Medical Malpractice Lawyers

List of top consulting firms 2012

2011-12-16T07:58:00.000-08:00

Following is a list of the top consulting firms around the world with such details as ranking, company name, website url, headquarters, year founded, approximate number of employees, male to female ratio, and other statistics. Being a top consulting firm do not means always prestige and do not bring quality and values automatically, but clients and job seekers of the consulting profession may be interested by these statistics.

Purpose: To summarize and provide beneficial statistical information about the consulting industry and provide quick access gateway to a list of the top consulting companies and websites.
Serving: Researchers, students, professionals, job seekers in the consulting industry and all who seek information about top consulting companies.

Disclaimer: We are not claiming any rights, responsibilites or ownership pertaining to creating, developing, designing, or programming any of the websites listed on this page. All websites listed on this page are publically available for viewing on the internet.

Rankings: Any ranking information regarding the listings above have been made by 3rd parties, organizations which make their ranking info available on public viewable pages free of charge. For this particular listing we have gathered inforamtion from various sources on the internet, including, cnn.com, vault.com, fortune.com and linkedin.com.

The 2011 Best Firms to Work For (according to Consulting Magazine):

The Best Consulting Firms to Work For 2011

Bain & Company
The Boston Consulting Group
North Highland
Point B
Deloitte Consulting
Slalom Consulting
McKinsey & Company
PwC
Booz Allen Hamilton
Huron Consulting Group
Ernst & Young
Accenture
Crowe Horwath
Monitor
A.T. Kearney

The Best Small Consulting Firms to Work For 2011

Stroud Consulting
Impact Advisors
Cask
Vynamic
Infinitive
Fitzgerald Analytics
Lenati
Jabian Consulting
PeopleFirm
HiSoft (formerly Nouveon)
Plus Consulting
Meridian Compensation Partners
Marakon
SEI
IBB Consulting Group

