The UN Security Council voted 15-0 Saturday to impose its first sanctions on Iran for continuing to enrich uranium past an August 31 deadline imposed by Security Council Resolution 1696. In unanimously adopting Resolution 1737 the Council cited reports submitted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on the August 31 deadline as well as a November 14 update  which showed that Iran had not "established full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities as set out in resolution 1696" or otherwise complied with IAEA instructions.

The resolution calls for the end of all uranium enrichment and heavy-water research, imposes a ban on the import or export of related dangerous materials, and moves to freeze the international assets of individuals and organizations connected to the nuclear programs. The sanctions fall under Chapter VII Article 41 of the UN Charter, making enforcement mandatory but restricted to non-military measures. The IAEA will submit a report on Iran's compliance with the resolution in 60 days, at which point further sanctions will be considered.

ThyssenKrupp AG of Germany has initiated summary legal proceedings against Mittal Steel Company N V. The proceedings were initiated in district court of Rotterdam on December 22 alleging Mittal Steel breached a January 26, 2006 letter of agreement between Mittal Steel and ThyssenKrupp with respect to sale of Dofasco Inc., the Canadian steelmaker to ThyssenKrupp.

ThyssenKrupp has alleged that Mittal Steel breached the letter of agreement by failing to cause Arcelor SA to initiate litigation against Strategic Steel Stichting, an independent Dutch Foundation which currently holds 89% of Dofasco’s shares, to force Stichting to transfer the Dofasco shares to Arcelor so as to permit their sale to ThyssenKrupp, a Mittal Steel statement issued from Rotterdam said..

The lawsuit seeks a court order directing Mittal Steel to cause Arcelor to commence summary proceedings in Dutch courts to force Stichting to return the Dofasco shares to Arcelor and impose a penalty of 500,000 euros per day for each day that Mittal Steel fails to do so.

The statement quotes Simon Evans, Mittal Steel’s general counsel as having said: “ThyssenKrupp’s suit is entirely without merit. Mittal Steel is very surprised and disappointed that ThyssenKrupp has initiated a lawsuit since Mittal Steel has taken all reasonable actions to comply with the letter of agreement and to obtain dissolution of Stichting. Moreover, ThyssenKrupp is well aware from ongoing discussions, neither Mittal Steel nor Arcelor has yet made a final decision regarding possible litigation against Stichting.”

“Mittal Steel is continuing to consider the possibility of litigation against Stichting with its Dutch legal advisors , although Mittal Steel has been advised that the prospects for success of such litigation are remote,” the Mittal Steel statement said.

Incidentally the January 26, 2006 letter of agreement between ThyssenKrupp and Mittal Steel had said that if Mittal Steel was successful in its tender offer for Arcelor and was able to exert management control “with ability to sell Dofasco,” Mittal Steel would cause Arcelor to sell Dofasco shares to ThyssenKrupp.

During March-April 2006, Arcelor acquired 100% of Dofasco shares. On April 3 Arcelor had transferred 89% of shares of Dofasco to Stichting and independent foundation under Dutch la, thereby removing Arcelor’s ability to sell or dispose of such shares without Stichting’s consent. On June 25, Mittal Steel and Arcelor agreed to terms of a recommended offer and later Mittal Steel acquired 94% of Arcelor stock.

On August 1, to resolve certain US competition concerns, Mittal Steel agreed to use its best efforts to sell Dofasco to ThyssenKrupp or, if Dofasco cannot be sold due to Stichting , to sell certain alternative assets.

Subsequently on September 25 and October 11 boards of Mittal Steel and Arcelor formally requested that the Stichting be dissolved and return Dofasco shares to Arcelor. On November 10, the Stichting board of directors unanimously decided not to dissolve and to retain the Dofasco shares, thereby continuing to prevent their sale.

A federal appeals court Friday suspended a November order by US District Judge Richard Leon requiring the Federal Emergency Management Agency to reinstate certain housing payments  to Hurricane Katrina victims. The US DC Circuit Court of Appeals suspended the order in response to FEMA's request to allow the agency to delay action on the shelter program at least until March when the appeals court will hear arguments in the case.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) filed the lawsuit on behalf of displaced hurricane evacuees alleging violations of their due process rights. Leon granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction against the payments stoppage, maintaining that FEMA had failed to provide evacuees with adequate explanations for their denials of housing assistance and their means of appeal under the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Leon's order also required FEMA to explain to evacuees in plain English why they are no longer eligible for funding.

