Pages

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Listing Agreement amended by SEBI - sebiupdates.blogspot.com

SEBI has made some significant changes to the equities listing agreement (the “Listing Agreement”) by a circular (available here) on 16th December, 2010. The changes introduced are as under:

1. Changes to clause 35
Clause 35 of the Listing Agreement mandates companies to file the details of their shareholding pattern with stock exchanges on a quarterly basis within 21 days of end of each quarter. SEBI has now added two more reporting requirements in clause 35 which are (i) companies should disclose their shareholding one day prior to the listing of its securities and the stock exchanges are required to disseminate these details before the first trade (this ensures wider public dissemination of shareholding pattern), and (ii) companies should report within 10 days any capital restructuring resulting in a change exceeding +/-2% of the total paid-up share capital.

Another change introduced in clause 35 is with respect to the details of ‘shares held by custodians and against which DRs(depositary receipts) have been issued', which are presently required to be disclosed in Table (I) (a) of Clause 35, should from now on be further segregated as those pertaining to the ‘promoter/promoter group’ and to the ‘public’.

This will ensure a holistic and true picture of the promoter/promoter group holding.

2. Changes to clause 5A
Clause 5A of the Listing Agreement contains the procedure to be followed by the companies with respect to the unclaimed shares pursuant to public or any other issue. Before the amendment, the clause only dealt with the shares issued in electronic and provided nothing for shares issued in the past in physical mode. Vide this amendment, SEBI has inserted specific provision for procedure to be followed in respect of unclaimed shares issued in physical form.

This will end the difficulties faced by the companies which have in the past issued shares in physical form.

3. Changes to clause 20
Clause 20 of the Listing Agreement mandates the companies to intimate the exchange of the outcome of the board meeting to consider payment of dividends or buyback. The existing clause does not require the companies to intimate the date of payment/dispatch of dividends to the exchange. Vide this amendment, SEBI has made it mandatory for the companies to also inform the exchange the date on which dividend would be paid.

This will enhance transparency and enable the investors to manage their cash/securities flows efficiently

4. Changes to clause 22
Clause 22 of the Listing Agreement mandates the companies to intimate the exchange within 15 minutes of the closure of the Board meeting the particulars of the decisions taken therein pertaining to increase of capital by issue of bonus shares, re-issue of forfeited shares/securities or any other alterations of capital. Vide this amendment, SEBI has made it mandatory for the companies to also inform the exchange the date on which the bonus shares would be credited/ dispatched.

5. Changes to clause 40A
Clause 40A of the Listing Agreement contains the condition for minimum public float to be adhered to by a listed company. The Government in June 2010 through the Securities Contracts (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 2010 (a copy of which is availablehere), had mandated listed companies to achieve at a 25 percent public shareholding in the next three years. This amendment had also prescribed annual floors of 10%/ 5% by which the listed companies should reach the 25% public shareholding. However, there was a further amendment in August 2010 vide Securities Contracts (Regulation) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2010 (notification no. GSR662(E) dated 9th August 2010 available at MANU/EAF/0142/2010), whereby the 25% requirement was reduced to 10% for public sector enterprises and flexibility was provided to the listed companies to attain the 25%(10% for public sector enterprises) within three years without any annual floor.

Clause 40A has now been amended to bring it in alignment with this second amendment to the Securities Contract (Regulation) Rules, 2010 (the “Rules”). The amended clause 40A now specifically provides that a listed company has to comply with the requirements of the Rules and can reach the required level of public shareholding by issuance of shares to public through prospectus/offer of promoters’ shares to public through prospectus/sale of promoters’ shares through secondary market.

6. Insertion of new clause 53 and 54
The following new clauses have been inserted in the Listing Agreement by this amendment:
• “53. The issuer company agrees to notify the stock exchange and also disseminate through its own website, immediately upon entering into agreements with media companies and/or their associates, the following information:-
a. Disclosures regarding the shareholding (if any) of such media companies/associates in the issuer company.
b. Any other disclosures related to such agreements, viz., details of nominee of the media companies on the Board of the issuer company, any management control or potential conflict of interest arising out of such agreements, etc.
c. Disclosures regarding any other back to back treaties/contracts/agreements/MoUs or similar instruments entered into by the issuer company with media companies and/or their associates for the purpose of advertising, publicity, etc.


