Self-directed IRAs are similar, in many ways, to regular IRAs. However, the key difference is that the types of investments you can hold in a self-directed IRA are much broader than in a traditional one. This broad range of investments includes more exotic investments not allowed in the more-vanilla traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs. As we’ve learned from the recent financial meltdown of 2008, just because it’s more exotic doesn’t mean it is any better than more traditional investment opportunities, and unfortunately these investments may also be much riskier.

Along with riskiness these exotic investments also tend to be very difficult to value, and the reporting requirements for these values are not conducive to a lay person understanding the true risks involved. Unlike freely traded stocks, for example, which are easy to value on the open market, the assets contained within self-directed IRAs tend to be more illiquid, and as a result are not easily valued. Therefore, the valuation numbers you see on your statements for self-directed IRAs may not correlate to the actual price you could get on the open market, but instead be the purchase price plus some arbitrarily determined value placed on it by the promoter. This formula is a boon to scammers and schemers who can use the legal self-directed IRA as a cover for their fraudulent activities.

As mentioned, there have been several recent highly publicized cases of self-directed IRA fraud here in the state. As a result we here at Starr Austen & Miller have created a series of articles discussing this investment type to help you understand what they are, and also whether you may be a victim of fraud because of them.

In Part 1, we’ve discussed the issue of “What are self-directed IRAs?”. In addition, we’ve explained some of the main characteristics of these IRAs which make them so useful for criminal and fraudulent individuals to use to try to scam their victims.

In Part 2, we’ve compiled some real life examples of self-directed IRA fraud that have occurred in Indiana, to use as an example of what these scammers are trying to do, and the devastation it has had on the victims.

Finally, in Part 3 we’ve compiled a short checklist of questions to ask yourself to determine if you may be a victim of self-directed IRA fraud.

Because of the high risk of fraud associated with this type of investment we urge all those who have such investments to carefully read the checklist and contact us if you’ve got any concerns or any red flags are raised.

The intersection of Pennsylvania and 111th is a 2-way stop and is just north of a roundabout on 106th Street.  Read the full article at IndyStar.com.

If you have any additional information on this accident, please call Mario Massillamany with the law firm of Starr Austen & Miller at (574) 722-6676.

If you have any additional information on this accident, please call Starr Austen & Miller at (574) 722-6676.

That is where a heavy truck’s Event Data Recorder (known in the industry as an “EDR”), and often commonly referred to as a “black box” can be very useful. This piece of electronic equipment, while not required by law to be present in all vehicles, at this time, often is present and can be very helpful in accident reconstruction.

The Types of Data That May Be Recorded in a Truck’s EDR That Help in Accident Reconstruction

There are many types of EDRs, and therefore they do not all record exactly the same type of information in exactly the same manner, although NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) does have some standards and rulings for these recording devices.

Some of the types of data that an EDR may record, and which may be helpful for accident reconstruction, include the following:

• Speed
• Acceleration rate
• Engine revolutions per minute (RPMs)
• Gear selection and/or clutch application
• Engine malfunction information
• Airbag deployment information
• Measured changes in forward velocity (Delta-V)
• Engine throttle
• Brake application
• Steering angle
• Whether seatbelts were on or off
• Sudden stops
• Low oil pressure
• Coolant loss
• Cruise control status
• Fuel economy
• Idle time
• Average travel speeds

Passenger Vehicles Often Have an EDR Too

Not only do many heavy trucks have these black boxes, but often many passenger vehicles may have them as well. Typically, but not always, these EDRs record less information than those within heavy trucks, but still tend to include information used to calculate airbag deployment and seat belt tensioner calculations, for example.

Just as attorneys for injured victims in truck accidents may request the information from an EDR, so too can plaintiffs receive requests to have their data downloaded and analyzed. It can be important for injured parties to have legal representation in such instances to determine what is, and is not, relevant and admissible evidence and what must be provided during discovery.

Expert Testimony Necessary to Interpret and Present This Evidence in Court

The information contained in the black boxes can be used for accident reconstruction, and it is typically downloaded directly from the vehicle(s) involved in the accident soon after the accident occurs. It is important to make sure you obtain legal representation as soon as reasonably possible after an accident occurs to make sure all relevant data is downloaded before it becomes unavailable, lost or destroyed.

Once the information is downloaded into a report it must be analyzed and interpreted by an expert in accident reconstruction to understand what the data means, and to draw conclusions about how the accident occurred (and potentially why it occurred). An experienced truck accident attorney will be able to contact such experts to evaluate the data involved in your case.

