Amy Cheng and Fredric "Ric" Cohen today announced the formation of Cheng Cohen, LLP, a Chicago-based firm specializing in corporate, franchise, technology and business litigation.

With more than 30 years of combined experience, the lawyers at Cheng Cohen work with companies of all sizes as dedicated outside general counsel or corporate counsel. Cheng Cohen creates legal strategies that protect clients without losing sight of the company's business objectives. The firm also handles all types of business and commercial litigation from simple contract disputes to complex class actions.

In addition, Amy Cheng and Ric Cohen's extensive franchise experience positions Cheng Cohen as one of the best franchise law firms in the Country. Both Cheng and Cohen have been named "legal eagles" by Franchise Times.

Amy Cheng concentrates her practice in domestic and international commercial transactions, general corporate, and franchise, licensing and distribution law.

Before forming Cheng Cohen, Cheng was a partner with DLA Piper US LLP and its predecessor firms for her entire career. She was a member of DLA's Commercial, Corporate and Franchise & Distribution Practice Groups.

Cheng currently co-chairs the Chicago Chapter of the International Franchise Association's (IFA) Women's Franchise Network and previously co- chaired the Chicago Chapter of the IFA's Franchise Business Network. She has also spoken at and moderated roundtables for conferences and seminars sponsored by the American Bar Association Forum on Franchising and the International Franchise Association.

Ric Cohen is a seasoned litigator, trial lawyer and appellate advocate, who represents clients in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country and in alternative dispute resolution forums such as arbitration and mediation. Cohen has extensive commercial litigation experience in areas that include contract disputes, antitrust, technology, intellectual property, valuation, and securities actions.

For nearly two decades, Cohen has represented many of the nation's most prominent franchise, licensing and distribution companies in a wide variety of lawsuits from complex multi-forum class action litigation to standard enforcement actions and everything in between.

Before forming Cheng Cohen, Cohen was a partner with DLA Piper US LLP and its predecessor firms for nearly his entire career. He was a member of DLA Piper's Litigation and Franchise & Distribution practice groups, co-chaired the firm's Franchise Litigation practice group, and was the firm's hiring partner.

Cohen has been named to The Best Lawyers in America(R) and The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers and has been selected as a Super Lawyer(R) by "Law & Politics" and "Chicago" magazines, and by his peers as an Illinois Leading Lawyer(R). Cohen is a member of the bars of the United States Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeals for the First, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits, and numerous federal district courts across the country, as well as of the Illinois Supreme Court.

AT&T has lost an attempt to block a class-action lawsuit which is suing the carrier for alleged over-charging roaming fees. AT&T, known at the time as Cingular Wireless had tried to argue before Washington State's Supreme Court that the customers had signed a contract which included a clause forbidden the customer from starting a class-action lawsuit, but the court decided that the clause was unfair and sent the case back to the trial court in King County where it began.

The lawsuit was filed back in 2004 against Cingular has claimed that the carrier advertised free roaming in areas covered by AT&T Wireless - which at the time was actually a separate company - but charged customers for the roaming service. It is claimed that Cingular had overcharged customers between $1 and $40 per month.

Public Justice, America's public interest law firm, based in Washington, DC which represented the customers, argued that Cingular's class action ban is "unconscionable" under state law because it forces customers to arbitrate their individually-small claims one-by-one and denies them the option of acting as a group with a common grievance for any reason. Public Justice also argued that federal law does not trump state laws that preclude companies from barring class actions in contract provisions.

"This decision is likely to have a significant influence on the way other courts think about this issue," said Paul Bland of Public Justice, who argued the appeal. "A number of courts around the country are wrestling with this issue right now, and the Washington Supreme Court's opinion is so thoughtful and well-reasoned that it is likely to persuade many other courts to also protect consumer rights."

In striking down the class action ban, the court emphasized that, if Cingular's customers couldn't bring a class action, they would be prevented from pursuing valid claims against the company. Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Tom Chambers stated that, if enforced, Cingular's class action ban would "effectively den[y] large numbers of consumers the protection of Washington's Consumer Protection Act."

The court also recognized that class actions are necessary to "strongly deter future similar wrongful conduct, which benefits the community as a whole."

Raised on fear and depression, children of Holocaust survivors say the Nazi terror has crossed generations, and want the German government to pay for their psychiatric care.

On Monday, Israelis who call themselves second generation survivors are filing a class action suit in a Tel Aviv court against the German government to finance therapy.

Thousands of people from Holocaust families are incapable of working, live with an irrational fear of starvation and suffer incapacitating bouts of depression, said Baruch Mazor, the director of the Fisher Fund which is filing the suit.

