Clinical Nutrition Diabetes Report - 3233 Words

Clinical Nutrition – Diabetes Report Introduction Diabetes mellitus is a life long condition that develops either when the pancreas can no longer produce enough insulin or the body cannot use the insulin in an effective way to control blood glucose (WHO, 2013). Diabetes UK (2015) classifies diabetes as a condition where glucose builds up in the blood due to inadequate insulin production and/or insulin resistance, where the body’s cells are no longer responding to the insulin produced. Diabetes can arise from lifestyle habits, environmental factors, and genetics (WHO, 2013). There are two main variations of the disease, type I and type 2 diabetes. The first type of diabetes (type I diabetes) is an autoimmune disease causing the body to†¦show more content†¦2003) and is more common in societies with high levels of obesity and low levels of physical activity. This type of diabetes is more prevalent in the UK (Diabetes UK, 2015). The UK population has seen a rise in the epidemic of type 2 diabetes with figures reaching 3.1 million for both diagnosed and undiagnosed in 2010 (Diabetes UK, 2014). It is estimated that by 2030, the figures will rise to 4.6 million people (Diabetes UK, 2014) and it is believed that 800,000 individuals suffer from type 2 diabetes but have not been diagnosed. The disease is more prevalent in ethnic minorities like Afro-Caribbeans and South Asians as they present favoured central adiposity (Huffman, 2012; NICE. 2015) and also it can potentially be genetic (Huffman, 2012; NICE. 2015). Type 2 diabetes is treated with a combination of diet, physical activity, oral medications, and increasingly insulin therapy (Diabetes. 2015). It is important for people diagnosed with diabetes to manage their condition as sustained hyperglycaemia is associated with a number of macrovascular and microvasular complications (Diabetes UK, 2003). It is important for patients diagnosed with diabetes to manage their condition independently, as it creates many complications during their lifetime and requires motivation and self discipline to control it effectively. (Diabetes. 2003). Client’s background information Mrs Patel is a new client who has

Tesla and Gm Proposed Merger Free Essays

string(62) " but due to the saturation of automobiles available in the U\." FINC 664W University of Redlands Capstone Paper General Motors and Tesla Merger Juan Carrillo, Shane Cheek, Jeffrey Haynes, and Peter Delacruz February 23, 2013 Dear Fellow Shareholders: A meeting of Shareholders is scheduled for Saturday, February 23, 2013. Enclosed is a copy of our proxy statement. At this meeting of shareholders, the Board of Directors will be seeking approval to acquire Tesla Motors. We will write a custom essay sample on Tesla and Gm Proposed Merger or any similar topic only for you Order Now The Board of Directors believes that this merger will provide General Motors revenue, growth, and competitive edge to our existing product mix. Additional information concerning this matter is presented in the body of the proxy statement. We encourage you to review this information. Please take a moment and sign, date, and return the enclosed form of proxy. This way your shares will be represented whether or not you are able to attend the meeting. We would like to thank you for your attention to this matter and for your continued support. Respectfully, Chief Executive Officer General Motors and Tesla Merger The General Motors-Tesla acquisition is a great opportunity to combine similar and innovative companies in the auto industry. The following report will help elucidate why we are confident that this acquisition must take place. We will provide you with detailed information in regards to our reasons and considerations why this merger must take place and how it benefits General Motors, Tesla Motors each company’s shareholders and consumers. General Motors (G. M. ) acquisition of Tesla will take this company forward and position us with leading edge technology in the industry, possibly taking over Toyota at the top. G. M. can utilize Tesla’s innovation and technologies to continue to move forward with our vision to design, build, and sell the world’s best cars. Conversely, Tesla’s can utilize GM’s manufacturing facilities and distribution channels to exercise economies of scale and achieve their goals of making electric cars available to all social classes. In addition, Tesla can use GM to help them with their finances cutting their debt to the U. S. government. Moreover, with the synergies between these two companies, the cost of electric vehicles will be affordable. The cost of electric vehicles today makes them available only for the well-to-do but with this merger, the vision of Tesla to distribute electric affordable cars worldwide will come to fruition. Furthermore, considerations and reasons for this merger will also be discussed. In this report we will present an overview of both companies, strategies, SWOT and STEEP analysis, product development, justification for the merger, nature of the offer, integration plan, financials, risk and, reasons why merger should be approved by G. M. and TSLA shareholders and board of directors. GM’s Strategy: Vision: To design, build and sell the world’s best vehicles (Akerson, 2010). Mission: â€Å"G. M. is a multinational corporation engaged in socially responsible operations, worldwide. It is dedicated to provide products and services of such quality that our customers will receive superior value while our employees and business partners will share in our success and our stockholders will receive a sustained superior return on their investment† (Buchen, 2011). Where G. M. started. Forward Thinking: GM was started by a horse carriage salesman named William Crapo â€Å"Billy† Durant in 1908. Prior to that Billy started his own carriage manufacturing company in 1886 and managed to turn $2,000 into $2 million. Around the 1900’s small independent makers were producing gasoline-powered carriages in garages. These carriages were not popular as there were very few in use. Instead of fighting the new technology Durant embraced change, thought forward, and bought a small gas-powered carriage manufacturing company called Buick. At the time there had only been 37 Buicks ever sold. Shortly after buying Buick Durant made improvements to the Buick and showed it at the New York auto show in 1904. He left the auto show that year with more than 1,000 orders for the Buick (Folsom, 1998). Because of Durant’s willingness to embrace change and the needs of the markets, G. M. ould soon become the industry leader in personal transportation and would remain there for the next 70 years. GM also was forward thinking when considering their employees. G. M. was a leader in compensating their employees favorably, while continually churning out a steady income for investors resulting from their high-speed growth. The organization also provided by far one of the country’s most copious health care a nd benefit plans. Throughout the 1950s G. M. leaders and workers were pleased to declare the company had the highest compensated employees in the US. To ensure employees were accessible to return after shutdowns for model year changes, G. M. consented to a revolutionary union clause that compensated workers idled by shutdowns. Also, G. M. made available great pension plans with significant retirement compensation and maximum benefits for long-time employees. This â€Å"Success Formula† permitted G. M. to take control of the industry. The company’s identity to be the largest – the General – was wedded to their strategy of owning the biggest distribution along with the broadest product range. And the Success Formula was effective, as each and every year G. M. sold far more cars and trucks compared to anyone else even while creating outstanding rates of return from the 1940s throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s. GM would not exist today nor would they have been so successful if Mr. Durant had not adapted to the changes in the personal transportation market before it was obvious to the competition. Ultimately, this is type of innovative and forward thinking is what leads to companies taking a commanding control of a market thus forcing the competition to play catch up. This type of innovative thinking is what has helped G. M. to achieve their mission of providing their shareholders a superior return on their investment and it is their goal to continue in this type of success. Current State of the Market: The U. S. market is the largest in the world for the auto industry, but due to the saturation of automobiles available in the U. You read "Tesla and Gm Proposed Merger" in category "Essay examples" S. market, it is not a market of rapid growth. However, other emerging economies are. Nations like China, Europe, Japan and India all have great potential for strong growth. China in particular is poised for rapid middle class expansion and conomic growth, which makes them a prime market to explore. â€Å"Over the past decade, G. M. and our joint venture partners have built a leading position in China – the world’s largest automotive market – with share increasing from 3. 