To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week. Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters
The Gazette reported recently there was ‘no evidence that referral fees harm consumers’ according to an ‘economic analysis’. The report focused on a link between referral fees, the cost of legal services and the level of ‘customer’ satisfaction. Of far greater significance is any effect of the referral fee market on a solicitor’s core duties to: uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice; act with integrity; not allow his/her independence to be compromised; and not behave in a way likely to diminish trust in the legal profession. Any evidence that this market compromises the profession’s ability to meet those duties far outweighs the implications of an ‘economic analysis’. This is not a question of economics. We are not insurance brokers, bankers or car dealers. We are officers of the court tasked with upholding the rule of the law and performing a role fundamental to the administration of justice. Questions about the price of our work, the satisfaction of individual ‘customers’ and the profits of those that trade in the misfortunes of others (in the personal injury field) must be secondary to those far more important issues I have highlighted and which are of vital concern to the whole of society. ‘It’s the economy stupid’ went the mantra of the Clinton administration. We should not be guided by the same considerations and allow economic concerns to dictate the character of the profession and undermine the core responsibilities of those that comprise it. When reaching a decision, I hope the Legal Services Board is guided by the interests that matter most and not the economy (stupid). Separately, the spurious genie in the bottle argument is rearing its illogical head once again. Is it really beyond the wit of the Solicitors Regulation Authority to re-impose a ban on referral fees and enforce it? Surely policing an outright ban would be easier than enforcing the current regulations. Even if not, the risk some may continue a harmful or undesirable practice once (and if) it is decided that practice is harmful or undesirable should not operate to justify declining to intervene to see that the activity is stopped. Richard Edwards, E Rex Makin & Co, Liverpool
David McCluskey is a partner at Peters & Peters Last week, the first corporate prosecution under the much-heralded Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 ended with a fine of £385,000 against Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings. This followed its conviction for corporate manslaughter at Winchester Crown Court two days earlier. The Crown Prosecution Service has said that it is considering other cases which may lead to proceedings. It is sincerely to be hoped that such cases are not in the mould of Cotswold Geotechnical, otherwise the new act will have begun not with a bang, but with a whimper. When the draft bill was introduced in March 2005, following the Law Commission’s 1996 report which proposed the reform, a major claim made on behalf of what ultimately became the 2007 act was that it would be ‘P&O proof’. In other words, if the Zeebrugge ferry disaster or something similar were to recur, the company would be convicted of the proposed new offence. The perceived problem with the old law (and the reason behind the abandonment of the prosecution of P&O) was the so-called ‘identification principle’, which in the context of corporate manslaughter meant that, before a company could be convicted of manslaughter, a ‘directing mind’ – an individual or individuals at the top of the corporate hierarchy – had to be found guilty of manslaughter first. The new law departed significantly from the Law Commission’s proposals by requiring a ‘substantial element’ of the breach of duty that consists in the offence to be ‘the way its activities are managed or organised by senior management’. Such senior management are then defined as those who play significant roles in making decisions about how the company’s activities are organised, or those who actually manage or organise those activities. It scarcely needs to be said that terms such as ‘substantial element’, ‘senior management’, and ‘significant role’, arguably diminish the act’s intended departure from the identification principle. The CPS has resisted overplaying the significance of the Cotswold Geotechnical conviction in the context of prosecution for corporate manslaughter as a whole, and rightly so. The nature of that case is such that it unfortunately tells us nothing whatsoever about how these new principles operate. Cotswold Geotechnical is a company employing just eight individuals. Its director was both in overall control of the way the company managed its affairs and present on site shortly before the tragic accident happened. As such these facts bear a startling resemblance to the first conviction of a company for manslaughter under the old law, in December 1994. Kite and OLL Ltd, a ‘one-man band’ company, was convicted at Winchester Crown Court following the conviction