Former US Army Sergeant Ricky Clousing, a paratrooper and interpreter who disputed the legality of the war in Iraq, was released Saturday from a military prison where he was serving a three-month sentence after pleading guilty to going absent without leave for 14 months. Clousing was released 15 days early for good conduct and is headed home to Washington state.

In October, a court-martial in Fort Bragg, NC, sentenced Clousing to 11 months' confinement, with all but three months suspended, under a plea agreement that allowed him to avoid a finding of desertion. Clousing abandoned his post at Fort Bragg after reporting abuses committed by fellow soldiers during his five-month stint in Iraq. Clousing refused to request conscientious objector status to receive a discharge because he said he does not believe all wars are wrong. After 14 months AWOL, Clousing turned himself in at Fort Lewis, WA.

The case, one of the nation's longest-running, non-criminal legal disputes, stems from a 1994 decision by an Anchorage jury to award the punitive damages to 34,000 fishermen and other Alaskans. Their property and livelihoods were harmed when the Valdez oil tanker struck a charted reef, spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil.

It's the third time the appeals court ordered the Anchorage court to reduce the $5 billion award, the nation's largest at the time, saying it was unconstitutionally excessive in light of U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

This time, in its 2-1 decision, the court ordered a specific amount in damages, while its previous rulings demanded a lower court to come up with its own figures.

"It is time for this protracted litigation to end," the court said.

U.S. District Judge H. Russel Holland of Anchorage begrudgingly complied in 2002, reducing damages to $4 billion. Irving, Texas-based Exxon again appealed.

The following year, the appeals court ordered Holland to revisit his decision, this time balancing it against a new 2003 Supreme Court ruling that said punitive damages usually could not be more than nine times general damages. The Anchorage jury awarded $287 million in general damages -- and issued punitive damages that were 17 times that amount.

Holland, appointed by President Reagan in 1984, declared Exxon's conduct "reprehensible" and set the figure at $4.5 billion plus interest, ruling that the Supreme Court's precedent did not directly apply to the case.

Exxon again appealed, and argued that it should have to pay no more than $25 million in punitive damages, which are meant to punish a company for misconduct.

The company, whose $36.1 billion in earnings last year were the highest ever by any U.S. corporation, said it has spent more than $3 billion to settle federal and state lawsuits and to clean the Prince William Sound area. The company earned about $5 billion when the spill occurred.

In October, Exxon Mobil reported earnings of $10.49 billion in the third quarter, the second-largest quarterly profit ever recorded by a publicly traded U.S. company.

In 1994, a federal jury found recklessness by Exxon and the captain of the Valdez, Joseph Hazelwood, who caused the tanker to run aground. That finding of malfeasance made Exxon liable for punitive damages.

The plaintiffs alleged Hazelwood ran the ship into a reef while drunk and Exxon knew he had a drinking problem, but left him in command of tankers.

President Bush granted pardons to 16 people on Thursday, including some convicted of drug crimes and others who were involved in fraud and kickback schemes. Bush additionally commuted the sentence of another man who had been convicted of drug offenses.

Bush has issued a total of 113 pardons in his six years as president, the fewest issued by any president since World War II. Former Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Reagan issued 457, 77, and 406 respectively during their tenures in office.

Several Iraqi citizens sued a leading European bank and Australia's wheat exporting agency in New York federal court Friday for corporate misconduct facilitating the corruption of the Iraq Oil-for-Food program which bilked Iraqis out of humanitarian aid while simultaneously enriching the Saddam Hussein regime. French bank BNP Paribas and the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) face a claim for $200 million in damages brought by seven Iraqis seeking class-action status for Iraqi residents of Irbil, Dokuk and Sulaimaniyah who were allegedly deprived of humanitarian aid by the Oil-for-Food kickbacks. The plaintiffs are suing under RICO, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Just last month the Australian government determined that AWB worked directly with Hussein's government to orchestrate the kickbacks that netted the company over an estimated $220 million and recommended charges against the company]. Iraq no longer permits AWB wheat imports. BNP Paribas is believed to have made nearly $1.5 billion in kickbacks.