Taylor, Bean & Whitaker
Taylor, Bean & Whitaker was a top-10 wholesale mortgage lending firm, the fifth-largest issuer of Government National Mortgage Association securities. Their slogan was "Perfecting the Art of Mortgage Lending". On August 5, 2009, following a raid by the Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and suspension by the Federal Housing Administration from issuing FHA mortgage loans and Ginnie Mae mortgage-backed securities, it ceased business operations. In April 2011, its majority owner was convicted of 14 counts of securities and wire fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, sentenced to 30 years in federal prison. Deutsche Bank and BNP Paribas have sued Bank of America, the trustee and collateral agent of Taylor Bean's Ocala subsidiary, over $1.75 billion in losses stemming from the subsidiary's fraud. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker closed $35 billion in residential mortgage loans in 2007, it employed about 2,000 workers, was the fifth-largest issuer of Ginnie Mae securities. By 2009, it was servicing more than 500,000 mortgages, including $51.2 billion of Freddie Mac loans.
On August 3, 2009, SIGTARP special agents raided the company's headquarters in Ocala, Florida, in connection with an investigation related to the company's acquisition of a majority stake in Colonial BancGroup, once one of the 25 biggest depository banks in the U. S. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker had signed a deal on March 31, 2009, to become the majority owner of Colonial BancGroup in a $300 million equity stake. On August 4, 2009, the Federal Housing Administration suspended the company from issuing FHA mortgage loans and Ginnie Mae mortgage-backed securities. On August 5, 2009, Bean & Whitaker ceased business operations, terminated all of its 2,000 employees at its headquarters; the company filed for bankruptcy protection on August 24, 2009. This came soon after the Alabama State Banking Department, as Colonial Bank's regulator, seized the bank and appointed the FDIC as a receiver. Both companies were brought down by a fraud that started in 2002 involving individuals at both Colonial Bank and Taylor, Bean & Whitaker.
After the termination of its 2,000 employees, the entire board of directors of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker resigned. In their stead, two newly appointed independent directors, Bill Maloney and Bruce Layman, operated the company with Neil Luria of Navigant Capital Advisors, appointed chief restructuring officer of the company; the Office of Thrift Supervision, Bean & Whitaker's government regulator, approved the appointments. Subsequently, Judge Jerry A. Funk of the United States Bankruptcy Court approved Taylor, Bean & Whitaker's liquidation plan, which created a trust for distribution to Taylor, Bean & Whitaker's creditors: The Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Plan Trust; the Trust is run by Neil Luria. The bankruptcy trustee for Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. once one of the nation's biggest held mortgage companies, is suing PricewaterhouseCoopers as the auditor of Colonial Bank, seeking $5.5 billion in damages. The trustee alleged in the 2013 lawsuit that PricewaterhouseCoopers was negligent in not detecting a massive fraud scheme that brought down Taylor, Bean & Whitaker and helped trigger the 2009 collapse of Colonial Bank, a Montgomery, Alabama bank with $25 billion in assets, one of the biggest U.
S. bank collapses during the Great Recession. The watched case could lead to billions of dollars in damages, depending on how a jury answers a fundamental question in accounting: How much responsibility do auditors have for catching fraud? PricewaterhouseCoopers has maintained in court documents that its responsibility is to follow accounting principles — which might not detect fraud, but in a pretrial brief issued by the trustee, former PricewaterhouseCoopers chairman Dennis Nally is quoted in a 2007 Wall Street Journal article saying that the "audit profession has always had a responsibility for the detection of fraud". In 2005, Taylor Bean created and subsequently operated a special-purpose entity subsidiary, Ocala Funding. Ocala was a conduit which purchased its home loans, bundled them into securities which it sold to Freddie Mac and other investors, it funded the mortgage loan business by selling $1.75 billion of worthless asset-backed commercial paper short-term notes to Deutsche Bank and the mortgage subsidiary of BNP Paribas.
Deutsche Bank bought about $1.2 billion of the notes, BNP had purchased about $480.7 million in the notes. Ocala hired Bank of America as both its collateral agent for the Ocala commercial paper. Prosecutors said that Ocala Funding engaged in what they stated was one of the largest bank frauds in United States history. In litigation unrelated to the Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Plan Trust, Deutsche Bank and BNP Paribas sued Bank of America over the $1.75 billion in losses stemming from the fraud, saying their agreements required that Ocala hold $1.6 billion in cash or mortgage loans as collateral to be deposited with Bank of America, that Bank of America breached its custodial and trustee obligations and improperly transferred billions of dollars of funds that were serving as collateral at Ocala's request. The case is being heard by Judge Robert Sweet in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Sweet allowed some of the case to proceed in March 2011, writing that Deutsche Bank and BNP Paribas had stated a "plausible claim" against Bank of America.
