A federal judge on Friday delayed a decision on whether to approve a plan to distribute the money, part of a $40 billion lawsuit alleging that financial institutions that worked with Enron participated in the accounting fraud that led to the company's downfall.

U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon also held off on whether to approve $688 million in attorneys' fees being requested by San Diego-based Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, the law firm for the lead plaintiffs in the case. If approved, the attorneys' fees would be the largest in a securities fraud case.

After a 4 1/2 hour hearing during which attorneys, Enron investors and former Enron employees argued both for and against the distribution plan and the attorney fees, Harmon said she would make decisions on both issues as soon as possible.

Patrick Coughlin, attorney for the regents of the University of California, who are the lead plantiffs, called the plan to distribute the $7.2 billion "fair and reasonable."

"The plan is doing whatever it can to help employees get whatever they can," he said.

In general, the plan is calculating shares of the settlement fund using a formula that factors in such things as when a security was bought or sold, the purchase price paid and the type of stock that was bought.

Enron stock sold for as much as $90 per share before plummeting to as low as $1 right before the company declared bankruptcy. But under the plan, shareholders and investors are set to get only a fraction of what they lost after the once mighty energy giant spiraled into bankruptcy.

To be eligible for the settlement, investors and shareholders needed to have bought Enron or Enron-related securities between Sept. 9, 1997, and Dec. 2, 2001.

About 1.5 million individuals are eligible to receive money from the settlement fund.

Coughlin also asked Harmon to approve the $688 million in attorneys' fees, saying the amount is part of an agreement his law firm signed with the regents when it first took the case six years ago to be given 9.5 percent of any settlement.

In justifying the fees, he cited several reasons, including that the 9.5 percent was far lower than the standard 33 percent most lawyers get in similar cases; the complexity of the lawsuit; and the risk involved in taking on a case that offered no guarantee of any settlements.

"This is the largest class (action) settlement ever. There is no case comparable to this result," he said.

But attorneys for several investors objected to the distribution plan and the attorneys' fees.

Avi Garbow, an attorney for former Enron workers who lost money through the company's savings plan and employee stock ownership plan, said the distribution plan was unfair because it doesn't treat all investors and shareholders equally and some will be compensated more than they should be at the expense of others.

Lawrence Schonbrun, who represents another investor, called the attorney fees being requested exorbitant and "an affront to every working person in this country."

The $7.2 billion comes mostly from settlements made with such financial institutions as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup.

There are still several financial institutions that remain as defendants in the Enron case, including Merrill Lynch & Co., Credit Suisse First Boston and Barclays Bank PLC. Several former Enron officers also remain, including former chief executive Jeffrey Skilling.

But the lawsuit has been on hold since an appeals court last year ruled shareholders and investors could not sue as a class, which would have allowed them to pool their resources to sue as a group and have more leverage to settle the case out of court.

The U.S. Supreme Court in January refused to hear arguments in the lawsuit. The high court in a similar case gave a measure of protection from securities lawsuits to suppliers, banks, accountants and law firms that do business with corporations engaging in securities fraud.

Attorneys for Merrill Lynch & Co., Credit Suisse First Boston and Barclays Bank PLC have said they will again ask Harmon to drop their clients from the lawsuit in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in the similar case.

Enron, once the nation's seventh-largest company, entered bankruptcy proceedings in December 2001 after years of accounting tricks could no longer hide billions in debt or make failing ventures appear profitable. The collapse wiped out thousands of jobs, more than $60 billion in market value and more than $2 billion in pension plans.

Enron founder Kenneth Lay and Skilling were convicted in 2006 for their roles in the company's collapse. Skilling is serving a sentence of more than 24 years. Lay's convictions for conspiracy, fraud and other charges were wiped out after he died of heart disease in 2006.

American anti-pollution campaigner Erin Brockovich has announced that at least two American law firms are prepared to pursue Alcoa in the United States on behalf of residents who live near its alumina refineries south of Perth, at Wagerup, Pinjarra and Kwinana.

The residents say their health has been adversely affected by emissions from the refineries. Simon Morrison from Shine Lawyers says the residents will not have to pay any money initially to join the claim.

"The US law firms involved in this claim do operate claims on what we call a contingent basis, which means no fee is payable to them unless the claim succeeds," he said.

"The next step for them is to obviously conduct some investigations of their own on the core issues surrounding the litigation.

"That would then follow what we call a forum application, in other words, bringing the matter in front of a judge in America, to test that issue of whether this is a case that can actually be brought in the United States."

