|
|
|
Brower Piven Announces Investigation of El Paso Corp.
Legal Marketing |
2011/10/17 02:56
|
The law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, has commenced an investigation into possible breaches of fiduciary duty to current shareholders of El Paso Corporation and other violations of state law by the Board of Directors of El Paso relating to the proposed acquisition of the company by Kinder Morgan, Inc. The firm’s investigation seeks to determine whether El Paso’s Board breached its fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to maximize shareholder value.
On October 16, 2011, El Paso and KMI jointly announced that they have entered into a definitive merger agreement whereby KMI will acquire all outstanding shares of El Paso for $26.87 per share based on the closing prices of each of the companies on October 14, 2011. The joint press release stated that the agreement provides that El Paso shareholders will receive for each of their shares $14.65 in cash plus 0.4187 KMI shares and 0.640 KMI warrants with a five-year term exercisable at $40.00 per share.
According to the joint press release, while under all circumstances El Paso shareholders will receive 0.640 KMI warrants per El Paso share held, subject to proration, El Paso shareholders will be able to elect, for each El Paso share held, either (i) $25.91 in cash, (ii) 0.9635 shares of KMI common stock, or (iii) $14.65 in cash plus 0.4187 shares of KMI common stock. According to the joint release, El Paso’s board, two members of which will join the KMI board after the transaction closes, has agreed not to solicit competing transactions. Further, under certain circumstances, according to the companies, KMI will receive a termination fee of $650 million, or over $0.90 per El Paso share, from El Paso. According to Yahoo! Finance, at least one analyst has set a price target for El Paso of $28 per share.
If you own El Paso common stock and would like to learn more about the investigation being conducted by Brower Piven, you may email or call Brower Piven, who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions. You may contact Brower Piven by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com, by calling 410/415-6616, or at Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, 1925 Old Valley Road, Stevenson, Maryland 21153.
Attorneys at Brower Piven have combined experience litigating securities and other class action cases of over 60 years.
hoffman@browerpiven.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court to hear bid to sue Shell for Nigerian abuses
Breaking Legal News |
2011/10/17 01:56
|
The Supreme Court said Monday it will use a dispute between Nigerian villagers and oil giant Royal Dutch Shell to decide whether corporations may be held liable in U.S. courts for alleged human rights abuses overseas.
The justices said they will review a federal appeals court ruling in favor of Shell. The case centers on the 222-year-old Alien Tort Statute that has been increasingly used in recent years to sue corporations for alleged abuses abroad.
The villagers argue Shell was complicit in torture and other crimes against humanity in the country's oil-rich Ogoni region in the Niger Delta.
A divided panel of federal appeals court judges in New York said the 18th century law may not be used against corporations. More recently, appellate judges in Washington said it could.
In a second case the court agreed to hear, the justices will weigh whether the Torture Victims Protection Act of 1992 can be invoked against organizations, or only individuals.
The sons and widow of Azzam Rahim have filed a civil lawsuit against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization. The Palestinian-born Rahim was a naturalized U.S. citizen who was beaten and died in the custody of Palestinian intelligence officers in Jericho in 1995. Three officers were jailed for their role in the case, according to a State Department report.
But when Rahim's relatives sought money damages for his death, the federal appeals court in Washington said they could not use the 1992 law to go after the Palestinian organizations. The law may be applied only to "natural persons," the appeals court said.
The Nigerians' lawsuit stems from alleged human rights violations between 1992 and 1995. The suit claims that Shell was eager to stop protests about continuing oil exploration in the area and was complicit in Nigerian government actions that included fatal shootings, rapes, beatings, arrests and property destruction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US House group files motion in gay marriage suit
Court Watch |
2011/10/16 09:54
|
Gays and lesbians are not entitled to the same heightened legal protection and scrutiny against discrimination as racial minorities and women in part because they are far from politically powerless and have ample ability to influence lawmakers, lawyers for a U.S. House of Representatives group said in a federal court filing.
The filing Friday in San Francisco's U.S. District Court comes in a lesbian federal employee's lawsuit that claims the government wrongly denied health insurance coverage to her same-sex spouse. Karen Golinski says the law under which her spouse was denied benefits — the Defense of Marriage Act — violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.
