they were entitled to: [12] The D made various criticisms of the Tees' conduct of the sale including in lengthy correspondence, and then refused to attend meetings or provide bank details in order to accept a payment: [13] - [15] The Tees instructed lawyers, and then so did the D. The D later withdrew his lawyers' instructions, and then said they would accept the figure first offered by the Tees without deduction: [16] - [18] The Tees reiterated they intended to make deductions and the D reiterated their claims. The Tees delayed approaching the Court and tried to negotiate, but eventually brought this application: [19] The Court noted trustees for sale are entitled to be indemnified for their costs in the normal course, and that where litigation is threatened those costs may be higher than usual: [22] The Tees' claim for their own further remuneration was reasonable and “could even be characterised as modest” noting they did not claim for their time trying to negotiate with the D: [26] The Tees claimed further costs for their engagement with solicitors and in bringing the relevant motion: [27] The Court considered once the D raised their complaints the Tees needed legal advice on whether to negotiate with the D, or to consider making an application to the Court: [28] Broadly D complained about the Tees time entries and professional conduct: [30] - [32] After extensive consideration the Court found the Tees discharged their duties reasonably, diligently, and honestly: [33] The Court found it appropriate, and permitted, that the D's share of the sale proceeds bear the Tees' further remuneration and costs: [34] - [36] The Tees originally attempted to pay $235K to the D as their share. The Court accepted the Tees costs and remuneration substantially exceeded $65K but accepted that figure as a compromise of the Tees' remuneration and the fees to be charged by the Tees' legal team: [40] - [42] Having failed to accept payment of $235K, the Court ordered the D was to receive ~$172K: [45] ___ And please follow James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and James' new firm Gravamen on all your favourite platforms!

“Those notes aren't privileged! Hand them over.”___P sued D in relation to personal injuries P alleged at around the time they were giving birth. D, to oversimplify, was the hospital's insurer: [7], [9]D instructed an expert who produced a report.P filed a NoM seeking access to a document produced by the expert in response to a subpoena, but over which D asserted legal professional privilege: [1], [9]P said the document was not privileged or, if it was, privilege was waived: [6]D had briefed the expert and invited the expert to initially provide a verbal opinion on 6 Qs. The expert gave evidence that during that conversation “(they) referred to.. 2 pages of handwritten notes (they) had prepared. (They) used them as the basis for expressing (their) verbal opinion to (D's lawyer)”: [10] - [14]These 2 pages constituted the document P sought and D asserted was privileged.Privilege attaches to a *communication* not a document. D asserted the document was a communication: [20], [21]Documents generated unilaterally by an expert in the course of forming an opinion do not attract privilege: [22]Despite there being a “grey area”, privilege may be claimed in communication between the expert and solicitor if made for the confidential use in the litigation: [24]A draft report, for example, is not a communication: [25]It is for the party asserting privilege to prove privilege attaches to a document: [32]Despite having prepared an affidavit on the topic there was no evidence that the document was intended to be a means of communication between expert and lawyer: [34]Having so found, the Court did not need to consider the question of waiver. However - noting that disclosure of an expert's report is an implied waiver of the instructions underpinning that report, and that there was no suggestion the document did not cover material that eventually formed part of the final report - the Court would have concluded privilege was waived: [34] - [37]P was granted access to, and permitted to inspect, the document: [38] ___ Please send a follow to James d'Apice, Coffee and a Case Note, and Gravamen on all your favourite platforms!

In this episode, Alex catches up with James D'Apice; an esteemed commercial litigation lawyer, host of the wildly successful Coffee and a Case Note series, and founder of his own law firm, Gravamen. Join Alex and James for a chat about all things law school and legal practice, highlighted by some great insight into the importance of resilience, approachability, and rigour. https://www.theauslawstudent.com/

Join our Newsletter: https://themessyreformation.jasonruis.com/join-the-reformation/   Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/themessyreformation?fan_landing=true   Check out our website: https://themessyreformation.jasonruis.com   Check out the Abide Project:  https://www.abideproject.org   We love the Christian Reformed Church; we want to see reformation in our denomination; and we recognize that reformation is typically messy. So, we're having conversations with pastors throughout the CRC about what reformation might look like.   Intro Music by Matt Krotzer

