text:
Rene A. Henry got an early start on his career during his junior year at William
& Mary when he was named to succeed the Sports Information Director who
left for a job in the National Football League. Upon graduation in 1954, he
became Sports Information Director at West Virginia University for two years.
Born in Charleston, West Virginia, his interest in sports began in junior high school
writing for the school newspaper and then free-lancing for a weekly newspaper. At
Granby High School in Norfolk, Virginia, two years in a row he was honored by the
Quill & Scroll journalism society for writing the best sports story in Virginia. In high
school, he worked part-time in radio and free-lanced for United Press International
before entering William & Mary and working in sports information.
He received his A.B. degree in economics from the College of William & Mary, did
graduate work in marketing at West Virginia University and took executive courses
at Harvard Law School and Georgetown Law School. He was elected in 1994 to
the College of Fellows of the Public Relations Society of America and was Chair
the College in 2001. His biography appears in
Who's Who In America, Who's Who In The World
Who's Who In
the West.
Since 1978 he has been a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences and the Academy of
Television Arts & Sciences.
Agency Experience
His first agency job was in 1956 with Flournoy & Gibbs in Toledo, Ohio. Following 21 months of active duty military
service, where he was assigned to the athletic department at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. In 1959 he
joined Lennen & Newell in San Francisco, then the 10th largest advertising agency in the country. In 1967 he opened
the Los Angeles office for Daniel J. Edelman and was named Vice President. Four years later, in 1970, he established
his own public relations agency in Los Angeles. In 1974 he merged as a partner to form Allan, Ingersoll, Segal and
Henry and a year later with McFadden, Strauss & Irwin, to create ICPR, the second largest public relations firm in the
West. With headquarters in Los Angeles, the firm had its own offices in New York, Washington, D.C. and Paris. In
1976 ICPR was the first agency in the U.S. to establish full service Hispanic Marketing and Sports Marketing divisions.
In 1980 he reestablished his own counseling firm, relocated in 1985 to New York City, and then made a career move,
leaving public relations in 1986 when he was named President and CEO of the National Institute of Building Sciences in
Washington, D.C.
Sports Marketing
His experience in sports spans five decades and includes Olympic, international, collegiate, professional and
recreational sports. His areas of involvement encompass all disciplines. As a volunteer he worked with Los Angeles
Mayor Tom Bradley and John Argue, president of the Southern California Committee for the Olympic Games, and
directed the international media campaign that led to Los Angeles as the site of the 1984 Olympic Games. He first
became involved in 1968 with the Los Angeles effort bidding for the 1976 and 1980 Olympic Games, prior to the award
being made in Athens in 1978 for the '84 Games.
From 1985-1989 he was a volunteer Assistant to the President of the U.S. Olympic Committee. He served on the
Media/Public Information and International Relations Committees and co-authored
A Look at the U.S. Olympic
Committee In 2000,
the report of the Long Range Strategic Planning Task Force of which he was a member. He
Chaired the organizing committee for the 1988 meeting of the USOC's House of Delegates in Washington, D.C.
He was a member of the Aquatics Management Committee for the Los Angeles organizing committee which developed
the prototype model for organization and conduct of all sports for the '84 Games. He was involved with organization,
management and promotion of the 1984 Olympic cycling trials and pre-Olympic events in 1983 in swimming, diving,
water polo, synchronized swimming and cycling. During the 1984 Games he was Venue Press Chief for water polo.
In 1980 the U.S. Soccer Federation gave him only 60 days to organize, plan and supervise the first meeting in the
U.S.of the 23-member nations of the Confederation of North and Central American and Caribbean Associations of
Football (CONCACAF), held at the United Nations in New York. In less than five months he then organized and was
Tournament Director and Chief Operating Officer for the FIFA World Youth Cup CONCACAF championships. At the
time, it was the largest international soccer tournament ever held in the U.S with venues in Los Angeles, New York,
Princeton, Dallas, St. Louis and Washington, D.C. It was modeled for the U.S. World Cup bid.
His sports marketing clients including various associations and organizations including the Association Generale des
Federations Internationales de Sports (AGFIS/GAISF), the organization of all international sports federations; British
Olympic Association/USA; Melbourne (Australia) Olympic Committee on its strategy seeking the '96 Games; Anchorage
(Alaska) Olympic Committee on its bids for the 1992 and 1994 Winter Olympic Games; the U.S. 1994 World Cup
Organizing Committee; and the America's Cup Festival of Sport, Perth, Australia, in 1985.
He was involved in management, marketing and sales of world cups and world championships in sports including
gymnastics, swimming, water polo, wrestling, cycling, synchronized swimming, diving, boxing, soccer, rowing and
athletics/track and field. From 1975-79, for AMF-Voit, he created and launched a campaign to popularize the sport of
racquetball. In 1981 he created and managed the first Great Mohawk Carpet Cycling Classic in Atlantic City, which
resulted in the first nationwide, one-hour telecast of the sport of cycling in the U.S.
The late "Hall of Fame" football coach George Allen named him Special Advisor to the President's Council on Physical
Fitness and Sports from 1981-1988 and Special Consultant to the National Fitness Foundation at the same time. He
authored a white paper on fitness and sports for then President-elect George H.W. Bush and in 1990 consulted the
Bush Administration White House of National Service on the use of athletes and a program involving sports leaders.
He counseled Southland/7-Eleven for its Olympic sponsorship and all sports activities including its competitive cycling
team, Olympia Award and co-produced the company's national tour and tribute to the 1984 U.S. Olympic medal
winners, including a ticker-tape parade in New York City which was the largest in the city's history until the one
honoring the Desert Storm veterans.
Henry used sports to promote three movies:
The Longest Yard
for Paramount Pictures,
International Velvet
for MGM
and a film about race driver Shirley Muldowney for 20th Century-Fox. As a "thank you" to give back to where he began
his career, in 2005 he established an endowment in the Office of Sports Information at the College of William & Mary.
Housing, Construction and Real Estate
Henry has worked at every level of the industry with builders and developers of residential, commercial and industrial
properties; architects and design professionals; building materials manufacturers' building codes organizations;
government regulatory agencies; industry trade associations; elected and appointed policymakers and federal, state
and local levels; lenders and investment bankers. He has consulted internationally on systems technology
development, financing and marketing.
He was President and CEO of the National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1986-1988, and worked
directly with executive and legislative branches of government and testified before Congress on matters of significant
public interest. In two years he launched four major projects: 1) using vacant and foreclosed buildings to house
homeless and low-income families; 2) forums to discuss regulation of factory-built housing; 3) foreign influences and
impact on the U.S. construction industry; and 4) development of new national land use guidelines, the first since 1926.
Other projects included work involving abatement of asbestos, radon and lead-based paint hazards; modular and
factory-built housing; and indoor air quality.
From 1968-1977, while in the agency business, he also was Executive Director of the Council of Housing Producers, an
organization of the nation's 15 largest community developers. In 1974 he created and launched a program to attract
pension fund investments in residential mortgage securities and brought together leaders of key financial agencies,
government and private sector policymakers and leaders. The program concepts led to the creation of a viable
secondary mortgage market in the U.S.
He developed a program to standardize rules of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the
Accounting Principles Board to account for profit recognition in real estate, created a home owners warranty program
for large volume builders and was a Delegate to President Gerald Ford's Conference On Inflation.
In 1980, the Government of Chile asked his help to counsel and lecture on manufactured housing technology and
recommendations included the creation of a secondary mortgage market system, central catalog system to establish
quality and size standards for all building materials and consumer marketing concepts.
Federal Service
He worked in government in both political and career positions. Following a year of volunteer service in the campaign
that elected George H. W. Bush as President, he was briefly at U.S. Department of Agriculture and then Designate
Assistant Administrator at the Agency for International Development, an appointment he withdrew. At Farmer's Home
Administration at Agriculture, he contributed significantly to a position paper for the Economic Policy Council on Rural
Development for the President's Interagency Rural Development Strategy Task Force.
I n 1991 he was in the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs at the U.S. Department of Labor where he was
worked on programs to create employment opportunities for women and minorities. He was part of the team that
created, launched and implemented the Glass Ceiling Initiative. From 1996-2001 he was Director of Communications
and Government Relations for the mid-Atlantic States Region of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He was
"lead region" and represented his colleagues in the other nine EPA regions with policies involving headquarters. In
2000 his efforts resulted in a regional policy that all publications be printed on 100% recycled paper with 100% post
consumer fiber using vegetable based inks. In 2001 this became an agency-wide policy.
Higher Education
Henry was Executive Director of University Relations and one of six members of the President's Executive Cabinet at
Texas A&M University from 1991-1996. During this time his office was honored with regional and national awards 75
times for creative excellence. He created a campaign involving all Texas public universities to win public support for
higher education and head off a mandated 10% budget cut to colleges and universities. One of his strategies used
sports to reach the public. The aggressive, proactive marketing communications program led the lawmakers to not
decrease, but increase the higher education budget 6.8%, or $560 million, a positive swing of more than $1 billion.
At Texas A&M, he was the first in higher education to use video for fund-raising in a package of materials for a $500
million capital campaign, at the time, the largest ever by a public university. He created and produced an award-winning
video featuring President George H.W. Bush as part of an $82 million fund raising effort for the Bush Presidential
Library at the university. His office also was the first in higher education to use video as a means of communicating to
alumni around the world. His first use of video news releases was in 1955 when he was Sports Information Director at
West Virginia University. This also was a first not only in higher education, but in sports marketing.
Volunteer Activities
Henry has frequently given of his time to volunteer organizations and was honored in 2005 with the Paul M. Lund
Award for Public Service from the Public Relations Society of America. In 1998 he gave two weeks of his time, and at
his own expense, to Global Volunteers to teach conversational English to high school students in Ostuni in Puglia,
Italy. In 2004 he again gave two weeks to Global Volunteers to teach conversational English to college students in
Dolores Hidalgo, Mexico, where the students needed to pass comprehensive English examinations and obtain intern
positions before graduating.
In September 2007 he spent two weeks in Xi'an, China, as part of a Global Volunteers team teaching conversational
English to students at Eurasia University, a 10-year-old private university with some 20,000 students. While there he
also was asked to give lectures and presentations to faculty and students on customer service and also crisis
management and consulting. Xi'an, considered a mid-size Chinese city with only 8 million population, has more than
100 universities and 800,000 students. In China today more people are learning English than the entire population of
the U.S.A.
About Rene A. Henry


