White & Case was retained by the Ad Hoc Committee of Arahova Noteholders, one of the principal unsecured creditor constituencies in the case, in the spring of 2005, after various positions taken by the debtors and other creditor constituencies threatened to materially reduce Arahova creditor recoveries from full par plus accrued interest to mere cents on the dollar.

"The case involved potential shifting of billions of dollars of value around the corporate enterprise," said Miami-based partner Thomas E Lauria, chairman of the Firm's Global Financial Restructuring and Insolvency Group. "More than $2 billion of creditor recoveries were at stake for Arahova creditors. Together with the Ad Hoc Committee, our work was instrumental in negotiating a global settlement between and among a majority of all creditor constituencies fragmented throughout the entire Adelphia capital structure."

What ensued was nearly two years of intense, contentious litigation over the bona fides of Adelphia's general ledgers. With billions of dollars of creditor recoveries at stake, certain major parties finally agreed on a term sheet resolving the inter-debtor disputes and, importantly, providing for near payment in full for Arahova creditors. Under the prior plans of reorganization proposed by the Debtors and pursuant to the May 2005 schedules, the default distribution for Arahova creditors had been in the low 20 cents on the dollar. Instead, as a direct result of White & Case's efforts, Arahova stakeholders were positioned to receive a nearly full recovery — an approximate $2 billion improvement in recoveries on a class basis.

White & Case then took the lead role in developing the plan and structuring the Ad Hoc Committee's recovery, which included cash, stock and certificated litigation trust interests, freely tradable on a national exchange, in one of the largest litigation trust vehicles ever created in a Chapter 11 case.

Capping off more than 21 months of White & Case's involvement on behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee — including 11 weeks of trial in the winter of 2006 and weekly court-ordered settlement negotiations throughout the summer of 2006, the bankruptcy court confirmed the plan and endorsed the settlement, granting a nearly full recovery to the Arahova Noteholders.

Along with partner Thomas E Lauria, the White & Case team was led by New York partners J. Christopher Shore and Gerard Uzzi. In New York, the team comprised partners Wayne Cross, Robert Milne, Michael Gallagher, Jack Pace, James Hayden and Colin Diamond, and associates Meghan McCurdy, David Ernst, John Chung, Douglas Baumstein, Averie Hason, Victoria Kennedy, Raj Gandesha, Victoria Oswald, Kendra Goldenberg and Jessica Marchand. In Miami, associates Richard Kebrdle, Kevin McGill, Fernando Menendez and Lane Begy also advised the committee.

White & Case has taken a lead role in a number of major US bankruptcy proceedings, including the completion of a three-year restructuring of one of the world's largest energy trading companies, Mirant Corporation, in which the Firm acted as debtors' counsel; advising on the cross-border restructuring of Corporación Durango, the largest papermaker in Mexico; representing hedge fund Appaloosa Management in connection with being the principal equity investor for the proposed restructuring of Delphi, one of the largest manufacturing restructurings in US history; and representing French governmental agency CDR Creances as mortgagee and judgment creditor, in the successful prosecution of an involuntary bankruptcy petition against the owner of the Flatotel building in Manhattan.

About White & Case
White & Case LLP is a leading global law firm with more than 2,000 lawyers in 35 offices in 23 countries. Our clients value the breadth and depth of our US, English and local law capabilities and rely on us for their complex cross-border commercial and financial transactions and for international arbitration and litigation. Whether in established or emerging markets, the hallmark of White & Case is our complete dedication to the business priorities and legal needs of our clients.

The Commission's complaint in this action charges Scrushy with directing a $2.6 billion financial fraud at the HealthSouth Corporation during the years 1996 through 2002....

The Complaint alleges that, at Scrushy's direction, HealthSouth's overstated its revenue by more than $2.6 billion from the second quarter of 1996 through the third quarter of 2002. This overstatement led directly to quarterly and annual overstatements of net income and retained earnings. The Commission's complaint charges that, by the end of 2002, HealthSouth was claiming to have over $1.5 billion in accumulated retained earnings, when in fact the Company had operated at a significant loss over its entire corporate history. The HealthSouth fraud resulted in one of the largest accounting restatements in American corporate history.

Scrushy was acquitted in 2005 on criminal charges of wire and mail fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, and violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for his role in overstating HealthSouth's earnings.

He was, however, convicted last year on federal bribery and fraud charges for paying campaign debts of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman in exchange for a seat on a state-operated review board that regulates Alabama hospitals. Siegelman was also convicted in that case and both could face up to 30 years in prison.

"As the investigation or the hearings went forward, it was clear that the attorney general broke no law, did no wrongdoing. And this is an honest, honorable man in whom I have confidence," the president said.

Bush also maintained Wolfowitz was honest in answering every query that was posed at him in the panel hearing.

"The Attorney General went up and gave a very candid assessment and answered every question he could possibly answer -- honestly answer. And in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job."

The President also stressed the Attorney General "has the right" to recommend the replacement of attorneys.