Join our Newsletter: https://themessyreformation.jasonruis.com/join-the-reformation/   Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/themessyreformation?fan_landing=true   Check out our website: https://themessyreformation.jasonruis.com   Check out the Abide Project:  https://www.abideproject.org   We love the Christian Reformed Church; we want to see reformation in our denomination; and we recognize that reformation is typically messy. So, we're having conversations with pastors throughout the CRC about what reformation might look like.   Intro Music by Matt Krotzer

Gravamen is a noun that refers to the most significant part of a complaint.  The Latin word gravis (GRAH vees) means ‘heavy.' shifting into English in the early 17th century, our word of the day is used to describe the weightiest or most important part of a person's complaint. Here's an example: I have to admit I didn't care for the lame music playing in Dr. Simon's office, but I wouldn't say it was the gravamen of my complaint regarding my experience there. My biggest problem with the visit is that he spent two hours drilling into my gums.

CRCNA Synod ended on Thursday afternoon with division and chaos. Reports are all over the map. Did Progressives block a more restrictive Gravamen ruling with running down the clock? Was walking out in protest a new strategy? Will conservatives jump ship before the progressives? It's hard to say. What is clear is that it was a mess.   @crcna  Synod 2023 Thursday Morning https://www.youtube.com/live/XCbC6hmymC8?feature=share  Thursday Afternoon https://www.youtube.com/live/dyZfWMwks04?feature=share    July Washington DC Event with Michael Martin and Spencer Klavan https://www.eventbrite.com/e/christ-and-community-in-the-modern-age-tickets-608591853617 Paul Vander Klay clips channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX0jIcadtoxELSwehCh5QTg Bridges of Meaning Discord https://discord.gg/rpf3zatJ https://www.meetup.com/sacramento-estuary/ My Substack https://paulvanderklay.substack.com/ Estuary Hub Link https://www.estuaryhub.com/ If you want to schedule a one-on-one conversation check here. https://paulvanderklay.me/2019/08/06/converzations-with-pvk/ There is a video version of this podcast on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/paulvanderklay To listen to this on ITunes https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/paul-vanderklays-podcast/id1394314333  If you need the RSS feed for your podcast player https://paulvanderklay.podbean.com/feed/  All Amazon links here are part of the Amazon Affiliate Program. Amazon pays me a small commission at no additional cost to you if you buy through one of the product links here. This is is one (free to you) way to support my videos.  https://paypal.me/paulvanderklay Blockchain backup on Lbry https://odysee.com/@paulvanderklay https://www.patreon.com/paulvanderklay Paul's Church Content at Living Stones Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh7bdktIALZ9Nq41oVCvW-A To support Paul's work by supporting his church give here. https://tithe.ly/give?c=2160640

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for April 23, 2023 is: gravamen • gruh-VAY-mun • noun Gravamen is a formal word that refers to the significant part of a complaint or grievance. // The gravamen of Walter's letter to the editor was that the newspaper frequently reports on the school system's failures but rarely covers its successes and improvements. See the entry > Examples: “The only thing worse than living under a totalitarian Communist regime is outliving one. That seems to be the half-serious gravamen of ‘The Interim,' a novel published in 2000 by the East German writer Wolfgang Hilbig (1941-2007) and now translated into supple, vivid English by Isabel Fargo Cole. It's not a completely absurd grievance. Not everyone does well with the kind of freedom afforded by the free market.” — Caleb Crain, The New York Times, 2 Nov. 2021 Did you know? Gravamen is not a word you hear every day (even rarer is gravamina, the less expected of its two plural forms; gravamens is the other), but it does show up occasionally in modern-day publications. It comes from the Latin verb gravare, meaning “to burden,” and ultimately from the Latin adjective gravis, meaning “heavy.” Fittingly, gravamen refers to the part of a grievance or complaint that gives it weight or substance. In legal contexts, gravamen is used to refer to the grounds on which a legal action is allowed or upheld as valid. (The word is synonymous with a legal use of gist not found outside technical contexts). Gravis has given English several other heavy words that throw their weight around more frequently, including gravity, grieve, and the adjective grave, meaning “important” or “serious.”

