Search results

Margaret's story concludes our short series on recovery heroes. This series started with Dolly Sen, followed by Peter Chadwick, Gordon McManus and Matt Ward. Four of the five people featured were from our local service at South London and Maudsley NHS Trust. We have defined recovery heroes as individuals whose journeys of recovery can inspire both service users and professionals alike. Margaret once commented that, ‘all service users are recovery heroes’. It is fitting that the series should end with her own story.

Motivated by rapidly increasing CEO age in the USA, the purpose of this study is to analyze the effect of CEO age on financial reporting quality and consider the moderating role of clawback provisions.

This study uses a data set of 18,492 US firm-year observations from 2003 to 2019. Financial reporting quality is proxied with accruals-based and real activities earnings management measures, and with financial statement irregularities, measured by applying Benford’s law to financial statement line items. A number of sensitivity tests are conducted including the use of an instrumental variable.

The results provide evidence that financial statement irregularities are more prevalent when CEOs are older, and they suggest a complex relation between CEO age and real activities earnings management. The results also suggest that the effect of CEO age on financial reporting quality is moderated by the presence of clawback provisions which became mandatory for US-listed firms in October 2022.

This study is the first, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, to consider the effect of CEO age on financial statement irregularities and earnings management. This study has important implications for stakeholders evaluating the determinants of financial reporting quality, for boards of directors considering CEO age limitations and for policymakers considering mandating clawback provisions, which recently occurred in the USA.

This chapter demonstrates that social business models do not meaningfully prioritize or impose accountability to “social good” over other purposes in ways that (a) best protect against owners changing their minds or entry of new owners with different priorities and (b) enable reliable accountability over time and across circumstances. This chapter further suggests a model – a “social primacy company” – that actually prioritizes “social good” and meaningful accountability to it. This chapter thus clarifies circumstances under which existing models might be most useful and are not particularly useful, especially as investors, entrepreneurs, employees, regulators, and others pursue shared, common understandings about purposes, priorities, and accountability.

This chapter describes the complexity of large-scale disaster recovery programs in the United States, the challenges faced by these programs, and the importance of multiteam systems in overcoming these challenges.

This chapter is a case study based on the experience of the authors in hurricane recovery programs.

Multiteam systems provide the range of expertise and experience needed to implement complex large-scale disaster recovery programs. For such disasters, responsibility for recovery work needs to be divided among specialized teams with unique expertise, some of which act as checks and balances for others. Challenges facing these teams include ensuring compliance with multiple Federal and state requirements, providing sufficient training to program staff, modifying procedures in response to changing program policies, and communicating changes for all pressure to move quickly, while at the same time facing intense pressure to process applications for assistance as rapidly as possible.

This chapter provides organizations responsible for disaster recovery important information about the scope of work and challenges they are likely to face following a large-scale disaster.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the procedures under section 17 of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 (“The Act”) for enforcement proceedings to recover an awarded sum. This paper will demonstrate that the procedure is unclear and confusing to the party wall surveyors, the magistrates, the county court officers and the legal profession who express conflicting views on the appropriate method of enforcement. The intent of this paper is to examine and explain the procedures that will allow the recovery of costs and other contingencies, as a civil debt within the Magistrates’ Court, with a comparison of the more traditional route of the County Court.

The author has reviewed the relevant sections of the statutory acts and the limited publications that discuss and promote various methods of enforcement of actions that have been awarded and are recoverable summarily as a civil debt. Accordingly, the options to enforce payment within the magistrates’ and county courts will be considered, explained, and discussed within this paper.

This paper makes a contribution to the limited existing literature and theoretical interpretation of section 17 of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, to provide a framework for considering the procedures and principles necessary to enforce payment of costs awarded under the Act. The paper makes a comparative analysis of the differences between the two recognised approaches and explains why a particular method (the Magistrates’ Court) will normally be the preferred option.

The paper demonstrates that there is confusion surrounding the appropriate method of enforcement, and provides a structured and detailed explanation of the appropriate method of enforcement.

An Act to amend the law relating to employers and workers and to organisations of employers and organisations of workers; to provide for the establishment of a National Industrial Relations Court and for extending the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals; to provide for the appointment of a Chief Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, and of assistant registrars, and for establishing a Commission on Industrial Relations as a statutory body; and for purposes connected with those matters. [5th August 1971]

The aim of this paper is to highlight key themes and issues relating to the recovery phase of disaster. Particular emphasis is given to psychosocial and community dimensions and the lessons identified by and for those working in recovery‐related programmes. The paper starts with a review of the research undertaken as a result of two Winston Churchill Memorial Trust fellowships, and is followed by a discussion of the meaning and application of recovery in relation to emergency management.

Both Churchill projects shared the common aim of seeking to understand the meaning of psychosocial recovery following disaster from the perspective of those directly involved in community‐based activities. A snowball sampling approach enabled further contacts to develop beyond initial interviewees identified. The following themes informed the topics explored and questions asked: comparative experiences of community impacts of disasters and approaches to psychosocial support strategies; post‐disaster activities that supported the wellbeing of people and communities following major emergencies (and those which did not work so well); and lessons and implications for future post‐disaster recovery agendas.

The purpose and key principles of psychosocial recovery are highlighted, including the importance of focusing on people, facilitating community engagement and addressing organizational and personal resilience among recovery personnel. The need to plan for and address psychosocial recovery as part of an integrated and holistic approach to emergency management is a key message in this paper and, it is argued, is of relevance to all involved in dealing with disasters: “if there is an emergency to respond to, there is something to recover from”, as Kate Brady wrote in 2010 in Best Practice Psychosocial Recovery following Emergencies.

Further research might build on the themes identified here and draw further comparisons across other case studies in terms of the meaning of recovery and what “success” might mean in terms of recovery programmes. In the UK, a longitudinal perspective might also offer researchers opportunity to examine the experiences and lessons associated with psychosocial recovery across those communities affected by the decade of disasters in the 1980s, soon approaching their 30th anniversaries.

Based on primary research, the article reinforces and illustrates key themes and principles in the field of disaster recovery. It focusses on the psychosocial dimension, an aspect sometimes neglected in disaster management. Its messages are of value to both researchers and practitioners within the field of emergency management.

This paper considers how compensation claims are calculated for people who have acquired brain injuries as a result of negligence or an accident. It distinguishes between criminal compensation and civil damage and clarifies the full recovery principle, ie. that the claimant should receive sufficient compensation to place them in the same position as if the incident had not occurred. The heads of damages are then explored in detail, before considering how those who lack capacity are protected. It concludes that gaining full compensation for someone is not simply a matter for solicitors, but requires the support of the multidisciplinary team, the client and their family.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the requirements of Section 954 of the Dodd‐Frank Act, “Recovery of erroneously awarded compensation”, and what companies should currently be doing in anticipation of these requirements.

The paper explains what clawbacks are, what purposes they serve, the key requirements under Section 954, challenges with Section 954, including key terms that require greater definition and unresolved enforceability issues, and recommends what companies can do now to prepare for the likely enactment of the rules implementing Section 954 in 2012.

The Dodd‐Frank Act's clawback requirements under Section 954 relate to the recovery of “windfall” compensation without regard to misconduct if there is a financial misstatement or other change in financial results, and as a result more compensation was paid than otherwise would have been paid had the correct financial results originally been reported.

Given the number of key open issues with Section 954 and the potential sensitivities around a policy that could require companies to recover previously earned and paid compensation without fault of the executive, companies will want to closely monitor the rulemaking process in 2012.

The paper provides practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.