Rank	Consulting Firms	HQ	Industry	Type	# of employees	Year founded	Med age	Male	Fe- male
1	McKinsey & Company	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Partnership	15000	1926	29	67%	33%
2	The Boston Consulting Group, Inc	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Partnership	6000	1963	28	67%	33%
3	Bain & Company	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	10000	1973	28	65%	35%
4	Booz & Company	Washington DC Metro Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	22000	1914	32	64%	36%
5	Deloitte Consulting LLP	Greater New York City Area	Financial Services	Partnership	168000	-	29	61%	39%
6	Monitor Group	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	1500	1983	29	63%	37%
7	PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP	Greater New York City Area	Accounting	Partnership	17500	-	29	59%	41%
8	Mercer LLC	Greater New York City Area	Human Resources	Public	18000	1937	34	51%	49%
9	Ernst & Young LLP	Greater New York City Area	Accounting	Partnership	144000	-	29	59%	41%
10	Oliver Wyman	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Public	1001	-	30	70%	30%
11	Accenture	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Public	177000	1989	30	67%	33%
12	IBM Global Business Services	Greater New York City Area	Information Technology and Services	Public	300000	1911	34	76%	24%
13	KPMG LLP	Amsterdam Area, Netherlands	Accounting	Partnership	137000	-	30	60%	40%
14	Towers Watson	Greater Philadelphia Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	6400	1934	34	52%	48%
15	AlixPartners, LLP	Greater Detroit Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	900	1981	35	77%	23%
16	A.T. Kearney	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Partnership	2700	1926	30	68%	32%
17	Braxton Consulting	Eurpe & Latin America	Management Consulting	Privately Held	250	1996	31	54%	46%
18	The Parthenon Group	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	200	1999	28	62%	38%
19	Towers Watson	-	Financial Services	Public	14000	-	34	53%	47%
20	L.E.K. Consulting	London, UK	Management Consulting	Partnership	900	1983	28	70%	30%
21	FTI Consulting, Inc.	Washington DC Metro Area	Management Consulting	Public	3500	1982	32	71%	29%
22	Alvarez & Marsal	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	1600	1983	33	73%	27%
23	NERA Economic Consulting	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Public	600	1961	27	61%	39%
24	Capgemini	Paris Area, France	Information Technology and Services	Privately Held	91000	1967	32	77%	23%
25	Navigant Consulting, Inc.	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Public	2500	1983	32	62%	38%
26	Huron Consulting Group	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Public	2000	2002	30	61%	39%
27	Hewitt Associates	Greater Chicago Area	Outsourcing/Offshoring	Public	25000	1940	32	55%	45%
28	Roland Berger Strategy Consultants	-	Management Consulting	Partnership	2100	1967	28	72%	28%
29	ZS Associates	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	1400	1983	27	72%	28%
30	CRA International, Inc.	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Public	800	1965	33	65%	35%
31	Arthur D. Little	Paris Area, France	Management Consulting	Privately Held	1000	-	30	75%	25%
32	Kurt Salmon Associates	Greater Atlanta Area	Management Consulting	Public	700	1935	33	63%	37%
33	LECG	San Francisco Bay Area	Management Consulting	Public	1200	1988	34	69%	31%
34	Gallup Consulting	District of Columbia	Management Consulting	Privately Held	2000	-	27	60%	40%
35	Aon Consulting Worldwide	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Public	6300	1983	36	52%	48%
36	BraxtonTechnology	Europe, Asia & Latin America	Technology Consulting & Services	Privately Held	219	2005	26	74%	26%
37	Cornerstone Research	San Francisco Bay Area	Legal Services	Privately Held	201	1989	27	61%	39%
38	Corporate Executive Board	Washington DC Metro Area	Management Consulting	Public	2000	1979	28	50%	50%
39	Hay Group	Greater Philadelphia Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	2600	1943	32	47%	53%
40	Analysis Group, Inc.	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	500	1981	30	62%	38%
41	Milliman, Inc	Greater Seattle Area	Insurance	Privately Held	2000	1947	35	62%	38%
42	Zolfo Cooper	Greater New York City Area	Financial Services	Privately Held	75	-	31	67%	33%
43	Mars & Co	-	-	-	-	1979	-	-	-
44	The Advisory Board Company	Washington DC Metro Area	Hospital & Health Care	Public	1000	1979	28	43%	57%
45	Putnam Associates	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	50	1988	26	64%	36%
46	First Manhattan Consulting Group	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	51	1980	26	76%	24%
47	IMS Health Incorporated	Greater Philadelphia Area	Pharmaceuticals	Public	10000	1954	34	57%	43%
48	Buck Consultants	Greater New York City Area	Human Resources	Public	1900	1916	38	55%	45%
49	Giuliani Partners LLC	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	11	2002	45	79%	21%
50	Archstone Consulting	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	250	2003	34	63%	37%

Lawyers on a Global situation

2011-04-27T08:40:00.000-07:00

Lawyers on a Global situation

Your international legal magazine on Legal Magazine

U.S. taxpayers who failed to file disclosure forms were alerted by the U.S. Treasury on September 21, 2009 of a one-time extension of time to October 15, 2009 to comply with the special voluntary disclosure requirements of the Internal Revenue Service for Americans with unreported income from bank accounts situated outside the United States. As a result, after the deadline passed, many amnesty filings were made with the U.S. Treasury.
The total amount of tax, interest and penalties assessed and collected were so significant to the Treasury that another voluntary tax amnesty program and period would be offered with less favorable terms.According to the latest information from the U.S. Treasury, more than 15,000 amnesty filings were made on or before the 15th day of October 2009. The IRS and the IRS Commissioner, Douglas Shulman, disclosed that even after the above deadline, an additional 3,000 taxpayers came forward to be in compliance with America’s tax laws in relation to foreign bank accounts.
IRS Commissioner Shulman stated:
"As I've said all along, the goal is to get people back into the U.S. tax system. Combating international tax evasion is a top priority for the IRS. We have additional cases and banks under review. The situation will just get worse in the months ahead for those hiding assets and income offshore. This new disclosure initiative is the last, best chance for people to get back into the system.", "As we continue to amass more information and pursue more people internationally, the risk to individuals hiding assets offshore is increasing…This new effort gives those hiding money in foreign accounts a tough, fair way to resolve their tax problems once and for all. And it gives people a chance to come in before we find them."
The voluntary amnesty program will be termed the "2011 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative" (OVDI) and, from what I have seen to date, will incorporate many of the items of the 2009 amnesty, both good and bad. Taxpayers participating in the new initiative must also file all original and amended tax returns and include payment for taxes, interest and accuracy-related penalties by the Aug. 31 deadline.