But attorneys representing the House's Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group counter that DOMA is subject to a lower level of court scrutiny because gays and lesbians don't meet the legal criteria for groups who receive heightened protection from discrimination. Under that lower standard, DOMA is constitutional, they argue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court blocks Ala. from checking student status
Court Watch |
2011/10/15 09:55
|
Armando Cardenas says he has thought about leaving Alabama because of the possibility of being arrested as an illegal immigrant and the hostility he feels from residents.
But now that a federal appeals court has sided with the Obama administration and dealt a blow to the state's toughest-in-the-nation immigration law, Cardenas said he will stay for at least a while longer.
"It's not easy to leave everything you have worked so hard for," Cardenas said after the appeals court blocked public schools from checking the immigration status of students.
The decision from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also said police can't charge immigrants who are unable to prove their citizenship, but it let some parts of the law stand, giving supporters a partial victory. The decision was only temporary and a final ruling isn't expected for months, after judges can review more arguments.
Unlike in other states where immigration crackdowns have been challenged in the courts, Alabama's law was left largely in effect for about three weeks, long enough to frighten Hispanics and drive them away from the state. Construction businesses said Hispanic workers had quit showing up for jobs and schools reported that Latino students stopped coming to classes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US House group files motion in gay marriage suit
Law Center |
2011/10/15 09:55
|
Gays and lesbians are not entitled to the same heightened legal protection and scrutiny against discrimination as racial minorities and women in part because they are far from politically powerless and have ample ability to influence lawmakers, lawyers for a U.S. House of Representatives group said in a federal court filing.
The filing Friday in San Francisco's U.S. District Court comes in a lesbian federal employee's lawsuit that claims the government wrongly denied health insurance coverage to her same-sex spouse. Karen Golinski says the law under which her spouse was denied benefits — the Defense of Marriage Act — violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.
But attorneys representing the House's Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group counter that DOMA is subject to a lower level of court scrutiny because gays and lesbians don't meet the legal criteria for groups who receive heightened protection from discrimination. Under that lower standard, DOMA is constitutional, they argue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court to decide double jeopardy question
Legal Business |
2011/10/12 09:42
|
The Supreme Court will decide whether a jury forewoman's offhand comment that the jury was unable to make a decision on a murder charge means the suspect can't be retried on that charge.
The high court on Tuesday agreed to hear an appeal from Alex Blueford, whose murder trial in Arkansas ended in a hung jury.
The jury forewoman told the judge before he declared a mistrial that the jury had voted unanimously against capital murder and first-degree murder. The jury had deadlocked on a lesser charge, manslaughter, which caused the judge to declare a mistrial.
Blueford argued the forewoman's statement, said in open court, meant that he has been acquitted of capital murder and first-degree murder.
Prosecutors decided to retry Blueford on all three charges. He contended he could not be retried on capital murder and first-degree murder because of Fifth Amendment double jeopardy protections.
Arkansas courts have disagreed. The high court will now review that decision.
Blueford was on trial for killing his girlfriend's 20-month-old son. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FDIC backs ban on banks trading for own profit
Business |
2011/10/11 09:41
|
Banks would be barred from trading for their own profit instead of their clients under a rule being proposed by federal regulators.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. backed the draft rule on a 3-0 vote Tuesday. The ban on proprietary trading was required under last year's financial overhaul law.
For years, banks had bet on risky investments with their own money. But when those bets go bad and banks fail, taxpayers could be forced to bail them out. That's what happened during the 2008 financial crisis.
The Federal Reserve has also approved the draft of the so-called Volcker Rule, which was named after former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker.
The Securities and Exchange Commission and Treasury Department must still vote on it, and then the public has until January 13 to comment. The rule is expected to take effect next year after a final vote by all four regulators.
Congress and President Barack Obama had high hopes for the rule. But they left most of the details for regulators to sort out.
It's unclear how strictly the ban will be enforced. For example, it can be hard to tell whether an investment is intended to benefit a bank or its clients and whether federally insured deposits could be put at risk by these trades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