In June 2012, Judge Sweet dismissed a counter-suit by Bank of America Corp. against the securities units of BNP Paribas and Deutsche Bank, alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty on their behalf for their role in the sale of notes issued by Ocala Funding. Sweet held that the units, acting as brokers in the sale of the Ocala notes, owed "no duty... to
Price fixing is an agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand. The intent of price fixing may be to push the price of a product as high as possible leading to profits for all sellers but may have the goal to fix, discount, or stabilize prices; the defining characteristic of price fixing is any agreement regarding price, whether expressed or implied. Price fixing requires a conspiracy between buyers; the purpose is to coordinate pricing for mutual benefit of the traders. For example and retailers may conspire to sell at a common "retail" price. Price fixing is permitted in some markets but not others. In neo-classical economics, price fixing is inefficient; the anti-competitive agreement by producers to fix prices above the market price transfers some of the consumer surplus to those producers and results in a deadweight loss.
International price fixing by private entities can be prosecuted under the antitrust laws of many countries. Examples of prosecuted international cartels are those that controlled the prices and output of lysine, citric acid, graphite electrodes, bulk vitamins. In the United States, price fixing can be prosecuted as a criminal federal offense under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Criminal prosecutions must be handled by the U. S. Department of Justice, but the Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction for civil antitrust violations. Many state attorneys general bring antitrust cases and have antitrust offices, such as Virginia, New York, California. Private individuals or organizations may file lawsuits for triple damages for antitrust violations and, depending on the law, recover attorneys fees and costs expended on prosecution of a case. Under American law, exchanging prices among competitors can violate the antitrust laws; that includes exchanging prices with the intent to fix prices or the exchange affecting the prices individual competitors set.
Proof that competitors have shared prices can be used as part of the evidence of an illegal price fixing agreement. Experts advise that competitors avoid the appearance of agreeing on price. Since 1997, US courts have divided price fixing into two categories: vertical and horizontal maximum price fixing. Vertical price fixing includes a manufacturer's attempt to control the price of its product at retail. In State Oil Co. v. Khan, the US Supreme Court held that vertical price fixing is no longer considered a per se violation of the Sherman Act, but horizontal price fixing is still considered a breach of the Sherman Act. In 2008, the defendants of United States v LG Display Co. United States v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, United States v. Sharp Corporation, heard in the Northern District of California, agreed to pay a total sum of $585 million to settle their prosecutions for conspiring to fix prices of liquid crystal display panels; that was the second largest amount awarded under the Sherman Act in history.
In Canada, it is an indictable criminal offence under Section 45 of the Competition Act. Bid rigging is considered a form of price fixing and is illegal in both the United States and Canada. In the United States, agreements to fix, lower, stabilize, or otherwise set a price are illegal per se, it does not matter if the price agreed upon is reasonable or for a good or altruistic cause or the agreement is unspoken and tacit. In the United States, price-fixing includes agreements to hold prices the same, discount prices, set credit terms, agree on a price schedule or scale, adopt a common formula to figure prices, ban price advertising, or agree to adhere to prices that are announced. Although price fixing means sellers agreeing on price, it can include agreements among buyers to fix the price at which they will buy products. Price fixing is illegal in Australia under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, with similar prohibitions to the US and Canadian prohibitions; the Act is enforced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
Section 48 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 explicitly states, "A corporation shall not engage in the practise of resale price maintenance." A broader understanding of the statutory provision is in Section 96of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, which broadly defines what can be resale price maintenance. New Zealand law prohibits price fixing, among most other anti-competitive behaviours under the Commerce Act 1986; the act covers practices similar to that of US and Canadian law, it is enforced by the Commerce Commission. Under the EU commission's leniency programme, whistleblowing firms that co-operate with the antitrust authority see their prospective penalties either wiped out or reduced. British competition law pr
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. Established pursuant to Article III of the U. S. Constitution in 1789, it has original jurisdiction over a narrow range of cases, including suits between two or more states and those involving ambassadors, it has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal court and state court cases that involve a point of federal constitutional or statutory law. The Court has the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution or an executive act for being unlawful. However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction; the court may decide cases having political overtones, but it has ruled that it does not have power to decide nonjusticiable political questions. Each year it agrees to hear about one hundred to one hundred fifty of the more than seven thousand cases that it is asked to review.
