|
|
|
Bush defends US interrogation methods
Politics |
2007/10/07 11:06
|
| President Bush defended his administration’s methods of detaining and questioning terrorism suspects on Friday, saying both are successful and lawful. "When we find somebody who may have information regarding a potential attack on America, you bet we’re going to detain them, and you bet we’re going to question them," he said during a hastily called Oval Office appearance. "The American people expect us to find out information, actionable intelligence so we can help protect them. That’s our job." Bush volunteered his thoughts on a report on two secret 2005 memos that authorized extreme interrogation tactics against terror suspects. "This government does not torture people," the president said. Meanwhile, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., demanded a copy of a third Justice Department memo justifying military interrogations of terror suspects held outside the United States. In a letter to Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey, Levin wrote that two years ago he requested - and was denied - the March 14, 2003, legal opinion. Levin asked if Mukasey would agree to release the opinion if the Senate confirms him as attorney general, and cited what he described as a history of the Justice Department stonewalling Congress. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court considers fraud lawsuit that will affect Enron
Breaking Legal News |
2007/10/07 10:58
|
| The hopes of Enron investors are riding on a Supreme Court case that may be the last chance at compensation for their losses when the scandal-ridden energy company collapsed. Much of corporate America has jumped into the court fight, arguing that shareholders in companies that commit securities fraud should not be allowed to sue banks, accountants, law firms and suppliers that allegedly participated in the fraud. Allowing investors to file class-action lawsuits in such cases would "threaten the safety and soundness of individual financial institutions and the nation's banking system," a coalition of business groups, including the American Bankers Association, said in court papers. Firms and corporations that enabled companies such as Enron to defraud stockholders should now have to pay, lawyers for the investors say. "The banks orchestrated the fraud; they weren't sideline viewers," said Patrick Coughlin, the lead lawyer for Enron shareholders. "So when the question comes up about who should be on the hook for Enron, it's the banks." Meir Feder, a New York lawyer who defends companies in securities cases, said "everybody understands that the Enron shareholders are victims here, but there's a reason that Congress and the Supreme Court haven't allowed people to sue third parties." He added, "In the real world, for every third party who actually had a role in a fraud, you're going to get lots of suits against other third parties who really didn't." When the Supreme Court hears arguments on the issue Tuesday, Enron investors will be on the sidelines. The court is dealing with a suit by Stoneridge Investment Partners against Motorola Inc. and Scientific-Atlanta Inc., which Cisco Systems Inc. now owns. Only eight of the nine justices will participate. Justice Stephen Breyer has withdrawn from the case; he gave no reason, but financial disclosure documents state he owned Cisco stock. Chief Justice John Roberts, who did not participate in the court's decision to take the suit, has come back into it. The Stoneridge case has strong parallels to the one pursued by Enron shareholders, which the high court has left alone. The Enron suit was up for consideration June 21 at one of the justices' regularly scheduled private conferences, but the court has neither accepted nor rejected it. "It's easier to decide a legal issue in a noncharged atmosphere, which may have been what the justices had in mind by not taking on Enron," Coughlin said. Stoneridge accused Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta of engaging in sham transactions with a cable television company, Charter Communications Inc. The alleged motive was to inflate Charter's revenue by $17 million, help meet Wall Street expectations and avoid a drop in the company's stock price. Because of a number of deals including the ones involving Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta, Charter eventually restated its financial statements, reducing revenue by $292 million from 2000-2002. In addition, four former Charter executives pleaded guilty in the matter after the Justice Department investigated the deals. Stoneridge's efforts to recoup investment losses from Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta were turned back by lower courts, which said that the allegations were nothing more than claims that the two companies aided and abetted the fraud by Charter. Neither Motorola nor Scientific-Atlanta was alleged to have engaged in any deceptive act, the courts said. Enron investors got a similar ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that Enron had a duty to disclose financial problems to shareholders, but the company's banks did not. In both cases, the issue comes down to the meaning of the word "deceptive" in federal securities law. At stake in the Enron case is more than $30 billion sought by hundreds of thousands of investors from banks that allegedly helped the company, once the nation's seventh-largest, hide billions in debt and make failing ventures appear profitable. The Enron case and the Stoneridge investors' suit are the latest chapter in the struggle between plaintiffs attorneys and the business world over class-action suits. When lawyers who file such suits persuade a court to certify a large class of plaintiffs, companies almost always settle rather than risk going to trial. A 2002 study for the