text:
Apartments on the sea Island of Elba
15 tastefully furnished and functional apartments, down to the last detail, equipped with everything that guests need for first class vacation.
Private parking with photovoltaic panel-roofing which produces electric power for the Residence. Energy produced by the photovoltaic plant, consumed and emitted in the system, allows to avoid carbon dioxide emission by more than 4,000 kg per annum.
Coin-operated washer.
Mountainbikes, ping-pong, table football, kayak, and more are available.
Apartments with two to seven beds, including: terrace or patio with sea view, bathroom with shower and hair dryer, satellite colour TV, strong box, free internet access, stove top with 2-4 burners, refrigerator, stainless steel sink, hot and cold water, dish rack, and a complete kitchen set.
The owners directly manage the hotel and they pay attention to every detail, making you feel as if it were your own home.

subset: commoncrawl


text: Barcelona is a perfect combination of a three-seater and two one-seater sofas. The set is brought together with a matching centre table. Barcelona is the garden calls for a great tea time with family and friends. A treat to the eyes, this piece is definitely a eye-catcher. Perfect as deck furniture or designer garden furniture, this piece could be the centre of attraction at any place it is put in!


text: The British are bringing brand new secret weapons of tiny toy mayhem in 'Invasion!,' the second add-on to Toy Soldiers from Signal Studios! Put on your Kaiser's helmet and command the German Army against a mad menagerie of new antagonistic toys, including flying saucers, chivalrous knights, and the "Rolls Royce of the Sky," the WWII Mustang. Defend Germany in a new Survival level, two new multiplayer maps, and a new mini-campaign topped by the most calculating, head-strong boss of all (batteries not included)! Raise your saber, soldier, and lead the charge against… is that a spaceman? The Invasion has begun!


text:
Whinpark Medical Centre, 6 Saughton Road, Edinburgh, EH11 3RATel: 0131 455 7999
For emergency house calls please telephone 0131 455 7999 day or night. If you telephone after 18:00 you will be asked to telephone one further number so have a pen ready. When you telephone that number you will get straight through to the out-of-hours service.
Please try to come to the medical centre if possible - it is easier to examine you there and we can see more patients in a given time. However, if you feel that you need a non-urgent house call, please telephone between 08:30 and 10:00. If you wish to see a particular doctor tell the receptionist. Please try to telephone before 10.30. Non-urgent house calls received after that time may not be done until after the afternoon and evening surgeries.
Copyright 2006 - 2020 My Surgery Website | Privacy & Usage | Edit | Staff Home | Site Map | Accessibility | Site T&C's | Service T&C's


text:
Poker bets are a common thing for punters that will use any possible sport or game to test their luck and boost their income through profitable wagers placed at online bookmakers. If you're not sure how to get started, OddsDigger will provide you with everything needed.
When talking about poker betting odds, you must keep in mind that things are pretty straightforward. Depending on what hand every player has, the odds are to determine the player that has the biggest chances of winning the hand.
The types of wagers that can be placed on a poker game are not too diverse so you should be able to learn them pretty fast. You can wager on the winner of each hand, the winner of the game or an entire tournament. There are some special bets as well focused on the winning combinations or how many players will fold during a hand.
The game is perfect for live wagering thanks to the fast succession of hands and the constant action that happens during a game. So, if you want to take on some in-play wagering, make sure to use OddsDigger as a complete helping tool.
The number of tournaments and competitions around this game is big enough so that punters can always find something to place bets on.
If you're looking to try your luck on some local competitions around this sport, there's the South African Open or the PokerStars Tournament. You should be able to find odds at your local bookmakers for these competitions.
When switching to international poker tournaments, you can focus on the WSOP, the World Tour or any other strong competition that accepts players from all over the world. You can easily compare poker odds on all these competitions thanks to OddsDigger.
The poker betting sites that will also allow punters to place bets on the tournaments are quite diverse in the online world. You should always try to get the best possible bonuses for wagering online and besides that, some functions such as live streaming or being able to cash out fast are also desirable. A bookmaker that offers all that and that we warmly recommend is Bet-at-Home with tens of years of experience in the industry.


text:
MITx: Design and Development Courses
Want to learn how to build and develop the newest educational technology? MIT is now offering an active 6-week free course that culminates to a KickStarter Project upon your completion. There are no tests, no grades, but rather a large more complex group project where you and your team, will develop a new educational technology towards the end. Great opportunity to learn at home and while receiving an ivy league eduction from MIT.


text:
L'Oréal Egypt partook "She Can 2018" summit that was held in the Greek campus, with the startling presence of more than 2000 female entrepreneurs specializing in different work sectors. Lucratively affirming the company's support to the exceptional researchers & scientists women whom received L'Oréal UNESCO For Women In Science Fellowship.
L'Oréal's presence deliberately created a strong open communication channel between associates from L'Oréal -UNESCO for Women in the Science program and the summit attendees who might be needing inspiration and support from their counterparts. This participation stems from the company's belief in the importance of empowering the field of science and research, which represents fundamental pillars of L'Oréal's strategy, and tp specifically empower women in this challenging field.
Accordingly, Nahla Mokhtar, Communication Manager L'Oréal Egypt, prosperously expressed during the panel moderation her proudness stating, "We are honored to present in such remarkably successful event and share L'Oréal's persistent commitment towards empowering the science field through L'Oréal UNESCO For Women In the Science program"
"We aspire that researchers become role models for all those who have dreams to outshine in the fields of science and innovation. Perhaps our presence today in this event encourages other females to achieve their ambitious dreams."
It was also highlighted during the panel that 2018 marks L'Oréal-UNESCO for Women in Science's 20th anniversary. Throughout the years, the program granted 3100 fellowship to exceptional female researchers in more than 115 country. Among them, 16 exceptional Egyptian researchers. L'Oréal believes that the world needs science and science needs women.
On a side note, "She Can" summit displays the most substantial female entrepreneurs' experiences in multiple sectors including education, media, technology and art related industries. "She Can" targeted helping females to overcome challenges related to their personal and professional lives, thus preventing inequality concerns, in addition to providing imperative advice on the optimum tools required for successful entrepreneurship.


text:
Since 1948 Land Rover has been manufacturing authentic 4x4s that represent true 'breadth of capability' across the model range.
Land Rover has invented, developed and brought to market a host of automotive innovations, born and bred from performance and endurance testing.
The all-new Discovery has recently received two major Australian awards - Carsales.com.au 2017 4x4 Of the Year and 4x4 Australia magazine's 2018 4x4 Of The Year, bringing the international accolades to 33 in less than 12 months.
The pace of change is exhilarating and with the introduction of the 2018 Range Rover and Range Rover Sport PHEV (297kW Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle) from March 2018, Australian customers will be able to experience zero-emission near-silent on and off-road luxury without compromising any off-road capability.
Performance has been taken to new heights with the new Range Rover Sport SVR, now packing 423kW and 700Nm, this vehicle drives like no other Land Rover before.


text:
Read Decanter's tasting notes for Sijnn, Syrah, Malgas 2012, a cool-climate Syrah which comes from a remote vineyard above the Brede river.
Sijnn, Syrah, Malgas 2012
18.25/20pts (94)
Owned by Dave Trafford (who also makes a fine Syrah at De Trafford in a bigger, riper style), this cool-climate Syrah comes from a remote vineyard above the Brede River. It's a meaty, smoky, compact wine, with spices and red berries and a mineral core.
Price £15.99 Hawkshead Wines, Slurp, Swig, Walker & Wodehouse
Drink 2016-2020
Alc 13%
Taster Tim Atkin MW


