This Practice Direction provides guidance for using the Part 19 procedure for certain family court applications. It outlines what types of applications must or can use the Part 19 procedure, how applicants and respondents should submit documents, and how the court will manage the applications. Key points include that applicants must use Part 19 for applications regarding adoption disclosures or information requests, may use it for other cases without a prescribed form or involving minor factual disputes, and the court can order a different process or convene hearings as needed.
CDSCO & Central Bureau of Narcotics are the two organizations which regulate Narcotic Drugs.
ACCREDITED CONSULTANTS PVT LTD
info@acplgroupindia.co.in
+919310040434
SEBI - Disclosure of significant beneficial ownership in the shareholding pat...Venkatesh Prabhu
All listed entities shall disclose details pertaining to significant beneficial
owners in the format prescribed at Annexure to this circular.
3.2. The format specified in the Annexure to this circular shall be Table V under
clause 5 of the format of holding of specified securities specified in the
aforesaid circular No. CIR/CFD/CMD/13/2015 dated November 30, 2015. The
circular No. CIR/CFD/CMD/13/2015 dated November 30, 2015 shall stand
modified to that extent.
3.3. All the terms specified in this circular shall have the same meaning as specified
in Companies (Significant Beneficial Owners) Rules, 2018.
NaturaLyte and GranuFlo lawsuits in federal court have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation in federal court in Massachusetts. These lawsuits all claim money from the maker of GranuFlo and NaturaLyte, Fresenius Medical Care. NaturaLyte and GranuFlo were drugs used in the process of kidney dialysis. The FDA issued a Class I recall, its most serious, after it was discovered that NaturaLyte and GranuFlo could cause cardiac problems, including heart attacks and sudden death.
NaturaLyte and GranuFlo were recalled March 29, 2012. A copy of the FDA Recall Notice can be found among the documents uploaded by Michael J. Evans here on SlideShare.
Because the two dialysis drugs were presumably not used after March 29, 2013, there is some reason to believe that most, if not all, NaturaLyte and GranuFlo lawsuits could have been filed by March 30, 2012. Therefore, in states which have a two-year statute of limitations, there is an argument that the statute of limitations would run on a NaturaLyte or GranuFlo lawsuit no later than March 29, 2014. Of course, there are some states with longer statutes of limitation, and there are legal arguments, such as tolling, that may allow some people to file NaturaLyte and GranuFlo lawsuits after March 29, 2014.
It seems risky to this lawyer to wait to file a NaturaLyte or GranuFlo lawsuit. On July 29, 2013, the MDL judge entered this order setting a scheduling conference for August 30, 2013. One part of the Order that should be of particular interest to people with NaturaLyte or GranuFlo claims is this: the judge ordered all plaintiffs' attorneys to provide settlement proposals to the defendants' lawyers no later than two weeks prior to the hearing. That deadline ran on August 16, 2013. The lawyers for Fresenius Medical Care are ordered to respond to the proposals at the August 30 hearing.
If you were seriously injured by dialysis, or lost a family member due to dialysis, before the NaturaLyte and GranuFlo recall on March 29, 2013, you should have already had your possible lawsuit reviewed by a law firm which is experienced in representing injured people in pharmaceutical and medical device lawsuits. If you or your loved one experienced serious cardiac problems, including a heart attack or sudden death during or after dialysis while NaturaLyte and GranuFlo were still on the market, you may have a valuable claim for money but be unaware of it. You probably wouldn't be told by Fresenius that you or your family member were injured (or died) due to NaturaLyte or GranuFlo. You may wish to contact a law firm which is willing to spend the money to get copies of the medical records (at no cost to you) to see if NaturaLyte or GranuFlo were used. I am part of a group of law firms that handles such cases, and we would be glad to investigate your possible case of cardiac problems or death due to dialysis. If we don't collect money FOR you, we don't collect and money FROM you. It's a risk-free opportunity.
CDSCO & Central Bureau of Narcotics are the two organizations which regulate Narcotic Drugs.
ACCREDITED CONSULTANTS PVT LTD
info@acplgroupindia.co.in
+919310040434
SEBI - Disclosure of significant beneficial ownership in the shareholding pat...Venkatesh Prabhu
All listed entities shall disclose details pertaining to significant beneficial
owners in the format prescribed at Annexure to this circular.
3.2. The format specified in the Annexure to this circular shall be Table V under
clause 5 of the format of holding of specified securities specified in the
aforesaid circular No. CIR/CFD/CMD/13/2015 dated November 30, 2015. The
circular No. CIR/CFD/CMD/13/2015 dated November 30, 2015 shall stand
modified to that extent.
