Evidence of Permax heart valve damage has increased following a new study published in the March 2007 issue of the medical journal Archives of Neurology. This study provides further support of the problems linked to Permax. Heart valve damage was found to increase with long-term use of the drug. The purpose of this study was to compare Permax patients with those treated with the drugs Mirapex and Requip.

The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) first became aware of Permax heart valve injury problems in 2002. Permax (peroglide) has been on the market since 1989. Permax has been prescribed to treat Parkinson's patients and people suffering from Restless Legs Syndrome. A black box warning was added to the drug's label in 2006 as a result of increasing concern over Permax heart valve damage side effects.

Recent studies were conducted in Britain and Italy to evaluate serious concerns that Permax heart valve damage occurred with long-term use of the drug. In the British study, 11,417 people were given Permax. The test subjects were 37 times more likely to develop heart problems. The Italian study involved 155 Parkinson's patients who were taking Permax. Heart valve damage was reported in 23.4% of the people taking the drug in that study.

The Mayo Clinic has also reported problems with Permax heart valve injury. According to a report by doctors at the Mayo Clinic, three patients who took Permax for three to seven years suffered serious heart valve damage. Two of the patients had significant heart damage requiring valve replacement surgery. The Mayo Clinic doctors recommended that given the dangers associated with Permax, patients with heart problems should not take the drug.

Permax heart valve damage symptoms include chest pain, shortness of breath and swelling of the feet and ankles. In some cases, patients with serious heart valve injuries can require heart valve replacement or if left untreated, the patient may suffer heart failure resulting in death.

Heart valve damage inhibits valves from opening or closing. There are two primary types of heart valve disease. Stenosis (obstruction) occurs when a valve opening becomes narrowed, making it difficult do pump blood throughout the body. Regurgitation (insufficiency) is when a valve is prevented from completely closing causing the blood to leak backward instead of flowing forward.

On March 29, 2007, following the increasing evidence of Permax heart valve damage problems, the FDA announced a Permax recall. In light of the recall, the FDA is prompting patients currently taking the drug to discuss alternative treatment options with their doctor and monitor for possible Permax heart valve injury problems.

By: Steve Fields
To learn more about Permax Heart Valve Damage please visit our website. Our team of Permax lawyers represents clients in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Arizona, North Dakota and South Dakota.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a legal services and lifestyle information directory for attorneys, lawyers and the general internet public.

For more law articles see Law Articles.

Need a laugh, visit Lawyer Jokes from Resources For Attorneys.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include that link.

Marriage is a very important concept and establishment in the United States and as such Congress has determined that a foreign national who marries a United States Citizen spouse has the immediate ability to file for a permanent residence under a first category preference. It is good to know that a permanent residents (“greencard” holders) can also file a marriage petition however the waiting time for the priority date is long and therefore does not confer immediate ability to the beneficiary to obtain a greencard.

The first consideration in marriage cases is that the marriage has to be bona fide (literally in “good faith”) or a marriage not with the intention of solely getting immigration benefits. A good faith marriage is predicated on the intent of the bride and groom to establish a life together at the time that they were married. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) formerly the INS (“Immigration”), has various criteria for determining if a marriage was entered in good faith. These include but are not limited to commingling of assets, joint leases, joint financial responsibilities, and pictures. It is generally accepted that a couple knows the most intimate affairs of each other. This is why it is very important to document your marriage in order to present evidence of your bona fide relationship. It is imperative that a person does not enter into a fraudulent marriage. A fraudulent marriage will penalize both the petitioner (US Citizen spouse) and the beneficiary (the person obtaining the benefits) and might even result in criminal charges including prison time. While Immigration does not recognize fraudulent marriages, they will recognize an arranged marriage as long as it is entered in good faith.

In order to file for a marriage petition, one should have a valid marriage. A valid marriage is one which is recognized in the State in which it takes place. For example, if Ram gets married to Anita in Nevada and moves to California, this marriage will be recognized by the Immigration. However, if Ram and Anita are first cousins, Nevada will not recognize the marriage and thus Immigration will also not recognize this marriage. This is very important because you might not know this fact until you file your petitions with the Immigration. Also if the marriage takes place, for instance, in Fiji, Immigration will recognize the marriage as long as the marriage is recognized in Fiji. Note that a proxy marriage will not be recognized. A proxy marriage is one where the bride and groom did not meet on the wedding day. The exception to this rule is if the marriage was consummated after the proxy marriage.