Courts often hold that this EDR data is generally accepted and reliable, which meets the requirements for its admission into evidence. However, there are often legal arguments on both sides regarding what the expert can, and cannot say, in regard to conclusions based on the data retrieved. This requires an understanding of evidentiary law, as it relates to expert testimony, to determine which conclusions are appropriate for a jury to hear from an expert.

Starr Austen and Miller, specialized truck accident lawyers in Indiana, focuses on representing individuals and their family members in serious personal injury and wrongful death cases, such as those often involved in Indiana truck accidents. If you or a loved one have been in a truck accident you can contact us for a free consultation to discuss your case.

Related Links:

http://www.starrausten.com/practice-areas/truck-accidents/

The driver of the truck was Jay Voigt, 44, of Fort Wayne, Indiana. Jay’s semi-truck entered the northbound lanes for “unknown reasons”, states the press release from the Fulton County Sherrif’s Department. The semi-truck then hit another driver, Timothy L. Wilson, in his pickup truck while we was waiting to turn.

Michal Hoover died at Parkview Hospital today, according to Fulton County Sheriff’s Department’s email communications just after noon.

If you have any additional information on this truck accident, please call Starr Austen & Miller at (574) 722-6676.

Read the full article at Pharos Tribune.

On August 13, 2011, a large crowd of Sugarland fans gathered at the Indiana State Fair Grounds expecting a great country music concert, and instead tragedy struck. During a severe thunderstorm with very strong winds the stage at the outdoor concert collapsed, killing 7 people and injuring over 40 others. Among those victims were Starr Austen & Miller clients Lisa Hite, and her granddaughter Kyla-Reed Brumett, who were both in the Sugar Pit at the concert. “The injuries I sustained have left me unable to provide for my family,” Hite stated. “The financial and emotional strain this has caused has left a lasting impact on my family.”

“Unfortunately, this tragedy could have been prevented if the responsible parties had been concerned about the concertgoers that night,” said plaintiffs’ counsel Mario Massillamany.

The lawsuit has named Sugarland Music, Inc. and other entities responsible for the organizing, staging and presentation of the Sugarland concert as defendants. The allegations against the defendants include that they breached their duty of reasonable care to the victims of this collapse. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Sugarland and the other entities owed a duty to provide a safe concert environment and use reasonable care in the operation, direction, management, set-up, control, and supervision of the concert. A copy of the complaint can be seen at: http://www.starrausten.com/sugarland-indiana-state-fair-collapse-complaint-form/

With such a large number of victims the impact of this tragedy has rippled across the entire state of Indiana. “This is a devastating tragedy that has impacted hundreds of people,” states Scott Starr. “It is critical to help the victims pay the medical bills and other financial expenses that they have incurred from this incident.”

In addition to seeking compensation for the victims of this collapse Starr Austen is working with leading scientists to further identify the cause and nature of the problem which caused the stage collapse, and to recommend steps so such a tragedy does not occur again.

Click here to find out more information about the filing of this complaint.

Related Links

http://www.starrausten.com/some-who-were-hurt-in-state-fair-collapse-are-unable-to-receive-money-from-relief-fund/

Widespread Prevalence of These Arbitration Clauses

Statistically, just about everyone in the United States has knowingly, or unknowingly, agreed to a boilerplate mandatory arbitration clause in the contracts or agreements we enter into day in and day out. Some of the most common are those contained in credit card agreements, for example, in which you’ve agreed to take any disputes to arbitration instead of going to court.

The Problem with Mandatory Arbitration Provisions

Arbitration is an alternative way to resolve legal disputes outside the judicial system. Using this method a neutral third party is supposed to hear both sides of the story and then make a binding decision. When arbitration was first introduced in this country it held the promise of improving the dispute process by speeding it up, making it cheaper, and keeping parties from jumping through some of the legal hoops involved in going to court. Arbitration, when conceived, however, imagined two parties of approximately equal bargaining power voluntarily choosing to use the process. That is no longer the case.

Over the years big business has begun inserting these mandatory arbitration provisions in just about every contract they can think of. They’ve done this because they’ve figured out that these arbitration provisions tend to give them the upper hand over consumers in dispute resolution. For instance, there is no jury, no public trial, little to no review by the courts, and instead of going to your local courthouse the arbitration can be located hundreds of miles away from where you live. What makes this worse is that consumers cannot negotiate these provisions, but it is take it or leave it. That assumes, of course, that we even know the fine print clause is in the document, or understand its legal implications to begin with.