of its managing director and sole owner, Mr Kite. While Mr Eaton, the director of Cotswold Geotechnical, was originally charged with manslaughter, those charges were stayed after he was ruled unfit to stand trial. Notwithstanding that, it appears that a prosecution of Cotswold Geotechnical might have been just as successful under the old law. The true test of the new legislation will come with a prosecution of a large company which has multiple directors and which already purports to have compliant health and safety procedures. Not only will such companies have greater resources at their disposal to fight any such prosecution, they will already have invested substantial time and money in health and safety compliance, and in consequence will be much better placed to argue that the accident – whatever it might be – was indeed a tragic accident which did not arise out of a relevant breach of the company’s. If the Cotswold Geotechnical conviction is to be a historical footnote then it is as a sentencing guide rather than a guide to a successful prosecution. The fine imposed, to be paid over 10 years, was substantially more than the reported annual turnover of the company, said to be in a ‘parlous financial state’. Even so, the fine is below the recommended starting point of £500,000 set by the Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC). The SGC had recommended that too much of a fixed correlation between turnover and fine as a percentage thereof could provide a perverse incentive to manipulation of corporate structure. Having said that, the judge, in passing sentence, remarked that if the fine caused the company to go into liquidation then that was an outcome ‘unfortunate but unavoidable’.
Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration): Supreme Court (Lords Hope DP, Walker, Clarke, Dyson and Collins): 29 February 2012 Administration – Client funds – Company providing services for clients wishing to invest in securities Section 139 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 expressly permitted rules to make provision which resulted in clients’ money being held on trust in accordance with the rules. Chapter 7 (Client money: MiFID business) of the Client Assets sourcebook issued by the Financial Services Authority was commonly referred to as CASS 7. MiFID was an abbreviation for the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (EC) 2004/39. CASS 7 had evolved from earlier regulatory instruments to transpose MiFID and its implementing Directive, Commission Directive (EC) 2006/73. CASS 7 provided for the segregation of client money and created a statutory trust over client money to support and reinforce the purposes of segregation. CASS 7.4.14G dealt with payment of money into a client business account and set out two approaches that a firm could adopt in discharging its obligations under the MiFID client money segregation requirements, namely (a) the normal approach; or the (b) the alternative approach. Under the normal approach a firm that received client money should either pay it promptly into a client bank account or pay it out in accordance with the rule regarding the discharge of a firm’s fiduciary duty to the client. Under the alternative approach, a firm that received client money should: (a) pay any money to or on behalf of its clients out of its own account; and (b) perform a reconcilaition of records and accounts required under CASS 7.6.2R. CASS 7.7.2R set out the terms on which a firm held and received client money as trustee and CASS 7.9.4R stated that a ‘primary pooling event’ (PPE) occurred, inter alia, on the failure of the firm. The glossary to CASS 7 defined a ‘secondary pooling event’ as an event which ‘occurs on the failure of a third party to which client money held by the firm has been transferred’ under the relevant provisions. CASS 7.9.6R stated that if a pooling event occurred: ‘(1) client money held in each client money account of the firm is treated as pooled; and (2) the firm must distribute that client money in accordance with CASS 7.7.2R, so that each client receives a sum which is rateable to the client money entitlement calculated in accordance with CASS 7.9.7R.’ When first read, CASS 7 appeared to provide a relatively straightforward and intelligible code for the safeguarding of client money by regulated firms. In an ideal world, the flawless operation of the scheme created by the CASS 7 rules would ensure first, that the clients’ money could not be used by the firm for its own account and secondly, that upon the firm’s insolvency, the clients would receive back their money in full, (subject only to the proper costs of its distribution) free from the claims of the firm’s creditors under the statutory insolvency scheme. The rules would achieve those twin objectives by ensuring that, promptly upon receipt, client money was held by a firm as trustee, separately and distinctly from the firm’s own money and other assets, and therefore out of the reach both of the firm (for the conduct of its business) and of the firm’s administrator or liquidator upon its insolvency (for distribution among its creditors). Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) was incorporated as an unlimited company with its head office in London. It was the principal European trading company in the Lehman Brothers group. It was authorised and regulated by the FSA. LBIE was not a licensed deposit-taker, but was authorised to hold clients’ money. Its ultimate holding company was Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, a company incorporated in Delaware which was put into administration on 15 September 2008. The difficulties that had arisen in the administration had led to several applications to the Companies Court for directions pursuant to paragraph 63 of schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986. Probably the most contentious and difficult of those applications was the client money application. The combination of a massive failure to identify and segregate client money, coupled with the credit loss shortfall attributed to the failure of another LBIE affiliate, Lehman Brothers Bankhaus AG (Bankhaus), had thrown up a series of fundamental problems in the interpretation and application of the rules in CASS 7 to LBIE’s business and insolvency. In the case of LBIE, there had been a secondary pooling event, namely the failure of Bankhaus, as well as a primary pooling event, namely the failure of LBIE. In December 2009, the High Court made an order giving directions on a range of issues concerned with client money (see  All ER (D) 143 (Jan)). Four general issues emanating from that application were made the subject of an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Those issues were closely connected and depended upon the application of CASS 7. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on two of the four issues. Permission to appeal or cross-appeal to the Supreme Court in respect of three of those issues was granted to GLG, a representative of LBIE’s fully-segregated clients. The issues were: (i) when did the statutory trust created by CASS 7.7.2R arise; (ii) whether participation in the notional client money pool (CMP) was dependent on actual segregation of client money; and (iii) whether the primary pooling arrangements applied to client money held in house accounts (the client money account issue). The appeal would be dismissed. (1) Where money was received from a client, or from a third party on behalf of a client, it would be unnatural, and contrary to the primary purpose of client protection, for the money to cease to be the client’s property on receipt, and for it (or its substitute) to become his property again on segregation. It would also be contrary to the natural meaning of the comprehensive language of CASS 7.7.2R. Segregation without a trust would not achieve MiFID’s objective. Under the alternative approach, an immediate trust of identifiable client money did provide protection, though mixed funds are subject to a variety of risks. The absence of express restrictions, under the alternative approach, on use of clients’ money while held in a house account did not mean that the firm was free to use it for its own purposes. Its obligation was to segregate it promptly, and both CASS 7.3 and the general law of trusts would prevent use of clients’ money for proprietary purposes. There were at least two methods, one contemplated by CASS 7.4.21R, of ensuring the protection of clients’ money temporarily held in a house account. The most formidable argument in favour of segregation (premised on the view that the provision of the distribution rules in CASS 7.9.6R(1) applied only to segregated funds) was that there was under the alternative approach potentially a ‘black hole’ into which clients’ money might vanish, so as not to be caught by the distribution rules. That was a point of substance, but it did not outweigh the opposing arguments. To allow a limited defect of the alternative approach to dictate the interpretation of the essential provisions of CASS 7.2 would be to let ‘the tail wag the dog’. Further, the alternative method was available not for the convenience of the firm, but as a better means of securing client protection. Both the normal approach and the alternative approach were intended to achieve a high degree of client protection, either by immediate segregation or by very prompt segregation. Moreover, when the firm was using money for its own purposes, it was treated as withdrawing its own money from a mixed fund before it touched trust money (see ,  of the judgment). (2) CASS 7.9.6R(2) should be read as a whole, including the words which followed the comma after ‘in accordance with CASS 7.7.2R’. So read, the better interpretation was that the right to share in a distribution was given to ‘each client’ of the firm, so that all clients with a ‘client money entitlement’ were entitled to share. That was what CASS 7.9.6R(2) stated. The reason for referring back to CASS 7.7.2R was not to identify the client money that was to be distributed (that was done in CASS 7.9.6R(1) and (2)). It was to introduce the order of priorities referred to in CASS 