Today's Date: Add To Favorites
US and South Korea in landmark trade deal
Practice Focuses | 2007/04/02 19:42

Washington and Seoul agreed a landmark deal on Monday that will dramatically liberalise trade between the countries, giving the US an economic foothold in north-east Asia and helping South Korea upgrade its economy. The agreement was the biggest for the US since the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico and would lead to about 95 per cent of tariffs being eliminated within the next three years, negotiators said.

The tabular content relating to this article is not available to view. Apologies in advance for the inconvenience caused.

The deal could trigger a wave of agreements across Asia and is seen as vital to keeping US trade policy alive in the face of growing political discontent over the benefits of free trade.

The accord still has to be ratified by the US Congress and the South Korean national assembly, where it is likely to face difficulties because of the unpopularity of both presidents and their weak representation in their respective houses.

The pact was struck just minutes before the final deadline for George W. Bush, the US president, to notify Congress of his intent to ­ratify the agreement before his authority to "fast track" deals with a simple yes or no vote expires.

Mr Bush sent a letter to the Democratic leadership in Congress within moments of the deal being signed saying the agreement would "further enhance the strong US-Korea partnership, which has served as a force for stability and prosperity in Asia".

There was immediate condemnation from Democrats, led by members of Congress from states that depend on farming and car manufacturing – two sectors that lost out in the negotiations.

Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow said: "I will do everything in my power to defeat this agreement."

Bill Rhodes, vice-chairman at Citigroup and head of the US Korea Business Council, said that company worries about a watered down agreement had been largely addressed. But Ford, the carmaker, called on Congress to reject the deal as it did not go far enough in tearing down South Korean barriers to vehicle imports.

Under the agreement, tariffs on all vehicles under 3,000cc will be eliminated immediately and phased out over three years for bigger passenger cars and 10 years for pick-up trucks.

Rice was entirely excluded from the deal, in line with Seoul's wishes, while Washington received an undertaking that South Korea would allow the resumption of beef imports, suspended after health scares.

Seoul also agreed to eliminate import tariffs on US beef gradually over the next 15 years, while the US declared it would immediately abolish 61 per cent of tariffs on textiles and garments in terms of its import value.

Significantly, Washington accommodated Seoul's requests to consider development of Kaesong, the South Korean-run industrial zone in North Korea.

About 94 per cent of tariffs on commodities will be scrapped within three years, gradually increasing to 100 per cent.



New Century Financial Files For Bankruptcy
Bankruptcy | 2007/04/02 19:32

Subprime mortgage lender New Century Financial has filed for bankruptcy protection.

Once one of the largest providers of subprime mortgages in the United States and now a casualty of the slumping housing market and aggressive lending practices, the company said it is immediately firing 3,200 workers -- more than half its workforce. Company officials hope the business can be sold.

New Century officials also said they will sell the company's loan servicing business to Carrington Capital Management and its affiliate for approximately $139 million, subject to the approval of bankruptcy court.

New Century, based in Irvine, Calif., filed the bankruptcy action in Delaware.

More than two dozen subprime lenders have shut down in recent months, and others are scrambling to stay in business.



2 Judges, Attorney Convicted Of Bribery
Breaking Legal News | 2007/04/02 19:12

A federal jury in Jackson, Miss., has convicted Biloxi attorney Paul S. Minor, former Mississippi state chancery court judge Walter W. Teel, and former Mississippi state court circuit judge John H. Whitfield of charges related to their role in a bribery scheme in which Minor provided Teel and Whitfield with money and other things of value in exchange for favorable rulings in cases brought before the judges by Minor's law firm, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division announced today.

The jury found the defendants guilty on March 30 of all 14 charges in a December 2005 indictment, following a 20-day trial and a day of deliberations. The Honorable Henry T. Wingate, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, presided over the trial.

The jury convicted Minor, 61, of conspiring with Teel and Whitfield; six counts of honest services mail fraud; one count of honest services wire fraud; two counts of bribing and employee of state agency that received federal funds; and one count of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, for the use of the employees and resources of his law firm, Minor & Associates, to accomplish and further a pattern of racketeering activity that included bribery of Whitfield and wire fraud in connection with the payoff of a loan to Whitfield. Teel, 56, was convicted of conspiring with Minor in a bribery scheme; two counts of using the mails to deprive the citizens of Mississippi of the intangible right to his honest services; and one count of federal program bribery. Whitfield, 44, was found guilty of conspiring with Minor in a bribery scheme; four counts of honest services mail fraud; one count of using the wires in a scheme to deprive the citizens of Mississippi to the intangible right to his honest services; and one count of federal program bribery.

"The jury's conviction of attorney Paul Minor and former Judges Walter Teel and John Whitfield sends an important message – we will not tolerate the bribery of judges to influence matters before the court," said Assistant Attorney General Fisher. "The American people expect and demand a system of justice that is free of corruption. We will prosecute those who attempt to buy or sell positions of high public trust for their own financial benefit."