Mazor said 4 to 5 percent of the 400,000 children of survivors in Israel require treatment. Since many cannot hold steady jobs, they cannot pay for their own treatment, and aid from the Israeli government and health insurance has been inadequate, he said.

The suit seeks to set up a German-financed fund to pay for biweekly therapy sessions for 15,000 to 20,000 people, or about US$10 million (€7.3 million) annually for three years.

It was unclear what standing the Israeli court would have in a damages case against a foreign country.

Mazor said the Tel Aviv suit was a first step aimed at winning recognition that Germany should bear responsibility for the suffering of survivors' children. Armed with that ruling, the plaintiffs would try to negotiate a settlement, or would take their case to a German or an international court, he said.

Since the 1950s, Germany has paid more than US$60 billion (€44 billion) in reparations to concentration camp survivors, families of the some of the 6 million Jewish victims, and to the state of Israel. Much of that money went to the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, a New York-based organization that negotiates with Germany and distributes the payments.

Mazor said money handled by the Claims Conference is earmarked for survivors, and their children did not want to detract from those funds.

Instead, they wanted "recognition and responsibility of the German government" for their problems, he said.

The German Foreign Ministry declined comment.

But Germany was likely to see the suit as opening an indefinite channel for future claims, just as the generation that lived through the Holocaust was reaching its end.

The suit claims the second generation grew up "in the shadow of depression, grief and guilt of their parents, which created a powerful inclination among the children for paid and suffering."

Children had a "twisted relationship with their parents" that impeded their development and led to severe psychological problems, the suit claims.

One 58-year-old woman told her story to Israel Radio Sunday, saying the fear of starvation experienced by her parents in Auschwitz, where inmates prized any crust of bread they could obtain, had been passed on to her.

"I have and had obsession over food, especially bread," said the woman. "If you come to my house and open the freezer, loaves of bread fall on you, without any proportion to what I really need."

She declined to disclose her name, but Mazor said she spoke for thousands.

She had no childhood, she said, but felt as if she jumped directly into adolescence. "In our house it was forbidden to exhibit pain or say that you are sad. My father taught us not to show people how we feel, that it is forbidden to show people you are hurt, or that things are hard for you. And this was very, very hard," said the woman.

The feeling conveyed by her father was: "I went through hell, and what you are going through is nothing."

Others of the second generation say they cannot ride buses because it reminds them of the transports their parents took to the concentration camps, or they fear dogs because they were used by the Nazis to control crowds.

Mazor said the Fisher Fund, a charity representing the second generation, held lengthy negotiations with the German Embassy over the compensation claims, but the talks were cut off by the Germans.

A court sentenced 35 opposition politicians and activists to life in prison and denied them the right to vote or run for public office for inciting violence in an attempt to overthrow the government, a judge said Monday.

The prosecution had called for death sentences against the defendants, who included Ethiopia's top opposition leaders and five people charged, tried and convicted in absentia. Another eight defendants facing similar charges were sentenced to between 18 months and 18 years in prison, said Judge Adil Ahmed, reading the sentences on behalf of the three-judge panel.

International human rights groups had widely condemned the trial as an attempt to silence government critics, and opposition leaders have claimed it was politically motivated. In a statement Monday, Amnesty International said it was dismayed at the life sentences.

"On the basis of the information we have, most — if not all — of those sentenced today are prisoners of conscience imprisoned on account of their opinions, who have not used or advocated violence and should therefore be immediately and unconditionally released," Erwin van der Borght, director of Amnesty's Africa program, said in the statement.

The judges declined to follow the recommendation of the prosecution to hand down the death penalty, Adil said.

"The court has deemed life imprisonment as a comprehensive and sufficient verdict for the actions taken," he said.

All those sentenced to life imprisonment have also been permanently denied the right to vote or run for office. Those given lesser sentences were banned from office for five years.

The judges also ordered the closure of three publishing companies and fined each of them between US$1,700 and US$13,600.

Those facing life imprisonment include the leader of the Coalition for Unity and Democracy, Hailu Shawel; Berhanu Nega, who was elected mayor of Addis Ababa; former Harvard scholar Mesfin Woldemariam; and former U.N. special envoy and a former professor at Virginia's Norfolk State University, Yacob Hailemariam.

The Federal High Court trial began in December 2005 following postelection violence that erupted during protests over balloting six months earlier.

The opposition won an unprecedented number of parliamentary seats in the 2005 vote, but Prime Minister Meles Zenawi held onto power. The opposition claimed the voting was rigged, and European Union observers said they were marred by irregularities.

Initially, the opposition leaders, journalists and others were charged with treason, inciting violence and attempted genocide. Judges dropped the treason and attempted genocide charges in April and later that month freed 25 prisoners, among them eight journalists.

Since April, a total of 43 people faced four other charges, but only nine chose to put up a defense.