Marta Álvarez, socia especialista del área Fiscal de Cuatrecasas, conversa con Idoya Fernández, consejera y directora del área de Conocimiento e Innovación de la Firma, sobre las principales novedades fiscales que se aprobaron a finales de 2022 y el posible impacto que tendrán sobre las empresas en el desarrollo de su actividad a lo largo de este nuevo ejercicio.  En esta nueva entrega de Cuatrecasas Audio, nuestras expertas comparten impresiones sobre las nuevas medidas introducidas en el Impuesto sobre Sociedades relacionadas con el régimen de consolidación fiscal, el tipo de gravamen y los distintos incentivos fiscales aprobados para promover la cultura, el cine y el uso de vehículos eléctricos. También centran su charla en repasar las distintas modificaciones normativas aprobadas en torno al IVA, entre las que destacan las relativas a la localización de los servicios en España (TAI) y a la recuperación de las cuotas de IVA en créditos incobrables.  Asimismo, nuestras abogadas dialogan sobre los dos nuevos impuestos medioambientales que han entrado en vigor a inicios de este 2023, con los que se busca incentivar una mejor gestión de envases de plástico no reutilizables y de residuos en todo el territorio español.  Ponen especial énfasis en analizar el impacto que tendrá a nivel empresarial el de plásticos, ya que afectará a un mayor número de compañías que el de residuos.  ‘Novedades fiscales y su impacto sobre empresas: hablan las expertas' es el octavo episodio de ‘Tendencias legales', la serie de podcasts de Cuatrecasas con los que la Firma busca, de forma diferente e innovadora, aportar su visión y experiencia al debate jurídico en España. Una invitación a reflexionar sobre las tendencias y novedades jurídicas de mayor actualidad y repercusión económica a través de un diálogo abierto entre nuestros expertos.Hosted by Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

La casa ideal no es la misma para todos. Es por eso que un gran porcentaje de los mexicanos prefiere construir a su gusto. Ahora puedes hacerlo con tu crédito Infonavit. En este episodio te platicamos cómo funciona, qué alternativas tienes para cla obra, cuáles son los requisitos para obtenerlo y algunas recomendaciones. 

Alicia de Carlos, socia responsable del área Fiscal de Cuatrecasas, conversa con Idoya Fernández, consejera y directora del área de Conocimiento e Innovación de la Firma, sobre la avalancha de novedades fiscales aprobadas antes de que concluyese 2022, que tienen impacto directo en los grandes patrimonios y las personas físicas. Esta séptima entrega de la serie de podcasts Cuatrecasas Audio pone el foco en cuestiones de plena actualidad como son las modificaciones fiscales relativas al régimen de impatriados, el carried interest ─medidas que sirven para fomentar la inversión empresarial por parte de entidades de capital riesgo y venture capital─ o el impacto del nuevo impuesto que gravará las grandes fortunas. Nuestras abogadas, además de analizar el incremento de los tipos de gravámenes de la base del ahorro en el IRPF, deliberan sobre el conocido impuesto temporal de solidaridad de las grandes fortunas, tributo que ha abierto acalorados debates sobre su constitucionalidad. Asimismo, charlan sobre otras relevantes novedades que afectarán positivamente a destacados colectivos como son los impatriados, los llamados “nómadas digitales” o los gestores de entidades de capital riesgo, y otras que pueden incrementar la tributación de la fiscalidad de inversores extranjeros. ‘Novedades fiscales para personas físicas: hablan las expertas' es el séptimo episodio de ‘Tendencias legales', la serie de podcasts con los que Cuatrecasas pretende, de forma diferente e innovadora, aportar su visión y experiencia al debate jurídico en España. Una invitación a reflexionar sobre las tendencias y novedades legales de mayor actualidad y repercusión económica a través de un diálogo abierto entre nuestros expertos. Hosted by Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

