|
|
|
Appeals court upholds convictions of Tyco executives
Court Watch |
2007/11/16 04:26
|
Their names became shorthand for corporate greed, but former Tyco International Ltd. executives L. Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Swartz have argued they were entitled to the money and perks they were accused of taking. A state appeals court said Thursday it disagreed, upholding the 2005 convictions of ex-CEO Kozlowski and former finance chief Swartz. Their massive theft and purchases of such luxuries as a $6,000 shower curtain came to symbolize corporate excess and cupidity.
"The evidence amply supports the conclusion that defendants took unauthorized bonuses from Tyco in 1999 and 2000," the appeals panel wrote in a 4-0 decision.
Kozlowski, 60, and Swartz, 47, were each sentenced to 8-1/3 to 25 years in prison after being convicted of conspiracy, grand larceny, securities fraud and falsifying business records. Prosecutors say the two amassed $170 million in unauthorized compensation and $430 million through stock manipulation.
The men used the money to finance lavish lifestyles that, in Kozlowski's case, included a $6,000 gold-threaded shower curtain and a $15,000 umbrella stand shaped like a small terrier, according to the prosecution.
Last month, defense lawyers argued before the appellate judges that neither man had taken money _ including bonuses and forgiven loans, money for investments, expensive real estate and personal luxuries _ that he was not due.
During the trial, Kozlowski and Swartz argued that one member of the company's compensation committee had approved some of the bonuses.
But the judges cited testimony showing that all but one compensation committee member had no knowledge of the bonus payments, and that even the defense agreed that only the whole committee had the authority to grant compensation.
The court also noted there was no written record of the payouts in the materials prepared for the compensation committee, and none in the committee's reports to the board.
"The absence of any reference to these transactions in the chain of documentation available to the committee clearly demonstrates defendants' coverup of their thievery," the appellate judges wrote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
State Court of Appeals to determine long-arm laws
Breaking Legal News |
2007/11/16 03:31
|
The state's highest court must decide under what circumstances New York's "long-arm" law can be invoked to give the state personal jurisdiction over someone who is not physically within the state.
The Court of Appeals heard arguments Thursday from Rachel Ehrenfeld, the author of a book about the funding of terrorism. The Manhattan author is seeking protection from British court judgments obtained by a Saudi billionaire who has successfully sued other authors in the United Kingdom.
Ehrenfeld, author of "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed _ and How to Stop It," published in 2003, filed a U.S. federal suit against Saudi businessman Khalid Salim A. Bin Mahfouz, in response to a libel suit he filed against her in England.
"He single-handedly silenced the American media from writing about him and about other individual Saudis who are funding terrorism," Ehrenfeld said Thursday. "This is a deliberate thought ... and since my work is about exposing those who fund terrorism, I feel it is my duty to stop it."
Attorneys for Bin Mahfouz did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Although Ehrenfeld's lawsuit was filed in federal courts, much of it deals directly with New York state law, so the state court is charged with interpreting that law before the issue is returned to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
"The issue may implicate the First Amendment rights of many New Yorkers, and thus concerns important public policy of the state," the Second Circuit said.
Current law indicates that the state has jurisdiction over someone outside the state if he or she "in person or through an agent" transacts any business within the state _ as long as the legal action arose from those New York transactions.
The court must determine if existing laws provide the state jurisdiction over someone in another country who sues a New Yorker. The court will also have to determine if interactions with New York state stemming from a foreign lawsuit qualify as doing business in the state. Specifically, whether Mahfouz conducted business in New York in his legal interactions with Ehrenfeld.
According to court documents, Bin Mahfouz argues that his actions in New York are not equivalent to doing business there, so he is not subject to the long-arm statute.
Bin Mahfouz's suit accused Ehrenfeld of libel in the High Court of Justice in London. Ehrenfeld did not appear in the British court to defend herself, and in 2005 it issued a default judgment against her. That judgment would require her to declare her writings about Bin Mahfouz to be false, publish a correction and apology, and enjoined her from publishing or authorizing further publication of the disputed statements in Britain, among other things.
"My immediate response was that I'm not going to acknowledge the court in England," Ehrenfeld said. "I'm an American ... If he wants to sue me, he should come to sue me in America."
In the federal lawsuit, Ehrenfeld has asked the court to declare that Bin Mahfouz could not win a claim of libel against her under U.S. law, making the English decision unenforceable in this country. The suit claims that Bin Mahfouz chose to sue Ehrenfeld in England because its libel laws favor plaintiffs, and warns his actions could lead to "libel tourism."
Ehrenfeld has said that her book cited Bin Mahfouz after her research revealed substantial credible evidence of his role as a financial supporter of terrorist organizations.
He has sued or threatened to sue for defamation in the United Kingdom at least 29 times for statements concerning his role in the financing of terrorism, according to Ehrenfeld's lawsuit.