4 percent in 2000 to our current 12. 8 percent (in 2012). †(General Motors Company 2010 Annual Report, 2010) G M has gone from being the leader in the Chinese auto industry since 2005, to losing the market lead in 2012. The competition has caught up with G. M. once again as they did in the U. S. It’s now time for G. M. to change the game, in the U. S. nd in China. They have potential to take a commanding lead in the industry by following the actions of Mr. Durant in 1904, by thinking forward and embracing the shift in the market. There are many factors to be considered by players in the auto industry and what influence will impact their markets. We will focus on three factors we consider critical to GM’s future success; pollution and regulation, supply, demand and cost of oil and the rapid adaptation and dependency of automobiles in China and the regulations that will restrict conventionally powered vehicles. Pollution and Regulation Due to the lack of regulation of emissions many large cities in China have the poorest quality air in the world (McIntyre, 2010). â€Å"Air quality has long been a problem in the Chinese capital, Beijing, and levels have been reported to be more than 30 times above the level declared safe by the World Health Organization† (Branigan, 2013). China’s leading cause of death is cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease that attributed to 53% of China’s annual deaths (World Health Organization, 2011). In an attempt to reduce air pollution the Chinese government has began to regulate their citizens use of automobiles. There are restrictions on what days specified groups of people can drive their autos. Also, the larger cities have limited the number of conventional gasoline powered vehicles that can be registered each year. This restriction does not apply to electric vehicles. Supply, demand and cost of oil The current production of oil is near the highest levels in history yet the demand is ever yet increasing. This has, and will continue, to increase the cost of gasoline. This increase will continue to move the world away from the solitary use of gasoline-powered vehicles. Though oil consumption has teadied in the U. S. it only continues to increase at a high rate and is projected to continue through 2035. The increased cost to power personal vehicles will likely curb consumers purchases of gasoline fuel cars. Many of China’s citizens are just entering into the car market for the first time because many of them have only recently reached a level of disposable income, which allowed them to enter the market. With increasing fuel costs, government registration restrictions and financial incentives Chinese consumers may be swayed from purchasing a conventional gas powered car. Rapid of Automobile Industry in China and Government Support Rising incomes and a growing middle class creating a larger consumer culture have fueled domestic demand. The purchase of an automobile is increasingly becoming a symbol of financial success (APCO Worldwide, 2010). The Chinese economy is enjoying the auto industry boom and does not want to slow its progress, but admits the pollution resulting from more automobiles on the streets of China will force them to promote sustainable transportation. A report by the Chinese Office of the State Council states, â€Å"The automobile industry is an important pillar industry of the national economy, and the automobile industry is an important pillar industry of the national economy, and plays an important role in the national economic and social development† (The State Council, China, 2012). In 2009 the ownership potential for personal transportation growth in China was immense. In China, per capita car ownership was still only 4. 78% in 2009, as compared to 40% in developed nations. This is a strong sign that domestic demand for passenger vehicles will remain high in years to come. † (APCO Worldwide, 2010). China’s Ministry of Technology has laid out a plan and targets that will allow China to progressively shift toward electric vehicles, specifically 2 million electric cars by 2020. Their specific goals are to: – Maximum speed of not less than 100 km/h (62 mph) – All-electric driving ranges of not l ess than 150 km (93 miles) and 50 km (31 miles), respectively – Battery power/kg target of 150W/kg, at a cost of 2 Yuan/Wh ($0. 1/Wh), with a cycle life of 2,000 or more than 10 years – Electric drive system power density of 2. 5 kW/kg, at a cost of 200 yuan/kW. – In 2020, the battery module should have a specific energy of 300 Wh/kg or more. † (Millikin,2012). Where is the market going? The quickest maturing private transportation marketplace is without a doubt China. McKinsey Co, the global management-consulting firm, has shown that China’s automotive market will increase each year by 8% to 22 million yearly auto sales by 2020. The report also stated the emergence in China’s automobile industry would be led by new buyers in China. Estimations vary as to how expansive the Chinese auto market will be by the end of the decade. Bob Socia, the G. M. China president has even stated, â€Å"A consensus is forming that sales may rise to as many as 30 million vehicles by 2020. † (Higgins, 2013) http://www. economist. com/node/18898433 Electric cars, specifically, are the emerging growth market. Currently, electric car growth is from 2011 to 2012 was â€Å"approximately 600%† (Wahlman, 2012). The electric vehicle markets are projected to grow to 7% of total car sales in China, 8% in Europe and 5% in Japan by 2020 (The Economist, 2011). In a report by China’s State Council will implement plans and funding to build an infrastructure and incentives to facilitate the growth and use of electric vehicles in China. They are currently funding the installation of over 400,000 charging stations throughout the country and over $9,000 in rebates for consumers purchasing an electric vehicle. Also, the government is lifting all registration limitations for EV’s and restriction for driving limitations on any particular day for gasoline-powered cars will not apply to owners of electric cars. Many other countries of the world are supporting and funding electric car infrastructure as well. The Sustainable Development Ministry of France has announced to promote the installation of 400,000 charging points in France up to 2015 as well (INRETS, 2012). France has committed $3. 6 billion over the next 10 years to subsidize the building of infrastructure and adaptation of their power grid for electric cars. The Dutch government created the â€Å"Formula E Team,† and plans to put up 10,000 charging points by 2012. The Portuguese government wants to enlarge to renewable energy sector up to 60% and usage of electric vehicles and increase the number of charging stations in Portugal by 1300. There is a long list of countries that are creating policies and regulations that will force the auto industry to develop electric cars. So where does G. M. fit in with the auto market of tomorrow? Currently G. M. is not poised to take a lead in the Chinese auto industry. G. M. has not made progress in the Chinese market and is currently falling behind. Given the evidence stated China should be the primary focus for GM. The Chinese needs are clearly defined and definitively stated by the government. These needs are that of a car that Tesla is willing and capable of delivering given G. M. s infrastructure. Shareholders goals Corporate Mission: â€Å"G. M. is a multinational corporation engaged in socially responsible operations, worldwide. It is dedicated to provide products and services of such quality that our customers will receive superior value while our employees and business partners will share in our success and our stockholders will receive a sustained superior return on the ir investment† (Buchen, 2011). Since G. M. ‘s recent IPO post bankruptcy, shareholder returns have been lacking. Their first day IPO price was near $34 and as of February the stock price is $27. Some would say they have failed to realize part of their corporate mission, obtaining superior returns for their shareholders. G. M. is still selling the same thing they were before their bankruptcy. They have only inched toward what government and consumers are pushing for, electric cars. Their impotent attempt at a hybrid failed to meet even the over ten year old technology of the Toyota Prius. The electric battery will get a lacking 32 miles before it’s dead and has to switch over to a, you guessed it, gasoline engine that gets 35 MPG. Investors are telling G. M. hrough it’s stock price that they need to be innovative like their competitors, find more growth in the industry and they will have to