Once married, the paperwork can either be processed inside United States, if the beneficiary (the one obtaining the greencard) is in the United States or it can be processed overseas through the US consulates. In the case of processing the cases overseas, one can opt for a K3 visa to reduce the waiting time. Also if no marriage has yet taken place one can also bring his or her fiancé on a K1 visa. Such visas are only available for US citizen petitioners. On the other hand, in order for the marriage case to be processed in the United States, (a process called adjustment of status), the beneficiary has to have entered the United States legally albeit for one day. This means the person should have entered the US on a valid visa. Those who entered by crossing the border are out of luck unless they benefit from a provision under INA 245(i). This provision will require if any kind of petition was filed in the beneficiary’s favor on or before April 30, 2001. There are many requirements to prove that you benefit from this provision of the law. You need to speak to an experienced attorney about your particular case. Also if you have overstayed on your visa, you definitely need to speak to an immigration attorney before you proceed with any kind of case.

During the adjustment of status process, you should not leave the United States unless you file and get an approved reentry/parole permit. You should know that a parole or reentry permit is not a guarantee of entry in the United States. It only allows you to board a plane and arrive at the port of entry in the US where an immigration officer will determine whether to allow you inside the US or not. If you have overstayed for more than 180 days on your visa before applying for a greencard, you should definitely not leave the United States. Indeed you will be subject to a 3 years bar. This bar will prevent the person not only from getting back into the US but also in obtaining permanent residence. At that point only a waiver can help you. It is important to know that waivers are not easy to obtain. If you overstayed more than 365 days before applying, again you should not leave because this time you will be subject to a 10 years bar. The same rule as the 3 years bar will apply except the bar is for 10 years now and the waiver is a lot harder to obtain.

Once you file for your marriage petition, you will be called for fingerprint and for an interview within 3 to 8 months, provided the papers are properly filed. You are supposed to attend this interview with your spouse and proofs that your marriage is bona fide (good faith). At this point, it is highly advisable to have an attorney present with you during such interviews. Indeed a licensed attorney will be allowed to sit with you at the interview. If the adjudicating officer is satisfied with the interview, and the security check is finalized; he or she will tell you that he or she will issue an answer soon. You might get an answer the next week that your case is approved and a letter welcoming you to the US as permanent resident.

On the other hand, if the Immigration gets proof or admission that the case is fraudulent, you might be arrested on the spot. At this point you are highly advised to remain silent until your attorney is present. In another case scenario, if the officer is not satisfied, you might be called for another interview or they might deny your case. Technically, if it is denied they will give you one month before referring the case to the Immigration Judge. This will allow your attorney to possibly file for a motion to reopen the case. If this fails then the case will be argued in immigration court. The immigration judge will review the case de novo (again) and make a determination. This means you have to prove your case or the government has to prove that your marriage was not bona fide. Again, it is highly recommended to hire an experienced attorney to move forward in such cases.

If the case is approved, the beneficiary will be issued a conditional residence if at the time the green card is issued the marriage was less than two years. You should verify if you have a conditional residence. Usually a conditional residence green card will have an expiry date of 2 years as from the date of issue. You will need to remove that conditional residence status as from 90 days from the second anniversary of the issue of the greencard by filing a Form I-751. It is imperative to file the removal otherwise your status will be terminated. Usually if you are still married to you US citizen spouse, you will file a joint petition to remove such conditions. If you can prove your marriage was bona fide, you will be given a permanent residence card for 10 years approximately 6 months after filing the Form I-751. If the Immigration has reason to suspect foul play, they will launch an investigation and then might even call you and your spouse for a removal of conditional residence interview. If they are satisfied, they will grant you unconditional permanent residence. If not they will refer the case to an immigration judge.

The question is what happens if there is a separation or divorce before or during the 90 days preceding the anniversary of the expiry of the conditional greencard. The following are few potential scenarios.

Divorce finalized prior to filing the removal of conditional residence.

In this case, one needs to file the removal of conditional residence waiver (Form I-751) even if the marriage has not reached two years. You will be required to prove that your marriage was entered in good faith and the marriage was not terminated through your fault. The process will follow typically the same path as when you file the case jointly with your wife; Two years anniversary of the conditional green card has come to term and the divorce is not finalized. In this case, you will need to get the divorce finalized as soon as possible so that you can file the Form I-751 waiver; and You were able to file your joint petition of removal of conditional residence and during this time your marriage is facing troubles and you separate and intent to divorce your spouse. You need to inform the USCIS and wait for the final divorce decree and file a Form I-751 again.