La Corte Constitucional mediante Sentencia T - 468 de 2022 trató el tema de la afectación a vivienda familiar cuando un tercero es un acreedor de uno de los cónyuges, ¿Es posible su levantamiento? Síguenos en Spotify, Youtube como Academia Laboral Para contrataciones, escribir al Whatsapp 3184143842 o al correo electrónico: gelasesoresjuridico@gmail.com --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/acadlaboral/message

Igualdad y jueces se ven las caras en el Senado. Por otro lado, Marlaska cree que es "precipitado" sacar conclusiones sobre la actuación de la Guardia Civil en el salto a la valla de Melilla. Hoy se vota la proposición de Ley que regula gravámenes a la banca, energéticas y grandes fortunas. Por su parte, Feijóo participa este jueves en la Asamblea Política del Partido Popular Europeo. El precio de la luz cae este jueves hasta los 75,51 euros/MWh. Moscú acusa a Ucrania y Polonia de buscar un enfrentamiento de Rusia con la OTAN y terminamos con The Doors Edición · Jorge Quiroga Realización · Susana LeónSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Igualdad y jueces se ven las caras en el Senado. Por otro lado, Marlaska cree que es "precipitado" sacar conclusiones sobre la actuación de la Guardia Civil en el salto a la valla de Melilla. Hoy se vota la proposición de Ley que regula gravámenes a la banca, energéticas y grandes fortunas. Por su parte, Feijóo participa este jueves en la Asamblea Política del Partido Popular Europeo. El precio de la luz cae este jueves hasta los 75,51 euros/MWh. Moscú acusa a Ucrania y Polonia de buscar un enfrentamiento de Rusia con la OTAN y terminamos con The Doors Edición · Jorge Quiroga Realización · Susana LeónSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

El Banco Central Europeo publica un dictamen sobre el impuesto a la banca que considera que la propuesta legislativa debe ir precedida de un análisis exhaustivo de las posibles consecuencias para el sector bancario. El PP asegura que el informe del Banco Central Europeo respecto al gravamen propuesto por el Gobierno obliga a retirarlo del Congreso, y advierte de que sería gravísimo que el Ejecutivo siguiera adelante pese a los riesgos enumerados por la institución. La secretaria general del PP, Cuca Gamarra, por su parte, ha exigido al Gobierno de pedro Sánchez retirar el impuesto. Como respuesta, la ministra de Hacienda, María Jesús Montero, descarta que las que considera como meras observaciones del informe vayan a implicar cambio alguno en sus planes o en el diseño del tributo. El Pleno del Congreso de los Diputados ha aprobado la ley de startups, que contempla la simplificación administrativa y una serie de incentivos fiscales para los emprendedores. El Alto Comisionado para España nación Emprendedora, Francisco Polo, cree que el proyecto de Ley de Fomento del Ecosistema de las Empresas Emergentes, o la ley de Startups, está hecha para perdurar y para transformar en profundidad el país. El PP ha votado en el Congreso de los Diputados en contra de esta Ley, la cual pretendía apoyar, debido a un error en la indicación del voto a sus parlamentarios. El Gobierno le ha reprochado que sus dirigentes están tan acostumbrados al no a todo que rechazan incluso los textos en los que se recogen sus enmiendas.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