Alcoa says any legal action will be vigorously defended.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that California's new regulation is preempted by federal law. The Clean Air Act allows California to set its own standards for various vehicles and engines if it receives waivers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The state argued that in this case it didn't technically need a waiver, but the judges disagreed.

Ships sailing into the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are considered a major source of particulates, nitrogen oxides and sulfur, pollutants that cause the region to frequently violate federal health standards.

Microscopic soot from diesel engines can lodge in lungs, triggering heart attacks, asthma and other cardiovascular and respiratory problems, scientists say. Diesel exhaust has also been linked to lung cancer.

The ruling is the second setback in two months to California's efforts to combat air pollution rather than wait for federal action.

For four decades, the state has adopted its own regulations for cars, trucks, factories, consumer products and other sources of air pollution, often prompting the federal government to set similar standards.

Microscopic soot from diesel engines can lodge in lungs, triggering heart attacks, asthma and other cardiovascular and respiratory problems, scientists say. Diesel exhaust has also been linked to lung cancer.

The ruling is the second setback in two months to California's efforts to combat air pollution rather than wait for federal action.

For four decades, the state has adopted its own regulations for cars, trucks, factories, consumer products and other sources of air pollution, often prompting the federal government to set similar standards.

A convicted sex offender who was forced to move by a state law can't return home. He has no rights to the property because his wife owns it, a judge ruled.
 
The man, identified in court records as John B. Doe, had filed a lawsuit challenging a state law that prohibits convicted sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, public park or youth program center.

Doe, who was convicted of child seduction in 2000 and released from probation the following year, was forced to move from his home near a church that offers youth programs. He argued that the law violated his rights by unfairly punishing him again.

Judge Thomas Busch of Tippecanoe Superior Court ruled against Doe on Tuesday, noting that the home was owned by Doe's wife, not Doe, so his property rights were not violated.
Busch also noted similar challenges that had been defeated in other states.

"Under the circumstances, the court finds that injunctive relief forbidding the prosecutor and sheriff from enforcing this law in this case is not in the public interest," Busch wrote in his 11-page ruling.

Doe's lawsuit was one of three filed in Tippecanoe County challenging the law that forced 28 offenders in the area to move or be charged with a Class D felony. None of the three has succeeded in court.

Doe's attorney, Earl McCoy, did not immediately return a message seeking comment left by the Journal & Courier of Lafayette.

At Latham & Watkins, the international law firm, William H. Voge is the resident whiz on Dubai. And Abu Dhabi. And Qatar.

Mr. Voge, who heads the finance practice, can recite when each of the firm's investment banking clients opened offices in the Middle East. And he knows how many law firms have established outposts there too: 20 since 2005.

"This is the Silicon Valley, if you will, of the world," Mr. Voge said. "It's just beginning to take off, where clients have an increasing need for sophisticated legal advice on the ground."

Latham & Watkins plans to open three offices in the Middle East by the end of the first quarter. A competitor, Dewey & LeBoeuf, said in January that it had opened an office in Dubai. And Clifford Chance, a London law firm that has been in Dubai since 1975, plans to open an office in Abu Dhabi in late April.

The rush to the cash-rich Persian Gulf is easy to explain: Law firms are following the money.

"Where there are investment banks, you will find lawyers," said Graham Lovett, Clifford Chance's managing partner for the gulf. "I am pretty certain that some firms arrived here and don't know why they were not here already."

Consider Latham & Watkins. The Qatar Investment Authority, one of its clients, has been asking the firm to open a local branch for five years.

Latham is coming off a banner year. It took in more than $2 billion in gross revenue in 2007, a first for a United States law firm, driven by its international focus.

About 20 percent of Latham's business comes from its finance practice, and Latham interviewed 14 financial institution clients, among them Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse, before making the plunge in the Middle East.

"They all view the gulf region as becoming an increasing player in the global economy," Mr. Voge said.

Some of Wall Street's top law firms, however, have not yet joined the race to the gulf. Davis Polk & Wardwell, for example, has no plans to open a Middle East office.

"Of our peer group of American firms, there has not been a rush, and I'm not sure there is going to be one," said Thomas J. Reid, a partner with Davis Polk's London office. India is Davis Polk's top international priority right now.

Shearman & Sterling, by contrast, has maintained an office in Abu Dhabi since 1975, mainly driven by its project finance practice. But capital markets are becoming increasingly important.

Shearman represented the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority when the sovereign wealth fund bought into Citigroup last November.

Latham, meantime, plans to have three partners in Dubai, and a total of 20 lawyers in the region, by the year's end.

Dubai, with its night life and amenities, is a big draw for the firm's young lawyers. Mr. Voge describes Dubai as a combination of New York, Las Vegas and Orlando, Fla.