7.7.2R. Accordingly, for example, the incorporation of CASS 7.7.2R(2) threw the costs properly attributable to the distribution of client money on to the client money (rather than on to the general assets of the firm). The costs of distribution would have to come from the trust before division to clients (see  of the judgment). The general scheme of CASS 7 was that all client money was subject to a trust that arose upon receipt of the money by the firm. That included money received from the firm’s affiliated companies. The client money rules were, therefore, intended to protect all the clients’ money received prior to a PPE. The distribution rules were intended to protect all the clients’ money in the event of a PPE. There was nothing surprising in the notion that, once a PPE occurred, the treatment of client money was subject to a different regime from that to which it had been subject before It was not inherently unlikely that the draftsman intended that clients with established proprietary interests in segregated funds should have those interests disturbed by the distribution rules in the event of a PPE. There was no a priori reason why the draftsman would not have intended to produce a scheme pursuant to which the protection afforded to clients was modified in the event of a PPE. There was nothing unrealistic in a scheme which provided that, in the event of the failure of a firm, the beneficial interests in the client money were adjusted so as to provide that each client received a rateable proportion of the aggregate of all the client money; in other words that all clients share in the common misfortune of the failure. Accordingly, the distribution model underlying the CASS 7 trust differed from that of private law (see ,  of the judgment). Participation in the CMP was not dependent on actual segregation at the time of the PPE. Such a purposive interpretation supported the claims basis for participation and better reflected the fact that all client money was subject to the statutory trust and that CASS 7 was intended to give effect to the Directives whose overriding purpose was to safeguard the assets of all clients and to to provide all clients with a high degree of protection (see ,  of the judgment) (Lord Hope and Lord Walker dissenting). (3) As a matter of ordinary language, the phrase ‘client money account’ was capable of meaning: (i) an account which contained or was intended to contain exclusively client money or (ii) an account of the firm which contained client money. Even where a firm was fully compliant, CASS 7 contemplated that client money would be held in the firm’s own account. Accordingly, where the ‘alternative approach’ of payment of client money into a client bank account was adopted under CASS 7.4.16G, 7.4.18G and 7.4.19G, the firm might receive client money into its own bank account before (on the next business day) paying it out to or on behalf of the client. The question of whether a house account in which client money is held was a ‘client money account of the firm’ arose, therefore, both in relation to money held by the firm where it adopted the alternative approach and where it wrongly retained client money in its own account. Since that examination of the text showed that there were two possible interpretations of the phrase ‘each client account of the firm’, the correct interpretation should be the one that best promoted the purpose of CASS 7 as a whole (see ,  of the judgment). The fundamental purpose of CASS 7 was to provide a high level of protection for client money received by financial services firms. That was why all client money received from or held for or on behalf of a client in the course of, or in connection with its MiFID business (CASS 7.2.2R) was held on trust upon receipt and why the other client money rules in CASS 7.1 to 7.8 were expressed as they were; and that was the policy underlying the distribution rules. To exclude identifiable client money in house accounts from the distribution regime would run counter to that policy (see ,  of the judgment). The pooling at the PPE included all client money identifiable in any account of LBIE into which client money had been received and was not limited to client money in the firm’s segregated accounts. That conclusion was consistent with and reinforced the conclusion reached on the client money account issue (see ,  of the judgment) (Lord Hope and Lord Walker dissenting). Decision of Court of Appeal  All ER (D) 15 (Aug) affirmed. Antony Zacaroli QC, David Allison and Adam Al-Attar (instructed by Allen & Overy LLP) for GLG; Jonathan Crow QC, Jonathan Russen QC and Richard Brent (instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP) for Lehman Brothers Finance AG; Jonathan Crow QC, Jonathan Russen QC and Richard Brent (instructed by Norton Rose LLP) for Lehman Brothers Inc; Robert Miles QC and Richard Hill (instructed by Simmons & Simmons) for CRC Credit Fund Ltd; Iain Milligan QC, Rebecca Stubbs and Richard Fisher (instructed by Linklaters LLP) for the administrators; David Mabb QC and Stephen Horan (instructed by the FSA) for the FSA.