conservative Federalist Society found that three of every four federal securities fraud cases were settled, with the remainder thrown out of court. Since 2000, investors filing federal class-action suits alleging securities fraud have settled for $42 billion, according to the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. So far, some banks have settled with Enron investors: Citibank for $2 billion; J.P. Morgan Chase for $2.2 billion; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce for $2.4 billion. Others are still fighting: Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.; Credit Suisse First Boston; Barclays Bank PLC; Pershing LLC, now a subsidiary of Bank of New York Mellon Corp. For investors, recent developments have gone against them. The Securities and Exchange Commission voted to intervene in the Stoneridge case on the side of investors. But the Justice Department solicitor general, after pitches from President Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, rejected the SEC's recommendation and filed a brief on the side of Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cargill recalls beef patties on E. coli scare
Consumer Rights |
2007/10/07 07:58
|
| Agribusiness giant Cargill Inc. said this weekend it is recalling about 844,812 pounds of frozen beef patties due to possible E. coli contamination after investigators found four cases of illness linked to a division of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in Minnesota. Wal-Mart-owned Sam's Club pulled frozen hamburgers made by Cargill from its store shelves over the weekend after Minnesota health officials discovered four cases of E. coli associated with the burgers. Symptoms of E. coli 0157:H7 illness -- the strain associated with the recall -- include potentially severe stomach cramps and diarrhea. Cargill learned of the situation on Friday and said in a statement it does not yet know the extent of "any contamination." The investigation, which has been expanded beyond Minnesota, is ongoing. "We are concerned that some consumers may still have the product sold at retail in their freezers," Bill Rupp, president of Cargill Meat Solutions, said in a statement. "We and Sam's Club are urging customers to return or destroy any American Chef's Selection Angus Beef Patties purchased in any of their stores since August." Cargill said the hamburgers were manufactured at its plant in Butler, Wisconsin. All four cases of E. coli being investigated occurred in children, the Minnesota Department of Health said in a statement. The cases are associated with eating ground beef patties purchased from Sam's Club stores in late August and September. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chrysler and UAW talks pick up
Labor & Employment |
2007/10/07 04:58
|
Negotiators with the United Auto Workers union and Chrysler LLC remained at the bargaining table Saturday evening as efforts to reach a tentative contract agreement intensified, a person briefed on the talks said. The person, who requested anonymity because the talks are private, said they are expected to run through the weekend. Ford spokeswoman Marcey Evans and UAW spokesman Roger Kerson did not return calls seeking comment Saturday. Chrysler spokeswoman Michele Tinson confirmed that the parties were negotiating Saturday but would not comment further.
The UAW reached a tentative agreement with General Motors Corp. on Sept. 26 but the agreement must be ratified by a majority of GM's UAW members to take effect. Members began voting last week and are expected to wrap up votes by Wednesday.A person briefed on the talks said late Friday that the UAW selected Chrysler as its next bargaining target and would turn to Ford Motor Co. last. The person requested anonymity because the talks are private. A message was left with Ford spokeswoman Marcey Evans seeking comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
GE to close some plants in Brazil
Business |
2007/10/07 01:00
|
General Electric Co. said Thursday it will close a number of lighting plants in Brazil and the U.S. as part of a plan to restructure its consumer and industrial division, potentially cutting more than 1,400 jobs in the process.
GE Consumer & Industrial, based in Louisville, Ky., said it will close all of its lighting operations in Rio de Janeiro, which will affect about 900 jobs. The company also plans to close some lighting factories in the U.S., which will impact about 425 jobs. 'A portion' of the U.S. jobs will be transferred to other GE lighting facilities, the company added.
Another 80 jobs will be affected by a transfer of some operations from facilities in Mexico and the U.S. to other locations.
Fairfield, Conn.-based GE said it is closing the facilities, in part, because of a changing lighting market, in which demand for the incandescent bulb has declined over the past five years due to new technology and efficiency standards.
'It doesn't make sense for us to continue with an inefficient model,' said Jim Campbell, president and chief executive officer of GE Consumer & Industrial. 'The proposed plan would allow us to continue to reinvent our production model to use our global factory more efficiently and effectively.' The company can now purchase components at more competitive prices, making it more expensive to continue making the lighting-product components in-house, he said.
'The restructuring we are proposing, while very difficult due to the impact on employees, would be one of the most important things we've done in the 100-plus-year history of GE's lighting business,' Campbell said.
'We are increasing our focus on the development and production of new, innovative lighting products like LEDs, organic LEDs, our new high efficiency incandescent light bulbs and other products that our customers will increasingly demand and require,' he said.