Tax specialists may make reference to a particular tax rule and continue to state that the rule had so many exceptions that it was like "the tail wagging the dog."
1. The above 25% penalty may be reduced to 5% in very special situations;
2. If your offshore accounts (and assets!) are less than $75,000 in any tax year from 2003 through 2010, then that year will face a reduced penalty from 25% to 12.5%. However, the tax, interest and accuracy related penalties will still apply in full, please see immediately below on the interest and accuracy related penalty.OVDI has increased the penalty to 25% of the amount in the foreign bank accounts in the year with the highest aggregate account balance while looking at a 7-year period, from 2003 through 2010. This 25% penalty will apply to most filers of the OVDI amnesty. In addition, amnesty filers will be required to accept and pay back any and all taxes, interest and accuracy related penalties with a total payoff of these taxes, and interest and penalties on or before the August 31, 2011 deadline.
3. As mentioned in the 2009 amnesty, the IRS continues to solicit compliance with the threat of "possible" criminal prosecution for taxpayers who do not come forward in the 2011 amnesty offering.
4. The 2011 initiative offers clear benefits to encourage taxpayers to come in now rather than risk IRS detection. Taxpayers hiding assets offshore who do not come forward will face far higher penalty scenarios as well as the possibility of criminal prosecution.

Lawyers for SME internationalization

2011-04-15T02:39:00.000-07:00

Support legal programs for SME internationalization
Reflecting the widespread recognition of the importance of internationally-active SMEs in sub-national/regional, national, and global economies, there has been a rather well established tradition by public agencies and the organized private sector institutions of supporting the internationalization activities of SMEs, mainly through appropriate interventions to redress market failures (European Commission 2010). This section examines the extent to which current support programs across OECD countries and other economies involved in the OECD enlargement and enhanced engagement processes appear to address the five top internationalization barriers highlighted earlier in this report. It also assesses the degree of attention being paid to the identified top motivations for SME internationalization by currently available support programs.
The specific OECD economies covered include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, and USA. Brazil, Chile, China, Estonia, India, Indonesia, Israel, Russia, Singapore, Slovenia, and South Africa are the non-OECD member countries reviewed. Sub-national and sectorial insights on these support programs barriers are also explored on reports and books.

Lawyers facing internationalization

2011-03-15T02:24:00.000-07:00

Growth-related factors seem to be a particularly important internal motivator among the SMEs investigated in these recent studies. This reflects the increasing appreciation of the growth opportunities associated with internationalization among this category of firms. It is interesting to note that in their quest for international market-led growth, SMEs increasingly seem to seek access and integration into the lucrative supply chains of international players. Another equally important endogenous motivation is the possession of critical resource factors, including knowledge resources and capabilities, by the investigated SMEs. Reflecting their status as social entities, SMEs are also motivated in their internationalization decisions by factors within their external environment, including networks and supply chain links, social ties, and the sector and region to which they belong. This appears to mitigate some of the resource-related impediments associated with SME internationalization (OECD, 2010). As noted by an example in a recent report, where Danish, Dutch, Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish enterprises form part of a global value chain and where these firms frequently gain business due to sourcing from abroad (Statistics Denmark, 2010). These resource-related factors typically take different forms, with those pertaining to managers‟ internationalization knowledge and firms‟ innovation, technological and relational capabilities seeming to be most influential. Of particular salience is the observed importance of firms sectorial and regional origin, as is the reported increasing relevance of network/social ties, and immigrant links in SME internationalization. These findings, indeed, raise the question of whether, and the extent to which, these drivers of SME internationalization behavior are factored into government support provision. The foregoing review of recent relevant evidence suggests the continuing relevance of both internal and external motivations for SME internationalization.

Knowledge-related Motives.