Nicola Foulston, chief executive, RosenblattThe offering represents a 48.3% stake in the firm, meaning existing owners will retain a controlling interest. Institutional shareholders taking a stake include Fidelity Investments (6.6%), Miton Asset Management (15.8%), Blackrock (6%) and Canaccord Genuity Group (3.6%).Speaking to the Gazette, Foulston said the company is arranged to ensure there is no conflict between duties to clients and to shareholders, with the legal managers having ‘little to do’ with commercial decisions that are made by the business.The regulated nature of a law firm, she said, would help with the transition to running the company as a plc, and she welcomed the extra transparency that comes with new financial reporting requirements.‘The material impact is the cultural shift of the business away from being focused on billing to being focused on profits,’ said Foulston, a former owner of the Brands Hatch racing circuit. ‘What surprised me [coming into her new role] was how inward looking this sector is. We are still too focused on ourselves and whether we are good at the law. I was shocked at the way clients and the acquisition of clients is discussed, as if somehow we own our clients… this is the last bastion of industry that needed to change and that is what is happening.’Foulston revealed that the firm is already in discussions about an acquisition of another legal services business, with purchases targeted at the ‘high margin end of law’.Proceeds from the listing will also be invested in financial incentives for people working at the firm, with remuneration aligned with business performance. The 20-partner firm, founded by dispute resolution and corporate specialist Ian Rosenblatt OBE in 1989, specialises in financial services, banking and real estate. Rosenblatt, who currently owns 59% of the business, will make millions on the sale but remains the largest shareholder with 21.1%. The boss of the latest law firm to go public says the move will prompt a sea change in how financial success is measured. Chief executive Nicola Foulston spoke on the day that City firm Rosenblatt listed on the London stock exchange with the issuing of around 80m shares to raise £43m. The firm said the initial public offering was ‘significantly oversubscribed’. Shares placed at 95p and were being traded at 106p on the first morning of trading.The cash raised is to be spent on acquiring firms with a similar profile and funding litigation.#*#*Show Fullscreen*#*#
Farmington Voice Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) It’s not every day that a senior provides safety training to the staff at his high school, but Matt Dresden, a senior at Farmington High School (FHS), recently did just that.Matt Dresden is pictured with one the “Stop the Bleed” kits created for FHS. (Contributed)For his Boy Scout Eagle Project, Matt decided that he wanted to do something related to first aid.“During the 2018 Light Up the Grand parade, I was talking to Farmington Hills Councilman Richard Lerner about possible Eagle Scout projects,” Matt recalled. “He said that the schools were looking into stop the bleed kits. I did some research on them and knew that I wanted to build these kits for FHS.”“Stop the Bleed” is a national grassroots awareness campaign geared toward training and equipping individuals to assist in a bleeding emergency prior to the arrival of professional help.Matt reached out to local businesses and residents for financial support and enlisted the help of four Farmington Public Safety Department officers and a fellow student who had taken the “Stop the Bleed” training class. Several PTA (Parent Teacher Association) and community members also helped.Matt and his team created 85 “Stop the Bleed” kits for FHS. (Contributed)Matt and his team trained 75 teachers and staff. Each classroom and a few common areas at FHS received a “Stop the Bleed” kit.