text:
HERMAN & MacLEAN, Petitioner, v. Ralph E. HUDDLESTON et al. Ralph E. HUDDLESTON et al., Petitioner, v. HERMAN & MacLEAN.
459 U.S. 375 (103 S.Ct. 683, 74 L.Ed.2d 548)
HERMAN & MacLEAN, Petitioner, v. Ralph E. HUDDLESTON et al. Ralph E. HUDDLESTON et al., Petitioner, v. HERMAN & MacLEAN.
Nos. 81-680, 81-1076.
Argued: Nov. 9, 1982.
Decided: Jan. 24, 1983.
- opinion, MARSHALL [HTML]
Alleging that they were defrauded by misrepresentations in a registration statement and prospectus for certain securities, purchasers of such securities brought a class action in Federal District Court against most of the participants in the offering, seeking recovery under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act), which makes it unlawful for "any" person to use "any" manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in the purchase or sale of "any" security. The trial judge instructed the jury to determine whether the plaintiffs had proved their cause of action by a preponderance of the evidence, and judgment was entered on the basis of a jury verdict in plaintiffs' favor. The Court of Appeals held that a cause of action may be maintained under § 10(b) for fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions even when, as in this case, that conduct might also be actionable under § 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act), which expressly allows purchasers of a registered security to sue certain enumerated parties who play a direct role in a registered offering when false or misleading information is included in a registration statement. However, the Court of Appeals concluded that a plaintiff seeking recovery under § 10(b) of the 1934 Act must prove his case by "clear and convincing" evidence, and reversed and remanded on other grounds.
1. The availability of an express remedy under § 11 of the 1933 Act does not preclude defrauded purchasers of registered securities from maintaining an action under § 10(b) of the 1934 Act. Pp. 380-387.
(a) The two provisions involve distinct causes of action and were intended to address different types of wrongdoing. Under § 11, a plaintiff need only show a material misstatement or omission in a registration statement to establish a prima facie case. Such an action must be brought by a purchaser of a registered security, and can only be brought against certain parties. In contrast, § 10(b) is a "catchall" antifraud provision and requires a purchaser or seller of a security, in order to establish a cause of action, to prove that the defendant acted with scienter. Pp. 380-382.
(b) To exempt conduct actionable under § 11 from liability under § 10(b) would conflict with the basic purpose of the 1933 Act: to provide greater protection to purchasers of registered securities. It is hardly a novel proposition that the two Acts prohibit some of the same conduct. Cf. Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 96 S.Ct. 1375, 47 L.Ed.2d 668. A cumulative construction of the remedies under the Acts is also supported by the fact that when Congress comprehensively revised the securities laws in 1975, federal courts had consistently recognized an implied private right of action under § 10(b) even where express remedies under § 11 or other provisions were available. A cumulative construction of the securities laws also furthers their broad remedial purposes. Pp. 382-387.
2. Persons seeking recovery under § 10(b) need prove their cause of action by a preponderance of the evidence only, not by clear and convincing evidence. The preponderance standard has been consistently employed in private actions under the securities laws. Cf. SEC v. C.M. Joiner Leasing Corp., 320 U.S. 344, 64 S.Ct. 120, 88 L.Ed. 88. Reference to the traditional use of a higher burden of proof in civil fraud actions at common law is unavailing here. An important purpose of the federal securities statutes was to rectify perceived deficiencies in the available common-law protections by establishing higher standards of conduct in the securities industry. The balance of the parties' interests in this case warrants use of the preponderance standard, which allows both parties to share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion. While defendants face the risk of opprobrium that may result from a finding of fraudulent conduct, defrauded investors are among the very individuals Congress sought to protect in the securities laws, and if they prove that it is more likely than not that they were defrauded, they should recover. Pp. 387-391.
640 F.2d 534, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
James L. Truitt, Dallas, Tex., for Herman & MacLean.
Robert H. Jaffe, Springfield, N.J., for Huddleston, et al., and Paul Gonson, Washington, D.C., for Securities and Exchange Commission as amicus curiae by special leave of Court.
Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.
These consolidated cases raise two unresolved questions concerning Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b). The first is whether purchasers of registered securities who allege they were defrauded by misrepresentations in a registration statement may maintain an action under Section 10(b) notwithstanding the express remedy for misstatements and omissions in registration statements provided by Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77k. The second question is whether persons seeking recovery under Section 10(b) must prove their cause of action by clear and convincing evidence rather than by a preponderance of the evidence.
* In 1969 Texas International Speedway, Inc. ("TIS"), filed a registration statement and prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission offering a total of $4,398,900 in securities to the public. The proceeds of the sale were to be used to finance the construction of an automobile speedway. The entire issue was sold on the offering date, October 30, 1969. TIS did not meet with success, however, and the corporation filed a petition for bankruptcy on November 30, 1970.
In 1972 plaintiffs Huddleston and Bradley instituted a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas1 on behalf of themselves and other purchasers of TIS securities. The complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("the 1934 Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 CFR 240.10b-5.2 Plaintiffs sued most of the participants in the offering, including the accounting firm, Herman & MacLean, which had issued an opinion concerning certain financial statements and a pro forma balance sheet3 that were contained in the registration statement and prospectus. Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had engaged in a fraudulent scheme to misrepresent or conceal material facts regarding the financial condition of TIS, including the costs incurred in building the speedway.
After a three-week trial, the District Judge submitted the case to the jury on special interrogatories relating to liability. The judge instructed the jury that liability could be found only if the defendants acted with scienter.4 The judge also instructed the jury to determine whether plaintiffs had proven their cause of action by a preponderance of the evidence. After the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on the submitted issues, the judge concluded that Herman & MacLean and others had violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by making fraudulent misrepresentations in the TIS registration statement.5 The court then determined the amount of damages and entered judgment for the plaintiffs.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a cause of action may be maintained under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act for fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions even when that conduct might also be actionable under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("the 1933 Act"). Huddleston v. Herman & MacLean, 640 F.2d 534, 540-543 (1981). However, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the District Court as to the appropriate standard of proof for an action under Section 10(b), concluding that a plaintiff must prove his case by "clear and convincing" evidence. Id., at 545-546. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment on other grounds and remanded the case for a new trial. Id., at 547-550, 560.
We granted certiorari to consider whether an implied cause of action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act will lie for conduct subject to an express civil remedy under the 1933 Act, an issue we have previously reserved,6 and to decide the standard of proof applicable to actions under Section 10(b).7 --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 1766, 72 L.Ed.2d 173 (1982). We now affirm the court of appeals' holding that plaintiffs could maintain an action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act, but we reverse as to the applicable standard of proof.
The Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 "constitute interrelated components of the federal regulatory scheme governing transactions in securities." Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 206, 96 S.Ct. 1375, 1387, 47 L.Ed.2d 668 (1976). The Acts created several express private rights of action,8 one of which is contained in Section 11 of the 1933 Act. In addition to the private actions created explicitly by the 1933 and 1934 Acts, federal courts have implied private remedies under other provisions of the two laws.9 Most significantly for present purposes, a private right of action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 has been consistently recognized for more than 35 years.10 The existence of this implied remedy is simply beyond peradventure.
The issue in this case is whether a party should be barred from invoking this established remedy for fraud because the allegedly fraudulent conduct would apparently also provide the basis for a damage action under Section 11 of the 1933 Act.11 The resolution of this issue turns on the fact that the two provisions involve distinct causes of action and were intended to address different types of wrongdoing.
Section 11 of the 1933 Act allows purchasers of a registered security to sue certain enumerated parties in a registered offering when false or misleading information is included in a registration statement. The section was designed to assure compliance with the disclosure provisions of the Act by imposing a stringent standard of liability12 on the parties who play a direct role in a registered offering.13 If a plaintiff purchased a security issued pursuant to a registration statement, he need only show a material misstatement or omission to establish his prima facie case. Liability against the issuer of a security is virtually absolute,14 even for innocent misstatements. Other defendants bear the burden of demonstrating due diligence. See 15 U.S.C. 77k(b).
Although limited in scope, Section 11 places a relatively minimal burden on a plaintiff. In contrast, Section 10(b) is a "catchall" antifraud provision,15 but it requires a plaintiff to carry a heavier burden to establish a cause of action. While a Section 11 action must be brought by a purchaser of a registered security, must be based on misstatements or omissions in a registration statement, and can only be brought against certain parties, a Section 10(b) action can be brought by a purchaser or seller of "any security" against "any person" who has used "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance" in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. 15 U.S.C. 78j (emphasis added). However, a Section 10(b) plaintiff carries a heavier burden than a Section 11 plaintiff. Most significantly, he must prove that the defendant acted with scienter, i.e., with intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.16
Since Section 11 and Section 10(b) address different types of wrongdoing, we see no reason to carve out an exception to Section 10(b) for fraud occurring in a registration statement just because the same conduct may also be actionable under Section 11.17 Exempting such conduct from liability under Section 10(b) would conflict with the basic purpose of the 1933 Act: to provide greater protection to purchasers of registered securities. It would be anomalous indeed if the special protection afforded to purchasers in a registered offering by the 1933 Act were deemed to deprive such purchasers of the protections against manipulation and deception that Section 10(b) makes available to all persons who deal in securities.
While some conduct actionable under Section 11 may also be actionable under Section 10(b), it is hardly a novel proposition that the Securities Exchange Act and the Securities Act "prohibit some of the same conduct." United States v. Naftalin, 441 U.S. 768, 778, 99 S.Ct. 2077, 2084, 60 L.Ed.2d 624 (1979) (applying Section 17(a) of the 1933 Act to conduct also prohibited by Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act in an action by the SEC). " 'The fact that there may well be some overlap is neither unusual nor unfortunate.' " Ibid., quoting SEC v. National Securities, Inc., 393 U.S. 453, 468, 89 S.Ct. 564, 572, 21 L.Ed.2d 668 (1969). In savings clauses included in the 1933 and 1934 Acts, Congress rejected the notion that the express remedies of the securities laws would preempt all other rights of action. Section 16 of the 1933 Act states unequivocally that "the rights and remedies provided by this subchapter shall be in addition to any and all other rights and remedies that may exist at law or in equity." 15 U.S.C. 77p. Section 28(a) of the 1934 Act contains a parallel provision. 15 U.S.C. 78bb(a). These provisions confirm that the remedies in each Act were to be supplemented by "any and all" additional remedies.
This conclusion is reinforced by our reasoning in Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, supra, which held that actions under Section 10(b) require proof of scienter and do not encompass negligent conduct. In so holding, we noted that each of the express civil remedies in the 1933 Act allowing recovery for negligent conduct is subject to procedural restrictions not applicable to a Section 10(b) action.18425 U.S., at 208-210, 96 S.Ct., at 1388-89. We emphasized that extension of Section 10(b) to negligent conduct would have allowed causes of action for negligence under the express remedies to be brought instead under Section 10(b), "thereby nullifying the effectiveness of the carefully drawn procedural restrictions on these express actions." Id., at 210, 96 S.Ct., at 1389 (footnote omitted). In reasoning that scienter should be required in Section 10(b) actions in order to avoid circumvention of the procedural restrictions surrounding the express remedies, we necessarily assumed that the express remedies were not exclusive. Otherwise there would have been no danger of nullification. Conversely, because the added burden of proving scienter attaches to suits under Section 10(b), invocation of the Section 10(b) remedy will not "nullify" the procedural restrictions that apply to the express remedies.19
This cumulative construction of the remedies under the 1933 and 1934 Acts is also supported by the fact that, when Congress comprehensively revised the securities laws in 1975, a consistent line of judicial decisions had permitted plaintiffs to sue under Section 10(b) regardless of the availability of express remedies. In 1975 Congress enacted the "most substantial and significant revision of this country's Federal securities laws since the passage of the Securities Exchange Act in 1934."20 See Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, Pub.L. No. 94-29, 89 Stat. 97. When Congress acted, federal courts had consistently and routinely permitted a plaintiff to proceed under Section 10(b) even where express remedies under Section 11 or other provisions were available.21 In light of this well-established judicial interpretation, Congress' decision to leave Section 10(b) intact suggests that Congress ratified the cumulative nature of the Section 10(b) action. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, --- U.S. ----, ----, 102 S.Ct. 1825, 1841, 72 L.Ed.2d 182 (1982); Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580-581, 98 S.Ct. 866, 870, 55 L.Ed.2d 40 (1978).
A cumulative construction of the securities laws also furthers their broad remedial purposes. In enacting the 1934 Act, Congress stated that its purpose was "to impose requirements necessary to make securities regulation and control reasonably complete and effective." 15 U.S.C. 78b. In furtherance of that objective, Section 10(b) makes it unlawful to use "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance" in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. The effectiveness of the broad proscription against fraud in Section 10(b) would be undermined if its scope were restricted by the existence of an express remedy under Section 11.22 Yet we have repeatedly recognized that securities laws combating fraud should be construed "not technically and restrictively, but flexibly to effectuate their remedial purposes." SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, 375 U.S. 180, 195, 84 S.Ct. 275, 284, 11 L.Ed.2d 237 (1963). Accord: Superintendent of Insurance v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 404 U.S. 6, 12, 92 S.Ct. 165, 169, 30 L.Ed.2d 128 (1971); Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 U.S. 128, 151, 92 S.Ct. 1456, 1471, 31 L.Ed.2d 741 (1972). We therefore reject an interpretation of the securities laws that displaces an action under Section 10(b).23
Accordingly, we hold that the availability of an express remedy under Section 11 of the 1933 Act does not preclude defrauded purchasers of registered securities from maintaining an action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act. To this extent the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
In a typical civil suit for money damages, plaintiffs must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.24 Similarly, in an action by the SEC to establish fraud under Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 77q(a), we have held that proof by a preponderance of the evidence suffices to establish liability. SEC v. C.M. Joiner Leasing Corp., 320 U.S. 344, 355, 64 S.Ct. 120, 125, 88 L.Ed. 88 (1943). "Where . . . proof is offered in a civil action, as here, a preponderance of the evidence will establish the case . . . ." Ibid. The same standard applies in administrative proceedings before the SEC25 and has been consistently employed by the lower courts in private actions under the securities laws.26
The Court of Appeals nonetheless held that plaintiffs in a Section 10(b) suit must establish their case by clear and convincing evidence. The Court of Appeals relied primarily on the traditional use of a higher burden of proof in civil fraud actions at common law. 640 F.2d, at 545-546. Reference to common law practices can be misleading, however, since the historical considerations underlying the imposition of a higher standard of proof have questionable pertinence here.27 See Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 744-745, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 1929, 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975) ("The typical fact situation in which the classic tort of misrepresentation and deceit evolved was light years from the world of commercial transactions to which Rule 10b-5 is applicable."). Moreover, the antifraud provisions of the securities laws are not coextensive with common law doctrines of fraud.28 Indeed, an important purpose of the federal securities statutes was to rectify perceived deficiencies in the available common law protections by establishing higher standards of conduct in the securities industry. See SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U.S. 180, 186, 84 S.Ct. 275, 279, 11 L.Ed.2d 237 (1963). We therefore find reference to the common law in this instance unavailing.