According to federal statute, the court consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, all of whom are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office; each justice has a single vote in deciding. When the chief justice is in the majority, he decides. In modern discourse, justices are categorized as having conservative, moderate, or liberal philosophies of law and of judicial interpretation. While a far greater number of cases in recent history have been decided unanimously, decisions in cases of the highest profile have come down to just one single vote, exemplifying the justices' alignment according to these categories; the Court meets in the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D. C, its law enforcement arm is the Supreme Court of the United States Police. It was while debating the division of powers between the legislative and executive departments that delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention established the parameters for the national judiciary.
Creating a "third branch" of government was a novel idea. Early on, some delegates argued that national laws could be enforced by state courts, while others, including James Madison, advocated for a national judicial authority consisting of various tribunals chosen by the national legislature, it was proposed that the judiciary should have a role in checking the executive power to veto or revise laws. In the end, the Framers compromised by sketching only a general outline of the judiciary, vesting federal judicial power in "one supreme Court, in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish", they delineated neither the exact powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court nor the organization of the Template:Judicial branch as a whole. The 1st United States Congress provided the detailed organization of a federal judiciary through the Judiciary Act of 1789; the Supreme Court, the country's highest judicial tribunal, was to sit in the nation's Capital and would be composed of a chief justice and five associate justices.
The act divided the country into judicial districts, which were in turn organized into circuits. Justices were required to "ride circuit" and hold circuit court twice a year in their assigned judicial district. After signing the act into law, President George Washington nominated the following people to serve on the court: John Jay for chief justice and John Rutledge, William Cushing, Robert H. Harrison, James Wilson, John Blair Jr. as associate justices. All six were confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 1789. Harrison, declined to serve. In his place, Washington nominated James Iredell; the Supreme Court held its inaugural session from February 2 through February 10, 1790, at the Royal Exchange in New York City the U. S. capital. A second session was held there in August 1790; the earliest sessions of the court were devoted to organizational proceedings, as the first cases did not reach it until 1791. When the national capital moved to Philadelphia in 1790, the Supreme Court did so as well.
After meeting at Independence Hall, the Court established its chambers at City Hall. Under Chief Justices Jay and Ellsworth, the Court heard few cases; as the Court had only six members, every decision that it made by a majority was made by two-thirds. However, Congress has always allowed less than the court's full membership to make decisions, starting with a quorum of four justices in 1789; the court lacked a home of its own and had little prestige, a situation not helped by the era's highest-profile case, Chisholm v. Georgia, reversed within two years by the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment; the court's power and prestige grew during the Marshall Court. Under Marshall, the court established the power of judicial review over acts of Congress, including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution and making several important constitutional rulings that gave shape and substance to the balance of power between the federal government and states; the Marshall Court ended the practice of each justice issuin
Quackery synonymous with health fraud, is the promotion of fraudulent or ignorant medical practices. A quack is a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, qualification or credentials they do not possess; the term quack is a clipped form of the archaic term quacksalver, from Dutch: kwakzalver a "hawker of salve". In the Middle Ages the term quack meant "shouting"; the quacksalvers sold their wares on the market shouting in a loud voice. Common elements of general quackery include questionable diagnoses using questionable diagnostic tests, as well as untested or refuted treatments for serious diseases such as cancer. Quackery is described as "health fraud" with the salient characteristic of aggressive promotion. Since it is difficult to distinguish between those who knowingly promote unproven medical therapies and those who are mistaken as to their effectiveness, United States courts have ruled in defamation cases that accusing someone of quackery or calling a practitioner a quack is not equivalent to accusing that person of committing medical fraud.
To be both quackery and fraud, the quack must know they are misrepresenting the benefits and risks of the medical services offered. In addition to the ethical problems of promising benefits that can not reasonably be expected to occur, quackery includes the risk that patients may choose to forego treatments that are more to help them, in favor of ineffective treatments given by the "quack". Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch defines quackery "as the promotion of unsubstantiated methods that lack a scientifically plausible rationale" and more broadly as: "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health." This definition would include questionable ideas as well as questionable products and services, regardless of the sincerity of their promoters. In line with this definition, the word "fraud" would be reserved only for situations in which deliberate deception is involved. Paul Offit has proposed four ways in which alternative medicine "becomes quackery": "...by recommending against conventional therapies that are helpful."
"...by promoting harmful therapies without adequate warning." "...by draining patients' bank accounts..." "...by promoting magical thinking..." Unproven ineffective, sometimes dangerous medicines and treatments have been peddled throughout human history. Theatrical performances were sometimes given to enhance the credibility of purported medicines. Grandiose claims were made for what could be humble materials indeed: for example, in the mid-19th century revalenta arabica was advertised as having extraordinary restorative virtues as an empirical diet for invalids. Where no fraud was intended, quack remedies contained no effective ingredients whatsoever; some remedies contained substances such as opium and honey, which would have given symptomatic relief but had no curative properties. Some would have addictive qualities to entice the buyer to return; the few effective remedies sold by quacks included emetics and diuretics. Some ingredients did have medicinal effects: mercury and arsenic compounds may have helped some infections and infestations.
