|
|
|
Supreme Court rules in railroad negligence case
Court Watch |
2007/01/10 18:33
|
The US Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the causation standard for railroad negligence under the Federal Employers Liability Act is the same as that for employee contributory negligence under the Act. In Norfolk Southern v. Sorrell, an employee of the railroad sued for injuries suffered and was awarded $1.5 million in damages. The railroad disputed jury instructions used at trial, arguing that the standard used to determine the railroad's negligence was "much more exacting" than the standard used for employee contributory negligence. The Supreme Court vacated the state appeals court decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. |
|
|
|
|
|
Clifford Chance advises on Gems TV's IPO
World Business News |
2007/01/10 08:38
|
International law firm Clifford Chance has recently advised Gems TV Holdings (Gems TV) on its recent S$354.92 million initial public offering on the Singapore Stock Exchange, the fourth largest IPO in Singapore in 2006. Shares were offered to qualified institutional buyers (QIBs) in the US in reliance on Rule 144A of the Securities Act and to non-US persons under Regulation S.
The IPO was underwritten by Credit Suisse and DBS Bank.
Gems TV is currently the leading dedicated home shopping retailer of gemstone jewellery in the UK and is expanding to new markets in the US, Japan, the PRC and Germany.
The company sells its own handcrafted gemstone jewellery directly to customers via television as well as the internet through a unique "reverse auction" system. The company operates jewellery manufacturing facilities in Thailand, one of the world's leading centres for processing gemstones.
Joan Janssen, the Singapore-based partner who led the Clifford Chance team advising on the deal, commented:
"We were delighted to have advised Gems TV on its IPO in Singapore. Despite the lack of direct comparables and external shocks, such as the coup in Thailand, the company made an impressive debut on the Singapore Stock Exchange and we were happy to have been involved in this very successful IPO."
The Clifford Chance team in Singapore consisted of partners Joan Janssen and Crawford Brickley, senior associate Johannes Juette and associate Ong Hui Ting. They were assisted by partner Andrew Matthews and counsel Angela Nobthai from Clifford Chance's Bangkok office. |
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court: Challenging patents OK
Breaking Legal News |
2007/01/10 08:16
|
The U.S. Supreme Court sided with MedImmune Inc. yesterday, ruling that the Gaithersburg biotech is allowed to sue over the validity of a patent - even while paying user fees to the patent holder.
Legal scholars said the decision opens the door for more patent lawsuits across a variety of sectors. And some said it could have a chilling effect on licensing deals - particularly those in key Maryland industries such as biotechnology, which often relies on such collaboration to further drug development. Previous legal interpretations have said that active licensing contracts between companies essentially act as a "covenant not to sue," according to the American Bar Association. As such, the "actual controversy" required to have a case under the U.S. Constitution doesn't exist. But in an 8-1 opinion yesterday - with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting - the court struck down that idea as "mistaken." "Promising to pay royalties on patents that have not been held invalid does not amount to a promise not to seek a holding of their invalidity," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote on behalf of the majority. (Thomas contended the courts had no jurisdiction over the case because no controversy existed.) Those who license access to patented technology may now decide it's more in their interests to try to have a suspect patent legally overturned. And patent holders may likely scrutinize potential partners more closely or charge higher fees to cover the risk of a lawsuit. "Clearly, this will have some impact on how people look at licensing their technology," said Lawrence M. Sung, a professor and director of the Intellectual Property Law Program at University of Maryland School of Law. "The difficult question is knowing how much of an impact there will be," Sung said. For MedImmune, the opinion means a lower court will have to consider the company's original 2003 claim filed in California U.S. District Court. The case contends that a patent held by California competitor Genentech Inc. was obtained through improper collusion with a British biotechnology company and amounts to an illegal 12-year extension of an earlier patent. |
|
|
|
|
|
Appleby Hunter Bailhache sets up shop in Mauritius
Law Firm News |
2007/01/10 05:19
|

Appleby Hunter Bailhache, the law firm that prides itself on its international presence, is about to get a little more global.