There are numerous other permutations of situations regarding the removal of conditional residence namely abusive US citizen spouses, or hardship situations. You should speak to your attorney regarding your particular case.

There are other provisions under the law to protect beneficiaries namely in case of abuse by US citizen spouses. In case, one is abused by his/her citizen spouse, one will be eligible to file for VAWA (Violence against Women Act) protection. Note that VAWA can be used in favor of man also. There are also situations where the US citizen spouse dies before the case is approved.

Because VAWA and other exceptional cases are very unique cases. We will try to cover them in our next article.

And remember, it is highly recommended to speak to an experience licensed attorney before filing any kind of immigration case.

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipients of content from this article, clients or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the article without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient's state.

By: Shah Peerally
Law Offices of Shah Peerally 4510 Peralta Blvd, Ste 23 Fremont CA 94536 Phone: (510) 742 5887 http://www.peerallylaw.com Email: shah@peerallylaw.com

Shah Peerally is the managing attorney for the Law Offices of Shah Peerally located in Fremont, California. Prior to his entrance into Immigration law practice, Shah worked in litigation and business law for Mc Nichols Randick O’Dea & Tooliatos LLP in Pleasanton, California. Later, Shah joined the Law Offices of Virender Goswami as a supervising attorney in business and employment immigration. Shah was also attorney of counsel for the Immigration law offices of Minter and Ahmad in Fremont, California.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a legal services and lifestyle information directory for attorneys, lawyers and the general internet public.

For more law articles see Law Articles.

Need a laugh, visit Lawyer Jokes from Resources For Attorneys.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include that link.

A Covenant Not to Compete is an agreement that restrains or prevents a business or individual from engaging in a particular activity. These Covenants are usually not favored by the courts, and as such, are looked at through skeptical eyes. Covenants Not to Compete are often used in two primary areas, the first being in Employment Agreements and the second being in the purchase/sale of a business.

An Employer might want an Employee to sign a Covenant Not to Compete where the Employer is engaged in the business of sales, had certain trade secrets or deals with sensitive information. You can imagine the scenario where Salesman A joins Company B, starts working off of Company B’s customer lists, and then decides to leave for a new job. Inevitably, he will attempt to take the Company B’s client list with him. Such is the need for a Covenant Not to Compete. If properly drafted and executed, the Covenant Not to Compete will prevent Salesman A from taking the client list with him, and in most circumstances, will prevent Salesman A from even working for another company that sells product similar to Company B.

Covenants Not to Compete can also be essential to the purchase of a business. Imagine the scenario where Rookie Financial Advisor purchases an existing Financial Practice from Veteran. Rookie would want to ensure that Veteran did not just simply move down the street a block and open a new financial planning office that would compete with Rookie for business.

Covenants Not to Compete follow the general rules of basic Contract Law, namely that there must be an Offer, Acceptance and Consideration for the Covenant. The Offer would be evidenced by the Covenant, the Acceptance would be evidenced by the Employee’s signature and the Consideration would be evidenced by the Employer giving something of value to the Employee. If the Covenant is offered at the inception of employment, the Consideration would be the actual obtaining of the job. If the Covenant is offered after the Employee is hired, some additional inducement or consideration must be offered to the Employee, or the Covenant may be found to be invalid.

Courts have also found that Covenants Not to Compete must be equitable in both distance and duration. What that means is that the length (time frame) of the Covenant and the distance that it applies to must be fair. For instance, in the above financial planning scenario, the Covenant Not to Compete might prevent Veteran from working for or opening a financial practice in the same county or in the same half of the state as the financial practice that was sold, and the limitation may apply for a period of perhaps two years. In Pennsylvania, where I practice law, such a Covenant might be found to be fair. A Covenant that sets forth that Veteran could not work again in the Financial Planning field anywhere in the United States for the rest of his life would likely be found to be invalid.

By: Greg Artim
Greg Artim is an Attorney based in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania. For more information on related legal issues, please visit his website at http://www.gregartim.com or visit his Pennsylvania Lemon Law website at ihatethislemon.com.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a legal services and lifestyle information directory for attorneys, lawyers and the general internet public.

For more law articles see Law Articles.