"One of the things that's important for the American people to understand is that the Attorney General has a right to recommend to me to replace US attorneys. US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. In other words, we have named them and I have the right to replace them with somebody else," Bush remarked.

But lower federal courts have disagreed about what happens if a company voluntarily chooses to clean up a site: can it sue other companies, or the U.S. government, to recover costs? Or does the Superfund law require a company to be sued by the EPA first, before it can take action against other parties?

The U.S. government has taken the latter position. The Bush administration argued in court filings that requiring companies to be sued by the EPA before they can recover costs from other entities encourages companies to settle with the government.

There "is little evidence that...Congress," when it enacted the Superfund law, "intended to promote unsupervised cleanups at the expense of government-supervised cleanups pursuant to a settlement or suit," the Solicitor General, the government's lawyer, wrote.

Environmentalists and several U.S. business groups respond that such an interpretation would discourage companies from initiating their own cleanups. The EPA is stretched too thin to oversee the rehabilitation of every site, a coalition of business groups wrote in a court brief.

The case before the court Monday stems from a lawsuit filed by Atlantic Research Corp. in 2002. Atlantic Research retrofitted rocket motors under contract with the U.S. government in the 1980s at an industrial park in Camden, Ark., according to court filings.

Rocket propellant contaminated the industrial park as a result of the work, and the company voluntarily cleaned up the pollution. It then sued the federal government in 2002 to recover some of the costs.

A district court sided with the government, but the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Atlantic could proceed with its suit. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Several business groups, including the Superfund Settlements Project and trade associations representing the chemical, oil, and utilities industries, signed onto a brief supporting Atlantic Research. The Superfund Settlements Project represents 10 corporations, including General Electric Co. and United Technologies Corp., that have spent $6 billion on hazardous waste cleanups, the group's lawyer said.

Fred Anderson, Apple Inc.'s former chief financial officer, has agreed to settle with the Securities and Exchange Commission on his alleged part in backdating stock options, according to reports on Tuesday.

Anderson will pay a $150,000 fine and repay option gains of about $3.5 million, but won't admit to any wrongdoing and won't be barred from serving as a corporate officer or on the board of public companies, the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News both reported, quoting unnamed people familiar with the case.

They also reported that the SEC is expected to pursue a civil lawsuit against the company's ex-general counsel Nancy Heinen on similar charges.

The Journal said one of Heinen's attorneys, Cristina Arguedas, said her client didn't backdate and will defend herself. It said Apple and an attorney for Anderson declined to comment on the reported settlement.

An Apple probe cleared Chief Executive Steve Jobs of any misconduct in the backdating of stocks at the Cupertino-based maker of computers and music players. While Jobs recommended "favorable" dates for some options, the Apple panel said he was unaware of the accounting implications of his actions and didn't financially benefit from them.

In a 5-4 decision last week, the high court said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed in 2003 does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

It was the first time the court had upheld a ban on a specific abortion procedure.

The 1999 Missouri law sought to ban the procedure, generally performed in the second or third trimester, but the law was put on hold by a federal judge one day after the legislature enacted it by overriding a gubernatorial veto.

The law created the crime of “infanticide,” defined as intentionally causing the death of a baby “when the infant is partially born or born.”

Doctors violating the ban could have been charged with a felony similar to murder.

Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon had appealed the 8th Circuit’s ruling.

Nixon spokesman Scott Holste said Nixon planned to file a motion Monday asking the 8th Circuit to vacate its injunction against enforcing the Missouri law.

That would allow the law to take effect immediately.

Doctors who violate the federal law face up to two years in prison.

The law had never taken effect, pending the outcome of the legal fight.

Peter Brownlie, president of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, said Monday that he was unaware of any doctors in Missouri who were performing the procedure or who had performed it in recent years.

“On a practical level, the decision has very little bearing in terms of day-to-day medical care (in Missouri),” he said.

He said he was concerned, though, about the Supreme Court decision’s future effect because the federal ban it upheld did not contain an exception for the health of the mother.

Pam Fichter, president of Missouri Right to Life, said she was “very gratified that the courts have ruled that there are limits to what can be construed as the health of the mother.”

The high court’s ruling is expected to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.

The Supreme Court of California ruled against Brendlin in 2006, holding that passengers are not automatically seized during a traffic stop, and allowed the evidence to be used in the trial. Brendlin is now backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and NAACP, which fear that a judgment for the state would give police broad power to stop vehicles to search passengers. Brendlin's conviction may stand regardless of the Court's ruling, as at the time of arrest he was wanted for an unrelated parole violation, which itself may have justified the state's search. AP has more.

The Supreme Court also heard oral arguments in two other cases Monday. In United States v. Atlantic Research Corp, 06-562, the Court must decide whether owners of areas contaminated by hazardous materials that must be cleaned up under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) can recover contribution from other responsible parties before they are subject to a government enforcement action. In Hinck v. United States, 06-376, the Court will decide whether tax courts have exclusive jurisdiction to review an IRS decision to deny a taxpayer’s request for interest abatement or whether district courts and Federal Claims Court also have such jurisdiction.