Colegioaloya | Legal attorney

Navigation Menu

Starbucks facing $5m lawsuit for ‘deceiving’ customers over the size of its iced drinks

Posted by on May 21, 2016 in Uncategorized | 0 comments


The lead complainant in the case, Stacey Pincus, submitted a fit against the coffee chain at Northern Illinois Federal Court in Chicago last week, Courthouse News reports. You can market your law practice here.

Pincus said that the volume of liquid in the coffee chain s cold drinks was sometimes little bit more than half of that marketed, because of the ice included. Starbucks provides the volume of each of its serving sizes in fluid ounces in its United States stores – however Pincus stated these figures were really just the size of the cup, instead of the drink.

Starbucks said the case was “without merit” because customers comprehended that ice was an essential part of an iced drink.

Pincus said that Starbucks could serve its cold drinks in larger cups that would enable space for the advertised volume of liquid, plus ice. The company promotes four sizes on its menu – tall, grande, venti and trenta – which are 12, 16, 24 and 30 fluid ounces respectively (354- 887ml).


” A Starbucks client who buys a Venti cold drink receives only 14 fluid ounces of that drink simply over half the advertised amount, and just over half the quantity for which they are paying,” the problem states.

” In essence, Starbucks is promoting the size of its cold drink cups on its menu, rather than the quantity of fluid a customer will get when they acquire a cold drink and deceiving its customers in the process.”

Starbucks representative Jaime Riley stated that it was “knowledgeable about the complainant’s claims, which we fully think to be without merit.”

” Our consumers understand and anticipate that ice is an important component of any ‘iced’ beverage,” said Riley. “If a consumer is not pleased with their beverage prep work, we will happily remake it.”

Steven Hart, the lawyer acting on behalf of Ms. Pincus, stated the last figure for damages might be considerably greater than $5m, if the case is successful.
Read More

Panama law office used charities names as cloaks for clients

Posted by on May 21, 2016 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

The Panamanian law office at the center of an international examination recommended some clients that they could mask their money in foundations that called as recipient’s popular international charities such as the Red Cross, UNICEF and the World Wildlife Fund.

There’s no indication that any money from those overseas transactions went to the charities, whose spokespeople state they had no clue they were part of Mossack Fonseca s marketing strategy.

A massive leak of records, which became known as the Panama Papers, has actually laid bare Mossack Fonseca s services and its customers among them world leaders, drug traffickers and founded guilty bad guys. In their files are two memos recommending that customers might move their assets into so-called personal foundations with well-known charities as their expected recipient. The documents recommend that the firm took steps to produce such foundations for a minimum of 700 customers.
Nearly everyone is familiar with foundations huge and small that help the poor, the environment or the animal kingdom. They are nonprofits that rely on donations. Personal foundations formed in Panama, however, are quite different.One Mossack Fonseca marketing memo, sent out to a potential customer in 2008, provides this roadmap: Only three people are required to set up a foundation. Foundations don t have shareholders, only advantageous owners.

As behind-the-scenes protectors, the real owners or their agents would have overall decision-making power, like the Wizard of Oz, operating the controls from behind a curtain. They could privately make or approve every choice about their possessions and might at any time alter the names of the recipients to themselves, the 2008 marketing memo stated.

A complicated structure

p1Mossack Fonseca’s records reveal that it created foundations for customers at least as early as 1997. A 2006 marketing memo provided complete management of personal foundations that would keep the rigorous confidentiality of the recipient services that could be helped with by a group of English, Spanish, French, German, Polish and Russian speaking staff.

The firm produced 2 automobiles for parking clients’ money in foundations the Brotherhood Foundation and the Faith Foundation. Under the confusing structure, those foundations were offered shareholder interests in numerous business formed to serve the firm s clients, a circular method of securing the real owners interests. The Brotherhood and Faith foundations listed either the Red Cross or Wildlife Fund as recipients.

We usually use the WORLD WILDLIFE FUND as the first small Beneficiary, the memo said, while guaranteeing clients: You might name another.

Amongst the documents is paperwork to develop more than 200 other foundations, noting both the true owners and the 2 charities, as well as UNICEF, as beneficiaries. It could not be determined how many of those foundations were brought to fulfillment.

Ana Mar a Garz n, a public relations advisor to Mossack Fonseca, declined to respond to emailed concerns from McClatchy.

The firm has actually stated that it is totally free to list anyone or any group as a foundation beneficiary. In a 2014 memo, the law firm stated that it merely offered its customers secretarial services.

Specialists in offshore negotiations, however, said marketing memos suggest that Mossack Fonseca took a more proactive function.

This is a plan made to look like a charity so that the cash can be managed, and the name of the individual who controls it will be no place on the documents, stated Jack Blum, a specialist on global tax evasion for Columbia University’s Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity. He said that some foundations function as household trusts, and when they are dissolved, the funds are distributed to all beneficial owners.

