|
|
|
Ex-CEO convicted in scam at auto-chemical company
Breaking Legal News |
2011/07/20 09:35
|
A former corporate executive officer of a New York-based automotive-chemical company was convicted Tuesday in a multimillion-dollar investor fraud scheme that enabled him to buy expensive jewelry and take private jets.
A jury in Manhattan state Supreme Court found Cleveland lawyer James Margulies guilty of charges including grand larceny and scheme to defraud. He faces up to 25 years on the top two counts, which could run consecutively. Bail was set at $1.5 million.
Ira London, an attorney for Margulies, said he planned to file "a very vigorous appeal."
"The jury has spoken. I believe they have convicted an innocent man," he said.
While serving as the company's finance chief — and briefly as CEO — of Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc., from 2004 to 2008, Margulies illegally issued millions of shares of stock to friends and relatives, inflating the share price by making the company look more profitable than it was, prosecutors said.
A teachers' pension fund in Ohio and a church were among the victims of the scheme, prosecutors said.
Margulies personally reaped more than $7 million, spending it on lavish luxuries such as a $350,000 diamond ring for his wife from jeweler Harry Winston, prosecutors said.
He also paid more than a million dollars on the mortgage of his first home, bought a second home and spent $500,000 on a vacation club membership, prosecutors said.
Margulies was charged in the scheme in 2010 along with John D. Mazzuto, who pleaded guilty Jan. 14 to his role in issuing fraudulent shares of stock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court reverses conviction on online Obama threat
Court Watch |
2011/07/20 02:36
|
A federal appeals court on Tuesday overturned the conviction of a man who posted Internet messages threatening Barack Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign.
A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Walter Bagdasarian's violent and racist screeds against Obama were "repugnant" but not criminal. The court also said it was obvious the San Diego man wasn't planning to attack the candidate and that the postings were protected by Bagdasarian's free speech rights.
Bagdasarian was convicted in 2009 of two felony counts of threatening a major presidential candidate.
Bagdasarian posted several messages to a Yahoo Finance message board in October 2008, including one that called Obama a racial epithet and another that said "he will have a 50 cal in the head soon" — a reference to a .50 caliber gun.
A retired Air Force officer forwarded the postings to the Secret Service. Yahoo provided Bagdasarian's subscriber information to investigators, who raided his house and seized six guns and a hard drive containing an email with similar sentiments.
Bagdasarian admitted posting the messages, but said he was drunk and joking.
He waived his right to a jury trial. District Judge Marilyn L. Huff found him guilty and sentenced him to 60-days in a half-way home.
But the appeals panel said no "reasonable person" could have taken seriously Bagdasarian's posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When is a Person an Employee of Another?
Legal Business |
2011/07/18 09:36
|
On July 19, 2011, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a decision which I found surprising in McCann v. City of Anderson, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 48A02-1009-PL-1060. At issue was whether a trial court had properly granted summary judgment on the question of whether a warrant officer was an employee of the Anderson City Court. Despite the procedural posture of the case and factors that weighed in favor of finding an employer-employee relationship, the Court affirmed a decision granting summary judgment to the defendants.
In this case, McCann was a police officer, who eventually became warrant officer for the Anderson City Court in 1998. He held that post until 2005, when the judge asked that McCann be reassigned. As a result of this dismissal, McCann filed suit based on the Indiana Wage Statute, arguing that he had been an employee of the Court and was entitled to funds that had been allocated to the position of warrant officer by that court. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the trial court granted the defendants' motion.
On appeal, the Court quoted GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397, 402 (Ind. 2001), for the seven factors that a court should consider when determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists. The Court then analyzed each of these factors and determined that three weighed in favor of the existence an employer-employee relationship and four against, with the "most important" factor weighing against.
Thus, over all, four of the seven factors, including the most important, "Control over the Means Used," indicate McCann was not an employee of the City Court. Because the City Court was not McCann's employer, he cannot be due any "unpaid wages" from the City Court. Therefore, he cannot assert a claim against the City Court under the Indiana Wage Statute.
The aspect of this decision that is most surprising is that the Court reached this conclusion despite the procedural posture of the case. It could have easily held that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to McCann, the seven factors weighed both for and against a finding of an employer-employee relationship between McCann and the City Court created a genuine issue of material fact. This indicates that the factor the Court identified as being "most important", whether the purported employer exercised control over the means used by the purported employee to perform work, is very important indeed.
Lesson:
1.It will be exceedingly difficult to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship if the purported employer did not exercise control over the means that the purported employee used to perform his work.
Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/When-is-a-Person-an-Employee-of-Another |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyer defends Nevada truck firm in Amtrak crash
Class Action |
2011/07/11 00:53
|
A lawyer for the Nevada trucking company whose tractor-trailer slammed into an Amtrak train, killing six people, defended the company’s safety record Thursday and said it was not at fault in two previous accidents cited in state safety records.
John Davis Trucking Co. has been cooperating with local, state and federal investigators and is as anxious as anyone to learn why the driver who died in the June 24 crash ignored flashing lights and crossing gates before skidding the length of a football field into the side of the train, Steven Jaffe of Las Vegas said.
But he said four negligence lawsuits filed against the Battle Mountain company — combined with the ongoing investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board — has kept the brothers who own the family-run business from sharing information that would help shed more light on the tragedy.
“There’s a lot more than meets the eye,” Jaffe told The Associated Press. “I think when it all comes down to it, the public is going to see a very different John Davis Trucking than was originally put out there.
“I believe the evidence will show their conduct was defensible in all of this,” he said. “I have a great deal of trust in the legal system, and if some day we go in front of a jury, I’m confident it will give us the chance to say that we did everything right.”
Federal records reviewed by the AP show the state Department of Public Safety cited the company for 16 vehicle maintenance violations over the past two years and noted it had been involved in two crashes during that period, including one in February 2010 that injured a person in Washoe County.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arizona court vacates $75 million cash-only bond
Court Watch |
2011/07/11 00:13
|
An Arizona appeals court has vacated what was perhaps one of the highest bail amounts on record in U.S. history that had been set for a father accused of sexually abusing his children.
The brief order issued last week sends the case back to Yavapai County Superior Court Judge Tina Ainley to reset the $75 million cash-only bond for the longtime Sedona resident. She has scheduled a Monday status conference.
The defendant's attorney, Bruce Griffen, sought relief from the appellate court after he tried unsuccessfully to have the case assigned to another trial court judge.
Griffen accused Ainley of abusing her discretion, and exhibiting bias and prejudice.
Prosecutors say those accusations were not proven. They contend the defendant has significant family ties in Brazil and is a flight risk.
The appellate court said Ainley cannot set a bail amount greater than what is necessary to ensure the defendant appears at trial, and can set other release conditions. The court is expected to elaborate on its decision but had not done so as of Friday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Google Wi-Fi snooping lawsuits can proceed
Class Action |
2011/07/10 00:52
|
A federal judge has refused Google's plea to dismiss several class-action lawsuits accusing the Internet search giant of illegally collecting online information from unencrypted wireless networks while working on its "Street View" map feature.
Google has acknowledged that its fleet of specialized "Street View" vehicles inadvertently gathered about 600 gigabytes of Wi-Fi data in more than 30 countries while photographing neighborhoods.
The Mountain View, Calif.-based company apologized and maintains it never used the data. It also argues it did nothing illegal because the Wi-Fi data was publicly available like radio transmissions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pomerantz Law Firm Has Filed a Class Action Against Biomimetic Therapeutics
Class Action |
2011/07/07 10:00
|
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. ("BMTI" or the "Company") and certain of its officers. The class action in the United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased BMTI securities from October 14, 2009 through May 11, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. BMTI's product, Augment(TM) Bone Graft ("Augment"), is a fully synthetic, off-the-shelf bone growth factor product for the treatment of bone defects and injuries. The Company's primary focus is obtaining market approval for Augment, and preparing for the anticipated commercial launch of Augment in the United States, the European Union and Australia. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants conditioned investors to believe that FDA approval of Augment would be forthcoming through a host of materially false and misleading statements regarding the status of Augment's ongoing clinical studies, and the safety and efficacy of the Company's product. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts regarding: (a) the Company's business, operations, management, future business prospects and the intrinsic value of BMTI's common stock; (b) the safety and efficacy of Augment and its prospects for FDA approval; and (c) the woeful inadequacies of Augment's clinical trials. As a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 10, 2011, the FDA published briefing documents on Augment that were critical of Augment's clinical trial, stating the "FDA still has clinical concerns with the safety and overall risk/benefit of the device at this time, primarily due to the unanswered question of safety in regards to the potential for cancer formation versus an unproven benefit in the current standard for care." On this news, BMTI's stock price plummeted approximately $4.73 or over 35% and closed at $8.66 on unusually heavy volume. On May 13, 2011, BMTI disclosed that the FDA Panel voted by a narrow margin of 10-8 in favor of Augment's efficacy, making it highly unlikely that the device will receive FDA approval without requiring additional trials, substantially delaying the launch of the product. As a result of the news regarding the narrow Panel vote, BMTI shares declined nearly 12% or $1.095 and closed at $8.105. If you are a shareholder who purchased BMTI securities during the Class Period, you have until September 6, 2011 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x350. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C., is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