• “54. The issuer company agrees to maintain a functional website containing basic information about the company e.g. details of its business, financial information, shareholding pattern, compliance with corporate governance, contact information of the designated officials of the company who are responsible for assisting and handling investor grievances, details of agreements entered into with the media companies and/or their associates, etc. The issuer company also agrees to ensure that the contents of the said website are updated at any given point of time.

These added clauses seek to ensure public dissemination of details of agreements entered into by corporates with media companies. This change is basically a bye-product of an earlier SEBI press release available here, which has been discussed in a previous post.

The amendments to clauses 5A, 35, 40A and insertion of clause 53 comes with immediate effect, while the amendments to clauses 20, 21 and 22 would be applicable for all board/shareholders meetings held on or after 1st January, 2011. The insertion of clause 54 is to take effect from 1st April, 2011.


Source - http://sebiupdates.blogspot.com/2010/12/sebi-amends-listing-agreement.html

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

CID files charges, names 7 in missing ore case Read more: CID files charges, names 7 in missing ore case - The Times of India http://timesofindia.ind

The CID, which probed into the missing ore at Belikere port near Karwar in February/March this year, filed its first chargesheet on December 24, naming seven accused. They were allegedly responsible for illegal export of seized iron ore 1.05 lakh MT, causing loss of over Rs 44 crore to the government.

In the chargesheet filed before CJM & JMFC Ankola, the CID has charged that the port conservator of Belikere Mahesh Billiye had connived with export companies Stevedore, Salagaonkar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd., and helped them export the iron ore seized by the forest department officials, says a press release.

As per the chargesheet, Salagaonkar company had illegally exported 50,250.610 MT of iron ore, while its sister company Tungabhadra Minerals had sold 23,504.300 MT of iron ore to them. Besides, Gimpex Ltd had illegally exported 31,884.850 of iron ore.

The chargesheet has named Mahesh Billiye, representatives of Salagaonkar Mining industries, Tungabhadra Minerals, Gimpex Ltd., Tungabhadra Minerals executive director Ramasubba Reddy, Salagaonkar Mining Industries senior manager Ramachandra Vasu Nayak, Gimpex Supervisor K Chandran in this case.

In the press release, CID DGP D V Guruprasad has said that the investigation into in the case was still in progress and this was the first chargesheet.

The case came to light in February when the Lokayukta unearthed illegal transport of over 8 million tonnes at Belikere port. The forest department was asked to seize the ore and file a complaint with local police.

Later, 10 mining companies had approached the high court seeking release of the iron ore. When they did not get a favourable ruling, they just exported 5.5 million tonnes of iron ore, worth over Rs 250 crore, without even paying customs duty.

When this came to light, Karwar DCF Gokul, through ACF Hithalamakki, lodged a complaint with local police. When local police were reluctant to book a case, Gokul approached the SP and threatened to file a private complaint in the court if they did not register the case for `breech of trust' and `theft' against the mining companies.

Karwar police registered the case and wrote to the state police chief to hand over the case to CID.


Read more
:
CID files charges, names 7 in missing ore case - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/CID-files-charges-names-7-in-missing-ore-case/articleshow/7174838.cms#ixzz19TeZHNk5

Saturday, December 25, 2010

The Laws of Ultimate Reality

The Laws of Ultimate Reality


They say facts are more surprising then fiction. Life and Nature has its own realities. Here are some of the ultimate laws of nature. I have not written them, I have just collected them, selected them, organised them and presented on a pallete for you to try and get a smile on your face on a serious day. Most of you might have read this or a part of this before. But at the cost of repitition also, go through them, they might help you somewhere in the future.


Law of Mechanical Repair - After your hands become coated with grease, your nose will begin to itch and you’ll have to pee.

Law of Gravity - Any tool, when dropped, will roll to the least accessible corner.

Law of Probability - The probability of being watched is directly proportional to the stupidity of your act.

Law of Random Numbers - If you dial a wrong number, you never get a busy signal and someone always answers.

Law of the Alibi - If you tell the boss you were late for work because you had a flat tire, the very next morning you will have a flat tire..

Variation Law - If you change lines (or traffic lanes), the one you were in will always move faster than the one you are in now (works every time)

Law of the Bath - When the body is fully immersed in water, the telephone rings.