Read More

Kenya: CBK Loses Bid to Be Removed from Sh4 Billion Pyramid Scheme Case

Posted by on May 21, 2016 in Uncategorized | 0 comments


The Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) has lost the first round in its quote to be expunged from a case over controversial Sh4billion claim levelled versus it by victims of pyramid schemes.The judgment by the High Court on Friday, declining to remove CBK from the case, has actually however bolstered the 26,249 victims whose next move will be to combat to convince the court that undoubtedly CBK was liable and should therefore compensate them.

The victims had through lawyer Wanyiri Kihoro protected their choice to enjoin CBK stating their assertions versus the regulator were based upon the findings made in the Report of the Taskforce on the Pyramid Schemes provided in 2009 to the then Principal Secretary, Ministry of Cooperative Development and Marketing.

While declining the application by CBK which sought to be struck off the pyramid victims’ case, High Court Judge Isaac Lenaola said that at the hearing, the Report of the Taskforce on pyramid plans will form a central part of the victims’ case.

“If so, the role of CBK in handling the fraud will enter into sharp scrutiny against its mandate in law. It has actually rejected any mandate in that regard, a point contested by the 26,249 victims and therefore a legitimate problem to be attempted by this court,” said Justice Lenaola.

The judge included that to get rid of CBK from the case at this moment will definitely bias the victims’ case without the exact same being heard on its merit.

“The present case is not one where any party should be permitted to walk away from proceedings, at the interlocutory stage,” Justice Lenaola ruled.

The CBK sought to be removed from the case arguing that the pyramid plans were neither licensed nor controlled by it and for that reason it could not exercise any regulatory required over them.

Even more, that the 26,249 victims never called it on any issue relating to the pyramid schemes and all proof available indicate the fact that they understood that the entities ran outside the required of the CBK.


“No funds from the pyramid schemes were ever transferred to us and the fact that our Banking Fraud Investigation Department (BFID) dealt with a few of the complaints gotten from victims of pyramid plan fraud did not suggest that we were in receipt of any monies from Commercial Banks where the victims had made their deposits. The BFID in its examinations indeed verified that reality,” described CBK in its application seeking to have the entire petition against it struck out.

While declining to get rid of CBK from the case, Mr Justice Lenaola strengthened his findings by specifying that the function of the BFID will have to be dealt with including its role in executing the required of the CBK as well as its particular role in examinations into the pyramid plan.

“In that regard, journalism statement by the CBK outdated May 25, 2007 asking members of the public to report anyone’s soliciting funds in the name of the pyramid scheme, to the Director BFID will likewise require scrutiny,” Justice Lenaola said.

The petitioners, who are members of the National Pyramid Scheme Victims Initiative (NPSVI), state the majority of the 257 outfits which defrauded them an overall of Sh4,152,008,342 in 2006 were registered within an extremely short time after vetting for authenticity by the Attorney General, the Ministry of Co-operative Development and Marketing, or Ministry of Gender, Culture and Social Services.

The schemes were styled as restricted liability business, trusts, sole collaborations, companies, well-being association, non-governmental organizations, foundations, endeavors, investments, micro-finance groups, cost savings and credit societies among others.
“Armed with this registration, the operators of the funds opened a number of savings account under false pretenses of paying high returns on deposits made with them. They approached the petitioners, who were misinformed and transferred various amounts of money in a number of accounts opened in banks and financial institutions,” lawyer Kihoro sent.

He said the federal government policeman’s in the stated organizations and ministries, neglected their tasks as public servants and exposed the petitioners to losses, when they authorized registration of the outfits, which ended up being defunct after perpetration of the scams.

Further, that CBK and the other state organizations committed an illegality by cannot safeguard and supervise the monetary market and institutions leading to massive losses to the victims throughout the 2005 to 2007 duration.

“The fraudulent nationwide operation was brought to an end by an order made by CBK and directed to the banks and other financial institution, that the accounts run by the attire be closed. This verifies the duty of the government organizations, in preventing what occurred from the start,” lawyer Kihoro said.

According to him, the federal government had actually also ordered that the cashes kept in the numerous checking account, where the victims had transferred it, be transferred to the CBK.

Given that the stated business had a nationwide operation, their victims have ended up being spread in all the counties, apart from Wajir and Garissa.

They have actually sued the Attorney General, Principal Secretary Ministry of Co-operative Development and Marketing, the Governor Central Bank of Kenya, Principal Secretary Ministry of Finance and Principal Secretary Ministry of Internal Security and Co-Ordination of National Government.

Read More
Please wait...

Subscribe to our newsletter

Want to be notified when our article is published? Enter your email address and name below to be the first to know.