do this all better than their competitors. For many of the reasons stated previously, G. M. can appease their stockholders by taking advantage of the ingenuity and technology of a company like Tesla. Competitors and their economic position (Competitive position) Where is G. M . on the EV horizon? Well we might say they have yet to come into view. According to General Motors CEO Dan Akerson says G. M. has a better than 50-50 chance to develop a car that will go to 200 miles on a charge in the next four years. That would be a game changer. † says Akerson (Gordon-Bloomfeild, 2012). A 50% chance to create a car that gets more than 200 miles on a charge, you don’t say. Let’s see where the competition lies. Tesla already has two sports cars that exceed 200 miles per charge and they started from scratch two years ago. ECOmove, a Danish car builder, has created a compact EV that has a range of 500 miles on a single charge. The Li-ion Motors, X-Tracer, RaceAbout, Aptera, TW4XP and ZAP are all small teams that have developed cars that exceed 200 miles per charge and have an electrically rated MPG of over 100 MPG. Unlike cash rich G. M. ’s 50-50 shot at a 200+ mile range on a single charge dream, these companies have built these cars, some of which are going into production, on a shoestring budget and practically in their home garages. There is plenty of competition in this industry and like the small gasoline powered carriages of yesteryear, being built in garages across America, small companies across the globe are poised to change the world and the personal transportation market forever. In other words, G. M. is currently nowhere to be seen in the future of the automotive industry. A frustrated but upbeat General Motors CEO (Dan Akerson) told employees that he’s working to wipe out fiefdoms that remain in the company and bring its culture into the 21st Century† (Krisher, 2012). As with G. M. ’s cars and technologies after their bankruptcy not much has changed with their culture either. Many of the upper and middle management have retained their old ways. This show s through in their lack of vision in the Chevrolet Volt. This car was their showcase car, the car that would prove they are a new company ready for the 21st century. It does show who they are and the vision they have†¦ if that image is supposed to be ten years ago. Our Target Acquisition The Company we are proposing that GM acquire/merge with is Tesla Motors. This is a visionary all-electric car company that was founded in 2003. We believe what Tesla Motors and its electric technology is at the forefront of the automotive transition from the internal combustion engine to greener alternatives. Why are future car buyers choosing greener alternatives? They are weighing four different factors of gas efficiency, environmental impact, technology, and cost. Gas efficiency is factor that is more important than reliability for consumers. â€Å"According to a recent study by J. D. Power Associates, fuel efficiency has replaced reliability, incentives and exterior styling as the number one influencer when it comes to car buying† (Big Green Head, 2013). Environmental impact is one of the factors consider when purchasing a new vehicle because consumers are becoming more aware of the impact of their carbon footprints. A third factor consumer considers is technology making buying an all-electric car enticing. The fourth important factor remains purchasing a car at the right price (Big Green Head, 2013). The new car purchase needs to be gas efficient, minimally impact the environment, while having novel technology at an affordable price. The manufacture that brings an all-electric vehicle to the market with innovative technology at an affordable cost will capture this growing market. Tesla’s Mission/Vision Tesla Motors is our target acquisition because their goal fits where we believe the automobile business is transforming to. Tesla’s mission statement is â€Å"Tesla Motors designs and sells high-performance, highly efficient electric sports cars, with no compromises. Tesla Motors cars combine style, acceleration, and handling with advanced technologies that make them among the quickest and the most energy-efficient cars on the road† (Tesla Motors Inc. Mission Statement, 2012). Tesla’s mission statement matches where we predict the automobile industry is moving to. Electric cars are the ultimate fuel efficiency motors that minimally impacts the environment since charging a car uses economies of scale to create the electricity. Tesla Motors uses the latest technology to achieve longer driving distances and faster charging times. What General Motors can offer Tesla Motors in a merger is adding manufacturing efficiency to bring the next generation electric vehicle at an affordable price. Tesla Motors’ strategic vision also matches our vision of this merger. Their strategic vision is to â€Å"Create the most compelling car company of the 21st century by driving the world’s transition to electric vehicles† (Tesla Motors Company Overview, 2011). We want to partner with this vision and with our manufacturing efficiency combined Tesla and G. M. can quickly bring an affordably priced electric vehicle to the market accelerating Tesla’s vision of world’s transition to electric vehicles. The core concept of Tesla’s vision is to make the benefits of electric vehicles available worldwide. â€Å"The reliance on the gasoline-powered internal combustion engine as the principal automobile powertrain technology has raised environmental concerns, created dependence among industrialized and developing nations on oil largely imported from foreign nations and exposed consumers to volatile fuel prices† (About Tesla, n. d. ). The question of oil dependence has been a question for America since the oil crisis of 1973, but the technology is just getting to the point of making all electric achievable for the mass market. Another of Tesla Motors visionary method of selling cars that we want to sustain is their sales and service centers. In Tesla’s words, â€Å"we utilize an innovative distribution model based on Company-owned sales and service centers. This approach allows us to maintain the highest levels of customer experience and benefit from short customer feedback loops to ensure our customer needs are fulfilled† (About Tesla, n. d. ). This approach is similar to Apple’s approach to their Apple stores. Tesla wants an innovative approach to the car purchasing process that breaks away from the franchised dealership model. This is a change from our current model of how General Motors currently sells cars but we believe this offers a new buying experience that will be appealing to customers that are interested in all-electric technology. Tesla’s company description Tesla describes its company in one sentence â€Å"TESLA MOTORS was founded in 2003 by a group of intrepid Silicon Valley engineers who set out to prove that electric vehicles could be awesome† (About Tesla, n. . ). The business world views Tesla from this perspective: Tesla Motors, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and sells fully electric vehicles and advanced electric vehicle powertrain components. It provides services for the development of electric powertrain components and sells electric powertrain components to other automotive manufacturers. Tesla Motors manufactured its first electric vehicle, Tesla Roadster in 2008. It was founded by Jeffrey B. Straubel, Elon R. Musk and Marc Tarpenning on July 1, 2003 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, CA. The key takeaway from Tesla’s company description is that five years after founding the company it manufactured an all-electric sports car. Tesla went after the niche market of high-end electric because at that time it was only the rich that could afford to purchase this eco-friendly alternative. With Tesla’s continued advances in technology combined with General Motors manufacturing experience we will make the first all-electric vehicle available worldwide at the $30 thousand price point. Tesla Motors’ Financial Position Tesla’s financial position for 2012 showed decreasing cash but also decreasing debt. As of September 30, 2012 cash and cash equivalents represented $85. 7 million down from $255. 3 million on December 31, 2011. Long-term debt decreased to $465. 0 million from $276. 3 billion over this same time period. Tesla Motors’ long-term debt to capitalization ratio also declined over this period to 106. 4% from 55. 2% (Zacks Equity Research, 2012). Overall Tesla Motors still needs to borrow quite a bit in order to continue its growth. The cash expenditures are because for 2012 Tesla geared production up for its new car the Model S selling 253 in the third quarter. Cash outflow from operating activities increased substantially to $206. 0 million in the first nine months of 2012 from $87. 