Where Congress has not prescribed the appropriate standard of proof and the Constitution does not dictate a particular standard, we must prescribe one. See Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 95, 101 S.Ct. 999, 1004, 67 L.Ed.2d 69 (1981). See generally Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, supra, 421 U.S., at 749, 95 S.Ct., at 1931 (private cause of action under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 must be judicially delimited until Congress acts). In doing so, we are mindful that a standard of proof "serves to allocate the risk of error between the litigants and to indicate the relative importance attached to the ultimate decision." Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 1808, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979). See also In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 370-371, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1075, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). Thus, we have required proof by clear and convincing evidence where particularly important individual interests or rights are at stake. See, e.g., Santosky v. Kramer, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) (proceeding to terminate parental rights); Addington v. Texas, supra (involuntary commitment proceeding); Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 285-286, 87 S.Ct. 483, 487, 17 L.Ed.2d 362 (1966) (deportation).29 By contrast, imposition of even severe civil sanctions that do not implicate such interests has been permitted after proof by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Regan, 232 U.S. 37, 48-49, 34 S.Ct. 213, 217, 58 L.Ed. 494 (1914) (proof by a preponderance of the evidence suffices in civil suits involving proof of acts that expose a party to a criminal prosecution). Thus, in interpreting a statutory provision in Steadman v. SEC, supra, we upheld use of the preponderance standard in SEC administrative proceedings concerning alleged violations of the antifraud provisions. The sanctions imposed in the proceedings included an order permanently barring an individual from practicing his profession. And in SEC v. C.M. Joiner Leasing Corp., 320 U.S., at 355, 64 S.Ct., at 125, we held that a preponderance of the evidence suffices to establish fraud under Section 17(a) of the 1933 Act.
A preponderance-of-the-evidence standard allows both parties to "share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion." Addington v. Texas, 421 U.S., at 423, 99 S.Ct., at 1808. Any other standard expresses a preference for one side's interests. The balance of interests in this case warrants use of the preponderance standard. On the one hand, the defendants face the risk of opprobrium that may result from a finding of fraudulent conduct, but this risk is identical to that in an action under Section 17(a), which is governed by the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. The interests of defendants in a securities case do not differ qualitatively from the interests of defendants sued for violations of other federal statutes such as the antitrust or civil rights laws, for which proof by a preponderance of the evidence suffices. On the other hand, the interests of plaintiffs in such suits are significant. Defrauded investors are among the very individuals Congress sought to protect in the securities laws. If they prove that it is more likely than not that they were defrauded, they should recover.
We therefore decline to depart from the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard generally applicable in civil actions.30 Accordingly, the Court of Appeals' decision as to the appropriate standard of proof is reversed.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part and otherwise remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice POWELL took no part in the decision of these cases.
CC∅ | Transformed by Public.Resource.Org
The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in January, 1973.
Plaintiffs also alleged violations of, inter alia, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77q(a). We have previously reserved decision on whether Section 17(a) affords a private remedy, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Daniel, 439 U.S. 551, 557, n. 9, 99 S.Ct. 790, 795, n. 9, 58 L.Ed.2d 808 (1979), and we do so once again. Plaintiffs have abandoned their Section 17(a) claim, Brief, at 4, n. 6, and the Court of Appeals did not address the existence of a separate cause of action under Section 17(a). Accordingly, there is no need for us to decide the issue.
A pro forma balance sheet is one prepared on the basis of assumptions as to future events.
The judge stated that reckless behavior could satisfy the scienter requirement. While this instruction reflects the prevailing view of the courts of appeals that have addressed the issue, see McLean v. Alexander, 599 F.2d 1190, 1197, and n. 12 (CA3 1979) (collecting cases), we have explicitly left open the question whether recklessness satisfies the scienter requirement. Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 194, n. 12, 96 S.Ct. 1375, 1381, n. 12, 47 L.Ed.2d 668 (1976).
The trial court also found that Herman & MacLean had aided and abetted violations of Section 10(b). While several courts of appeals have permitted aider and abettor liability, see IIT, An International Investment Trust v. Cornfeld, 619 F.2d 909, 922 (CA2 1980) (collecting cases), we specifically reserved this issue in Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, supra, 425 U.S., at 191-192, n. 7, 96 S.Ct., at 1380, n. 7. Cf. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Curran, --- U.S. ----, ----, 102 S.Ct. 1825, 1847-48, 72 L.Ed.2d 182 (1982) (discussing liability for participants in a conspiracy under analogous Commodity Exchange Act provision).
See, e.g., Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 752 n. 15, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 1933 n. 15, 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975).
The Fifth Circuit's adoption of a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard in a private action under Section 10(b) appears to be unprecedented. See E. Devitt & C. Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 98.04, at 930 (1981 Cum.Supp.). Other courts have employed a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard in private actions under the securities laws. See, e.g., Mihara v. Dean Witter & Co., 619 F.2d 814, 824-825 (CA9 1980); Dzenits v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 494 F.2d 168, 171, n. 2 (CA10 1974); Globus v. Law Research Service, Inc., 418 F.2d 1276, 1291 (CA2 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 913, 90 S.Ct. 913, 25 L.Ed.2d 93 (1970); Franklin Life Insurance Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 451 F.Supp. 602, 607 (SD Ill.1978), aff'd per curiam, 598 F.2d 1109 (CA7), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 900, 100 S.Ct. 210, 62 L.Ed.2d 136 (1979).
Securities Act, §§ 11, 12, 15, 15 U.S.C. 77k, 77l, 77o; Securities Exchange Act, §§ 9, 16, 18, 15 U.S.C. 78i, 78p, 78r.
See, e.g., J.I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 84 S.Ct. 1556, 12 L.Ed.2d 423 (1964) (Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act); Dan River, Inc. v. Unitex Ltd., 624 F.2d 1216 (CA4 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1101, 101 S.Ct. 896, 66 L.Ed.2d 827 (1981) (Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act); Kirshner v. United States, 603 F.2d 234, 241 (CA2 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 909, 99 S.Ct. 2821, 61 L.Ed.2d 274 (1979) (Section 17(a) of the Securities Act). But see, e.g., Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 99 S.Ct. 2479, 61 L.Ed.2d 82 (1979) (no implied private right of action under Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act); Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., 430 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 926, 51 L.Ed.2d 124 (1977) (defeated tender offeror has no implied private right of action under Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act).
The right of action was first recognized in Kardon v. National Gypsum Co., 69 F.Supp. 512 (ED Pa.1946). By 1961, four courts of appeals and several district courts in other circuits had recognized the existence of a private remedy under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and only one district court decision had reached a contrary conclusion. See III L. Loss, Securities Regulation 1763-1764 and nn. 260-263 (2d ed.1961) (collecting cases). By 1969, the existence of a private cause of action had been recognized by ten of the eleven courts of appeals. See VI L. Loss, Securities Regulation 3871-3873 (2d ed. Supp.1969) (collecting cases). When the question whether an implied cause of action can be brought under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 was first considered in this Court, we confirmed the existence of such a cause of action without extended discussion. See Superintendent of Insurance v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 404 U.S. 6, 13, n. 9, 92 S.Ct. 165, 169, n. 9, 30 L.Ed.2d 128 (1971). We have since repeatedly reaffirmed that "the existence of a private cause of action for violations of the statute and the Rule is now well established." Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, supra, 425 U.S., at 196, 96 S.Ct., at 1382 (citing prior cases).
The Court of Appeals noted that the plaintiffs "apparently did have a Section 11 remedy." 640 F.2d, at 541, n. 5. While accurate as to the two other defendants, this conclusion may be open to question with respect to Herman & MacLean. Accountants are liable under Section 11 only for those matters which purport to have been prepared or certified by them. 15 U.S.C. 77k(a)(4). Herman & MacLean contends that it did not "expertise" at least some of the materials that were the subject of the lawsuit, Tr. of Oral Arg. at 6-8, which if true could preclude a Section 11 remedy with respect to these materials.
See H.R.Rep. No. 85, 73d Cong., 1st Sess. 9 (1933) (Section 11 creates "correspondingly heavier legal liability" in line with responsibility to the public).
A Section 11 action can be brought only against the issuer, its directors or partners, underwriters, and accountants who are named as having prepared or certified the registration statement. See 15 U.S.C. 77k(a). At the same time, Sections 3 and 4 of the 1933 Act exclude a wide variety of securities (such as those issued by the government and certain banks) and transactions (such as private ones and certain small offerings) from the registration requirement. § 77c and d.
See Feit v. Leasco Data Processing Equipment Corp., 332 F.Supp. 544, 575 (EDNY 1971); R. Jennings & H. Marsh, Securities Regulation 828-829 (1977).
See Chiarella v. United States, 445 U.S. 222, 234-235, 100 S.Ct. 1108, 1117, 63 L.Ed.2d 348 (1980).
See Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, supra, 425 U.S. at 193, 96 S.Ct., at 1380.
Cf. Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite, 396 U.S. 375, 390-391, 90 S.Ct. 616, 624, 24 L.Ed.2d 593 (1970) (existence of express provisions for recovery of attorneys' fees in §§ 9(e) and 18(a) of 1934 Act does not preclude award of attorneys' fees under § 14(a) of the Act).
For example, a plaintiff in a Section 11 action may be required to post a bond for costs, 15 U.S.C. 77k(e), and the statute of limitations is only one year, § 77m. In contrast, Section 10(b) contains no provision requiring plaintiffs to post security for costs. Also, courts look to the most analogous statute of limitations of the forum state, which is usually longer than the period provided for Section 11 actions. See Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, supra, 425 U.S., at 210, n. 29, 96 S.Ct., at 1389, n. 29.
See Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Co., 188 F.2d 783, 786-787 (CA2 1951); A. Bromberg & L. Lowenfels, Securities Fraud & Commodities Fraud § 2.4(403), at 2:179-2:180 (1982).
Securities Acts Amendments of 1975: Hearings on S. 249 Before the Subcomm. on Securities of the Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 1 (1975). As the conference report on the legislation explained, the 1975 amendments were the culmination of "the most searching reexamination of the competitive, statutory, and economic issues facing the securities markets, the securities industry, and, of course, public investors, since the 1930's." H.R.Rep. No. 94-229, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 91 (1975), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1975, pp. 179, 322.
See, e.g., Schaefer v. First National Bank, 509 F.2d 1287, 1292-1293 (CA7 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 943, 96 S.Ct. 1682, 48 L.Ed.2d 186 (1976); Wolf v. Frank, 477 F.2d 467, 475 (CA5), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 975, 94 S.Ct. 287, 38 L.Ed.2d 218 (1973); Jordan Bldg. Corp. v. Doyle, O'Connor & Co., 401 F.2d 47, 51 (CA7 1968); Ellis v. Carter, 291 F.2d 270, 273-274 (CA9 1961); Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Co., supra, 188 F.2d, at 786-787; Orn v. Eastman Dillon, Union Sec. & Co., 364 F.Supp. 352, 355 (C.D.Cal.1973); Stewart v. Bennett, 359 F.Supp. 878, 886 (D.Mass.1973); Trussell v. United Underwriters, Ltd., 228 F.Supp. 757, 765-766 (D.Colo.1964). Cf. Gilbert v. Nixon, 429 F.2d 348, 355 (CA10 1970) (recognizing overlapping actions but resolving conflict in favor of express remedy where that remedy is "explicit"). Two early district court decisions had refused to recognize an action under Rule 10b-5 in the face of overlap with Section 11. Rosenberg v. Globe Aircraft Corp., 80 F.Supp. 123 (ED Pa.1948); Montague v. Electronic Corp. of America, 76 F.Supp. 933 (SDNY 1948). The latter case was not subsequently followed in the Southern District, e.g., Osborne v. Mallory, 86 F.Supp. 869 (SDNY 1949), and it has no precedential value in light of the Second Circuit's decision in Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Co., supra. The Rosenberg decision stood alone at the time of the 1975 amendments, and even that decision had not been followed in the district in which it was decided, Premier Industries, Inc. v. Delaware Valley Financial Corp., 185 F.Supp. 694 (ED Pa.1960), or elsewhere within the same circuit, Dauphin Corp. v. Redwall Corp., 201 F.Supp. 466 (D.Del.1962). Since the 1975 amendments, the lower courts have continued to recognize that an implied cause of action under Section 10(b) can be brought regardless of whether express remedies are available. See, e.g., Berger v. Bishop Investment Corp., 695 F.2d 302 (CA8 1982); Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. National Student Marketing Corp., 650 F.2d 342, 354-359 (CADC 1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 954, 101 S.Ct. 3098, 69 L.Ed.2d 965 (1981); Ross v. A.H. Robins Co., 607 F.2d 545, 551-556 (CA2 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 946, 100 S.Ct. 2175, 64 L.Ed.2d 802 (1980); Pearlstein v. Justice Mortgage Investors, [1979] CCH Fed.Sec.L.Rptr. ¶ 96,760 at 94,973-94,974 (ND Tex.1978); In re Clinton Oil Company Securities Litigation, [1977-1978] CCH Fed.Sec.L.Rptr. ¶ 96,015 at 91,575 (D.Kan.1977).
Moreover, certain individuals who play a part in preparing the registration statement generally cannot be reached by a Section 11 action. These include corporate officers other than those specified in 15 U.S.C. 77k(a), lawyers not acting as "experts," and accountants with respect to parts of a registration statement which they are not named as having prepared or certified. If, as Herman & MacLean argues purchasers in registered offerings were required to rely solely on Section 11, they would have no recourse against such individuals even if the excluded parties engaged in fraudulent conduct while participating in the registration statement. The exempted individuals would be immune from federal liability for fraudulent conduct even though Section 10(b) extends to "any person" who engages in fraud in connection with a purchase or sale of securities.
We also reject application of the maxim of statutory construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius. See H. Hart & A. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law 1173-1174 (tent. ed. 1958); Note, Implying Civil Remedies from Federal Regulatory Statutes, 77 Harv.L.Rev. 285, 290-291 (1963). As we stated in SEC v. Joiner Corp., 320 U.S. 344, 350-351, 64 S.Ct. 120, 123, 88 L.Ed. 88 (1943), such canons "long have been subordinated to the doctrine that courts will construe the details of an act in conformity with its dominating general purpose." See generally Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U.S. 341, 357, 83 S.Ct. 1246, 1257, 10 L.Ed.2d 389 (1963) (favoring "an analysis which reconciles the operation of both statutory schemes with one another rather than holding one completely ousted"). We believe the maxim cannot properly be applied to a situation where the remedies redress different misconduct and where the remedial purposes of the Acts would be undermined by a presumption of exclusivity.
See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 1808, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979).
See Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 101 S.Ct. 999, 67 L.Ed.2d 69 (1981).
See note 7, supra.
A higher standard of proof apparently arose in courts of equity when the chancellor faced claims that were unenforceable at law because of the Statute of Wills, the Statute of Frauds, or the parole evidence rule. See Note, Appellate Review in the Federal Courts of Findings Requiring More than a Preponderance of the Evidence, 60 Harv.L.Rev. 111, 112 (1946). Concerned that claims would be fabricated, the chancery courts imposed a more demanding standard of proof. The higher standard subsequently received wide acceptance in equity proceedings to set aside presumptively valid written instruments on account of fraud. See United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 167 U.S. 224, 240-241, 17 S.Ct. 809, 810, 42 L.Ed. 144 (1897); Southern Development Co. v. Silva, 125 U.S. 247, 249-250, 8 S.Ct. 881, 882, 31 L.Ed. 678 (1888); Colorado Coal Co. v. United States, 123 U.S. 307, 316-319, 8 S.Ct. 131, 135-37, 31 L.Ed. 182 (1887); Maxwell Land-Grant Case, 121 U.S. 325, 381, 7 S.Ct. 1015, 1028, 30 L.Ed. 949 (1887) ("We take the general doctrine to be, that when in a court of equity it is proposed to set aside, to annul or to correct a written instrument for fraud or mistake in the execution of the instrument itself, the testimony on which this is done must be clear, unequivocal, and convincing, and that it cannot be done upon a bare preponderance of evidence which leaves the issue in doubt."). Such proceedings bear little relationship to modern lawsuits under the federal securities laws.
See SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U.S. 180, 194, 84 S.Ct. 275, 284, 11 L.Ed.2d 237 (1963) (common law doctrines of fraud which developed around transactions involving tangible items of wealth are ill-suited to the sale of intangibles such as securities); III L. Loss, Securities Regulation 1435 (2d ed. 1961).
In Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252, 266, 100 S.Ct. 540, 548, 62 L.Ed.2d 461 (1980), we held that the Due Process Clause did not require proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence even in an expatriation proceeding. Cf. Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129, 135-136, 78 S.Ct. 612, 616, 2 L.Ed.2d 659 (1958) (in the absence of evidence of congressional intent to adopt a particular standard of proof, Court imposes clear-and-convincing-evidence standard in expatriation cases).
The Court of Appeals also noted that the proof of scienter required in fraud cases is often a matter of inference from circumstantial evidence. If anything, the difficulty of proving the defendant's state of mind supports a lower standard of proof. In any event, we have noted elsewhere that circumstantial evidence can be more than sufficient. Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc., 364 U.S. 325, 330, 81 S.Ct. 6, 10, 5 L.Ed.2d 20 (1960). See TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 463, and n. 24, 96 S.Ct. 2126, 2139, and n. 24, 48 L.Ed.2d 757 (1976).
- DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS INC., Petitioner, v. A. Lamar BYRD.
- BATEMAN EICHLER, HILL RICHARDS, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. Carl F. BERNER et al.
- William C. RANDALL, Roger E. Austin, Tom W. Anderson and Myrel A. Neumann, Petitioners v. B.J. LOFTSGAARDEN et al.
- SHEARSON/AMERICAN EXPRESS, INC. and Mary Ann McNulty, Petitioners, v. Eugene McMAHON et al.
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. Peter R. FINK, et ux.
- BASIC INCORPORATED, et al., Petitioners, v. Max L. LEVINSON, et al.
- PRICE WATERHOUSE, Petitioner v. Ann B. HOPKINS.
- Coy R. GROGAN, et al., Petitioners v. Frank J. GARNER, Jr.
- LAMPF, PLEVA, LIPKIND, PRUPIS & PETIGROW, Petitioner v. John GILBERTSON et al.
- MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT, et al., Petitioners, v. EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU et al.
- CENTRAL BANK OF DENVER, N.A., Petitioner, v. FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF DENVER, N.A. and Jack K. Naber.
- Arthur L. GUSTAFSON, et al., Petitioners v. ALLOYD COMPANY, INCORPORATED fka Alloyd Holdings, Incorporated, et al.
- METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. John RAMBO, et al.


