The top court said that Lee Kun-hee was not guilty, reiterating a judgment made by the Seoul High Court last year. The charges stemmed from long-standing allegations of dubious financial transactions purportedly aimed at transferring corporate control from Lee to his son.

In a related case, the court threw out convictions of two Samsung executives who had been found guilty of selling convertible bonds to Lee's children at prices less-than-market value.

The court said that it could not find that the executives had violated breach of trust laws in the case and sent it back to the Seoul High Court for reconsideration.

Critics had said the sale was aimed at enabling Lee to hand over control of the Samsung Group to his son Jae-yong, now an executive at Samsung Electronics Co.

The elder Lee, who led South Korea's biggest industrial conglomerate for 20 years, was convicted last year of tax evasion and given a suspended prison term.

Lee is a South Korean corporate icon who has personified Samsung. He succeeded his father as chairman and is widely credited with turning the group's flagship, Samsung Electronics, into a global brand.

Lee was indicted in April last year following a probe by special prosecutors into allegations of wrongdoing aired by a former Samsung lawyer. The indictment prompted Lee to quit as chairman of Samsung Electronics.

The opinion was requested by Gov. Jack Markell, who has signed a bill that would make Delaware the only state east of the Rocky Mountains to offer sports wagering.

In a 22-page ruling dated Wednesday, the court says the state constitution permits lotteries that have an element of skill, as long as chance is the predominant factor in winning or losing.

The justices also say the proposed sports lottery satisfies the constitutional requirement that lotteries be under state control.

The NFL opposes the lottery and has said it may challenge the bill in court.

General Motors Corp.'s primary bankruptcy law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP is housed in New York in the aptly named GM building.


In June 2008, a group of investors purchased the iconic building on Fifth Avenue and three others in a $4 billion deal and said they might decide to sell the building's naming rights, which expire in 2010.

The law firm in 1996 renewed its 350,000 square feet of office space on 11 floors in the GM building for 21 years starting in 1998.

GM sold the building in 1991. The Detroit automaker's New York operations left its namesake building last year and moved into the Citigroup Center. In 1968, GM had 26 floors of office space in the 50-story building, but that had shrunk to just three by last year.

Twenty-seven-year-old Ingmar Guandique was arraigned in District of Columbia Superior Court on six counts, including first-degree murder, kidnapping and attempted sexual abuse. He pleaded not guilty to all counts.

Guandique listened through a Spanish translator during the hearing. He kept his head down and remained silent, except to reply "si" when asked if he understood the charges.

Judge Geoffrey Alprin set a jury trial, expected to last two weeks, for Jan. 27. Guandique's public defender, Santha Sonenberg, asked the judge for more time to prepare, but Alprin insisted on the date.

Following the arraignment, Sonenberg and another defense attorney issued a statement calling the prosecution's evidence "false and deficient." Previously, they have said the case against Guandique is largely based on the accounts of "jailhouse snitches" interviewed years after the slaying.

Levy, a Modesto, Calif., native, disappeared in May 2001, and her remains were found in Rock Creek Park a year later. Guandique has been serving a 10-year sentence for two other attacks in the same park.

The case has been blamed for destroying the political career of former U.S. Rep. Gary Condit of California, who was romantically linked to Levy. Authorities questioned the Democrat who represented the Modesto district where Levy grew up, but he was never a suspect.

The questions included: "Do law firms do a disservice by hiring minority students who the firms know do not have the necessary credentials and will then fire in three to four years? Would I have been admitted to the law school if I were not a Puerto Rican? Was I culturally deprived?" according to a December 1978 Washington Post article about the incident.

The day after the dinner, Sotomayor challenged the partner about the questions during her formal interview. The partner said he meant no harm and invited her to Washington for further job interviews. Sotomayor declined and filed a discrimination complaint with Yale, putting the firm, then known as Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, at risk of being banned from recruiting at Yale.

The incident sparked a campus controversy in which minority and women's groups backed Sotomayor. A student-faculty tribunal investigated and found the questions violated the university's rules against discrimination. It rejected the firm's first letter of apology as too weak before accepting its second letter.

The episode "prevented us from recruiting her, which we wanted to do. It also probably prevented us from recruiting other students," the Post quoted a senior partner in the firm, Ramsay Potts, as saying at the time.

Sotomayor joined the New York City prosecutor's office after receiving her law degree.