3 million in the same period of 2011† (Zacks Equity Research, 2012). The Model S is Tesla’s first venture into the premium vehicle market. Previously Tesla was exclusively in the performance vehicle market with its Roadster model, which married an electric drivetrain with a m odified Lotus Elise platform. The significance of this new model is that the Model S starts at $52,400, after the $7500 Federal Tax Credit, and the Roadster starts at $109,000 (Options Pricing, n. . ). Does this financial position leave Tesla vulnerable? â€Å"Without the hundreds of millions of dollars Tesla TSLA has received from the federal government this year, the electric-car maker’s financials would be gasping for air as 2012† ended (Shinal, 2012). Shinal goes on with a verbal picture of financial distress for Tesla. Given Tesla’s recent history, though, it’s hard to see how the carmaker could post a quarterly operating profit. In fact, Tesla’s cash flow from operations for the first nine months of 2012 was negative, running a deficit of $206 million. The company’s income statement is also pretty ugly, as third-quarter revenue fell 13% from the year-earlier quarter, to $50 million, while Tesla’s quarterly net loss widened to $111 million from $65 million (2012). We think this is the perfect time to acquire Tesla Motors because it is feeling financial stress and at cusp of increasing its market share. Besides the Model S, Tesla is developing its Model X also targeting the premium vehicle as a utilitarian option featuring all wheel drive for 2014. But to really transform the automobile market to electric Tesla needs to lower the entry price from $50 thousand to $30 thousand. They have this in their strategic plan called the Gen III and was initially speculated to be available in 2015. However, with the challenges of launching the Model S perhaps Tesla Motors could use a partner to ensure the Gen III is launched in 2015 if not earlier. With General Motors experience and economies of scale for bringing new models to the market the Gen III could be the first all-electric vehicle that consumers adopt especially in the cultures that are already seeking this solution to mitigate environmental problems. Tesla Motors’ culture Tesla Motors is headquartered in Palo Alto California and was founded by a â€Å"group of intrepid Silicon Valley engineers who set out to prove that electric vehicles could be awesome† (About Tesla, n. d. ). The last word sums it up, ‘awesome’, at least that is our first thought of Tesla culture which is a laid back ‘Google-environment’ where between creating new electric vehicle designs in lounge rooms employees are socializing and never want to leave work. Maybe that was the vision of Silicon Valley before the tech bubble burst, but looking at reviews from employees Tesla gets average reviews. Employees say it’s ‘OK’† giving their employer a 3. 4 out of 5 and 65% recommending this company to a friend (Tesla Motors Reviews, 2013). A distinctive culture does not seem to exist, except that this company is located in Silicon Valley. The lack of a distinct culture may be due that it was founded 10 years ago. However other relat ive young companies such as Facebook have very distinct cultures. Out of a top rating of 5, compensation and benefits is rated the best at 3, job culture is rated 2. 5, and management, job work/life balance, and job security/advancement are all rated 2 (tesla motors Employer Reviews, n. d. . Employees are likely to be open for change the challenge for this target acquisition is not force the existing General Motors culture onto Tesla employees. This will not likely be a good fit since even though we are a multinational company we are headquartered in Detroit and our core Midwest culture is different than Silicone Valley. Our strategy is to take the Tesla Motors culture as the base and then hire consultants that specialize in workplace cultures perform surveys and create an improvement plan to move the existing Tesla workplace culture from ‘OK’ to ‘Awesome’ like the founders envisioned for their cars. Risk In analyzing this merger we felt it key to conduct a strategic analysis to outline what areas may pose a current high risk for both G. M. and Tesla but we also felt it was key to outline what areas both companies are doing well in. The two tools we felt would be most beneficial to this analysis and transferable to our shareholders to interpret are the SWOT and STEEP analysis. A SWOT analysis is a tool for audit and analysis of a company’s overall strategic position. SWOT is an acronym for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. We first conducted a SWOT analysis on G. M. with the below results: GM SWOT Strengths: * The post bankruptcy G. M. is smaller with less brands and a revamped management team * GM has assembly, manufacturing, distribution, office and warehousing in 55 other countries. * GM brand is well rooted in America and throughout the world * Loyal customers * Weaknesses: * Lack competiveness in alternative energy cars * Carry with them the stigma of the government bailout * Lowest markets share in 2012 in the United States in decades. Fell to 17. 9 percent from 19. 6 percent. (topics. nytimes. com/Treasury to Share last of G. M. Shares January 13,2013) * High pension costs Opportunities: * Increased demand for hybrid/electronic vehicles * Emerging markets (Asia) * Continue to gain consumer confidence post bail out * Threats: * High losses in European markets * Competition is ahead of them in green car market * Rising fuel costs * Rising raw materials Tesla SWOT * Strengths: * Developed the first electric sports car * Their current platform developed for Model S has the ability to be used for their future crossover model or any other model they envision (http://www. mbaskool. com/brandguide/automobiles/4475-tesla-motors. html) * Ability to assemble vehicles in house Ahead of the auto industry in the development of electric vehicles * Weaknesses: * High cost of production * Higher vehicle cost than competitors * Not as accessible as other green vehicles for consumers to purchase * Opportunities: * Growing demand for â€Å"green† vehicles * Government support for low emission vehicles and possible incentives to produce them * Improve the efficiency of producing the vehicles in order to lower the cost * Threats * Competing against the combustion engine which is becoming more efficient at a lower cost * Lower cost competitors * Economic downturn We then conducted a STEEP analysis, which analyzes external business factors that impact an organization. STEEP is an acronym that stands for Social, Technological, Economical, Ecological and Political factors that may affect an organization. The social factors that impact G. M. are those that were created when the government bailed out the company in 2008. Consumers lost faith and confidence in the G. M. brand because they were not able to maintain their competitive edge in the auto industry and required taxpayer funding in order to sustain their business. Tesla is in the forefront of the electric vehicle industry. Consumers due to their higher end vehicle view the company as an innovator in the electric vehicle market. G. M. is lacking in the technology field compared to Tesla. Tesla’s automobiles are twice as energy efficient as the Prius and they were the first to use the lithium-ion battery, which allow for a long ranger of miles per charge. Economical factors that are and have affected G. M. are rebuilding itself out of the recent economic down turn and recessions. G. M. was challenged with filing for bankruptcy and taking a monetary bail out from the US government in order to sustain its business. G. M. has been successful in repaying the government for the bail out and has slowly gained strength economically. Tesla has an opportunity to gain strong market shares in the electric vehicle market if it can cut it’s production costs and market it’s cars to more consumers at a lower cost per unit. It is clear that the automobile industry is looking to go â€Å"green† or meet ecological requirements set by governments throughout the world. G. M. has trailed the industry in producing a vehicle at a profit that is fully electric or that can compete with hybrids such as the Prius. G. M. ntroduced the Chevy Volt in 2011 to compete with other Hybrids however the steep cost of the car, the cost to manufacture it, and low sales have not propelled G. M. into this market as they would have liked. Tesla is leading the way in the electric car arena and meeting the goals set out for a â€Å"green† car however they still have the high production and cost per vehicle i n order to strongly enter the industry to compete. Distribution channels Tesla Motors is taking full control of sales process until the buyer takes home their new car. â€Å"The maker of electric sports cars is skipping the traditional U. S. ranchise system to maintain total ownership of its retail chain as the company grows, says Tesla spokeswoman Rachel Konrad. ‘Our model is more like the Apple