text:
Curtis Stokes sells superyacht Endless Summer with Y.CO
by Tom Isitt
Curtis Stokes has been in touch to say that he has sold the 38.7m superyacht Endless Summer, with Steve Elario at Y.CO as the listing broker.
Built with an aluminium hull and superstructure by the prestigious Australian yacht builder Lloyds Ships in 1984, Endless Summer has been regularly upgraded, most recently in 2012 when she underwent extensive refit works and bring her up to pristine condition both inside and out.
Accommodation is for up to 12 guests in five staterooms – comprising two very well appointed master suites, a luxurious VIP stateroom, and two triple cabins. Crew quarters accommodate seven crew members. In the engine room, twin 1,250hp Caterpillar 3412E diesel engines give megayacht Endless Summer a top speed of 15.5 knots and a cruising speed of 12.5 knots. Her 46,116 litre fuel tanks and 15,876 litre water tanks give her a very useful cruising range.
Endless Summer was asking $3,375,000.


text:
In general, it's good to accept the fact that lack of finance is often the most common stumbling issue for start- ups in Singapore. Basically, in this regard, the role of the government in Singapore and the other associated agencies cannot in anyway be overemphasized in contributing to this nation's success at a start- up friendly country.
On the top of the government's agenda, enterprise development is usually on the top. It has successfully crafted a supportive as well as a pro- business environment conducive to the different entrepreneurs who want to start any kind of business in Singapore. This write up will focus on discussing about government funding assistance schemes in Singapore.
Government Funding and Assistance Schemes in Singapore
This nation- based start- ups can benefit from the following:
1. Optimal business environment
An optimal business environment in Singapore normally ensures that the start- ups expenditures are minimized while the profits are maximized. This is important since an investor can be in a position to earn more while only incurring a small amount of cash as expenditure.
2. Readily Available Work Force
There is a readily available workforce in Singapore. Hence, each time you opt to increase the level of output that your firm is producing, getting the required workforce will not be a hassle since it's always readily available. The workforce in Singapore is classified as either skilled, semi- skilled or unskilled. Therefore, depending on the kind of workforce you'll require, you'll not miss finding the one that fits you best.
3. Strong Legal Environment
The legal environment in this country ensures that investors are provided with a conducive as well as secured environment to work in. hence, if you opt to invest in this country, be assured that the legal force in this country will protect your investment in the best possible manner.
Equity Financing Schemes in Singapore
Equity financing scheme simply refers to the kind of capital which is normally lent by investors to business in exchange for a share of ownership in the firm. Generally, this form of financing is essential for start- ups which are in need of additional capital, most especially in their early stage of development. The commonly known Singapore's government known baked equity financing schemes are the following:
1. Early- Stage Venture Funding Scheme i.e. EVFS
EVFS which is often administered by NRF i.e. National Research Foundation is a co- funding scheme whereby the selected venture capital companies who at least raise S$10 million dollars from the third party investors will receive dollar- for- dollar matching from NRF up to a maximum of S$ 10 million so as to invest in the early stage technology start- ups.
2. Business Angels Fund Scheme
This scheme is an equity investment scheme whereby SPRING seeds Capital (subsidiary of the Singapore's government agency scheme) co- invests in the growth oriented based start- ups along with the –pre- approved business angels. This basically matches the dollar- for – dollar up to a maximum of approximately S $1.5 million.
Last but not the least; the government of Singapore has spent considerable cash amounts, effort as well as time in devising a supportive eco- system for start- ups in this country.