2011-03-14T07:50:00.001-07:00

Recent research findings suggest that knowledge assets both push and pull SMEs into international markets.There are also related findings from a number of OECD countries (Sweden, Ireland, and Canada) and non-OECD economies (Chile, India and Indonesia) on the internationalization triggering effects of knowledge aspects, including R&D investment, innovation capabilities, unique product or technology, management, and language skills; and firm resource base, as indicated by such proxies as size, age, and experience. The push ‟dimension pertains to the importance of managers”previous international experience and related management capacity factors, as observed in studies among Canadian firms, Spanish firms, and Swedish firms. Search for knowledge assets may also pull SMEs into international markets, as suggested by Kocker and Buhl's findings that firms internationalize to obtain missing know-how required to maintain their lead in technological development.

Growth Motives.

2011-03-14T05:45:00.001-07:00

Growth Motives.

Growth opportunities associated with international markets were identified as a key driver of firm internationalization in several recent studies. Orser et al. (2008), for example, reports say that after allowing for the impacts of firm size and sector, Canadian legal firms whose owners had expressed growth intentions were more than twice as likely to export, than those whose owners did not indicate growth ambitions. Firms‟ overseas venturing decision also seems to be motivated by a need for business growth, profits, an increased market size, a stronger market position, and to reduce dependence on a single or smaller number of markets. The possibility of growth in other markets and increased profit opportunities from international expansion were highlighted as key stimuli for exporting among the Australian, British, Spanish, Swedish, and US firms investigated in recent studies.

Thai Baht Account

2011-03-05T08:24:00.000-08:00

Thai Baht Account

Agreements and contracts on Agreements and Contracts

As a matter of fact, non-residents may also open and maintain a Thai Baht account with the authorized agents in Thailand. In addition to a passport, the authorized agents may also require a work permit (if any). What is more, the depositor will be requested to submit certain necessary documentary evidence, such as in the case of a deposit of Thai Baht derived from sale of foreign currency which originated from abroad--the evidence of such sale of foreign currency, or if derived from salary received while working in Thailand--the certificate of income from the employer. Similarly, the minimum amounts required for opening of different types of Thai Baht accounts may also be specified by the authorized agent with which the accounts are to be opened and maintained.

European Union Direct Taxes

2011-02-09T08:01:00.000-08:00

Permanent Establishment is a vital concept in international taxation. While for direct taxes, it is mainly defined by the OECD Model Convention, the European VAT Directive and its implementing Regulation provide an EU-wide approach for VAT.
Difficulties arise as terminology and definitions in indirect and direct tax diverge. Moreover, countries have implemented and interpreted the EU and OECD rules in a different way, impacting on issues like cross-border reorganisations, transfer pricing, taxation of dividends and interest and royalties, tax residence, temporary and permanent transfer of assets, place of supply and VAT liability.
In both direct and indirect tax, the concept of Permanent Establishment has undergone very recent changes: The 2010 changes to the OECD Model Convention and Commentary, and in particular the new Art. 7, will be adopted in national law, as speakers from the Netherlands and Germany will report. The effect of the new definition on treaties with other countries will also be considered.
Some of this topic is addressed in the new book "European Union Direct Taxes", by the International Tax Professor Salvador Trinxet Llorca.
In indirect tax, the current more important issue is the practical consequences of the adoption of the Regulation implementing the EU VAT Directive in January 2011.

Internationalization of the SME

2010-12-20T04:36:00.001-08:00

Other value adding features include the additional focus on motivations for SME internationalization ; the coverage of recently available documentation from economies involved in the OECD enlargement (Chile, Estonia, Israel, Russia, and Slovenia) and enhanced engagement process (Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and South Africa); and the sub-national and sectoral insights offered on SME internationalization barriers, motivations and support programs.

This realisation was at the heart of the 2007 OECD-APEC study on Removing Barriers to SME Access to International Markets, which provided general findings on the major barriers to SME internationalization as perceived by SMEs and policymakers in OECD and APEC member economies. The need to obtain a greater depth of understanding and an updated view of the issues raised by the OECD-APEC study provided a raison d'être for this follow-up project.

Internationalization and international entrepreneurship among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) has remained a topic of considerable contemporary relevance, principally owing to the observed growth effects of cross-border venturing, and the demonstrated capacity of SMEs to drive economic development at national, regional, and global levels (European Commission, 2007).