Israeli lawyer is on the Bank of Egypt in the amount of 25 million pounds

In 2007, an Israeli lawyer went under the name "Ashraf Jassar" to Bank of Egypt said in front of the heads of the bank that the bank owns 1000 shares of the hotel "King David" in Jerusalem, it has been placed under the Absentee Property Law in Israel.
In 2009 Jassar filed a claim on behalf of the Bank calls for the reinstatement of their rights, but then it turned out that the bank has been the victim of the Israeli lawyer quorum, this man was able to delude Bank of Egypt that he can sue to get a 400 million shekels, "about 800 million pounds" in the interests of the absentee property claiming that the judicial expenses of up to 2% of the value of the amount.

And got this lawyer from the bank to NIS 15 million to about 25 million Egyptian pounds, and the real value of judicial expenses paid by about 1994 LE is not. 
The Israeli court has ruled in Haifa in 2013, he was sentenced to 8 years and compensation of $ 260 lawyer after being convicted of fraud and defrauding the Bank of Egypt. To this day no return of funds looted or pay compensation to the Bank of Egypt, and the site said "Kalcalast" Israel's King David Hotel was opened in 1930 with a number of Egyptian businessmen by a company "Israel Hotels." At the end of the fifties and after the bankruptcy of the hotel was bought by a family "Ferdman" and became one of the hotel chain "Dan" Family-owned hotels. The hotel became the seat of diplomats and heads of state during official visits to Israel. 

Share:

Read More

Google’s Lawyers Work Behind the Scenes to Carry the Day

After regulators had pored over nine million documents, listened to complaints from disgruntled competitors and took sworn testimony from Google executives, the government concluded that the law was on Google’s side. At the end of the day, they said, consumers had been largely unharmed.
That is why one of the biggest antitrust investigations of an American company in years ended with a slap on the wrist Thursday, when the Federal Trade Commission closed its investigation of Google’s search practices without bringing a complaint. Google voluntarily made two minor concessions.
“The way they managed to escape it is through a barrage of not only political officials but also academics aligned against doing very much in this particular case,” said Herbert Hovenkamp, a professor of antitrust law at the University of Iowa who has worked as a paid adviser to Google in the past. “The first sign of a bad antitrust case is lack of consumer harm, and there just was not any consumer harm emerging in this very long investigation.”
The F.T.C. had put serious effort into its investigation of Google. Jon Leibowitz, the agency’s chairman, has long advocated for the commission to flex its muscle as an enforcer of antitrust laws, and the commission had hired high-powered consultants, including Beth A. Wilkinson, an experienced litigator, and Richard J. Gilbert, a well-known economist.
Still, Mr. Leibowitz said during a news conference announcing the result of the inquiry, the evidence showed that Google “doesn’t violate American antitrust laws.”
“The conclusion is clear: Google’s services are good for users and good for competition,” David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, wrote in a company blog post.
The main thrust of the investigation was into how Google’s search results had changed since it expanded into new search verticals, like local business listings and comparison shopping. A search for pizza or jeans, for instance, now shows results with photos and maps from Google’s own local business service and its shopping product more prominently than links to other Web sites, which has enraged competing sites.

But while the F.T.C. said that Google’s actions might have hurt individual competitors, over all it found that the search engine helped consumers, as evidenced by Google users’ clicking on the products that Google highlighted and competing search engines’ adopting similar approaches.
Google outlined these kinds of arguments to regulators in many meetings over the last two years, as it has intensified its courtship of Washington, with Google executives at the highest levels, as well as lawyers, lobbyists and engineers appearing in the capital.
One of the arguments they made, according to people briefed on the discussions, was that technology is such a fast-moving industry that regulatory burdens would hinder its evolution. Google makes about 500 changes to its search algorithm each year, so results look different now than they did even six months ago.
The definition of competition in the tech industry is also different and constantly changing, Google argued.
For instance, just recently Amazon and Apple, which used to be in different businesses than Google, have become its competitors. Google’s share of the search market has stayed at about two-thirds even though competing search engines are “just a click away,” as the company repeatedly argued. That would become the company’s mantra to demonstrate that it was not abusing its market power.

Claire Cain Miller reported from San Francisco, and Nick Wingfield from Seattle.

Share:

Read More