text:
Connect With Us
The United House of Prayer For All People ® © 2016 | Privacy Policy
The United House of Prayer For All People
National Headquarters
601 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20001
The United House of Prayer For All People ®
of the Church on the Rock of the Apostolic Faith
Buffalo, NY
Sunday, July 15 2018 - Sunday, July 22, 2018
Coalition Chair: Sis. Denis Blanchard
(716) 597-2422
Holiday Inn - Buffalo Downtown
620 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, NY 14202
Rate $159
** Deadline Date July 1, 2018
Hyatt Regency Hotel
2 Fountain Plaza
Buffalo, NY 14202
Rate $145
** Deadline Date June 25, 2018
Holiday Inn Express
131 Buell Avenue
Cheektowaga, NY 14225
Rate $159.00
**Deadline Date June 22, 2018
Buffalo Marriot-Harbor Center
95 Main Street
Buffalo, NY 14203
**Deadline Date June 24, 2018
All rooms are tax exempt
** DISCLAIMER - The United House of Prayer For All People accepts no liability for the content of any hotel information announcement, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided, nor does the United House of Prayer guarantee the availability and condition of rooms and rates being offered. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.**
Happy Easter to ALL!!!
The United House of Prayer For All People
Worship services will be held at your local edifice.
For directions please visit the Contact page


text:
When you live in a security apartment, work in a high-security building or visit a nightclub or casino with security on the premises, it's reasonable to expect a certain degree of safety. In fact, that's one of the reasons property owners make security so visible — to give us that sense of security. But personal injuries due to negligent security are rife in Las Vegas. Here are the minimum requirements for properties:
- If security cameras are visible, we expect them to be operating.
- If security officers are on duty, we expect that they are watching cameras, doing patrols and checking people entering the building.
- If a nightclub, casino or bar has a bouncer, we expect the bouncer will handle rowdy patrons and that he will do so in a professional manner.
We don't expect that security lapses will leave patrons vulnerable to theft, assault, rape or murder. When that happens, property owners can — and should — be held accountable.
Premises Liability Lawyer
If you suffered an assault, rape or theft, or a family member was killed because of negligent security, Contact Harris & Harris Lawyers online or call (702) 384-1414 or toll free 1800 393-2350. Your consultation is free.
We are prepared to provide powerful representation for premises liability claims involving negligent security.
Our Nevada premises liability attorneys have a long record of success recovering money for people who were seriously injured on dangerous properties. We also represent families that have lost a loved one to wrongful death due to the negligence of property owners.
If you are unsure whether you have a valid injury claim regarding negligent security, talk with a lawyer and get a professional opinion. Your consultation is free.