Late last year, Ethiopia acknowledged that its security forces killed 193 civilians protesting alleged election fraud, but insisted they did not use excessive force. A senior judge appointed to investigate the violence had accused the security forces of excessive force.

Jarvis Malone, a former aide at the Arlington Developmental Center (ADC) in Arlington, Tenn., pleaded guilty today in U.S. District Court in Memphis to violating the constitutional rights of a mentally handicapped patient. During his plea hearing, Malone acknowledged that in June 2005, while working as a developmental technician at the ADC, a state-operated residential treatment facility for the mentally handicapped, he stood the victim against a wall and assaulted the victim. According to evidence presented at the hearing, Malone assaulted the victim to punish him. Malone agreed that his conduct violated federal law.

Malone faces a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000. His sentencing hearing is scheduled for Oct. 16, 2007. “Civil rights laws are meant to protect all Americans, including the most vulnerable members of our society,” said Wan J. Kim, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The Justice Department is committed to prosecuting those who set aside those laws and violate the constitutional rights of others.”

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office will continue to prosecute those individuals who violate the civil rights of other people. We appreciate the hard work and dedication of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation in their pursuit of ensuring that our citizens’ rights are protected,” said David Kustoff, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee.

“The outstanding efforts of our Medicaid Fraud Control Unit is proven here today. Behavior exemplified in this case will not be tolerated in the state of Tennessee. We appreciate the coordination of all the state and federal agencies whose hard work has brought justice,” said Mark Gwyn, Director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

The Civil Rights Division is committed to the vigorous enforcement of every federal criminal civil rights statute, such as laws that prohibit the wilful use of excessive force or other acts of misconduct by law enforcement officials. In fiscal year 2006, nearly 50 percent of the cases brought by the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division involved such prosecutions. Since fiscal year 2001, the Division has convicted 50 percent more defendants for excessive force and official misconduct than in the preceding six years.

This case was investigated by Special Agent Tracey Harris of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Parker of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Memphis and Trial Attorney Ed Caspar from the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice are prosecuting the case.

Akal Security Inc., one of the largest contract security providers in the country, will pay the United States $18 million to resolve allegations that it violated the terms of its contract to provide trained civilian guards at eight U.S. Army bases, the Justice Department announced today. According to the settlement, some of the supplied security guards allegedly failed to satisfy weapons qualification requirements and receive other training, and the contractor allegedly failed to satisfy contractual man-hour requirements.

In September 2003, the U.S. Army awarded a series of contracts for security guards to the Espanola, N.M., company for bases in Kansas, Washington, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina and Alabama. The company agreed at that time to provide fully trained personnel who were weapons qualified in accordance with military police firearms requirements.

In October 2004, three company employees, who worked as security guards at Ft. Riley, Kan., filed a qui tam or whistleblower suit against the company on behalf of the United States in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. Under the qui tam statute, a private party, known as a “relator,” can file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of the recovery. The relators in this case will receive a share of the settlement that has yet to be determined.

“Today’s settlement illustrates the Justice Department’s determination to recover paid out funds where terms of government contracts are not met,” said Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division.

The settlement resolves Akal’s potential liability under the False Claims Act arising from the complaint. The litigation and settlement of the case was conducted by the Department’s Civil Division along with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Kansas, as well as the U. S. Attorney’s Offices for the Western District of Kentucky, the Eastern District of Kentucky, the Western District of Washington, the Western District of Texas, the Southern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Alabama, and the Eastern District of North Carolina. The case was investigated by the Department of Defense’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service Office of the Defense Inspector General, and the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Assistant Attorney General for National Security Kenneth L. Wainstein and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III today announced a series of comprehensive measures to significantly enhance national security oversight and compliance at the Justice Department and FBI.

Among the primary components of this oversight effort, which has been in the works for months, are the proposed launch of two offices to conduct reviews, compliance activities, and training. The first is a dedicated Oversight Section within the Justice Department’s National Security Division. The second is a proposed Office of Integrity and Compliance at the FBI.

The oversight and compliance programs run by these offices will be at the forefront of the Justice Department’s ongoing efforts to ensure that national security investigations are conducted in a manner consistent with the nation’s laws, regulations, and policies, including those designed to protect the privacy interests and civil liberties of U.S. citizens.

“The top priority of the Department is to protect the nation from terrorist attack. At the same time, we have an important obligation to make sure the tools we use to prevent terrorism also protect the civil liberties of our citizens,” said Attorney General Gonzales. "This effort helps us achieve these objectives by enhancing internal controls over the Department’s national security activities.”