However, knowledge of appropriate uses and dosages was limited. The science-based medicine community has criticized the infiltration of alternative medicine into mainstream academic medicine and publications, accusing institutions of "diverting research time and other resources from more fruitful lines of investigation in order to pursue a theory that has no basis in biology." R. W. Donnell coined the phrase "quackademic medicine" to describe this attention given to alternative medicine by academia. Referring to the Flexner Report, he said that medical education "needs a good Flexnerian housecleaning."For example, David Gorski criticized Brian M. Berman, founder of the University of Maryland Center for Integrative Medicine, for writing that "There evidence that both real acupuncture and sham acupuncture more effective than no treatment and that acupuncture can be a useful supplement to other forms of conventional therapy for low back pain." He castigated editors and peer reviewers at the New England Journal of Medicine for allowing it to be published, since it recommended deliberately misleading patients in order to achieve a known placebo effect.
With little understanding of the causes and mechanisms of illnesses marketed "cures" referred to as patent medicines, first came to prominence during the 17th and 18th centuries in Britain and the British colonies, including those in North America. Daffy's Elixir and Turlington's Balsam were among the first products that used branding and mass marketing to create and maintain markets. A similar process occurred in other countries of Europe around the same time, for example with the marketing of Eau de Cologne as a cure-all medicine by Johann Maria Farina and his imitators. Patent medicines contained alcohol or opium, while not curing the diseases for which they were sold as a remedy, did make the imbibers feel better and confusedly appreciative of the product; the number of internationally marketed quack medicines
FedEx Corporation is an American multinational courier delivery services company headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. The name "FedEx" is a syllabic abbreviation of the name of the company's original air division, Federal Express, used from 1973 until 2000; the company is known for its overnight shipping service and pioneering a system that could track packages and provide real-time updates on package location, a feature that has now been implemented by most other carrier services. FedEx Corporation is an import/export company, incorporated October 1997, in Delaware. FDX Corporation was founded in January 1998 with the acquisition of Caliber System Inc. by Federal Express. With the purchase of Caliber, FedEx started offering other services besides express shipping. Caliber subsidiaries included a small-package ground service. FDX Corporation was founded to oversee all of the operations of those companies and its original air division, Federal Express. In the 1990s, FedEx Ground planned, but abandoned, a joint service with British Airways to have BA fly a Concorde supersonic jet airliner to Shannon, Ireland with FedEx packages on board, FedEx would have flown the packages subsonically to their delivery points in Europe.
Ron Ponder, a vice president at the time, was in charge of this proposed venture. In January 2000, FDX Corporation changed its name to FedEx Corporation and re-branded all of its subsidiaries. Federal Express became FedEx Express, RPS became FedEx Ground, Roberts Express became FedEx Custom Critical, Caliber Logistics and Caliber Technology were combined to comprise FedEx Global Logistics. A new subsidiary, called FedEx Corporate Services, was formed to centralize the sales and customer service for all of the subsidiaries. In February 2000, FedEx acquired an international logistics company. FedEx acquired WorldTariff, a customs duty and tax information company. FedEx Corp. acquired held Kinko's, Inc. in February 2004 and re-branded it FedEx Kinko's. The acquisition was made to expand FedEx's retail access to the general public. After the acquisition, all FedEx Kinko's locations offered only FedEx shipping. In June 2008, FedEx announced. In September 2004, FedEx acquired Parcel Direct, a parcel consolidator, re-branded it FedEx SmartPost.
In December 2007, the U. S. Internal Revenue Service "tentatively decided" the FedEx Ground Division might be facing a tax liability of $319 million for 2002, due to misclassification of its operatives as independent contractors. Reversing a 1994 decision which allowed FedEx to classify its operatives that own their own vehicles as independent contractors, the IRS audited the years 2003 to 2006, with a view to assessing whether similar misclassification of operatives had taken place. FedEx denied that any irregularities in classification had occurred, but faced legal action from operatives claiming benefits that would have accrued had they been classified as employees. In June 2009, FedEx began a campaign against United Parcel Service and the Teamsters union, accusing its competitor of receiving a bailout in an advertising campaign called "Brown Bailout". FedEx claimed that signing the Federal Aviation Administration re-authorization bill, which would let some of its workers unionize more was equivalent to giving UPS a "bailout".