The jury heard evidence that, in November 1998, Minor guaranteed a $25,000 line of credit for Teel at a Biloxi bank while Teel was a candidate for a judgeship in chancery court of Harrison County. The line of credit purported to be for campaign expenses. After Teel was elected, Minor, in an effort to conceal the fact that he was paying off the loan himself, used cash and an intermediary to disguise the true source of the loan payments. Thereafter, then-Judge Teel was assigned to a civil case in chancery court in which Minor's firm represented a local bank in a bad faith declination of coverage suit against the bank's insurance provider. The case was to be tried without a jury. In 2001, as the case proceeded, Teel made favorable rulings for Minor's client on issues of discovery and summary judgment.

Around that time, then-Judge Teel and two other chancery court judges became the subject of a state criminal investigation for misappropriation of funds. Among the efforts Minor made to assist the judges under investigation was a meeting Minor arranged between the judges and the then-Attorney General of Mississippi. Minor provided transportation to the meeting via his private jet and also hired a public relations firm to assist the judges. After Teel was indicted on state charges, Minor paid a portion of the legal expenses for Teel's defense. Teel was ultimately acquitted. Within weeks of the meeting with the Attorney General, Teel presided over a settlement conference in the lawsuit between Minor and the attorneys for the bank's insurance provider. During the negotiation, Teel made statements to the parties indicating his belief in the strength of the plaintiff's case and insinuated that, were the defendants to push the case to trial, Teel would be inclined to award punitive damages to the plaintiff. The insurance provider promptly agreed to settle the case for $1.5 million dollars. None of the attorneys representing the insurance provider were made aware of the financial relationship between Teel and Minor.

The jury also heard evidence that, in November 1998, Minor guaranteed a $40,000 loan for Whitfield at a Biloxi bank while Whitfield was a candidate for re-election to the Circuit Court of Harrison County. The loan purported to be for campaign expenses. After Whitfield was elected, Minor guaranteed an additional loan for then-Judge Whitfield for $100,000, purportedly for the down payment on a house. Minor, in an effort to conceal the fact that he was actually paying off the loans himself, used cash and an intermediary to disguise the true source of the loan payments.

Whitfield was later assigned to a personal injury case in circuit court in which Minor's firm represented an oil rig worker injured as a result of his employer's alleged negligence. Whitfield presided over the trial and found in favor of Minor's firm's client. He awarded damages in the amount of $3.75 million dollars, an award he later reduced by approximately $100,000. Minor continued to disguise the fact that he was making payments on the Whitfield loans and ultimately paid them off through the use of an intermediary.

Minor, Teel and Whitfield each face a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine on the conspiracy charges; 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine on the federal program bribery charges; and 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine on the honest services mail/wire fraud charges. Minor also faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine on the RICO charge. Sentencing is scheduled for June 14, 2007.

The verdict is the result of the second trial in this matter. The previous trial, conducted in the summer of 2005, involved similar allegations against Minor, Teel, Whitfield, and Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz. The jury acquitted Diaz of all charges, acquitted Minor on the charges related to Diaz, but was unable to reach a verdict on the remaining charges.

The case was prosecuted jointly by the U.S. Department of Justice, Public Integrity Section, and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Mississippi. The case was tried by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Ruth R. Morgan and David H. Fulcher; and Trial Attorney Natashia Tidwell of the Public Integrity Section, headed by Chief William M. Welch, II. Senior Deputy Chief Peter J. Ainsworth of the Public Integrity Section participated in the investigation and indictment of this matter. The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.



New Mexico approves medical use of marijuana
Breaking Legal News | 2007/04/02 19:09

New Mexico doctors are allowed to prescribe marijuana to help some seriously ill patients manage symptoms including pain and nausea under a bill signed into law by Governor Bill Richardson on Monday. "This law will provide much-needed relief for New Mexicans suffering from debilitating diseases," Richardson said at the signing ceremony. "It is the right thing to do."

The south-western state is the 12th in the United States to endorse the use of marijuana for medical uses. New Mexico's state legislature is the fourth in the country to enact such a measure.

The law allows marijuana use by patients suffering from several conditions, such as HIV and Aids, cancer, glaucoma, and multiple sclerosis and epilepsy, according to a news release from Richardson's office.

California began allowing similar use of marijuana in 1996. In 1978, New Mexico began allowing very limited use of marijuana, or its active ingredient, THC, to help control cancer patients' nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy, but only when other nausea-control drugs failed.

The law creates a panel of eight expert physicians and other health care workers to supervise the program. Qualified patients must be under a doctor's care and supervision, the news release said.

"I would like to thank the governor for... giving me another shot at life," said Essie DeBone, who suffers from advanced complications from HIV and Aids.