Store’† (Chappell, 2009). This is an innovative approach for selling cars that has the right feel for Tesla’s premium vehicle market. Tesla currently has 23 stores and galleries in the United States, one in Toronto Canada, nine in Europe, and three in Asia/Pacific (Tesla Motors Stores, Galleries, and Service Centers, n. d. ). These store locations are all in the large urban locations where the infrastructure to support electric vehicles will likely be developed. Another difference between a Tesla stores and the traditional franchised model is that they will not rely on a service business to make a profit since electric cars have fewer serviceable parts. â€Å"The cars have no need for oil changes or fuel filter replacements†¦ Instead, Tesla is developing a mobile field service organization that will travel to owners as necessary† (Chappell, 2009). Having a vehicle that requires no regular maintenance is another selling point that needs to be marketed more as a selling feature especially for the Gen III in the small premium vehicle market. Like Tesla’s Silicon Valley neighbors Apple they are trying to change the car buying experience. The sales stores environment are designed to interact with customers â€Å"in a friendly, open and no-pressure environment. Tesla’s retail concept demonstrates the benefits of driving electric through informative videos, interactive displays, and a Design Studio where customers can configure their own Tesla Model S on a large touchscreen† (Market Watch, 2013). This new approach to selling cars is as innovative as Tesla’s technology used to quietly power their vehicles. Another advantage of keeping control of its retail chain is to control costs. â€Å"Tesla’s retail sales and service personnel will be paid a straight salary in hopes of keeping distribution costs lower than those at a traditional auto dealership† (Chappell, 2009). Tesla is maintaining its price margin by eliminating a third party trying to make a profit on sales or service. Market share Market share for Tesla is still small. The market class the Tesla vehicles share includes the Mercedes E-Class, BMW 5 Series, Audi A6, Porsche Cayenne, Land Rover, and Audi Q7. For 2012 Tesla represented less than 1% of this premium market with over 5300 vehicles projected sales in 2012. Long-term growth targets are to increase sales to 20,000 in 2013 and over 30,000 for 2014. These projected growing sales would increase global market share to approximately 1% and 2% respectively (Tesla Motors Investor Presentation Spring 2012). The opportunity for significant market share growth is in the small premium vehicle market with the Gen III model. A partnership with General Motors can bring Elon Musk’s vision to a reality by merging Tesla’s technology with our manufacturing efficiency. Making innovative affordable electric vehicles available for purchase is all that is needed to meet the world’s desire for something less impactful to the environment. Shareholder value Tesla went public on June 28, 2010, at an offer price of $17 per share with 13. 3 million shares available (IPO Home, Renaissance Capital, n. d. ). On June 29, 2010 the market closing price was $23. 89 and over the last two and a half years the market price has increased to $37. 04 as of February 15, 2013 (Historical Prices, Yahoo! Finance 2013). Since the IPO opening price the stock value has increased by 118 percent. The current recommendation from analyst is to either buy or hold Tesla Motors stock with no recommendations of it underperforming or to sell (Analyst Opinion, Yahoo! Finance, 2013). Why these recommendations when only 5200 cars were produced in 2012? â€Å"Tesla has so much potential to be a true game changer in the automobile industry as it increases production and its customer base. It has and should continue to receive awards galore from numerous auto and consumer publications† (Catlin, 2013). One of the prestigious awards that Tesla has won was the 2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year for its Model S. With this proposed merger we believe we can appeal and add to existing Tesla shareholders by making available the manufacturing capability to bring the Gen III to the market. Competition There is really no competition for Tesla in the premium vehicle all electric market. The closest competition is a venture-capital funded company Fisker that produces a premium hybrid vehicle. All other existing production electric and hybrid vehicles do not compete in the same market as Tesla. Vehicles such as the electric Nissan Leaf, the plug-in hybrid Toyota Prius, or our plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Volt all sell on practicality not aesthetics. Car blogger Matt Hardigree sums up the competition with an interesting analogy. â€Å"Not even Charlize Theron in nothing but her couture cloak from Snow White and the Huntsman behind the wheel could make a Prius sexy†¦ The Model S is faster than a BMW MS, has a longer range than any other pure electric car and looks like the future† (Miller, 2012). Its 2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year award further identifies Tesla’s Model S as the electric car. The Tesla Model S was appreciated for its technological achievement of 250 patents, solid all-around luxury design and sporty nature† (Powered up, 2012). Tesla has the award all it needs to do is increase its manufacturing capacity to supply the public with the car they want and the future small premium car whose lower purchase price will expand the market potential . Justification for Merger The merger of General Motors and Tesla Motors is an opportunity to over each existing company tools that they do not currently possess. The synergy that Tesla Motors offers General Motors is a truly innovative and award winning ll electric car with a market that is waiting. â€Å"A market research company is predicting that annual sales of electric vehicles will reach 130 million units sold annually by 2025† (Worthington, 2012). The synergy that General Motors offers Tesla is the ability to manufacture and supply this growing market demand. This is especially important to capture the small premium all electric market by bringing the Tesla Gen II car to the market. Integration Plan The integration plan for this merger is simple because their vision is similar. There will be no drastic changes in both companies and the operations will stay the same. The Tesla brand will be sustained. Tesla is brand name known worldwide that resonates quality, beauty, and efficiency. Tesla’s brand will remain Tesla! Plants and suppliers will remain as they are. No plants will be closed and suppliers will remain the same. Tesla’s innovative approach of selling cars will remain the same. Tesla’s cars are not sold in dealership; rather they are sold direct with no middleman. This innovative approach of selling cars eliminates conflict of interest in salespeople, middlemen, and, of course, maintains the highest level of customer service. Tesla’s approach is like Apple, having their own stores where you can purchase the car or you can go to their showroom to look at the car and buy it online. The organization structure will remain mostly intact on the Tesla side. Elon Musk will remain president of the Tesla division of GM (EV Division) and report into GM’s CEO Daniel Ackerson. Financials G. M. is showing the ability over the past three years to grow its sales/revenues and we have forecasted the same for 2012. The forecasted revenue on the income statement for 2012 is expected to grow 11%. With the merger the expected sales/growth from 2012 to 2015 is expected to grow 38%. Net income is expected to grow from 10. 7 billion in 2012 to 42. 4 billion in 2015 due to the expected sales increase of G. M. vehicles with the Tesla brand. Cash and cash equivalents is expected to grow from 36. 5 billion in 2011 to 42. 4 billion in 2012 which will allow G. M. to be in a strong position to acquire Tesla. Through the merger cash on hand on the balance sheet is forecasted to increase over 100% by 2015 while total liabilities and equity increases about 80%. This is a good sign for the merger to occur posing a very low risk in high liabilities and an optimistic growth in cash. Cash from operating activities also is expected to grow year over year from an expected amount of 4. 7 billion in 2012 to 47 billion in 2015 (Appendix A). Tesla’s financial statements is not impressive, in fact, they are losing money. Here is the breakdown of Tesla’s financial statement. In its balance sheet for 2011 (Appendix B), total asset is $713. 4 million– $489. 4 (total liabilities) = $224. 0 million (total equity). In its income statement, Tesla’s revenue or sales (how much money the company brought in) totaled $204. 2 million but after all the expenses paid the net income is in the negative, $-254. million. But Tesla’s cash flow tells a different story. Tesla has a cash to spare totaling $156 million. According to Investor’s Business Daily quarterly report for 2012, Tesla’s revenues and earnings tell a different story. Analysts polled by Thomson Reuters about Tesla are looking for a 659% increase in revenue to $298. 