El Banco Central Europeo publica un dictamen sobre el impuesto a la banca que considera que la propuesta legislativa debe ir precedida de un análisis exhaustivo de las posibles consecuencias para el sector bancario. El PP asegura que el informe del Banco Central Europeo respecto al gravamen propuesto por el Gobierno obliga a retirarlo del Congreso, y advierte de que sería gravísimo que el Ejecutivo siguiera adelante pese a los riesgos enumerados por la institución. La secretaria general del PP, Cuca Gamarra, por su parte, ha exigido al Gobierno de pedro Sánchez retirar el impuesto. Como respuesta, la ministra de Hacienda, María Jesús Montero, descarta que las que considera como meras observaciones del informe vayan a implicar cambio alguno en sus planes o en el diseño del tributo. El Pleno del Congreso de los Diputados ha aprobado la ley de startups, que contempla la simplificación administrativa y una serie de incentivos fiscales para los emprendedores. El Alto Comisionado para España nación Emprendedora, Francisco Polo, cree que el proyecto de Ley de Fomento del Ecosistema de las Empresas Emergentes, o la ley de Startups, está hecha para perdurar y para transformar en profundidad el país. El PP ha votado en el Congreso de los Diputados en contra de esta Ley, la cual pretendía apoyar, debido a un error en la indicación del voto a sus parlamentarios. El Gobierno le ha reprochado que sus dirigentes están tan acostumbrados al no a todo que rechazan incluso los textos en los que se recogen sus enmiendas.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode Lexman interviews David Silver about his new book Polypod: How to Create Your Own Multi-Formatted Podcast and Master the Art of Photokinesis. They discuss how to make your podcast stand out from the competition, the importance of preconditions when creating a podcat, and how Olwen, a legendary Celtic goddess, can help you create successful podcasts.

El nuevo barómetro del CIS vuelve a dar la victoria al PSOE por delante del PP, que pierde algo de fuerza. Una ligera caída de los populares que tiene su reflejo también en la nota que otorga a su líder. El Gobierno ajustará el nuevo impuesto a las energéticas a la tasa que apruebe Bruselas. El Congreso avala la entrada de Suecia y Finlandia en la OTAN con la abstención de Podemos. Pedro Sánchez ha mostrado su voluntad de aliarse con el sector privado para dar una respuesta a la crisis energética. Fuera de nuestras fronteras. La adhesión de Ucrania a la Unión Europea "va en buen camino". En Londres, unos 6 kilómetros de fila para ver el féretro de Isabel II y Roger Federer anuncia su retirada. Producción: Daniel RelovaRealización: Gustavo Luna  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

El nuevo barómetro del CIS vuelve a dar la victoria al PSOE por delante del PP, que pierde algo de fuerza. Una ligera caída de los populares que tiene su reflejo también en la nota que otorga a su líder. El Gobierno ajustará el nuevo impuesto a las energéticas a la tasa que apruebe Bruselas. El Congreso avala la entrada de Suecia y Finlandia en la OTAN con la abstención de Podemos. Pedro Sánchez ha mostrado su voluntad de aliarse con el sector privado para dar una respuesta a la crisis energética. Fuera de nuestras fronteras. La adhesión de Ucrania a la Unión Europea "va en buen camino". En Londres, unos 6 kilómetros de fila para ver el féretro de Isabel II y Roger Federer anuncia su retirada. Producción: Daniel RelovaRealización: Gustavo Luna  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pedro Sánchez se somete a la primera sesión de control tras el verano. El presidente del Gobierno repasó ayer en una entrevista en La Noche en 24 horas la actualidad política y judicial, la inflación, su relación con Unidas Podemos o la guerra en Ucrania, entre otras cuestiones. Repasamos también las declaraciones de Feijóo al respecto de su plan energético. Al margen de este asunto, el juez Llarena interroga hoy a la exdiputada de la CUP, Anna Gabriel. En clave internacional, Estados Unidos confirma el repliegue de las tropas rusas en Ucrania y en Reino Unido, el féretro de la reina Isabel II ya está en el palacio de Buckingham. Terminamos con Amy Winehouse que este 14 de septiembre cumpliría 39 años. Edición · Jorge Quiroga Realización · Susana LeónSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pedro Sánchez se somete a la primera sesión de control tras el verano. El presidente del Gobierno repasó ayer en una entrevista en La Noche en 24 horas la actualidad política y judicial, la inflación, su relación con Unidas Podemos o la guerra en Ucrania, entre otras cuestiones. Repasamos también las declaraciones de Feijóo al respecto de su plan energético. Al margen de este asunto, el juez Llarena interroga hoy a la exdiputada de la CUP, Anna Gabriel. En clave internacional, Estados Unidos confirma el repliegue de las tropas rusas en Ucrania y en Reino Unido, el féretro de la reina Isabel II ya está en el palacio de Buckingham. Terminamos con Amy Winehouse que este 14 de septiembre cumpliría 39 años. Edición · Jorge Quiroga Realización · Susana LeónSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Certificado de Libertad de Gravamen