Law of Close Encounters - The probability of meeting someone you know increases dramatically when you are with someone you don’t want to be seen with.

Law of the Result - When you try to prove to someone that a machine won’t work, it will.

Law of Biomechanics - The severity of the itch is inversely proportional to the reach.

Law of the Theater - At any event, the people whose seats are furthest from the aisle arrive last.

The Starbucks Law - As soon as you sit down to a cup of hot coffee, your boss will ask you to do something which will last until the coffee is cold.

Murphy’s Law of Lockers - If there are only two people in a locker room, they will have adjacent lockers.

Law of Physical Surfaces - The chances of an open-faced jelly sandwich landing face down on a floor covering are directly correlated to the newness and cost of the carpet/rug.

Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible if you don’t know what you are talking about.

Brown’s Law of Physical Appearance - If the shoe fits, it’s ugly



Oliver’s Law of Public Speaking - A closed mouth gathers no feet

Wilson’s Law of Commercial Marketing Strategy - As soon as you find a product that you really like, they will stop making it

Doctors’ Law - If you don’t feel well, make an appointment to go to the doctor, by the time you get there you’ll feel better. Don’t make an appointment and you’ll stay sick

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

High Flying Lawyers - India Today Article

The New Nawabs

By Priya Sahgal and Kaveree Bamzai | India Today


When Ratan Tata moved the Supreme Court, claiming his right to privacy had been violated, he called Harish Salve. The choice was not surprising. The former solicitor general has been topping the legal charts ever since he scripted a surprising win for Mukesh Ambani against his brother Anil. That dispute set the gold standard for legal fees. On Mukesh’s side were Salve, Rohinton Nariman andAbhishek Manu Singhvi. The younger brother had an equally formidable line-up led by Ram Jethmalani and Mukul Rohatgi.

The dispute dated back three-and-a-half years to when Anil filed a case against his brother for reneging on an agreement to supply 28 million cubic metres of gas per day from its Krishna-Godavari basin fields at a rate of $2.34 for 17 years. The average legal fee was Rs 25 lakh for a full day’s appearance, not to mention the overnight stays at Mumbai’s five-star suites, business class travel, and on occasion, use of the private jet. Little wonder though that Salve agreed to take on Tata’s case pro bono. He could afford philanthropy with one of India’s wealthiest tycoons.

Welcome to the world of new nawabs. The lawyers’ fees alone, at a conservative estimate, must have cost the Ambanis at least Rs 15 crore each. Both the brothers had booked their legal teams in the same hotel, first the Oberoi and, after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, the Trident. “Well, if you’re going to write all this, then you can also add that Mukesh bought me a pair of pyjamas as well,” laughs Salve, recalling how he was called to Mumbai suddenly from Orissa where he had gone for a day’s hearing. “I told Mukesh I had packed nothing. He insisted on buying me the essentials.”

It’s not the essentials as much as the frills that raise eyebrows. The veteran Jethmalani is surprisingly the most modest in his fees since he does not charge rates according to the strength of the client’s purse. But as the crises have multiplied, lawyers’ fees have exploded.