An undated statement issued on the Bin Mahfouz family Web site said: "The Bin Mahfouz family has suffered for over a year from unsubstantiated innuendo and inaccurate reporting (much of it corrected or withdrawn too late to be helpful). It is, naturally, distressed that it now faces many of the same untrue allegations in filed civil actions. The family repeats that it abhors and condemns all acts of terrorism and that there is not a shred of evidence to justify the actions and lengthy legal process involved. It will, of course, vigorously contest them." |
|
|
|
|
|
Ellison files brief in Supreme Court voter ID case
Law Center |
2007/11/16 03:25
|
Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison has filed a brief with the Supreme Court in a voter ID case. The Minnesota Democrat is asking the court to strike down an Indiana law that requires people to have a photo ID to vote, arguing it disenfranchises black voters. This is Ellison's latest effort to make his mark on voting rights issues. Last month, the freshman congressman introduced legislation that would ban the ID requirement in federal elections. Ellison filed the brief with the support of all of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including presidential candidate Barack Obama, a Democratic senator from Illinois. In the brief, Ellison argues that the tax violates the 24th Amendment's ban on poll or other taxes to vote. |
|
|
|
|
|
UK Court OKs Extradition of Cleric
International |
2007/11/16 03:24
|
Radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri can be extradited to the United States to face trial on charges of supporting terrorism, a British court ruled Thursday. Al-Masri has been charged with trying to establish a terrorist training camp in Oregon, conspiring to take hostages in Yemen and facilitating terrorist training in Afghanistan. He is already serving a seven-year sentence in Britain for fomenting racial hatred and urging his followers to kill non-Muslims. Senior District Judge Timothy Workman, presiding at City of Westminster Magistrates Court, said the case would now be referred to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith for a final decision. Smith has two months to decide whether to surrender Al-Masri to the U.S. If she decides to hand the cleric over, he can then appeal to Britain's High Court, the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights. Al-Masri, who lost both arms below the elbows and an eye fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, was arrested on a U.S. extradition warrant in May 2004, but the process was put on hold while he stood trial in Britain and then appealed his convictions. In January, the House of Lords denied al-Masri permission to make further appeals, clearing the way for extradition proceedings. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court hears appeal over Michigan primary election
Breaking Legal News |
2007/11/16 03:23
|
A three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals expressed skepticism about the legal standing of Michigan's imperiled Jan. 15 presidential primary at a hearing Thursday afternoon. But the judges also indicated they need more time to decide whether to overturn a lower court decision to block it. The judges closely questioned lawyers representing Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, the state's chief elections officer, about the justification for restricting access to voter lists generated by the election to the Democratic and Republican parties, a practice the Ingham County Circuit Court found to be unconstitutional.
Lawyers defending the primary law said the Legislature could restrict access if that was deemed necessary to make the election possible and secure the participation of several million voters who would not participate if the two parties used a caucus or convention nominating process. The appellate trio -- Chief Judge William Whitbeck and Judges Patrick Meter and Donald Owens -- also pressed state lawyers, who had requested a decision by today, for a few more days to consider the case. Elections officials said they need a decision as soon as possible so that absentee ballots can be ready for distribution 45 days before the election as required by law. The lawsuit was filed by East Lansing political consultant Mark Grebner and a group of citizens and activists that included former Free Press political columnist Hugh McDiarmid. After Thursday's hearing, Grebner said the plaintiffs have no objection to the primary, only to the method for handling the voter lists that was devised by party leadership and muscled through the Legislature. "If some method can be devised which allows the primary to proceed, while rejecting the idea of election records as property of the two major parties, the plaintiffs would be very happy," he said. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court rejects Vonage patent case appeal
Patent Law |
2007/11/16 02:28
|
A federal appeals court on Thursday turned down a request by Vonage Holdings Corp to reconsider a lower court verdict that it infringed two patents held by Verizon Communications Inc. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit turned down Vonage's petition for a rehearing in the case, a ruling that triggers more favorable terms for Verizon under a settlement reached between the two companies last month. Under the Oct. 25 settlement deal, Vonage was required to pay $120 million if its request for a court rehearing were denied, including $2.5 million to charity. Had the court granted Vonage a rehearing, Vonage would only have had to pay $80 million. In seeking to overturn the lower court verdict, Vonage had argued that the judge who oversaw the trial misconstrued key claims in three of the patents at issue and gave the jury the wrong instructions on how to interpret technical terms. However, in September the same appeals court upheld most of the verdict and reaffirmed an order barring Vonage from using Internet phone call technology related to two of the patents Verizon claimed had been infringed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prosecutor Tries to Ban Kurdish Party
International |
2007/11/16 01:30
|
Turkish authorities on Friday took steps to ban the country's leading pro-Kurdish political party and expel several of its lawmakers from parliament on charges of separatism. The Democratic Society Party, which won 20 seats in parliament in July, last week called for autonomy for Kurds living in the country's southeast. The call came amid tension over how to deal with separatist Kurdish rebels, with the military preparing for a possible cross-border offensive against their bases in northern Iraq. Chief Prosecutor Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya said in a statement "that speeches and actions by party leaders have proved that the party has become a focal point of activities against the sovereignty of the state and indivisible unity of the country and the nation." He said a legal case was launched in an effort to shut down the party. The prosecutor's office will send an indictment to the country's Constitutional Court for a trial. Several predecessors of the pro-Kurdish party were banned by Turkey's Constitutional Court on similar grounds and for alleged ties to rebels. The party demanded more rights for the Kurdish minority and autonomy for Kurds living in the southeast during a party congress last week. "It is envisaged that each autonomous section is represented with its own colors and symbols and creates its own democratic administration, although the national flag and official language remain valid for the entire nation of Turkey," the party said in a statement last week. Selahatin Demirtas, a legislator from the pro-Kurdish party, said Friday that banning it would only aggravate the Kurdish problem, the Dogan news agency reported. Turkish leaders have accused the pro-Kurdish party of having ties to the rebel Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK. Turkish leaders insist the party should declare the PKK a terrorist organization to prove its allegiance to Turkey. Both the U.S. and the European Union have labeled the PKK a terrorist organization. DEHAP, the predecessor of the present party, dissolved itself in 2005 as prosecutors tried to close it. The constitutional court closed down four previous pro-Kurdish parties. Yalcinkaya accused leaders of the current party of dissolving DEHAP and establishing the new party under orders from imprisoned Kurdish rebel chief Abdullah Ocalan, who is serving life on a prison island near Istanbul. "By implementing orders they received from the leader of a terrorist organization in prison, (they) have openly shown their allegiance to the terrorist organization and its leader," Yalcinkaya said. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|