The Bermuda-based firm is planning to open an office in the Republic of Mauritius, they announced yesterday. The new office will be located in the capital city of Port Louis and will begin operations next month. The expansion will enable Appleby to further extend its legal services to clients, and will provide clients with greater access to the fast-growing emerging markets in Africa, Asia and India, the firm said in a statement. The new office, which will operate under the name of Appleby (Mauritius International) Ltd, will focus on investment into emerging African and Asian markets. Institutional clients in North America, Europe and Asia have indicated that they are looking for the resources of a global offshore services firm, to create efficient investment structures through a well-placed, independent sovereign country, the statement said. The office will open with two partners - Mauritian Gilbert Noel and Malcolm Moller, who is transferring from the firm's Bermuda office to oversee the new operation. The island of Mauritius, with a population of 1.2 million, offers a highly educated workforce and the government is successfully encouraging the introduction of external financial institutions to stimulate investment and diversify the economy, the firm noted. http://www.applebyglobal.com |
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court rules in immigration, patent cases
Court Watch |
2007/01/09 20:46
|
The US Supreme Court handed down decisions in three cases Tuesday, including US v. Resendiz-Ponce, where the Court upheld the conviction of Juan Resendiz-Ponce on charges of attempting to re-enter the United States illegally from Mexico after being deported. The indictment in the case did not allege an overt act showing that he tried to enter the US, but the Supreme Court ruled that the indictment was not defective as it "need not specifically allege a particular overt act or any other 'component part' of the offense." Read the Court's opinion per Justice Stevens, along with a dissent from Justice Scalia. In MedImmune v. Genentech, the Court ruled that MedImmune did not need to breach its patent license agreement with Genentech before challenging the patent's validity, overturning a Federal Circuit decision. In a statement Tuesday the industry group Coalition for Patent Fairness said that the unanimous ruling demonstrated yet again that "the patent system needs to be modernized. Fair patent protections deliver innovative products for consumers and strengthen America's international competitiveness. This ruling is a positive step, but it is clear that a legislative remedy is needed to strengthen our overall patent system." Finally, the Court remanded Burton v. Stewart back to the lower courts, saying that Lonnie Lee Burton's appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court had agreed to hear the case to determine whether Blakely v. Washington, the 2004 decision which limited judges' discretion in criminal sentencing, "announced a new rule and, if so, whether it applies retroactively on collateral review." Despite hearing oral arguments on those issues, the Court ruled that Burton never complied with the jurisdictional requirements of 28 US 2244(b). |
|
|
|
|
|
Libby judge refuses to release audio recordings of trial
Legal Business |
2007/01/09 20:41
|
US District Judge Reggie B. Walton denied a request Tuesday from several news organizations seeking the daily release of audio recordings of arguments and testimony in the upcoming CIA leak trial of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Walton ruled that the US District Court for District of Columbia will not follow the lead set by the US Supreme Court, which now makes audio recordings of arguments available to the public. Libby faces charges of perjury and obstruction of justice when his trial begins January 16. One of Libby's defense lawyers said last month that his client plans to call his former boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, to testify. |
|
|
|
|
|
Former acute-care service settles suit for $7.5 million
Breaking Legal News |
2007/01/09 12:47
|
Texas-based SCCI Health Services Corporation (SCCI) and its subsidiary, SCCI Hospital Ventures Inc., have paid the United States $7.5 million to settle allegations that the companies violated the Stark self-referral statute and the False Claims Act, the Justice Department announced today. SCCI, which was purchased by Triumph Hospital in 2005, operates long term acute care facilities across the United States. The government complaint alleged that from November 1996 through at least 1999, SCCI entered into prohibited financial relationships with three physicians and paid these physicians illegal payments in violation of the Stark statute. The government further alleged that from November 1996 through at least 1999, SCCI either submitted or caused false claims to be submitted to the Medicare program, as a result of these prohibited financial relationships, in violation of the False Claims Act. “The Justice Department is committed to investigating cases that threaten the integrity of the Medicare program, especially when providers fail to abide by federal laws prohibiting the referral of Medicare patients in exchange for a fee,†said Assistant Attorney General Peter D. Keisler. The settlement resolves a civil case filed on behalf of the government on April 1, 1999 by former employees and an independent contractor who worked for SCCI Houston. Daryl Kaczymarczyk, Patricia Rocha, Michelle Pate, Michael Brigle and Theresa Taylor filed the case under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, which authorize private parties to file lawsuits on behalf of the United States. On Oct. 2, 2002, the government intervened in the Stark Act claims as to the three physicians. The United States filed its complaint in the case on March 10, 2003. Of the total settlement amount, $1 million resolves additional allegations as to which the government did not intervene. As a result of the settlement, the five whistleblowers shared $1.7 million. “The Justice Department and the United States Attorney’s Office are committed to preventing and punishing improper financial relationships between physicians and hospitals. Such relationships have great potential to adversely impact the physician’s judgment and result in Medicare funds being spent on unnecessary and expensive hospital stays,†said Donald J. DeGabrielle Jr., United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas. The case was handled by the Justice Department’s Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas, with the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. |
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|