**************************************************
Harish Salve, 54- Landmark case: Won the gas dispute for Mukesh Ambani, though what he enjoys most is being amicus curiae in the Forest Case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India and Others.- Legal Style: Is a master strategist. Gives a balanced argument rather than an aggressive, one-sided view.- Fee per appearance: Rs 2.5 lakh to Rs 3 lakh. For a full day, it’s Rs 25 lakh.- The indulgence: Drives a Bentley.
**************************************************
Ram Jethmalani, 87- Landmark case: Got the Jain Hawala case against L. K. Advani squashed; is currently defending former Gujarat home minister Amit Shah.- Legal Style: Argues forcefully. Has an acerbic wit.- Fee per appearance: Rs 5 lakh.- The indulgence: Has an indoor badminton court built in his MP bungalow that is the envy of Lutyens’ Delhi.
**************************************************
Mukul Rohatgi, 55- Landmark case: Represented Anil Ambani in the gas dispute.- Legal Style: Is a slogger. Argues aggressively and goes straight to the point.- Fee per appearance: Rs 2.5 lakh to Rs 3 lakh and Rs 25 lakh for a full day.- The indulgence: Drives a black Bentley, has Souza on his walls, a holiday home in Goa.
**************************************************
Majid Memon, 55- Landmark case: He represented Yakub Memon but could not set him free.- Legal Style: He argues in the court with his right leg on a chair.- Fee per day: Rs 10 lakh. Charges Rs 2 lakh for a bail application.- The indulgence: Likes to travel, makes frequent trips to exotic locations.
**************************************************
Satish Maneshinde, 50- Landmark case: He secured bail for Sanjay Dutt in the Bombay blast case and for Salman Khan who allegedly killed one person while driving drunk.- Legal Style: Argues calmly in court and looks straight into the judge’s eyes.- Fee per day: Rs 10 lakh.- The indulgence: His Mercedes and a passion for Page 3 parties.
**************************************************
Aryama Sundaram, 53- Landmark case: Represented the West Bengal Government against Haldia Petrochemicals and UBS Securities against sebi.- Legal Style: Persuasive speaker, argues his case in a measured tone.- Fee per appearance: Rs 3.5 lakh
**************************************************
Arvind Datar, 53- Landmark case: Was one of the lawyers in the Vodafone vs Income Tax case.- Legal Style: Says one lesson he learnt is to never antagonise a judge. It’s not only your bread and butter but your client’s life.- Fee per appearance: Rs 50,000 to Rs 5 lakh.- The indulgence: His first car was a Toyota Corona in 1990. Now he drives an Audi. Has penned a three-volume commentary on Constitutional law.
**************************************************
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, 51- Landmark case: Won the right to fly the tricolour for Navin Jindal.- Legal Style: From logical in court to rhetorical flourish in Parliament to snappy sound bites for the media on tv.- Fee per appearance: Rs 2.5 lakh to Rs 3 lakh. For a full day, it’s Rs 25 lakh.- The indulgence: A limited-edition Visconti pen with a custom-made nib and watches from every luxury brand.
**************************************************

The 50 court hearings in the Haldia Petrochemicals vs the West Bengal Government cost the former a total of Rs 25 crore in lawyer fees and the 20 hearings in the Bombay Mill Case, which dragged on for three years, cost the mill owners almost Rs 10 crore. Large corporate firms, which engage star counsels on behalf of the client, also need to know their quirks.

For instance, Salve will only accept the first brief. He will never be the second counsel in a case. Some lawyers prefer to be paid partly in cash but the best are content with cheques. Some expect the client not to blink while picking up a dinner tab of Rs 1.75 lakh at a Chennai five star. A lawyer is known to carry his home linen and curtains with him while travelling on work. A firm may even have to pick up a hot Vertu phone of the moment or a Jaeger-LeCoutre watch of the hour to keep a lawyer in good humour.

Some are even paid to not appear at all for the other side – Aryama Sundaram was retained by Anil Ambani in the gas feud but he did not fight the case. Or take Raytheon when it was fighting the Jindals. Raytheon had paid seven top lawyers a retainer fee of Rs 2.5 lakh each just to ensure that the Jindals would not be able to make a proper case on a taxation issue.

They miscalculated when a star lawyer fought the case at the last minute. “I don’t take negative retainers,” shrugs Rohatgi, former additional solicitor general. “A lawyer’s job is to appear for any client that comes to him. It’s not for the lawyers to judge if a client is good or bad but the court.” Indeed. He is, after all, the lawyer who argued so famously in court that B. Ramalinga Raju did not fudge any account in the Satyam Case. All he did was “window dressing”.

Some high profile cases have continued for years, providing a steady source of income, from the Scindia succession battle which dates to 1989, to the JetLite Sahara battle now in taxation arbitration to the BCCI which is currently in litigation with Lalit Modi, Rajasthan Royals and Kings XI Punjab.

Think of the large law firms as the big Hollywood studios and the senior counsel as the superstar. There are a few familiar faces to be found in most of the big ticket cases, whether it is the Ambani gas case, Vodafone taxation or Bombay Mills case.

Explains Salve, “There is a reason why we have more than one senior advocate on a case. When you’re arguing, he’s reading the court. He picks up a point or a vibe that you may have missed.” Says Raian Karanjawala whose firm has prepared the briefs for cases ranging from the Tata’s recent right to privacy case to Karisma Kapoor’s divorce, “The four jewels in the crown today are Salve, Rohatgi, Rohinton Nariman and Singhvi.