Independent observers criticized FedEx's wording, claiming that it was "an abuse of the term". FedEx Express employees are regulated under the Railway Labor Act. On January 14, 2013, FedEx named Henry Maier CEO and President of FedEx Ground, to take effect after David Rebholz retired on May 31, 2013. On July 17, 2014, FedEx was indicted for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances in cooperation with the Chhabra-Smoley Organization and Superior Drugs. According to the U. S. Department of Justice, "FedEx is alleged to have knowingly and intentionally conspired to distribute controlled substances and prescription drugs, including Phendimetrazine. A representative for the company contested these claims, stating that it would violate personal rights of customers to deny service and that "We are a transportation company — we are not law enforcement". On July 17, 2016 the Department of Justice U. S. Attorney's Office confirmed in a statement that it had asked U. S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer to dismiss the indictment but did not say why.
In April 2015, FedEx acquired their rival firm TNT Express for €4.4 billion as it looks to expand their operations in Europe. For the fiscal year 2018, FedEx reported earnings of US$4.572 billion, with an annual revenue of US$65.450 billion, an increase of 8.5% over the previous fiscal cycle. FedEx's shares traded at over $244 per share, its market capitalization was valued at over US$55.5 billi
The USA PATRIOT Act is an Act of the U. S. Congress, signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001; the title of the Act is a contrived three letter initialism preceding a seven letter acronym, which in combination stand for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. The acronym was created by Chris Kyke. In response to the September 11 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks, Congress swiftly passed legislation to strengthen national security. On October 23, 2001, Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner introduced H. R. 3162 incorporating provisions from a previously-sponsored House bill and a Senate bill introduced earlier in the month. The next day, the Act passed the House by a vote of 357–66, with Democrats comprising the overwhelming portion of dissent; the three Republicans voting "no" were Robert Ney of Ohio, Butch Otter of Idaho, Ron Paul of Texas. On October 25, the Act passed the Senate by a 98–1 vote, the only dissident being Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.
Those opposing the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional. Many of the act's provisions were to sunset beginning December 31, 2005 four years after its passage. In the months preceding the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sun-setting provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U. S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several of the act's sections, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language; the two bills were reconciled in a conference committee criticized by Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns. The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006, was signed by President Bush on March 9 and 10 of that year.
On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, a four-year extension of three key provisions in the Act: roving wiretaps, searches of business records, conducting surveillance of "lone wolves"—individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups. Following a lack of Congressional approval, parts of the Patriot Act expired on June 1, 2015. With passing the USA Freedom Act on June 2, 2015, the expired parts were restored and renewed through 2019. However, Section 215 of the law was amended to stop the National Security Agency from continuing its mass phone data collection program. Instead, phone companies will retain the data and the NSA can obtain information about targeted individuals with permission from a federal court. Title I authorizes measures to enhance the ability of domestic security services to prevent terrorism; the title established a fund for counter-terrorist activities and increased funding for the Terrorist Screening Center, administered by the FBI.
The military was authorized to provide assistance in some situations that involve weapons of mass destruction when so requested by the Attorney General. The National Electronic Crime Task Force was expanded, along with the President's authority and abilities in cases of terrorism; the title condemned the discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans that happened soon after the September 11 terrorist attacks. The impetus for many of the provisions came from earlier bills, for instance the condemnation of discrimination was proposed by Senator Tom Harkin in an amendment to the Combatting Terrorism Act of 2001, though in a different form, it included "the prayer of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop of Washington in a Mass on September 12, 2001 for our Nation and the victims in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist hijackings and attacks in New York City, Washington, D. C. and Pennsylvania reminds all Americans that'We must seek the guilty and not strike out against the innocent or we become like them who are without moral guidance or proper direction.'"
Further condemnation of racial vilification and violence is spelled out in Title X, where there was condemnation of such activities against Sikh Americans, who were mistaken for Muslims after the September 11th terrorist attack. Title II is titled "Enhanced Surveillance Procedures", covers all aspects of the surveillance of suspected terrorists, those suspected of engaging in computer fraud or abuse, agents of a foreign power who are engaged in clandestine activities, it made amendments to FISA, the ECPA, many of the most controversial aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act reside in this title. In particular, the title allows government agencies to gather "foreign intelligence information" from both U. S. and non-U. S. Citizens, changed FISA to make gaining foreign intelligence information the significant purpose of FISA-based surveillance, where it had been the primary purpose; the change in definition was meant to remove a legal "wall" between criminal investigations and surveillance for the purposes of gathering foreign intelligence, which hampered in