text:
Some new details have emerged today about the condition of the MSC Monterey containership which suffered a crack in its hull while underway in adverse conditions off the coast of Newfoundland, sparking concerns of her sinking. A statement from the ship's owner, Germany's REEDEREI NSB, said that Liberian-flagged vessel was underway Friday from Antwerp to Boston when crews … [Read more...]
MSC Monterey Suffers Crack Off Canada – UPDATE
Update 2: 1.5 Meter Crack Discovered in Hull of MSC Monterey Update: The Joint Rescue Coordination Centre reports that the MSC Monterey is currently at anchor off Newfoundland and the response has been turned over to Transport Canada. The 20 crew remain onboard the vessel following the evacuation of 4 passengers earlier Sunday. Original: Crewmembers from the 902-foot, … [Read more...]


text:
Product Catalogue
Follow us on :
Download PDF
Products & Services
-Plastic Products
Company Profile
TOYOGO with Head Office in Singapore, was incorporated for more than 20 years. We specialize in manufacturing wide range of Plastic Products. Our Production Plant and warehouse are located in Senai Industrial Estate, Johor, Malaysia, which occupies total land area exceeding 10 hectar (about 1 million sq.ft.). We have fully automatic machines and production facilities to produce high quality products to meet the growing market demands.
R & D consistently work hard to create and develop, new and excellence products to our customers' satisfaction. Our products are practicable, durable, high in quality and economical in price. We have more than 3,000 items in our product ranges. All specially made to cater to your daily lifestyle, which range from home-use, corporate and industrial purposes. Our products are categorized as D.I.Y., STATIONERY, GARDEN, INDUSTRIAL, FURNITURE, HOUSEHOLD and RECYCLE items. Our products are distributed to more than 30 worldwide countries. Our mission is to continue searching for the latest technology and resources to create new products in top quality and competitive pricing as well as to improve our living standard.
Product News
Press Release
Send Enquiry to:
Toyogo Supermart
Registration is not compulsory to send enquiry
I Am Looking For
If do not contact me in 24 hours using TES platform,
please recommend me matching suppliers.
I have read and agreed the Terms and Conditions of the service.


text:
Category Archives: LETS DISCUSS
Hello to you … Today i have a very important question to ask you … Which is worse a Bad Husband or a Bad Wife ????
I know everyone has their reservations and sides so let us rub minds together and share our views…
Can distance really make the heart grow fonder? Hi EB readers, Today is Relationship Friday so we are discussing this imporatnt topic which is a question that has been on my mind for a long time .This is a question that i am sure 80% if not more of people have had lingering in their minds.
Well today , lets discuss it . I can say that distance relationship is a very difficult and easy task at the same time in the sense that its difficult to stay for weeks , months and sometimes years not seeing your loved one and at the same time its easy as it takes two matured and mutual hearts to make it work .
Seeing that all the benefits that come with a face-to-face relationship which provides companionship, communication and even sex is not there. hmmmm…
Distance Relationships are one of the most difficult things in life to keep up with. My question for you all is — Does distance really make the heart Grow fonder or wider ? Do this relationships work ? does distance stand the test of time ? we often hear people say that absence makes the heart grow fonder. But does it really? Or does distance drive a wedge between us and our loved ones?
Love is tough, whether is long distance or not so you can imagine adding distance , its tougher but only hearts that are true to each other survive and stand this test of time. Long distance relationship gets its importance because a lot of the relationship gets a slow painful death over the course of year if two people in relationship stop giving attention to it. It is not a walk in the park but it definitely is something worth working hard for because there is love involved.
You need to accept the reality that keeping the relationship alive is hard work, and you need to be ready, emotionally and mentally for the effort you need to put in. Does absence really make the heart grow fonder? Or does distance just evoke happy memories that we all think we want to revisit.
When it comes to long distance relationships is it out of sight out of mind? Or does absence really make the heart grow fonder? The Separateness Factor Every long distance relationship has one thing in common— distance. Whether it's only a few miles or several thousand, being apart is a major focus of the relationship. Long distance relationships occur for many reasons. Sometimes one partner relocates for school or work. Sometimes the relationship started off as long distance. Maybe a chance meeting while travelling or dating online led to the relationship.
You may find that time apart from your significant other just confirms how much you love him or her. So how do you handle being separated? Being apart isn't always easy, but thanks to modern technology, connecting with each other is simpler than ever. Although Skype or phone calls are not exactly the same as being there in person, they can count as quality time. What about moments of physical time together?Where there's a will, there's a way—so always look for options. Out of Sight, Out of Mind? Life is ever changing and long distance relationships are no exception.
Another key factor is how you feel when you are alone. Do you miss your partner because you are lonely? Or do you miss your partner because you want to share your life with him or her? Sometimes we do not truly appreciate what we have until it is gone. Having the long distance between you can actually serve as a wake up call to clarify your true feelings. That's a good thing!
This experience also gives you and your partner an opportunity to develop trust, strength and resilience both as a couple and as individuals. While separated you expect the goals of relationship to be upheld. This may include fidelity; open communication, sharing finances and a whole lot more! What a great way to test the relationship and yourselves. You may end up developing a greater depth and affection than ever imagined or otherwise experienced.
Thanks for reading and i hope you gained something. So does distance really make the heart fonder or wider ??? share your story, experiences , opinions with us.
Hello to you , Today the topic of discussion is CAN TWO STRAIGHT MEN KISS EACH OTHER ?
Everyone has their own opinion and views so i am throwing it out to you because i believe and i know your opinion counts.
I was going through a post which put up two straight men kissing each other … Does that add up Read the rest of this entry
Today on LETS DISCUSS , an important issue has been brought to my notice . I was reading an article in magazine about relationship and sex . So my question for today is —–
Some people feel that they cant have a sexless relationship , Do you think it is a pre-requisite to have a successful relationship ? is this a criteria for you ??? Does this issue come from the Guys or Ladies??? Are you the No sex No relationship type or you beleive that sex should be after marriage ???
Air your mind, drop your opinion ,lets rub minds and LETS DISCUSS!!!!!!


text:
Nicki Minaj Is NOT Pregnant! She Just Really Likes Meek Mill
So yeah, looks like the events of Saturday night's Pinkprint Tour concert resulted in a bit of an overreaction. Long story short: Nicki referred to boyfriend Meek Mill as her "baby father" onstage, and a leaked video of the moment quickly circulated online, causing a big buzz on Twitter.
However, it turns out Nicki Minaj is NOT pregnant after all. According to sources close to Nicki, she uses the term "baby father" with all of her closest guys. So while calling him her "baby father" doesn't necessarily mean she's pregnant by him, it does mean Nicki really likes Meek Mill. Maybe that's not the big win he needed in the midst of this huge beef with Drake, but at least it's not another L.
And hey, if nothing else, Meek can be happy that the rumors that Nicki was planning on dumping him over the Drake feud turned out not to be true. It's all about those silver linings, man.
Anyhow, for more on Meek Mill, check out our report on how the beef with Drake has led to 50 Cent and Ja Rule reviving their long-time feud!


text:
We are full of goals and aspirations. We want to lose weight, eat better, have more me-time, be promoted at work, keep a great relationship going, etc….and then….we hear crickets and wonder why nothing is happening. Although it seems simple, reaching goals takes time and most of all: effort.
Rather than wishing your goals were met already. Imagine you standing on first base and you can see your goal on second. Here's the easy part…imagine how you will feel and what your life will be like when you get to that goal on second base. Pretty sweet huh? Here comes the hard part…now imagine each step you will need to take to get to 2nd base. What do you need to do at each step? I recommend putting the more intensive steps first just like if you were actually running, those first steps determine the speed and intensity of the following steps. This also makes the last steps easier at the end. Write these steps down if you prefer and if you can, attach dates to help yourself be accountable for each step.
I see you getting to that goal sooner and faster now than ever before, go for it!


text:
{In Paper Dreams} is home to beautiful papercut art, greeting cards, and other handcrafted goodies by me, Jen van Overbeeke.
Armed with a pencil, craft knife (and a bunch of other tools), I'm just trying to bring more whimsy to the world.
You can find me all around Waterloo Region (Ontario, Canada) & beyond. For a list of past & present events and news, click here. :)