Need a laugh, visit Lawyer Jokes from Resources For Attorneys.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include that link.

A federal court in Florida has just ruled that restricted stock (on which most incentive stock options are based) cannot have any value merely because it is restricted. (Visit Site below for Court Opinion.) Williamson v. Moltech Corporation began in New York in 1995. Although now in bankruptcy court, New York law, not bankruptcy law, applies in this case.

Restriction of stock is typically utilized by early-phase companies who want to award employees and/or attract necessary employees. The stock is restricted because when the company goes into an initial public offering (IPO), the underwriters of the offering do not want the company principals selling their stock at the IPO since this would undermine confidence in the company. Usually the restriction is lifted after a period of time following the IPO.

This new ruling would mean that any company can award incentive stock options based on restricted stock and then abrogate its agreement, leaving its employee with no recourse. This would be the case, even if the company value had increased astronomically. Clearly, this does not meet the test of reason.

This ruling destroys as impractical the use of incentive stock options and the restricted stock underlying them for compensation purposes. Companies that desire quality technologists and managers, but with little cash with which to compensate them, will now find the formerly-valuable technique of awarding incentive stock options to be snubbed by knowledgeable employees, who realize that the company can breach its incentive stock option agreement with its employee at any time with impunity. Thus, at any time after helping to build the company, the employee could be left with nothing for their sweat equity efforts. Since companies will no longer be able to compensate their employees with stock options, more cash will be required, leading to a drying up of technological advance.

Additionally, the court failed to observe the previous ruling of the courts of New York denying summary judgment to Moltech on the damage claim related to the incentive stock options, even though the court is bound to give comity to the New York ruling under res judicata. (Visit Site below for New York Summary Judgment Denial.) The court gives no apparent reason for its utter disregard for the prior New York ruling.

New York law requires that damages be measured at the time of the breach. Oscar Gruss & Son, Inc. v. Hollander, 337 F.3d 186 (2d Cir. 2003). Further, where there is no market for stock, as is the case with restricted stock, a hypothetical market model is used to establish the value between a buyer and a seller. Boyce v. Soundview Technology Group, Inc. 2004 WL 2334081 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) vacated and remanded as to damages by Boyce v. Soundview Technology Group, Inc. 464 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. 2006); Boyce is similarly a bankruptcy case. Thus, although the Williamson v. Moltech matter was in bankruptcy court, the ten-year later bankruptcy can have no effect on the value at the time of the breach. The court appears to have struggled with this, both recognizing that the valuation must take place as of the time of the breach under New York law, but also bringing in language related to the cancelling of stock through the bankruptcy plan approval, which is clearly inapplicable.

Of further interest is the earlier hearing before the court. (Visit Site below for Hearing Transcript.) The reader will find the comments by the court at the top of page 31 very interesting, since this hearing was prior to the court receiving any evidence as to valuation from Williamson. In fact, evidence of the restricted stock value was put before the court by Williamson in the form of un-refuted valuations, among others having been performed by Moltech's own analysts/auditors, including Price-Waterhouse and sales of stock by Moltech (outright common stock sales were made as were preferred instruments convertible to common stock).

Thus, if the ruling this case were to be upheld it would result in a loss of stock options by employees holding them if their company decided to breach their incentive stock option agreements. Companies could breach such agreements pre-IPO leaving the employee high and dry with no high value stock subsequent to the IPO. Naturally, incentive stock options would lose their luster for compensation. New high technology companies would suffer.

The case is currently under appeal in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division, Case No. 1:07-cv-00016.

For more information, please contact the author below.

C2007, Thomas R. (Terry) Williamson III; all rights reserved, world-wide.

By: Terry Williamson
This article, and/or the reading thereof, shall not be construed as offering, containing or receiving of legal advice, and shall not create any attorney-client relationship or privilege. If you are considering protecting your intellectual property, you should consult with an attorney of your choice.

Dr. Thomas R. (Terry) Williamson III, Plaintiff/Creditor in the case, is a Patent Attorney practicing in Atlanta, Georgia.
Williamson Intellectual Property Law, LLC
1870 The Exchange, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30339
770-777-0977
http://www.atlanta-intellectual-property-law.com.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a legal information and lifestyle resources directory for attorneys, lawyers and the general internet public.

For more law articles see Law Articles.

Need a laugh, visit Lawyer Jokes from Resources For Attorneys.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include that link.