“More than 100 hours of work, $1,500, and help from my fellow Boy Scouts, parents, and Farmington Public Safety Officers, we built 85 kits. I’m very proud of this project and happy that I could contribute to my school,” Matt said.Matt Dresden led a team that assembled Stop The Bleed Kits. (Contributed) “Farmington High School is honored that Matt chose to focus his Eagle Scout project on the safety and well-being of his fellow students and our FHS staff,” said principal Thomas Shelton. “We are grateful for the ‘Stop the Bleed’ training and supplies provided by the project. One of the great things about this project is that it is sustainable; FHS students will benefit from this project for years to come.” Reported by
Arana, a transferee from the University of Santo Tomas Growling Tigers, was also part of the Defensive Team together with Oftana, Perpetual Help Altas’ Benedict Adamos, Emilio Aguinaldo College’s JP Maguliano and Stags’ JM Calma. Red Lions’ Donald Tankoua, meanwhile, was hailed as the Best Foreign Player with his 45.28 PAV, built from his 13.3 points, 7.5 rebounds, and 1.9 assists in the final season where foreign student-athletes are allowed to play in the NCAA. Oftana was the consensus MVP winner with his 51.56 PAV (player’s average value) after averaging 15.6 points, 8.2 rebounds, 2.7 assists, and 1.2 blocks in 18 matches for the Red Lions. MANILA – Calvin Oftana’s hard work for the San Beda University Red Lions in the NCAA Season 95 men’s seniors basketball paid off. He is set to be hailed as the season’s MVP today. Oftana’s teammates Evan Nelle and James Canlas placed second and third with 45.39 and 45.33 PAV, respectively, while completing the Mythical Five were San Sebastian Stags’ Allyn Bulanadi and Lyceum Pirates’ Jaycee Marcelino. Calvin Oftana of the San Beda University Red Lions has 51.56 PAV (player’s average value) in the NCAA Season 95 men’s seniors basketball. ABS CBN SPORTS PHOTO The Dumaguete City native has been solid for the Red Lions in their 18-0 elimination round sweep that allowed them to reach the finals outright, where they will face step-ladder semifinals survivor Colegio de San Juan de Letran Knights. Arellano University Chiefs’ big man Justin Arana was named Rookie of the Year for his 35.50 PAV after averaging 13.4 points, 7.8 rebounds, 2.8 blocks, and 1.4 assists. Pirates’ graduating import Mike Nzeusseu was the Defensive Foreign Player for his 9.7 rebounds and 0.9 blocks./PN
Negeri Kangguru patut berbangga karena maskapai kebanggaan mereka, Qantas Airways dianugerahi predikat maskapai teraman di dunia oleh Situs pengulas penerbangan, Airlineratings.com tertanggal 5 Januari 2017. Penyematan gelar tersebut bukan tanpa alasan, pihak Airlineratings.com melihat tidak adanya catatan kecelakaan selama 96 tahun pengabdian mereka di dunia aviasi. Perlu diketahui, ini merupakan tahun ke empat maskapai berjuluk “The Flying Kangaroo” tersebut menduduki peringkat puncak maskapai teraman di dunia.Baca Juga: Qantas dan JetStar Izinkan Car Seat Dibawa ke Dalam KabinDilansir KabarPenumpang.com dari laman telegraph.co.uk (6/1/2017), predikat membanggakan ini juga telah diakui oleh pihak British Advertising Standards Association, yang menyebutkan bahwa Qantas merupakan salah satu maskapai senior yang mengedepankan aspek keamanan penumpang. Dalam mencari jawara di kategori ini, Airlineratings.com mendata sebanyak 425 maskapai, dan memberikan mereka bintang tujuh jika mereka lolos penilaian di bidang keselamatan. 