9 million for Q4 amid the California startup’s production run, as more Model S sedans get ordered, built and delivered. Earnings are a different story. Analysts see Tesla turning a profit by Q3, while they’re looking for Tesla to pare its loss by 24% to 53 cents for Q4 2012. For the year, they’re looking for a $3. 08 loss, 39% deeper than a year ago amid the costs of ramping up production. On the balance sheet Tesla’s current total assets are projected to drop from $713 million in 2011 to $613 million in 2012 however total liabilities are projected to fall from $489,403 million to $435,070 million in 2012. It is a significant red flag to a potential investor to point out those assets have dropped about $100 million when liabilities have dropped only $55 million. It’s a risk worth pointing out. Shareholder equity is expected to drop also from $224 million in 2011 to just over $178 million in 2012 (see Appendix B). In 2012 it is expected that cash flow from operating activities will be a lesser loss from 2011 -$114 million down to -$108 million while cash flow from investing activities produces a profit in 2012 of $169 million compared to a loss of about $176 million in 2011. It is apparent that the company still will not be able to pay for its investing activities with its operating income. Tesla still has to obtain financing which could be a risk in the eyes of some investors. The financial forecast for both companies (see Appendix A and B) through the merger is expected to be optimistically strong creating a large increase in cash through high sales and revenue and a spike in assets allowing the companies to reinvest in growth. Even though there are not enough liquid assets to cover current liabilities until about 2015 operating profits due to sales is more than enough to maintain the debt therefore relating back to a minor risk to shareholders. Method of Offer As of February 22, 2013, GM’s stock closed at $27. 1 with a market cap of $37. 04 billion and with 1. 37 billion shares outstanding. Tesla closed at $36. 11 with a market cap $4. 11 billion and with 113. 78 million shares outstanding. The proposed General Motors-Tesla Motors merger will be a cash acquisition. There are three reasons why G. M. ’s management decided to offer pursue a cash acquisition. First, G. M. possesses the liquidity to conduct a straight cash acquisition. G. M. â⠂¬â„¢s cash and cash equivalents are expected to grow from 36. 5 billion from 2011 to 42. 4 billion for 2012. Second, G. M. ants to be certain for the price paid and do not want to take the risk of price fluctuation. Third, G. M. ’s management wants to maintain the current ownership status of the company. G. M. ’s managements avoid shareholders of Tesla to be partial owners; hence, receives percentage of future profits and voting privileges. Management recommends that G. M. offer a 30% premium. This merger with Tesla will cost G. M. $5. 3 billion. The interest of G. M. in TSLA is obvious, to be a part of this innovative future of electric cars that would take them ahead of their competitors in the industry. Given the information gathered we summarized the selling points as to why this merger needs to occur. These elements are key to be communicated to both organizations to ensure the merger is approved. Given the information gathered we summarized the selling points as to why this merger needs to occur. These elements are key to be communicated to both organizations to ensure the merger is approved. Reasons why the merger should be approved by GM’s board of directors * GM is lagging behind innovative companies. GM has failed to realize market pressures and where the markets are going. * GM can utilize Tesla to follow through on their vision to design, build and sell the world’s best vehicles. * Follow through on their mission to: â€Å"G. M. is a multinational corporation engaged in socially responsible operations, worldwide. It is dedicated to provide products and services of such quality that our customers will receive superior value while our employees and business par tners will share in our success and our stockholders will receive a sustained superior return on their investment. Reason why GM’s shareholders should approve the merger * Tesla is a great threat to G. M. and will be a great competitor in the future of the automotive markets. * Tesla will provide a great leap forward for G. M. and get them back to the leading edge of the industry. * GM will now become relevant to Chinese markets by addressing the needs of a rapidly growing industrial country. Reason why Tesla Shareholders and Board of Directors should approve the merger * Tesla will be able to proliferate their technology at a substantially faster rate through the use of G. M. s manufacturing facilities and distribution points * They will be able to utilize private money and decrease or eliminate their debt to the U. S. Government. * Utilize economies of scale to accomplish their goals of making EV’s affordable. It is clear that GM has to make a move in the market to b ecome competitive in the electric car market. They made an attempt to develop their own electric/hybrid vehicle but the results of the vehicle are not what consumers have expected and the competition continues to be a major threat to them by exceeding them in this market. Sure GM has shown success by coming out of bankruptcy and rebuilding itself but in order to avoid the situation of bankruptcy again it has to become innovative and aggressive in the EV market now. Tesla has a great niche and has a huge opportunity with the product they have developed however they are showing that they have a challenge in growing their business and really taking advantage of a market that is thirsty for electric vehicles by making a vehicle that is affordable and having the ability to mass produce them efficiently. By merging with GM, and still maintaining its culture and innovative thinking, Tesla will play a huge role in helping GM take the lead in the EV market both domestically and abroad. It is our opinion that this merger not only makes sense but it is a must for both American companies to put the US auto market back on the map. Appendix Appendix A-GM Financials-Source Yahoo Finance Appendix B-Tesla Financials-Source Yahoo Financials References About Tesla (n. d. ). Retrieved February 6, 2013 from http://ir. teslamotors. om/ Akerson, Daniel (2010). General Motors Company, 2010 Annual Report. Retrieved January 22, 2013 from http://www. gm. com/content/dam/gmcom/COMPANY/Investors/Corporate_Governance/PDFs/StockholderInformationPDFs/Annual-Report. pdf Analyst Opinion, Yahoo! Finance (2013, February 15). Retrieved February 18, 2013 from http://finance. yahoo. com/q/ao? s=TSLA+Analyst+Opinion APCO (2010, November). Market Analysis Report: China’s Automotive Industry. Retrieved February 9, 2013 from http://bit. ly/XZLWE8 Big Green Head (2013, January 30). The four most common reasons to buy green cars. Big Green Head. Retrieved February 17, 2013 from http://www. biggreenhead. com/3/post/2013/01/the-four-most-common-reasons-to-buy-green-cars. html Branigan, Tania (2013, January 13). Top tip if you’re going out in Beijing: don’t breathe. Retrieved February 02, 2013 from http://www. guardian. co. uk/world/2013/jan/13/beijing-breathe-pollution Buchen, Irving (2011, August 1). Company Mission Statements Critiqued. Retrieved February 15, 2013 from http://www. humanresourcesiq. om/business-strategies/articles/mission-statements-critiqued/ Catlin, James (2013, February 5) Retrieved February 9, 2013 from http://beta. fool. com/lulupoopsalot/2013/02/05/companies-that-could-revolutionize-driving/23138/? logvisit=ypublished=2013-02-05source=eptcnnlnk0000001 Chappell, L. (2009). Tesla won’t use franchises; will handle sales, service. Automotive News, 84(6375), 18-18. Retrieved from http://0-search. proquest. com. books. redlan ds. edu/docview/219448776? accountid=14729 Folsom, Burton (1998, September 8). Billy Durant and the Founding of General Motors. Retrieved February 9, 2013 from How to cite Tesla and Gm Proposed Merger, Essay examples