3.3. All the terms specified in this circular shall have the same meaning as specified
in Companies (Significant Beneficial Owners) Rules, 2018.
NaturaLyte and GranuFlo lawsuits in federal court have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation in federal court in Massachusetts. These lawsuits all claim money from the maker of GranuFlo and NaturaLyte, Fresenius Medical Care. NaturaLyte and GranuFlo were drugs used in the process of kidney dialysis. The FDA issued a Class I recall, its most serious, after it was discovered that NaturaLyte and GranuFlo could cause cardiac problems, including heart attacks and sudden death.
NaturaLyte and GranuFlo were recalled March 29, 2012. A copy of the FDA Recall Notice can be found among the documents uploaded by Michael J. Evans here on SlideShare.
Because the two dialysis drugs were presumably not used after March 29, 2013, there is some reason to believe that most, if not all, NaturaLyte and GranuFlo lawsuits could have been filed by March 30, 2012. Therefore, in states which have a two-year statute of limitations, there is an argument that the statute of limitations would run on a NaturaLyte or GranuFlo lawsuit no later than March 29, 2014. Of course, there are some states with longer statutes of limitation, and there are legal arguments, such as tolling, that may allow some people to file NaturaLyte and GranuFlo lawsuits after March 29, 2014.
It seems risky to this lawyer to wait to file a NaturaLyte or GranuFlo lawsuit. On July 29, 2013, the MDL judge entered this order setting a scheduling conference for August 30, 2013. One part of the Order that should be of particular interest to people with NaturaLyte or GranuFlo claims is this: the judge ordered all plaintiffs' attorneys to provide settlement proposals to the defendants' lawyers no later than two weeks prior to the hearing. That deadline ran on August 16, 2013. The lawyers for Fresenius Medical Care are ordered to respond to the proposals at the August 30 hearing.
If you were seriously injured by dialysis, or lost a family member due to dialysis, before the NaturaLyte and GranuFlo recall on March 29, 2013, you should have already had your possible lawsuit reviewed by a law firm which is experienced in representing injured people in pharmaceutical and medical device lawsuits. If you or your loved one experienced serious cardiac problems, including a heart attack or sudden death during or after dialysis while NaturaLyte and GranuFlo were still on the market, you may have a valuable claim for money but be unaware of it. You probably wouldn't be told by Fresenius that you or your family member were injured (or died) due to NaturaLyte or GranuFlo. You may wish to contact a law firm which is willing to spend the money to get copies of the medical records (at no cost to you) to see if NaturaLyte or GranuFlo were used. I am part of a group of law firms that handles such cases, and we would be glad to investigate your possible case of cardiac problems or death due to dialysis. If we don't collect money FOR you, we don't collect and money FROM you. It's a risk-free opportunity.
Patents 101 Part 4 - Applying for a PatentJane Lambert
The handout to the fourth module of my introduction to English patent law. The procedure for applying for a UK patent and European patent (UK) and making PCT applications. Appeals to the Comptroller in the UK and the Boards of Appeal in the EPO. Entitlement and inventorship disputes,
This document is the outline I generated from the online tests available from the USPTO Patent Bar. I didn't pay for an expensive test prep to study for the patent bar. Instead, I went through the freely available test questions from 2002 and 2003, found all of the answers in the MPEP, and put the Q&As into manageable slides. Thus, the day before the exam, I was able to easily go through 200+ questions in only a few hours and go through this entire Outline in about an hour. Then, the day of the exam, I went through this outline in the morning. I took and "preliminarily" passed the patent bar on August 11, 2016. Hopefully this content will help you study for and confidently take the patent bar.
1. Practice Direction 19A –
Alternative Procedure for Applications
This Practice Direction supplements FPR Part 19
Types of application in which Part 19 procedure must be
used
1.1 An applicant must use the Part 19 procedure if the application is for an order under –
(a) section 60(3) of the 2002 Act, to prevent disclosure of information to an adopted
person;
(b) section 79(4) of the 2002 Act, to require the Registrar General to provide
information; or
(c) rule 14.21 (Inherent jurisdiction and fathers without parental responsibility) in
Part 14, to request directions of the High Court regarding fathers without parental
responsibility.
Types of application in which Part 19 procedure may be
used
1.2 An applicant may use the Part 19 procedure if Part 18 does not apply and if –
(a) there is no prescribed form in which to make the application; or
(b) the applicant seeks the court’s decision on a question which is unlikely to involve a
substantial dispute of fact.
