HI-
Thanks for
the help. The item’s below. I’d be happy to mail you a copy,
if you give me a mailing address.
Claude
Solnik
(631)
913-4244
Long
Island
Business News
2150
Smithtown Ave.
Ronkonkoma, NY 11779-7348
Home > LI
Confidential > Stop
scratching on holidays
Stop scratching on holidays
Published: June 1, 2012
Off Track Betting in New York State has been racing into a crisis called shrinking revenue. Some people have spitballed a solution: Don’t close on holidays.
New York State Racing Law bars racing on Christmas, Easter and Palm Sunday, and the state has ruled OTBs can’t handle action on those days, even though they could easily broadcast races from out of state.
“You should be able to bet whenever you want,” said Jackson Leeds, a Nassau OTB employee who makes an occasional bet. He added some irrefutable logic: “How is the business going to make money if you’re not open to take people’s bets?”
Elias Tsekerides, president of the Federation of Hellenic Societies of Greater New York, said OTB is open on Greek Orthodox Easter and Palm Sunday.
“I don’t want discrimination,” Tsekerides said. “They close for the Catholics, but open for the Greek Orthodox? It’s either open for all or not open.”
OTB officials have said they lose millions by closing on Palm Sunday alone, with tracks such as Gulfstream, Santa Anita, Turf Paradise and Hawthorne running.
One option: OTBs could just stay open and face the consequences. New York City OTB did just that back in 2003. The handle was about $1.5 million – and OTB was fined $5,000.
Easy money.
Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law
§ 109. Supplementary regulatory powers of the commission. Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of law, the commission through its rules and regulations or in allotting dates for racing, simulcasting or in licensing race meetings at which pari-mutuel betting is permitted shall be authorized to: 1. permit racing at which pari-mutuel betting is conducted on any or all dates from the first day of January through the thirty-first day of December, inclusive of Sundays but exclusive of December twenty-fifth, Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday; and 2. fix minimum and maximum charges for admission at any race meeting.
Search Results
OPEN ON 1ST PALM SUNDAY, OTB RAKES IN $2M - NY Daily News
www.nydailynews.com/.../open-1st-palm-sunday-...OPEN ON 1ST PALM SUNDAY, OTB RAKES IN $2M. By Jerry Bossert / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS. Monday, April 14, 2003, 12:00 AM. Print · Print; Comment.
New York Daily News
OTB FACES HAND SLAP OVER PALM - NY Daily News
www.nydailynews.com/.../otb-faces-hand-slap-pal...Apr 16, 2003 - By Jerry Bossert / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS ... Aqueduct was also closed on Palm Sunday, but OTB thrived on action from around the country.
New York Daily News
Opinion
A Rare Chance to Lower Litigation Costs
A federal committee wants to hear your ideas on the subject. Speak up.
Jan. 20, 2014 6:21 p.m. ET
Nothing provokes as much dread in the mind
of a CEO or general counsel as the words, "We've been sued in federal
court." Once they hear an estimate of the litigation costs, many
executives say, "I don't care if we're right, settle the case."
Beyond
this injustice, excessive litigation costs erode U.S. companies'
ability to compete in world markets and make foreign companies reluctant
to invest here. As a member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee for
18 years, I became aware of the growing frustration of the business
community with the costs of litigation in federal courts and the
inordinately long time it takes to resolve cases.
The
primary culprit for excessive cost and delay is "discovery"—the process
of preserving, reviewing and disclosing vast amounts of corporate
information. A 2010 survey of
Fortune
FT.T -2.27%
200 companies by Lawyers for Civil Justice, the Civil Justice
Reform Group and the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform found that
in 2006-08 companies at the low end of the range were paying $620,000
per case, and those at the high end were paying almost $3 million per
case in discovery costs. And for what purpose? According to the survey,
only one-tenth of 1% of the material produced in discovery was used at
trial.
Since 2010, discovery expenses
have risen sharply; the median cost is now $1.8 million per case,
according to research by the RAND Institute for Civil Justice. The rapid
escalation is due largely to court rules that require preserving and
accessing vast amounts of irrelevant electronic information. For
example, in a case involving mortgage giant
Fannie Mae,
FNMA -2.21%
the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight—a government
agency that wasn't even sued—had to spend over $6 million, more than 9%
of its annual budget, accessing electronic data to respond to
defendants' subpoenas.
Fortunately,
there's now a chance for some relief. The federal Advisory Committee on
Civil Rules is considering amendments to discovery rules that would
reduce the cost and burdens. The three most important committee
proposals are: (1) a clear national standard that says companies could
be punished for discarding information only if they did so in bad faith
to hamper litigation; (2) a narrower scope of discovery that focuses on
the claims and defenses of each case rather than any information that
might lead to admissible evidence; and (3) confirming judicial authority
under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to allocate
the costs of discovery to the party requesting discovery rather than the
party responding. A "requester-pays" system lets a party decide to pay
and get certain information if it really needs it. It also eliminates
the temptation to make overly broad requests to impose costs on the
other side to coerce a settlement.
On
Jan. 9, I testified before the committee and supported the proposed
changes, which I believe are an important first step toward more robust
reform. The committee's effort to revise the discovery rules is now at a
decisive point. It is seeking input during a public comment period
through Feb. 15. For the business community and others who care about
civil litigation, it is essential to provide the committee with
meaningful comments explaining how the current discovery system needs to
be improved.
Defenders of the status
quo are denouncing any modification and attempting to delay the process.
Those favoring change cannot sit back and expect to see something
positive emerge. If companies commit a tiny percentage of the time and
money they spend on nonproductive discovery for participation in the
committee's work, the benefits could be substantial.
If
those favoring change do not come forward to support modifications, the
committee may fail to produce meaningful reforms. Congress could decide
to legislate a solution. The judges and lawyers involved in the
committee deal with the rules of civil procedure on a daily basis. They
better understand the ramifications of any changes.
The
American civil justice system is in crisis. Litigants are fleeing U.S.
courts for other forums of dispute resolution, or if they are unable to
do so, settle cases for strictly economic reasons no matter the merits.
Companies
that do business in the U.S. are losing their competitive advantage
because the costs of resolving disputes here are needlessly inflated.
The committee's proposals are a step forward and should be embraced and
supported.
Mr. Kyl, a former
Republican senator from Arizona, is a senior adviser to the law firm of
Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C.
Jon Kyl
Senior Advisor
jkyl@cov.comDownload V-card
Covington & Burling LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004-2401
Tel: 202.662.5660
No comments:
Post a Comment