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Samples †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Answer: Introduction: There are number of people who are deprived from their liberty because of the care or treatment they get or because of the level of restrictive practices that they are subject to. It must be noted that there consent was not present because of their lack of mental capacity. In number of cases it is necessary to give such care and treatment for their best interest which results in deprivation of liberty. In 2009 safeguards related to deprivation of liberty were introduced for the purpose of applying the check and balances by professionals at that time when they had to deprive people who are lacking capacity of their liberty. It is the obligation of state to ensure where deprivation of liberty is delivered by the social care or health care professionals, and they are known as state agents who have legal authority for deprivation[1]. In March 2014, Supreme Court stated the judgments in two cases that is P v Cheshire West and Chester Council and P Q v Surrey County Council. In first case, judgment made by Court is commonly known as Cheshire West which results in increase in the numbers of people who deprived their liberty because of care and treatment in England and wales. In this case, Court stated that when there was lack of capacity in individual then such person must be kept under supervision or control, and such person were deprived of their liberty. Now it is commonly known as acid test. In this paper, we analyze the statement made by Mr. Justice Mostyn that is Ultimately I think that whether a factual situation does or does not satisfy the acid test is likely to be determined by the "I know it when I see it" legal techniqueThe continuing legal controversy shows how difficult it is to pin down a definition of what is a deprivation of liberty. Lastly, this paper states the brief conclusion. About Deprivation of Liberty: Deprivation of liberty was introduced on April 2009 in England and Wales under amendments to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This term was introduced in the year 2005 because one case was decided by European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that legal system of England and Wales does not provide adequate protection to those people who are lacking of mental capacity for giving consent to care and treatment, and who need to restrict their liberty for keeping them safe from harm[2]. Mental Capacity Act 2005 does not state any specific definition of deprivation of liberty, but it is based on the principles of EHRC and also on its case decisions. Human Rights Act 1998 was introduced by European Convention on Human Rights (the convention), and article 5 of this convention provided the guarantee related to right to personal liberty and it also state that no one should be deprived from their liberty in an arbitrary manner. As per Article 5(1) (e), it permits the lawful detention of people of unsound mind as per the procedure stated by law. This article also stated the need of safeguards for those who were deprived of their liberty including the right to access judicial proceedings for the purpose of challenging the lawfulness of their detention[3]. Deprivation of liberty is that procedure which is stated by law, and as per ECHR it has three important elements which are stated below: An objective element in any restricted space for non-eligible period of time. An subjective element states that person must not be validly consented to that confinement. The detention being attributable to the state. All these elements are described below in detail: Objective element: for the purpose of stating whether individual has been deprived of their liberty or not, ECTHR defined that first stage is the concrete situation. Therefore, for this purpose range of criteria must considered for example type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the restrictive measure which is in question. As per the article 5 of ECHR, it is clear from the case laws of ECTHR that individual can be restricted at specific place for the period of time which is non-eligible. However, this non-eligible period changes in every case law as per the circumstances of the case. Subjective Element: it must be noted even though any person is confined on the basis of objective element but then also circumstances of that case does not fall under scope of Article 5 ECHR such as they validly consented to their confinement. This is because person can only give consent to deprivation of their liberty if such person has mental capacity to do so. Some case laws are there which help in understanding this issue such as M v Ukraine[4], in this case ECTHR stated that Court can consider the view of the consent of the person for admitting to facility related to mental health for those patients who are getting in-patient treatment which can be recognized as valid under this convention only when sufficient and reliable evidences are present which suggests that mental ability of the person must be consented and comprehended to the consequences which means it has been established on objective basis in the course of procedure which fair and proper in nature, and all the important information related to the placement and treatment must be given to that person. There is one more case law that is PCT v LDV Ors[5], in this case Baker J stated that relevant question which must be asked is stated in the mental capacity requirement under 15th paragraph of Schedule A1 that is whether individual is accommodated in any hospital or care home which is relevant or not for giving relevant care or treatment. The information related to this question is relevant to that question which goes beyond the information related to placement for including information related to care and treatment, and also those restrictions which will be considered as objective deprivation of heir liberty. Therefore, it is advisable that this broad approach must be applied in other settings also which means that material information must be included in the outlines even though such information is not minute detail about that situation which result in deprivation of liberty. Generally, information must states the situations in which person is kept under the supervision of continuous nature and not free to leave. Imputable to the state: last and final element stated under Article 5 of ECHR is that deprivation of liberty must be imputable to the state, and ECTHR stated that this can be happen in three ways, and two ways among these three ways are relevant for the present purpose, and these two are stated below: There must be direct involvement of public authority in the detention of individual, and By violating the positive obligation of state under Article 5(1) for the purpose of protecting individual against deprivation of liberty must be carried out by private persons[6]. Cheshire Ruling: As stated above, in two important cases Supreme Court give its judgments that was P v Cheshire West and Chester Council and another[7] and P and Q v Surrey County Council[8] in March 2014. These cases provide the clear definition of Deprivation of liberty, and as per the Court in the following situations there is a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 of the convention and these situations are when person is kept under continuous supervision and control and is not free to leave and there is lack of mental capacity for the person to consent this deprivation. In this case, Court also stated the three factors which are not relevant to the deprivation of liberty, and these factors are stated below: Whether person is agreed or not with his detention. Purpose of the detention. Whether it results in enabling the person to live relatively normal life. In other words, it means that person should not be compared with any other person for the purpose of determining the deprivation of liberty. Universal application: As per the advice of law society there must be some limitation on the judgment of this case such as various hospitals and intensive care units where authorization time related to this does not serve any useful purpose and also cause unnecessary distress to those persons who are involved. It must be noted that this does not affect the general presumption which state that authorization application must be made in case any chance related to deprivation of liberty is there[9]. Latest Ruling: Recently, second call was made by judge of Court of protection to the Supreme Court for the purpose of reconsidering the landmark decision of Cheshire case for clearing the confusion related to deprivation of liberty in the law. In the series of judgment, Mr. Justice Mostyn put question mark on the decision of Court in Cheshire west ruling and also the applicability of this ruling on those people who are receiving care in their own home[10]. This case also states the famous acid test which states the important elements of deprivation of liberty. These provisions applied on all those persons who were either in care home or hospital, and they are also eligible for getting the safeguards of deprivation of liberty. These provisions are applied on them also who are getting the care in their own home or under any community such as supported living[11]. Decision of this case was given by highest authority of UK, and everyone is bound by this decision. But Justice Mostyn criticizes this judgment in four different cases and the latest case law is Bournemouth BC v PS and DS[12]. In this case he ruled the man named Ben