They have replaced the old guard of Fali Nariman, Soli Sorabjee, Ashok Desai and K.K. Venugopal.” He adds, “The one person who defies the generational gap is Jethmalani who was India’s leading criminal lawyer in the 1960s and is so today.”

The demand for superstar lawyers has far outstripped the supply. So a one-man show by, say, Rohatgi can run up billings of Rs 40 crore, the same as a mid-sized corporate law firm like Titus and Co that employs 28 juniors. The big law firms such as AZB or Amarchand & Mangaldas or Luthra & Luthra have to do all the groundwork for the counsel, from humouring the clerk to ensure the A-lister turns up on the hearing day to sourcing appropriate foreign judgments in emerging areas such as environmental and patent laws. “We are partners in this. There are so few lawyers and so many matters,” points out Diljeet Titus.

As the trust between individuals has broken down, governments have questioned corporates and corporates are questioning each other, and an array of new issues has come up. And as the government has weakened, the courts have become stronger. The lawyer, says Sundaram, with the flourish that has seen him pick up many Dhurandhares and Senakas at pricey art auctions, has emerged as the modern day purohit.

Each purohit is head priest of a particular style. Says Karanjawala, “Harish is the closest example in today’s bar to Fali Nariman; Rohinton has the best law library in his brain; Mukul is easily India’s busiest lawyer while Manu Singhvi is the greatest multi-tasker.” Salve has managed a fine balancing act where he has represented Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mayawati, Parkash Singh Badal and Amarinder Singh, Lalit Modi and Subhash Chandra and even the Ambani brothers, of course in different cases. Singhvi is Sonia Gandhi’s go-to-guy on most legal issues, whether it is citizenship or filing a case against a publication.

Jethmalani is the man to call for anyone in trouble. In judicial circles he is known as the first resort for the last resort. Even Jethmalani’s junior Satish Maneshinde, who came to Mumbai in 1993 as a penniless law graduate from Karnataka, shot to fame (and wealth) after he got bail for Sanjay Dutt in 1996. Now he owns a plush office in Worli and has become a one-stop shop for celebrities in trouble, from getting bail for Rakhi Sawant when a youth committed suicide after she called him namard (impotent) to representing Salman Khan in a drunken driving case.

With wealth come perks. In 1992, Karanjawala and Desai were chatting in the Supreme Court car park when former law minister Ashoke Sen zipped by in his Fiat. “What Ashoke, small car?” asked Desai to which Sen replied, “In Bangla we have a saying: known Brahmins need not wear the sacred thread.” Now the car park is filled with Bentleys, Mercedes and at the very least, an upmarket Toyota. The symbols of success include a holiday home in Goa, Souzas on the office walls, shopping expeditions to Bond Street (where they can expect to bump into other lawyers). As Salve says, “Only Brioni and Canali make boring suits for lawyers, the blacks and dark greys.” Also the pens, the watches, and in Arun Jaitley and Rohatgi’s case, the jamewars. Then there is the public profile, amplified by talking head status on tv channels every other night.

Most of the prized lawyers such as Salve, Jethmalani, Sundaram and Rohatgi do some pro bono work as well, if the cause is right. But in all this, the pil bar has come crashing down, upheld only by men such as Rajeev Dhavan and Prashant Bhushan. “I subsidise my pil work by taking on commercial cases, which I needed when I had to send my daughters to study in the US,” says Dhavan. In many cases, it’s the take-off point for a job in the government like Indira Jaising’s work with Mumbai’s homeless pavement dwellers which has got her the additional solicitor general’s job. As Dhavan notes, the dense gravity of private marketing lawyering has created black holes in activist lawyering.

Says an angry Sorabjee, “To charge Rs 30 to 40 lakh per day is nothing short of extortion. It is no excuse to say that the client can afford it. Lawyers are professionals, not tradesmen in a market place. I get mad if a client says fees are no question. You think you can buy me? You can charge heavy fees but not extortionist fees.” The octogenarian constitutional expert charges Rs 2 lakh per appearance as opposed to the going rate of Rs 2.5 lakh to Rs 5 lakh charged by younger lawyers. Sometimes, if the court breaks for lunch at 1 p.m. and the matter has come up for hearing at 12.45, the lawyer even bills the client for two separate appearances.