text:
By Bryan Parsons (SpiderGroup Operations Manager)
A study by Strategy Analytics revealed that 73.3% of UK homes now use a wireless internet connection. And it's easy to see why: a wireless network can give you incredible flexibility and convenience in your home or work place; allowing you to work from your garden, your bedroom, the canteen or just about anywhere else.
Amazing! But what happens when you find that your signal doesn't quite reach where you need it to, or the speed is not quite what you expected?
Location, location, location…
Our top piece of advice is that location is key. Whatever device you have blasting out wifi signal it needs to be central to all of the areas in your building where you're likely to want to connect. This way it's providing coverage in all directions.
If possible move your wireless access point so it's in a central location, and not tucked into a corner with walls on two sides. While you're at it move the router off the floor, higher is better.
Lastly, avoid placing it near metal, such as filing cabinets, as these will block a lot of the signal.
Things like Microwaves, cordless phones and baby monitors can also broadcast on the same frequency as your wifi network, avoid placing these next to your wifi router or even better try to buy ones which don't work on the same frequency as wifi (2.4 gigahertz).
It's crowded out there, with loads of wireless networks overlapping and competing. Most wireless access points allow you to change the channel of your wireless network. This can improve things if you pick a channel as far away from your neighbours as possible. Beyond speaking to your neighbours who may not know what channel their network is on anyway let alone how to change it; you can get apps on your smart phone which will scan the area for other wireless networks and what channel they are on.
Doing the above may increase your range and speed a little but they are never going to make your network reach beyond it's maximum range or make it blast through that 3 foot stone wall! All is not lost…
There are really three options here, depending on your budget and needs…
1) You could replace your existing wireless access point (that may be a few years old) which would have been free from your broadband provider with something that has a bit more umph! Take a look at some reviews to see which devices work best and fit your budget.
2) Add a wireless repeater, these just need power, no network cabling required. You can place it towards the edge of your existing network's range, it will pick up your existing wireless signal and re-broadcast it, extending the range. The downside of these is the speed loss, every time you re-broadcast your wifi network you generally cut the speed in half.
3) Splash out on a meshed wireless network. This is a bit more expensive but is ideal if you have a large area to cover. You can place devices all around the building, some cabled in, some not. They allow you to roam around the entire building on what appears to be one seamless wireless network. You can even get devices designed to go outdoors so you really can work from anywhere!
Never turn off the security on your network, rather than speeding things up it's more likely to make things worse as you could end up with lots of strangers taking advantage of the unsecured network you've provided!
If you don't have a secure network, make it secure, now! You're letting anyone loose on your network, who knows what they'll get up to or what they'll be downloading on your broadband connection!
All of the above sounds good but how do you actually go about making it happen?
It's not always easy to log onto your wireless access point and when was the last time you saw you the instructions?
Your best bet is to ask your 'techy friend', maybe bribe them with a bottle of wine or a pack of Percy Pigs (always works on me!). Or if you're a business, give your IT support team a poke and see what they can sort out for you.
Happy connecting! Let us know how you get on ?
Image courtesy of David Castillo Dominici/FreeDigitalPhotos.net
For more information, call us on 0117 933 0570 or fill in our contact form and we'll get back to you.


text:
Tube Rank Machine by Ankur Shukla Review : New 7-in-1 Software Gets You FREE TRAFFIC Using Videos Without Any Manual Work
Hello and thank you for stopping my Review ! Here you will find Powerful tools, Marketing courses, plugins and many Internet Marketing Softwares tested by me, Tim Walker, creator of this product review blog.
Looking for Latest and Best Internet Marketing Product ? Wanna Keep update what's happening in the IM World? You have came to the right place!
Tube Rank Machine is a Web App. It automatically rank your YouTube videos higher than regular sites even you do not create videos. You will get traffic from 4 essential things:
- The attractive title of video
- The description of video
- Video tags that you add
- Backlinks to rank everything
Ranking your website in Google can be difficult, especially for newbies. You have to write content, do lots of hard SEO tasks, and deal with the websites, host and other stuff. But that can make you disappointed because, after your effort, your site may not show up on Google. That is the reason why we need a professional agency or some effective tools to help us to do all the hard work.
If you are still looking for a good news, you will feel happy when reading my review. I have experienced Tube Rank Machine for my sites and get the great results. So, I want to share it to you. My Tube Rank Machine Review will give you more details about this product.
>>> Click Here To See Tube Rank Machine by Ankur Shukla <<<
Tube Rank Machine Feature:
- Software #1: Title Generator – Use this tool to instantly get amazing video titles for your videos
- Software #2: Description generator – Find and create the perfect video descriptions for your videos
- Software #3: Tags Generator – Generate 100s of relevant tags for your videos.
- Software #4: Keyword Generator – Uncover the exact keywords you should rank for and get the most traffic from your videos
- Software #5: Trending videos finder – It finds the latest trending videos in each country and grab traffic by using the hottest trends
- Software #6: Video rank checker – It instantly work to check, track and grow your video ranking without any manual work.
- Software #7: Automatic backlinks builder – Upload your video and then click to build 100s of backlinks for super-fast rankings
Tube Rank Machine Exclusive Bonus:
- Exclusive BONUS #1 ($299 Value) – 2000 Backlink Credits to Boost Your Videos
- Exclusive BONUS #2 ($199 Value) – LIVE WEBINAR – Learn The Strategy to Make $10,000/month in PASSIVE Income
Frequently Asked Questions & Answers
- Does TubeRankMachine work with all kinds of videos?
Yes, it works for any videos you can add to youtube, this is mostly designed to work for Youtube videos as that is the largest video platform out there and automatically gets ranking help from Google all the time.
- What type of backlinks are these and where are they coming from?
We have a network of over 5000 wordpress content blogs and these backlinks come from various posts and comments on those blogs. They are medium quality links and range from PR3 to PR0.
- What are Credits? How many Backlinks can I build?
1 Credit means 1 Backlinks. With the Unlimited Videos option, you can use all the tools for unlimited video projects and if you run out of link credits you can buy more within the software app itself.
- Can I see where are my backlinks coming from?
Yes once you submit a task to build say 100 links, you will get a JOB REPORT that gives you the exact links where you have your backlinks coming from. It completely transparent.
- Are these Backlinks Safe?
Yes they are – Backlinks are posted to a network of 5000 niche blogs, all these blogs are 100% safe and many of these have been around for over 3 to 5 years The new links are drip-fed over multiple days, so it looks natural. Many of our customer sites have moved up in rankings since using this.
- How many Backlinks do you recommend to add to each video?
In our experience, adding at least 50 to 100 backlinks using Tube Rank machine can often give you decent rankings if the topic or keywords are not too competitive but it highly depends on the niche, keyword and the authority of your site. We cannot guarantee any rankings as a lot of other factors are responsible for ranking.
- Do you offer training and/or support for this product?
Absolutely! You will get a detailed video walkthrough showing you every single feature of the software inside the app. And if you have any further question, our support team will be happy to help.
- Is this hard to use?
Not at all! Its extremely newbie friendly. We have created the user interface with the end user in mind, so interaction is very straightforward and just needs 3 clicks to have everything up and running.
>>> Click Here To See Tube Rank Machine by Ankur Shukla <<<


text:
A medical helicopter was called in to transport at least one of the three victims of a crash in Chester County Wednesday afternoon.
One vehicle overturned, trapping a victim, in the wreck along the 6100 block Goshen Road – near the Kirkwood Preserve – in Berwyn, Pennsylvania around 3:30 p.m., said county dispatchers.
Two people were taken to the hospital and a third was treated at the scene, said dispatchers.
Breaking news and the stories that matter to your neighborhood.
No word on how long it will take to clear the scene along the two-lane road.


text:
SEWANEE, TN --- Friday, October 28th, 2016. The lions traveled to Sewanee, TN for the 16th Annual Sewanee Invite. A two day meet, hosted by Sewanee University of the South.
In the 100 Medley Relay Reichenbach, Carrasquilla, Brown and Raczynski (47.63) placed 2nd.
In the 100 IM Mendoza (53.16) placed 1st, Reichenbach (55.96) placed 4th, Williamson (57.36) placed 7th, Carrasquilla (59.89) placed 17th, Raczynski (1:01.29) placed 19th and Rabern (1:11.00) placed 27th.
In the 50 Fly Aleksandrowicz (23.06) placed 1st, Mendes (24.64) placed 3rd, Stigant (25.17) placed 4th, Jones (25.43) placed 6th, Brown (25.80) placed 11th, Pendergraft (27.12) placed 19th, Perry (28.12) placed 23rd, Bonna (30.46) placed 28th and Foxworth (30.58) placed 29th.
In the 100 free relay Aleksandrowicz, Mendes, Mendoza, Stigant (39.67) placed 1st.
In the 1650 free Raczynski (16:22.86) placed 1st, Williamson (17:30.87) placed 2nd, Armes (17:52.41) placed 3rd, Mendes (18:57.42) placed 5th and Rabern (20:36.13) placed 6th.
Head Coach, Allen Gilchrest, commented: "The guys swam great tonight, a strong team effort, from Adrian leading the team with 3 firsts and 3 meet records. The guys relay going 39 in the 4x25 is a very fast time. To Camilo winning 3 events and 2 meet records. To the distance guys going 1-2-3 in the mile, and Stan swimming the 1650 in 16:22 which is currently #5 in the country for NCAA Div. II. All 17 guys scored points tonight." GO LIONS!


text:
In the last week, I have started a new year at school, I take this little bag with me that includes all my everyday essentials. Of course this it totally personal but this is what I like to take. When I'm not at schoolI will put the bag into my handbag. It's so much easier to keep it all in a little bag than having it wondering around my bag.
Makeup: I only carry powder and concealer as I feel thats what you top up the most throughout the day. I don't like to lug my whole makeup bag around with me everyday. My bag is already heavy enough! I also like to carry a lip balm for when I'm suffering from dry lips. I've been loving the Babylips as you also get a slight tint of colour thats acceptable for school.
Hair: I carry a couple of bobbles and grips as they come in handy when you have PE and when you're having a bad hair day. Recently have been loving these clips from Primark they are really good at clipping your fring up when it becomes annoying.
Perfume and deodorant: I carry a travel size perfume bottle, for a quick spritz and freshen up. I also carry deodorant as I don't want to be smelly throughout the day, especially after PE.
Hand sanitizer, hand cream and tissues: These aren't that exciting but they are essensuals. Sanitizer always comes in handy when it's lunch time and you're on the move. I love this Soap & Glory one as it smells nicer than the other ones because it doesn't have that chemical, alcohol smell. Hand cream because I hate having dry hands and this one from l'occitane is my favourite. Finally tissues there an essential, they don't need that much explaining.
Other: Items not pictured! Chewing gum or mints as it's always nice to have fresh breath throughout the day. Plasters, I usually put these in when I'm wearing some uncomfortable shoes at the weekend when out shopping. Blisters are the worst!
What's your essential?