who was suffering from autism and also associated with challenging behavior, and Ben was not deprived from his liberty in that bungalow in which he received the care on the basis of round-the-clock from staff. In this case judge stated that there was no continuous supervision on Ben because his carers give him privacy which was appreciable and he was also free to leave, and in case he go anywhere his carers does not coerce him they just seek to persuade him. In case Ben refused then assessment under Mental Health Act was considered, and if it also becomes unsuccessful then help of the police was taken for exercising their power under section 136 of the Mental Health Act[13] to remove him to a place of safety. As per the judgment of Cheshire west, councils have been expected to make assessments related to placement of those people who are living in the community for the purpose of identifying whether they are deprived of their liberty, and if they are deprived then seek authorization from Court of protection, and case of Ben was brought by Bournemouth Council on this basis. Implications related to staggering resources: In his ruling, Mr. Mostyn stated that implication of local authority related to resources for the purpose of bringing these cases was staggering, rather than implication of procedure by the Court of protection as per the amendment to this rule for dealing with them. While concluding the case of Ben, he stated that in the light of the decision taken by Supreme Court, local authorities must err on the side of caution and taking every case before the court. If case they do not take it before, and it is found that case is related to deprivation of liberty then sometime heavy damages claim have to be paid. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider this matter by the Supreme Court on the urgent basis. In one previous case also he stated to the Supreme Court to reconsider this matter in his judgment Rochdale MBC v KW. In this case, he stated that 52 year old woman who was mentally incapacitated on sever basis and also physically disabled. She is living on rent and named as Katherine and was not deprived of her liberty. Justice stated that her freedom to leave her home was not constrained because she lacked that mental or physical ability to exercise that freedom because of her disabilities. Disagreement: In this case, Mostyn stated that he was not agreeing with the judgment of Cheshire West, even though he was also bound to apply this decision. He further stated that in those cases in which person who is disabled mentally and physically receiving care at home and commissioned by authority at local level, then they must not be deprived of their liberty as per article 5. Therefore, he allowed the lawyer of Katherine to mount an appeal so that it would be heard by the Court of Appeal on quick basis, and after that referred to the Supreme Court for the purpose of reconsidering the Cheshire west ruling. Court of Appeal upheld the appeal made by Katherines lawyer without conducting hearing, they made an order which stated that to the extent as per the plan related to her care and this was authorized for the period of 12 months till her plan related to care changed. In other words, case was not entertained by Supreme Court. Decision of Court of appeal for allowing the appeal but without conducting the hearing was criticized by Mr. Justice Mostyn in the second judgment of Rochdale case. He also said that status of Katherine can be considered as in limbo because Court of Appeal does not state that Katherine was deprived of her liberty, and only that she were deprived of her liberty and then deprivation was now authorized[14]. This area is really sensitive because people receiving the care in their own home but at the expenses of state, and that is why law is now in a state of confusion. This point was raised I the judgment of Bournemouth. There is one more case law that is belong to the Court of protection and named as W City Council v Mrs L[15]. In this case, a person was suffered from dementia who was living at his own home, and it has been found out that he had not been deprived from his own liberty, and as per the continuous legal controversy which shows how difficult it is to understand the meaning of deprivation of liberty which means detention by state, as opposed to restriction on movement or just humane and empathetic care. Fourth case law is London Borough of Tower Hamlets v TB Another[16]; in this case Mostyn stated that one learning disabled woman was deprived from her liberty in her own flat, because all necessary provisions off acid test are fulfilled in this case. There was no similarity like Katherine in Rochdale case because TB had the motor functions for leaving her flat, but if she does so then she will get back in the flat. In other words, she was not free to leave any where she wants. Mostyn also clarify in his ruling that in case of TB she was detained, and he further adds that on personal level he does not feel that her position can be considered as state detention n nay manner, other than by the reference of term of art stated by the majority in Supreme Court, and on loyalty basis Mostyn follow that decision of Supreme Court. From the above discussion it is clear that decision of Cheshire West will stand till the time another case of deprivation of liberty is decided by Supreme Court, but still decision of Cheshire case cause disagreement within the judiciary related to the application of law and it also creates confusion among the practitioners. While commenting on the Mr. Justice Mostyns Tower Hamlets ruling, the Court of Protection team at leading chambers 39 Essex Street said that further comments of judge on the serious issue of deprivation of liberty which explain in more detail difficulty faced by number of people for the purpose of checking how the intensive support and care is needed by person for meeting the needs stated under article 5 of ECHR. With the end of Rochdale case, all these questions will remain unanswered by the high court at this point. Conclusion: This paper states the meaning and other aspects of deprivation of liberty and also states the importance of deprivation of liberty with different case laws. Deprivation of liberty was stated in the case of Cheshire west which also states the acid test. The judgment of Cheshire case was criticized by Mr. Justice Mostyn in almost four cases, and in recent case he stated various comments on applicability of deprivation of liberty. He also makes second call to the Supreme Court for reconsidering its decision on deprivation of liberty and makes it clearer. From the above discussion it is clear that decision of Cheshire West will stand till the time another case of deprivation of liberty is decided by Supreme Court, but still decision of Cheshire case cause disagreement within the judiciary related to the application of law and it also creates confusion among the practitioners. With the end of Rochdale case, all these questions will remain unanswered by the high court at this point. Therefore, it is necessary that Supreme Court must consider the issue related to deprivation of liberty. References: SCIE, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) at a glance, (May 2018) https://www.scie.org.uk/publications/ataglance/ataglance43.asp, Accessed on 21st July 2017. AgeUK,Deprivationof Liberty Safeguards,(February2017),https://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN-GB/Factsheets/FS62_Deprivation_of_Liberty_Safeguards_fcs.pdf?dtrk=true, Accessed on 21st July 2017. European Convention on Human Rights- Article 5. M v Ukraine [2012] ECHR 732. PCT v LDV Ors [2013] EWHC 272 (Fam). Storck v Germany (2006) 43 EHRR. Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19, [2014] MHLO 16. P Q v Surrey County Council [2014] UKSC 19. Alzheimers Society, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/download/downloads/id/2671/deprivation_of_liberty_safeguards_dols.pdf, Accessed on 21st July 2017. 39Essex, Court of Protection: Health, Welfare and Deprivation of Liberty, https://www.39essex.com/content/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/MC-Newsletter-November-2015-HWDOL.pdf, Accessed on 21st July 2017. Mithran Samuel, Confusion for social workers as judge urges Supreme Court to reconsider deprivation of liberty stance, (2014), https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2014/11/18/confusion-social-workers-judge-urges-supreme-court-reconsider-deprivation-liberty-stance/, Accessed on 21st July 2017. Bournemouth BC v PS and DS [2015] EWCOP 39. Mental Health Act 1983- Section 136. Courts and Tribunal Judiciary, Bournemouth Borough Council -v- PS and DS, (2015), https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/bournemouth-borough-council-v-ps-and-ds/, Accessed on 21st July 2017. W City Council v Mrs L [2015] EWCOP 20. London Borough of Tower Hamlets v TB Another [2014] EWCOP 53.