I am beyond honored to have this weeks guest, he is an artist in every sense of the word, a true gentleman and scholar, Mighty Joe Castro. Tune into the frontman of The Gravamen story and how he found rock n roll, picked up guitar, dealt with harsh criticism, and so much more. As always, guest pick the playlist. Check out The Gravamen over on Instagram under thegravamen for future shows near you! Find Mighty Joe on Instagram for all your Rockabilly Against Racism sticker/merch needs under Mightyjoecastro Find Mighty Joe Castro and The Gravamen music at Apple, Spotify, and Youtube For all your Gravamen merch needs, find it over at Mighty Joe Castro Purple Mountains. That's Just The Way That I Feel Joe Strummer. Burning Lights Sean Rowe. Squid Tattoo Howling Wolf. Howling For My Darling Ray Charles. Ring of Fire Public Enemy. Rebirth Antonio Badalamenti. The Pink Room The Flamingos. I Only Have Eyes For You

Una vez que terminaste de pagar tu crédito Infonavit, solicitaste tu Carta de Cancelación de Hipoteca y han dejado de descontar las mensualidades en tu nómina, aún quedan unos trámites finales que realizar para que, ahora sí, puedas tener las escrituras definitivas de tu vivienda, libre de gravamen. En este episodio, te compartimos paso a paso cómo hacer estos trámites finales, para que puedas realizarlos de manera sencilla y sin contratiempos.  

rockabilly from Collegeville PA #rockabilly #pinup #vintage #retro #pinupgirl #psychobilly #music #rocknroll #country #pinupstyle #vintagestyle #punkrock #rockabillystyle #punk #pinuphair #hotrod #rockabillygirl #carshow #straycats #fashion #oldschool #greaser #nashville #pinups #photography #50s #rockabella #model #sandiego #retrostyle --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/ryan3205/support

SE VIENE UN GIGANTESCO RECORTE A LA CULTURA. ¿CUÁLES SON LOS FONDOS AFECTADOS? La reforma tributaria aprobada por el congreso en 2017 (ley 27.432) es una medida regresiva, central en las políticas neoliberales alineadas al FMI: eliminar las asignaciones determinadas por ley de impuestos, seguir recaudando pero permitirse conformar una “gran caja” disponible para el uso “a piacere” de cada gestión, siendo uno de los principales “gastos” pagar endeudamiento externo. Esta ley modifica en su artículo 4° las asignaciones específicas de impuestos. Luego del 31-12-2022, los siguientes tributos se seguirán recaudando pero no conformaran fondos para la cultura, sino que irán a tesoro nacional para el uso que cada gestión determine. - Gravamen a premios de juegos de sorteo y concursos deportivos (ley 20.630); - Impuesto a las entradas de espectáculos cinematográficos e impuesto sobre los videogramas grabados previstos (ley 17.741); - Impuesto a los servicios de comunicación audiovisual previsto (ley 26.522); ¿Que fondos se ven eliminados si se afectan las leyes mencionadas? - La ley de Servicios de Comunicación Audiovisual (26.522) en su art. 94 determina un gravamen hacia los titulares de los servicios de comunicación audiovisual, proporcional a la facturación de publicidad, programas, señales, contenidos, abonos... Esta recaudación alimenta los siguientes fondos (art. 97): a) Instituto Nacional de Cine y Artes Audiovisuales. b) Instituto Nacional del Teatro c) Radio y Televisión Argentina Sociedad del Estado d) ENACOM (Ex AFSCA); incluyendo el funcionamiento del Consejo Federal de Comunicación Audiovisual; e) Defensoría del Público de Servicios de Comunicación Audiovisual; f) Proyectos especiales de comunicación audiovisual FOMECA y apoyo a medios comunitarios, de frontera, y de los Pueblos Originarios. g) Instituto Nacional de Música. - La ley de Cine (17.741) en su artículo 24 determina que el Fondo de Fomento cinematográfico (administrado por el INCAA) se integra integrado entre otros por un impuesto equivalente al 10% del precio de todo boleto de espectáculos cinematográficos en todo el país. Este fondo permite la producción y exhibición de películas y la existencia de escuelas de cine en distintas regiones del país, además del funcionamiento del instituto, entre otras cosas. - La ley de fomento a las Bibliotecas Populares (23.351) en sus artículos 14 y 15 establece la conformación del un fondo especial para compra de libros, mantenimiento, salarios, que complementa las partidas asignadas por el Presupuesto General de Gastos de la Nación. - La ley Nacional de Teatro (24.800) en su artículo 20 y 21 determina el financiamiento del Instituto Nacional del Teatro con la finalidad de financiar actividades teatrales consideradas de interés cultural, las salas de teatro, préstamos y subsidios a elencos, bibliotecas teatrales, edición de libros y publicaciones, becas de estudios, premios a autores, etc. Todos estos ingresos financian la soberanía cultural. Es decir, la posibilidad de producciones y formas de expresión cultural como derecho de lxs artistas y trabajadorxs de la cultura, pero también de lxs espectadores, lectores, público, etc.. de esas producciones diversas y locales. Todo esto desaparece a fin de año (31-12-2022), de no aprobarse otra ley que anule o retrase la caducidad. Actualmente existe un proyecto de ley con estado parlamentario, presentado en 2021 y firmado por lxs diputadxs José Pablo Carro, Walter Correa, Mónica Macha, Germán Martínez, y María Carolina Moisés. El mismo propone la extensión hasta el 31 de Diciembre de 2072 de la vigencia de las asignaciones específicas de gravámenes mencionadas. https://forms.gle/4rsTwng7XBcnt2FF7