Mandatory Arbitration in the Context of Securities Fraud

Arbitration provisions have also creeped into many customer account agreements between customers and their brokers, often without the customer being aware of the provisions existence, and/or unaware of its legal implications. These agreements are typically signed when a customer first begins a relationship with a broker, and agrees that any future disputes between the party, meaning things that have not even happened yet, will be subject to arbitration by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”).

The mandatory arbitration provisions in these agreements have been just as controversial as those in credit card and other consumer agreements. Some of the criticisms leveled against FINRA arbitration include that it is biased in favor of the broker dealer, because one of the three arbitrators on the panel is from the securities industry. Further, the broker dealers themselves are the people who make up the membership of FINRA, so is FINRA really going to bite the hand that feeds it? There are those, of course, from the securities industry themselves who defend the FINRA arbitration process [link to SAM article: what is FINRA arbitration?] saying it is speedy, less expensive and fair. However, as hard as many brokers and securities firms fight to enforce these arbitration provisions, and avoid court, critics may just have a point about who is most favored between the brokers and the customers.

The Dodd-Frank Act’s Potential Blow to FINRA Arbitration

It seems Congress may finally be waking up to some of these criticisms, and showing a willingness to investigate the issue further. The language related to FINRA arbitrations in the Dodd-Frank Act is found in Section 921, which confers authority on the SEC to make rules that limit or prohibit these provisions between customers and broker dealers or investment advisors.

Specifically, the section states:

The Commission, by rule, may prohibit, or impose conditions or limitations on the use of, agreements that require customers or clients of any broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer to arbitrate any future dispute between them arising under the Federal securities laws, the rules and regulations thereunder, or the rules of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such prohibition, imposition of conditions, or limitations are in the public interest and for the protection of investors.

Currently Arbitration Clauses Are Legal and Common In Securities Fraud Cases

Of course, the Act’s language does not currently prohibit such arbitration provisions in customer agreements, and therefore the industry still includes them as standard at this time. Unless and until the SEC creates a contrary rule these mandatory arbitration provisions continue to be valid and enforceable, as a general rule.

As always Starr Austen & Miller will continue to monitor this situation to keep abreast of SEC rules and regulation affecting its clients’ rights. In addition, up to the time FINRA is no longer used for securities fraud arbitrations we will continue, as securities fraud attorneys, [Insert Link] to practice in this forum advocating for our clients rights.

The State Fair Relief Fund is comprised of approximately $970,000 of donated money, and whose stated purpose is to help the victims of this accident. Thirty seven victims of the stage collapse have applied for access to money in the fund, but of those only twenty have been approved, with approximately $470,000 having been paid out. The rest of the money is currently unused and sitting in the fund. The deadline to apply for compensation from the fund is November 14, 2011.

Those who were denied apparently did not meet the strict guidelines for payment, since they had not been admitted to the hospital for a full day between August 13 and October 2, 2011. Many have criticized this approach as to who is, and who is not eligible, saying it is arbitrary, and does not consider other factors including severity of injuries, loss of wages and whether the victim is otherwise insured.

In addition to the State Fair Relief Fund victims of the Sugarland stage collapse can make a filing for compensation with Indiana’s Tort Claim Fund. However, this too is a limited pool of money, which is capped at $5 million total for all victims. So far, 70 claims have already been filed.

For more information see the article at Indystar by clicking this link.

If you or a loved one has been injured in the Sugarland State Fair stage collapse you may need to seek legal representation to make sure you are compensated for your injuries. Starr Austen and Miller focuses on representing individuals and their family members in serious personal injury and wrongful death cases.  If you are an Indiana State Fair Stage Collapse victim or need any further information regarding this tragedy, contact us as soon as possible for assistance.

Related Link:

http://www.starrausten.com/sugarland-state-fair-collapse-lawsuit-filed-by-starr-austen-miller/

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Office of Defect Investigation has announced that it is investigating a number of complaints about engine fires in Mini Coopers.

The models that affected include the sport coupe’s S models, the Clubman and Convertible, for the 2007 and 2008 model years. There are approximately 36,000 of this type of car on the road.

The complaints include engine fires, some of which occurred while the engine was off, and some of which resulted in a total loss of the vehicle. No physical injuries have been reported at this time.

Please contact Scott Starr or Andrew Miller at 574-722-6676 if you have questions or information.

Please click here to read the full story at Indystar.com.