In Mumbai, for instance, veteran criminal lawyer Majid Memon charges Rs 2 lakh simply for securing bail in a sessions court. There are those who recall him coming to the tada court in 1996 on an old scooter. He now drives a Mercedes. In Chennai, Arvind Datar charges anything between Rs 50,000 and Rs 5 lakh per appearance.

As for the chartered flights, they all claim that this is a necessity rather than a privilege. “The advocates come to us with that offer (of chartered flights). It’s not flaunting of power but the idea is to return the same day from a badly connected destination, says Singhvi, putting on his most earnest expression. Rohatgi complains of being claustrophobic on small planes. “During peak hours, chartered flights don’t get preference over commercial,” he adds with the jaded fatigue of a seasonal traveller.

There is a reason for this exorbitant fee structure. In recent years, the stakes in corporate litigation have hit the roof, as in the Rs 12,000-crore Vodafone vs the Income Tax department case. Moreover, the legal fraternity argues that when clients don’t mind paying investment bankers fees worth millions of dollars, then why are only lawyers coming up for censure? The fate of several crucial corporate battles hangs on the slender thread of which matter is listed before which court and which lawyer would work there. “Why should we earn less than the CEO of a big corporation?” asks Sundaram. Except that this CEO often goes on to become a minister in the government-law as a profession offers immense mobility-and deal with the same organisations he once represented.

Most corporate bosses also have their legal favourites. For instance, Nusli Wadia’s favourite lawyer is Fali Nariman who hates “skullduggery”; ITC’s was Desai but he has since been replaced by Salve; the late Madhav Rao Scindia’s family favours Singhvi. Of course, the Ambani brothers too have their chosen legal soldiers: while Anil’s first choice is usually Rohatgi, his brother opts for Salve. As does Ratan Tata. The Birlas go with Sen. Many have created mini-dynasties, whether it is Singhvi, Salve or Rohinton Nariman.

“Sometimes, it’s the thrill of the forensic complexity that counts, not winning or losing,” says Singhvi. He recalls how during the Ambani gas case, a friend called and asked him, “The stocks are fluctuating wildly. You’re the oracle: which way will it go?” Singhvi laughed and said he had no idea. Salve agrees. “Mukesh called me that morning and said we have done our best. The rest is up to God,” he recalls.
However, Rohatgi who appeared for Anil says, “I had a premonition we would lose. But Anil thought otherwise.” Salve adds, “After the judgment, Mukesh was too choked to speak. Nita said they had one more request. I should handle the media. She said, Harish bhai bahut negativity ho gaya. There should be no loose comments.” Clearly a lawyer’s brief is not just limited to courtrooms.

Ironically, it was during the Battle of the Brothers last year that Salve told the Supreme Court how Mukesh Ambani had told him about the millions of dollars demanded by laptop consultants just to create holding companies, resulting companies and other such complexities. Quick to retort, Rohatgi had quipped, “Is this how Salve justifies his high fees?” Grinning, a sheepish Salve said, “I plead guilty on my behalf and on behalf of my colleagues.” But it was Justice R.V. Raveendran who had the last word, “The only difference between Salve and the consultants is the laptop.” And perhaps the Bentley, the BMW and the Mercedes.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/the-new-nawabs.html

Monday, December 13, 2010

Indian-origin Paul Grewal named magistrate judge in San Jose

Indian-origin Paul Grewal named magistrate judge in San Jose

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California announced that Paul Singh Grewal, a 39-year-old Indian origin trial attorney, has been appointed a magistrate judge in the San Jose division. Grewal, who focuses on technology litigation, taking a seat vacated by the retirement of Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Grewal is leaving his post as a partner in the Howrey law firm, which merged with the Day, Casebeer, Madrid and Batchelder law firm last year, where he had been for 10 years practicing civil intellectual property law.

This appointment follows closely the naming of Indian American Jay Gandhi as a federal magistrate judge in the Central District of California. Gandhi took the oath of office Nov. 19 in Los Angeles. He holds a under graduation degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1993 and has a law degree from the University of Chicago in 1996.

Finishing the law school, he served as a judicial clerk to District Judge Samuel H. Bell of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and for Circuit Judge Arthur J. Gajarsa of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Magistrate judges earn about $160,000 a year, and that position often leads the way to becoming a district judge.