“The changes we announcing today are historic in nature. The FBI is instituting one of the first, agency-wide internal compliance programs in the federal government, and, for the first time, Justice Department attorneys will have a comprehensive mandate to examine all aspects of the FBI’s national security program for compliance with laws, regulations, and guidelines,” said Assistant Attorney General Wainstein.

“The FBI is charged with the mission to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the nation's criminal laws, while upholding the fundamental protections provided by the Constitution,” said FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III. “That requires striking a sometimes delicate balance, and the establishment of a compliance program marks another important step toward ensuring we fulfill our mission with an unswerving commitment to the rule of law.”

These measures build upon past Department improvements in national security oversight as counter-terrorism efforts have expanded. Last September, for instance, the Department created a National Security Division, in part, to enhance oversight of FBI and Department national security activities. In 2005, the FBI created a National Security Branch to centralize and coordinate FBI national security programs. Over the past several years, the Department has also expanded its reviews of FBI use of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorities.

Oversight Program within DOJ’s National Security Division

The National Security Division plans to broaden the scope of its national security oversight well beyond the Department’s traditional oversight role, which was primarily focused on the FBI’s use of FISA authorities. For the first time, Justice Department attorneys will have the clear mandate to examine all aspects of the FBI’ national security program for compliance with laws, regulations, and policies.

Dedicated Oversight Section -- To accomplish the expanded mandate spelled out above, the Department is standing up a dedicated Oversight Section within the National Security Division. This section will consist of attorneys and staff members specifically dedicated to ensuring that the Department fulfills its national security oversight responsibilities. Until recently, the Department’s national security oversight largely focused on the FBI’s use of FISA authorities, with the Department conducting accuracy reviews to ensure the accuracy of FBI declarations to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and minimization audits to ensure FISA information is handled appropriately. The Oversight Section will expand this focus beyond FISA to include all aspects of the FBI’s national security program and its use of national security tools.

Comprehensive National Security Reviews – The Oversight Section will exercise its oversight functions by conducting regular reviews of national security activities at FBI field offices and FBI Headquarters national security units. These reviews, which have already begun, are staffed by career Department attorneys with years of law enforcement and intelligence experience from the National Security Division and the FBI’s Office of General Counsel, along with officials from the Department’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Office. These reviews are not limited to the FBI’s use of FISA or National Security Letters, but examine all national security activities to ensure compliance with all applicable laws, guidelines and policies. Since establishing this review process in April 2007, the Division has completed national security reviews in four FBI field offices and plans to complete a total of 15 such reviews by the end of the year.

Reviews of Intelligence Oversight Board Referrals – As directed by the Attorney General in March 2007, the National Security Division will also be responsible for reviewing all referrals by the FBI to the Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB). This review process will focus on whether these referrals indicate that a change in policy, training, or oversight mechanisms is required. The Oversight Section will report to the Attorney General twice a year on such referrals and inform the Department's Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer of any referrals that raise serious civil liberties or privacy issues.

Training and Outreach -- In addition, the National Security Division will provide training on legal and regulatory compliance issues for its lawyers and FBI agents and analysts, as well as conduct outreach to the rest of the intelligence community.

Office of Internal Compliance and Oversight at the FBI

The second key portion of this oversight and compliance initiative will be the FBI’s Office of Integrity and Compliance, which was recently proposed by the FBI Director. While compliance programs have long been a staple of private corporations, this effort would represent one of the first times a federal agency established an agency-wide compliance program. The creation of this office and the implementation of a new FBI-wide compliance program would represent a substantial innovation in the way the FBI does business. The office will work to ensure compliance not only in national security activities, but in all FBI activities.

Mission -- The mission of the FBI’s proposed Office of Integrity and Compliance is to develop, implement, and oversee a program that ensures there are processes and programs in place that promote FBI compliance with both the letter and spirit of all applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The office would cultivate an environment committed to these principles and assist FBI management at all levels foster and maintain a culture where ethics and compliance are paramount considerations in decision making.

Structure -- The proposed Office of Integrity and Compliance would be headed by a career Assistant Director who will report directly to the FBI’s Deputy Director, providing direct access to the top decision makers within the FBI. The management structure would include a Steering Committee, chaired by the FBI Director, and five Executive Management Committees, which would examine compliance in different of portions of the FBI, including the National Security Branch, Criminal Investigations, investigative support, administrative and information technology.

New Policies and Risk Assessments -- The Office of Integrity and Compliance would begin establishing policies on compliance standards, training, communications, and risk assessments for the FBI. The office would support the implementation of the FBI’s overall compliance policies and standards within FBI Divisions, monitor the FBI-wide compliance program, ensure that necessary audits are performed, and deliver an annual report to key stakeholders. The office would also work closely with the FBI Inspections Division to identify high-risk areas, amend inspection protocols to include compliance risk, and ensure that compliance monitoring is carefully planned and executed.