148 maskapai mendapatkan nilai tinggi dalam penilaian ini, namun 50 lainnya mendapat penilaian yang kurang baik. Diketahui dari laman sumber, Airlineratings.com mempertimbangkan beberapa faktor dalam pemberian bintang terhadap ratusan maskapai tersebut, seperti catatan kecelakaan, hingga sertifikasi dari International Air Transport Association (IATA) untuk beberapa maskapai yang terdaftar dalam penerbangan di Uni Eropa. Sementara itu, penilaian akan berkurang jika ada maskapai yang hanya mengoperasikan pesawat buatan Rusia.Ketika penilaian tersebut sudah mengerucut ke angka 20, pihak Airlineratings.com turut membandingkan sejarah penerbangan dan keunggulan masing-masing maskapai. Selain induk perusahaan dari Jetstar Airways ini, beberapa nama lain yang juga masuk ke dalam jajaran maskapai dengan penerbangan teraman di dunia adalah Air New Zealand, Etihad, Finnair, KLM, Lufthansa, Swiss, dan United Airlines. Secara mengejutkan, nama American Airlines dan Emirates terdepak dari peringkat 20 besar maskapai teraman di dunia, padahal tahun lalu, keduanya sempat mejeng di jajaran tersebut.Dilansir dari sumber terpisah, Qantas juga memimpin dalam hal pemantauan mesin secara real-time di seluruh armadanya dengan menggunakan komunikasi satelit. Cara tersebut memungkinkan maskapai untuk mendeteksi masalah sebelum menjadi isu keamanan pesawat membesar.Baca Juga: April 2018, Qantas Buka Penerbangan Langsung Perth – London“20 maskapai teraman yang kami rangkum selalu berada di garis depan inovasi keselamatan, keunggulan operasional dan peluncuran pesawat baru yang lebih maju,” ungkap Geoffrey Thomas, editor dari laman AirlineRatings.com. “Mereka selalu mengedepankan keselamatan selama penerbangan,” imbuh Geoffrey.Sementara itu, nasib buruk dialami Afghanistan, Nepal, Suriname, dan Indonesia karena ke-empat negara ini harus rela mendapatkan hanya satu bintang dari AirlineRatings.com karena penyedia layanan penerbangannya tidak mengedepankan nilai-nilai keamanan. Itu berarti, ada banyak yang mesti dibenahi dari dunia aviasi dalam negeri agar penilaian tersebut bisa membaik dan mengembalikan kepercayaan orang-orang untuk menggunakan maskapai domestik.Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Like this:Like Loading… RelatedTernyata, Qantas Airways Itu Merupakan Singkatan dari…05/10/2018In “Featured”’Cicil’ Pemasangan WiFi Onboard di Penerbangan Domestik, Qantas Targetkan Rampung di Akhir 201823/02/2018In “Featured”Ini Dia Tiga Maskapai Tertua yang Masih Beroperasi!02/10/2019In “Featured”
Share Kevin Ducros and Bruno Savi finished among the top players in Division II for the second consecutive season (Photo by UWF Athletic Communications) Ducros and Savi repeat as ITA All-Americans SKILLMAN, N.J. – Senior Kevin Ducros (Aix-en-Provence, France) and junior Bruno Savi (Santana do Livramento, Brazil/Auburn Montgomery) earned Intercollegiate Tennis Association All-American honors in singles and doubles for the second consecutive season.This marks the fourth time in Ducros’ career that he was named a singles All-American and the third time that he was named a doubles All-American. Only Radovan Chrz has earned more All-America honors than Ducros in UWF history. Chrz was a four-time singles and four-time doubles All-American from 2001-04.Ducros joins Chrz and former female tennis star Suzana Cavalcante as the only four-time All-Americans in UWF history across all sports.Ducros and Savi led No. 3 West Florida to the NCAA Semifinals and a 27-2 overall record in 2013 while finishing among the top players in the Division II rankings. Savi finished ranked No. 4 in singles while Ducros ranked No. 9. The duo ranked No. 3 in doubles together.As a team, UWF ranked No. 3 in the nation, one spot lower than last year’s No. 2 finish. In addition, Tony Rajaobelina (Orleans, France/University of Montpellier) finished the year ranked No. 46 in singles.Savi has earned singles and doubles honors in each of his two seasons at UWF. In addition, Savi was an NAIA All-American his freshman year at Auburn Montgomery before transferring to UWF.Ducros, the ITA South Region Senior Player of the Year, finished 10-6 at No. 1 singles and 4-4 against nationally-ranked opponents. Savi, the Gulf South Conference Player of the Year, finished 31-3 overall. The pair went 23-3 at No. 1 doubles and carried a 22-match winning streak into the NCAA Semifinals. Rajaobelina went 21-4 overall and 15-3 at No. 3 singles. UWF won 20 or more matches for the third consecutive season while advancing to the NCAA Tournament for a second consecutive season before falling to No. 2 Armstrong in the NCAA Semifinals.For information on all UWF athletics, visit www.GoArgos.com. #ARGOS#ITA ReleasePrint Friendly Version