Mighty Joe Castro is an accomplished Philadelphia based collage artist, musician (Mighty Joe Castro and the Gravamen) and designer. He joins the show to discuss creatively rising to the occasion during the pandemic, owning your mistakes and viewing himself as a work-in-progress.

#MarihuanaTaxAct El gravamen impuesto por EE.UU. al #cannabis en 1937, antecedente de la actual guerra contra las #drogas, en la revisión histórica de Alfonso Gómez Rossi.

Si aún estás pagando tu casa pero quieres venderla, puedes hacerlo. En este episodio, platicamos con Ricardo García Conde, Director nacional hipotecario de Citibanamex, quien nos explicó todos los detalles necesarios para hacer este trámite.

Former student, Michael Stingle enters the Lounge with his band, MIGHTY JOE CASTRO AND THE GRAVAMEN. I had a great time discussing live music, set-list creation and rockabilly.  Check out this link: https://thegravamen.mightyjoecastro.com/ BIO: Based out of Philadelphia, PA, Mighty Joe Castro and the Gravamen is the latest musical project from accomplished collage artist and musician Joe Castro (ex-The Situation, The Lift Up, Nero /OPF). Heavily influenced by the sound of rockabilly as well as ‘50s rock-n-roll and doo-wop, the band takes that vintage rock and roll sound but updates it with a modern lyrical approach and a healthy dose of post-modern guitar effects. Consider it a house that resides at the cross roads where Sun Records and Creation Records meet. The Gravamen were formed after doghouse bassist H00V3r reached out to Castro about forming a new band. H00V3r enlisted Dallas, his band mate in Philadelphia punk rock stalwarts Thorazine, to play drums and later found hot-shot lead guitarist Michael Stingle floating around Mount Airy. The full band held it's first practice together in January 2018 and shortly after recorded their debut EP, Wake Up, You're Rockin'! that May with Grammy nominate producer Jim Salamone at Cambridge Sound Studios in South Philadelphia. The 4 song EP was released in July of 2018, followed by a limited edition vinyl 7” release in October 2018. According to Joe Castro: “We define ourselves as a rockabilly band because the term rock and roll these days has become so broad that it's completely meaningless. But I consider us to be a rock-n-roll band in the truest sense of the word, in the tradition of the pioneers of the genre like Buddy Holly, Eddie Cochran, Elvis, Johnny Cash, Bo Diddley and Johnny Burnette. My Dad grew up in Brookyln in the' 50s, and would tell me stories about going to the Alan Freed shows at the Paramount and seeing Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis and Buddy Holly. As a kid, those guys were legends to me. Couple that with being taken to the drive-in to see films like American Hot Wax, American Graffiti and Grease – that beat was in my ears from a very early age. It's in my blood. I've always loved it.” Influences include Sun Records, Stray Cats, The Cramps, Buddy Holly and Richie Valens, combined with elements of punk and shoegaze with a lyrical influence of Morrissey, Tom Waits, Nick Cave and Bob Dylan. Mighty Joe Castro is an accomplished Philadelphia based collage artist, musician and graphic designer. His work has been shown in galleries and art spaces across the United States, Canada and Europe and featured in numerous books and magazines including The Age of Collage (Gestalten), Glamour, GQ Style, Arkitip and The Baffler. They have been described as “a controlled explosion, aggressive and pensive (Kolaj Magazine)” and “bold and diverse… one of those collage artists whose works you recognize immediately… (Toombes.com).” He is a signature member of the National Collage Society. For more information, visit mightyjoecastro.com