1.3 An applicant may also use the Part 19 procedure if a practice direction permits or requires its
use for the type of proceedings concerned.
1.4 The practice directions referred to in paragraph 1.3 may in some respects modify or disapply
the Part 19 procedure and, where that is so, it is those practice directions, rather than this one,
which must be complied with.
1.5 The types of application for which the Part 19 procedure may be used include an application
for an order or direction which is unopposed by each respondent before the commencement of the
proceedings and the sole purpose of the application is to obtain the approval of the court to the
agreement.
1.6 Where it appears to a court officer that an applicant is using the Part 19 procedure
inappropriately, the officer may refer the application to the court for consideration of the point.
1.7 The court may at any stage order the application to continue as if the applicant had not used
the Part 19 procedure and, if it does so, the court will give such directions as it considers
appropriate (see rule 19.1(3)).
The application
2.1 Where an applicant uses the Part 19 procedure, the application form referred to in Practice
Direction 5A should be used and must state the matters set out in rule 19.3 and, if paragraphs 1.3
and 1.4 apply, must comply with the requirements of the practice direction in question. In
Jordan Publishing
www.familylaw.co.uk
2. particular, the application form must state that Part 19 applies. A Part 19 application form means
an application form which so states.
2.2 An application –
(a) in accordance with rule 19.4, to ask the High Court for directions on the need to give
a father without parental responsibility notice of the intention to place a child for
adoption; or
(b) under section 60(3) of the 2002 Act for an order to prevent disclosure of information
to an adopted person,
may be issued without naming a respondent.
Responding to the application
3.1 Where a respondent who wishes to respond to a Part 19 application is required to file an
acknowledgement of service, that acknowledgement of service should be in form FP5 which is
referred to in Practice Direction 5A but can, alternatively be given in an informal document such
as a letter.
3.2 Rule 19.5 sets out provisions relating to an acknowledgement of service of a Part 19
application.
3.3 Rule 19.6 sets out the consequence of failing to file an acknowledgement of service.
3.4 A respondent who believes that the Part 19 procedure should not be used because there is a
substantial dispute of fact or, as the case may be, because its use is not authorised by any rule in
the FPR or any practice direction, must state the reasons for that belief in writing when filing the
acknowledgement of service (see rule 19.9). If the statement of reasons includes matters of
evidence, it should be verified by a statement of truth.
Managing the application
4.1 The court may give directions immediately a Part 19 application is issued either on the
application of a party or of its own initiative. The directions may include fixing a hearing date
where –
(a) there is no dispute; or
(b) where there may be a dispute, but a hearing date could conveniently be given.
4.2 Where the court does not fix a hearing date when the application is issued, it will give
directions for the disposal of the application as soon as practicable after the respondent has
acknowledged service of the application or, as the case may be, after the period for
acknowledging service has expired.
4.3 Certain applications may not require a hearing.
4.4 The court may convene a directions hearing before giving directions.
Evidence
5.1 An applicant wishing to rely on written evidence should file it when the Part 19 application
form is issued.
Jordan Publishing
www.familylaw.co.uk
3. 5.2 Evidence will normally be in the form of a witness statement or an affidavit but an applicant
may rely on the matters set out in the application form provided it has been verified by a
statement of truth.
(For information about statements of truth see Part 7 and Practice Direction 17A, and
about written evidence see Part 22 and Practice Direction 22A.)
5.3 A respondent wishing to rely on written evidence should file it with the acknowledgement of
service (see rule 19.7(3)).
5.4 Rule 19.7 sets out the times and provisions for filing and serving written evidence.
5.5 A party may apply to the court for an extension of time to serve and file evidence under
rule 19.7 or for permission to serve and file additional evidence under rule 19.8(1).
(For information about applications see Part 18 and Practice Direction 18A.)
5.6 The parties may, subject to paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8, agree in writing on an extension of time
for serving and filing evidence under rule 19.7(3) or rule 19.7(5).
5.7 An agreement extending time for a respondent to file evidence in reply under rule 19.7(3) –
(a) must be filed by the respondent at the same time as the acknowledgement of service;
and
(b) must not extend time by more than 17 days after the respondent files the
acknowledgement of service.
5.8 An agreement extending time for an applicant to file evidence in reply under rule 19.7(5)
must not extend time to more than 28 days after service of the respondent’s evidence on the
applicant.
Hearing
6.1 The court may on the hearing date –
(a) proceed to hear the case and dispose of the application;
(b) give case management directions.
Jordan Publishing
www.familylaw.co.uk