PENSACOLA, Fla. – Riding a five-game winning streak, the University of West Florida softball team will head to Jackson, Tennessee, for a weekend series against Union. With a 26-11 overall record and a 13-8 mark in Gulf South Conference play, UWF could reach 29 wins for the first time since 2012 with a sweep over the Lady Bulldogs (10-30, 3-18 GSC).The doubleheader scheduled for Saturday will begin at 1 pm CT, as will the series finale on Sunday afternoon. Live video broadcasts and stats will be made available by Union, and links for those can be found on GoArgos.com. Around the GSCWith just four regular-season GSC series left, UWF stands at 13-8 in a tie for fifth in the conference, with an opportunity to move up higher in the standings this weekend.In a series between the top two seeds in the conference, North Alabama will travel to Alabama Huntsville, which could allow West Florida to jump into a tie with UAH in the standings. Mississippi College will host Valdosta State, which sits one spot ahead of UWF, and Shorter and West Georgia will face off, which could help West Florida separate from the Hawks.The top six teams at the end of the regular season move on to the conference tournament, which is hosted by the top seed.Games against Mississippi College, which UWF swept, count in the season standings, but the Choctaws are not eligible for postseason play. SchoolGSCPct.OverallPct.#4 North Alabama19-2.90535-4.897#11 Alabama Huntsville16-5.76230-7.811#23 Delta State16-5.76227-10.730Valdosta State12-7-1.62526-8-2.750West Florida13-8.61926-11.703Shorter13-8.61926-11.703West Georgia9-12.42923-17.575 In the Record BooksTaylor’s career walk rate (1.07 per 7 innings) ranks third in school history, and her 0.74 walks per 7 this season would be fourth in the single-season UWF record books.If Chapman is able to keep her current strikeout pace for another 6 2/3 innings, she will post the fourth-best single-season strikeout rate in school history. Should she continue for another 22 2/3 innings, she will have the third-highest career strikeout rate for a UWF pitcher (7.1 Ks per 7).On A StreakWith multiple hits in each game against CBU over the weekend, Emily Pettigrew extended her on-base streak to 21 games.Pettigrew’s is the longest streak since Karri Bisbee reached in 24 straight in 2011.Toughest in the NationThrough 37 games, catcher Caitlin Steel is one of five qualified batters in Division II who has still not struck out this year. With 81 total plate appearances, she has come up more than any of the other four hitters.Steel is 4-15 (.267) with four RBI in at-bats with two strikes on the year, and she has reached five more times in those at-bats, by either a fielding error or a fielder’s choice.Since 1990, only 18 qualified hitters have gone a full season without striking out.Steel is the only player with an at-bat in the GSC who has not struck out this season.Scouting UnionThe top of the Lady Bulldogs’ lineup has been potent this season, with Emily Bennett, Haley Barnette and Reagan Schrader. Bennett leads the team with 15 stolen bases and 34 runs scored, Barnette leads with 42 hits and Schrader has added pop in the heart of the order with 11 doubles, five home runs and a team-best .561 slugging percentage.That trio is hitting .323 with a .502 slugging percentage, while the rest of the team is batting just .249 and slugging .333.For information on all UWF athletics, visit www.GoArgos.com. #ARGOS# — www.GoArgos.com –Print Friendly Version