Rockabilly dynamo/graphic artist/avid reader Joe Castro talks to Dan about working with Brian McTear on his newest LP, 'Come On Angels' (with most of legendary Philly punk band Thorazine) and the many epiphanies that transpired. They also talk Love, Ted Hawkins, making music videos at home, Philly auteur Bob Sweeney, and how to play old-time rock n' roll without making it a museum piece.   Photo by Fear The Skull

Luego de que en esta semana la Dirección General de Aduanas anunciara la aplicación de un incremento de un 3 a un 20 por ciento en el impuesto a los equipos celulares y accesorios importados al país, la institución ha decidido, en el día de hoy, reducir este incremento dejando la importación en un 8 por ciento.La institución explicó que ponderó la utilidad y servicio de estos dispositivos hoy día, y tomó en consideración los parámetros de la región en esta materia, por lo que redujo el aumento a un 5% sobre el gravamen que se venía aplicando, estableciendo finalmente el 8%.Asimismo, dispuso que todas las importaciones de estos artículos que estuvieran en puertos, aeropuertos o en ruta hacia el territorio nacional al momento de la disposición, no se afectaran con el incremento y se les aplicara el 3% de arancel.Dado que el ajuste inicial del gravamen a los celulares generó confusión e información malsana, Aduanas señaló que la medida solo se aplicó a los equipos celulares, no así a los accesorios o cualquier otro complemento.

¿Haces compras por Internet? Conoce el plazo que tienes para realizar el registro único en Aduanas. Además, repasamos los eventos más relevantes en Mercados Globales. Víctor Bautista presenta el ranking de los 10 temas bancarios y financieros más visibles en la semana. Y en la Entrevista conversamos con la psicóloga Mónica Báez Sosa sobre la disfunción del dinero y la solución.

¿Haces compras por Internet? Conoce el plazo que tienes para realizar el registro único en Aduanas. Además, repasamos los eventos más relevantes en Mercados Globales. Víctor Bautista presenta el ranking de los 10 temas bancarios y financieros más visibles en la semana. Y en la Entrevista conversamos con la psicóloga Mónica Báez Sosa sobre la disfunción del dinero y la solución.

¿Haces compras por Internet? Conoce el plazo que tienes para realizar el registro único en Aduanas. Además, repasamos los eventos más relevantes en Mercados Globales. Víctor Bautista presenta el ranking de los 10 temas bancarios y financieros más visibles en la semana. Y en la Entrevista conversamos con la psicóloga Mónica Báez Sosa sobre la disfunción del dinero y la solución.

¿Haces compras por Internet? Conoce el plazo que tienes para realizar el registro único en Aduanas. Además, repasamos los eventos más relevantes en Mercados Globales. Víctor Bautista presenta el ranking de los 10 temas bancarios y financieros más visibles en la semana. Y en la Entrevista conversamos con la psicóloga Mónica Báez Sosa sobre la disfunción del dinero y la solución.