Tully Rinckey opens second location
Law Firm News | 2007/04/02 19:02



Albany, N.Y., law firm Tully Rinckey & Associates PLLC is opening a second law office at 427 New Karner Rd. The four-year old firm currently has offices at 3 Wembley Court.

The new offices will house 12 people working in the estate planning and elder law practice areas, said Brian Tromans, the firm's business development director. There's not enough room in the existing office for all 25 people now working at Tully Rinckey, he said. The practice has expanded three times at the Wembley Court location and simply needed more space, Tromans said.

 
The new 3,000-square-foot office has easy access to major roads and plenty of parking, Tromans said. This is important to the older clients the practice sees.

The new office is part of Tully Rinckey's strategy of becoming one of the top ten law firms in the Albany area.

The next goal for the firm is to consolidate all of its operations in one office in 2009, Tromans said.

The firm was founded by Mathew Tully, a former Morgan Stanley lawyer, and Greg Rinckey, a former criminal defense lawyer in the Army's Judge Advocate Generals Corps.

http://www.tullylegal.com





Hicks applies for transfer to Australia prison
International | 2007/04/02 13:28

Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks has submitted an application to be transferred to a prison near his home in South Australia to serve the remainder of his nine-month sentence after pleading guilty to a charge of supporting terrorism last week. South Australia's Correctional Services Minister Carmel Zollo said she was told about the application on Monday and will consider it under the International Transfer of Prisoners Act when all paperwork has been received. The Australian government is awaiting formal documentation from US authorities to move Hicks from the US prison camp in Guantanamo Bay. Once this information is received, the federal government can approach the state government in South Australia to move the process forward, including assessing security requirements and a potential control order.

Meanwhile, South Australian Premier Mike Rann has been accused of hypocrisy by Australian Democrats for saying he wants an assurance from the federal government that the state will be safe when Hicks is finally released. Rann is being criticized because his South Australian Labor Party has been pressing for Hicks' return for the past five years and now that the process is moving forward, he is expressing concern over the issue.



High Court Rules Against White House on Emissions
Law Center | 2007/04/02 12:56

The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate the emission of "greenhouse gases," such as carbon dioxide, by automobiles. In Massachusetts v. EPA, 12 states and several environmental groups sued the EPA arguing that the agency had, according to the court, "abdicated its responsibility under the Clean Air Act" to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Court first agreed that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the lawsuit and went on to rule that "Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant,' we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles." The Court reversed and remanded the federal appeals court decision, saying that the EPA improperly "offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change" and holding that the "EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute." Read the Court's 5-4 opinion per Justice Stevens, along with a dissent from Chief Justice Roberts and a second dissent from Justice Scalia.

In a second decision handed down Monday, the Court ruled in Environmental Defense Fund v. Duke Energy Corp. that the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit improperly interpreted Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations under the Clean Air Act. The appeals court ruled that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to conform PSD regulations to their New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) counterparts, and the Supreme Court held that "the Court of Appeals's reading of the 1980 PSD regulations, intended to align them with NSPS, was inconsistent with their terms and effectively invalidated them; any such result must be shown to comport with the Act's restrictions on judicial review of EPA regulations for validity." Read the Court's opinion per Justice Souter, along with a concurrence from Justice Thomas.



[PREV] [1] ..[1046][1047][1048][1049][1050][1051][1052][1053][1054].. [1185] [NEXT]
All
Class Action
Bankruptcy
Biotech
Breaking Legal News
Business
Corporate Governance
Court Watch
Criminal Law
Health Care
Human Rights
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Law Center
Law Promo News
Legal Business
Legal Marketing
Litigation
Medical Malpractice
Mergers & Acquisitions
Political and Legal
Politics
Practice Focuses
Securities
Elite Lawyers
Tax
Featured Law Firms
Tort Reform
Venture Business News
World Business News
Law Firm News
Attorneys in the News
Events and Seminars
Environmental
Legal Careers News
Patent Law
Consumer Rights
International
Legal Spotlight
Current Cases
State Class Actions
Federal Class Actions
Tight US House races in Cali..
North Carolina Attorney Gene..
Republicans take Senate majo..
What to know about the unpre..
A man who threatened to kill..
Ford cuts 2024 earnings guid..
Kenya’s deputy president pl..
South Korean court acquits f..
Supreme Court grapples with ..
Supreme Court leaves in plac..
Kentucky sheriff accused of ..
New rules regarding election..
North Carolina appeals court..
A court in Argentina orders ..
Mexican cartel leader’s son..


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.
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
www.loraindivorceattorney.com
Legal Document Services in Los Angeles, CA
Best Legal Document Preparation
www.tllsg.com
Car Accident Lawyers
Sunnyvale, CA Personal Injury Attorney
www.esrajunglaw.com
East Greenwich Family Law Attorney
Divorce Lawyer - Erica S. Janton
www.jantonfamilylaw.com/about
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
  Law Firm Directory
 
 
 
© ClassActionTimes.com. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Class Action Times as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Affordable Law Firm Web Design