GE previously laid off more than 3,000 workers in the consumer and industrial unit by closing facilities and transferring or selling operations in Europe, China, Indonesia, the U.S., Latin America, and India. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Police Kill Man Who Shot 5 at Law Firm
Criminal Law |
2007/10/06 11:10
|
| Anger over a divorce settlement may have driven a 63-year-old Baptist deacon to shoot five people in a law office, killing two, then exchange gunfire with police during a standoff, authorities said Friday. A special tactical unit used explosives to enter the building shortly after midnight and shot John Ashley to death after he opened fire, police spokesman Sgt. Clifford Gatlin said. Autopsies were planned on the three victims, he said. Police said Ashley repeatedly shot at them during the 10-hour standoff Thursday, and even shot at a remote-controlled police robot they sent inside. No officers were hurt. "This is, it's a shock," Gatlin said. "It's big for us, because we know everybody." Ashley, a retired city maintenance worker, was found in the back of the office, which was converted from a single-story house. The two people police say he killed were found in the front of the building, where police rescued one of the three surviving victims Thursday afternoon. The other survivors escaped on their own. Gatlin said investigators have learned the shooting was "a possible dispute over a divorce settlement," but that he had no further details. He said investigators will need to speak with the three survivors to determine a motive, and at least two of them were seriously injured. The shooting rampage near the Rapides Parish Courthouse astounded people who knew Ashley in Alexandria, a central Louisiana town of about 46,000. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law firm to pay millions in age discrimination case
Legal Business |
2007/10/05 21:09
|
One of the nation's largest law firms has agreed to pay a $27.5-million settlement to 32 former partners to end a ground-breaking age discrimination case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced today. The case against Sidley Austin, which has more than 1,700 lawyers in 16 cities, including Los Angeles, had been closely watched because of a widely held belief in the legal profession that firm partners did not qualify for the protections of federal anti-discrimination laws because they were deemed "employers."
But the EEOC, in a lawsuit filed in 2005, contended that the cashiered lawyers were partners in name only, because they had no voice in the firm's management, including hiring, firing and salary decisions. Consequently, the lawyers were "employees" entitled to protections of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The firm vigorously defended the case, but lost key preliminary rounds in U.S. District Court in Chicago and at the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court declined to review the decisions. Eventually, the Chicago-based firm decided to settle by agreeing to a consent decree without admitting wrongdoing.
However, Sidley Austin, in the consent decree, approved by U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel in Chicago on Thursday, made a significant concession, agreeing "that each person for whom the EEOC has sought relief in this matter was an employee within the meaning of" the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The decree also includes an injunction that bars the firm from "terminating, expelling, retiring, reducing the compensation of or otherwise adversely changing the partnership status of a partner because of age," or "maintaining any formal or informal policy or practice requiring retirement as a partner or requiring permission to continue as a partner once the partner has reached a certain age."
John Hendrickson, the EEOC's regional attorney in Chicago, said he thought the outcome set an important benchmark.
"Up to now, with no particularly good reason that I can discern, people in control of law firms said that if they called someone a partner ... they didn't need to worry about federal employment discrimination laws," he said.
"What the Sidley case says is that you have evidence that people are called partners, but in reality are not active in the governance of the firm and don't control their own destiny in the firm. You can call them whatever you want, but for the purposes of the Age Discrimination Act they are employees," Hendrickson said.
He said the case ensured "the protection of professionals from discriminatory employment actions" and ratified the authority of the EEOC "to investigate and obtain relief for victims of age discrimination on its own initiative."
During the litigation, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the agency was entitled to obtain records that could show whether the lawyers should have been protected under age discrimination law.
In that key ruling, Judge Richard Posner, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, rejected Sidley's argument that the law did not apply to partners. Posner said he was particularly unconvinced by "Sidley's contention that since the executive committee [of the firm] exercises its absolute power by virtue of delegation by the entire partnership in the partnership agreement, we should treat the entire partnership as if it rather than the executive committee were directing the firm. That would be like saying that if the people elect a person to be dictator for life, the government is a democracy rather than a dictatorship."
Ronald S. Cooper, the EEOC's general counsel in Washington, emphasized the broader ramifications of the settlement.
"The demographic changes in America assure that we will see more opportunities for age discrimination to occur. Therefore it is increasingly important that all employers understand the impact of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act on their operations and that we reemphasize its important protection for older workers," he said.
The amount to be paid to each of the 32 former Sidley lawyers was placed under seal. However, the EEOC said that the payments averaged $859,375 per attorney, and ranged from a low of $122,169 to a high of $1,835,510. The EEOC said each of the lawyers either had been "expelled from the partnership in connection with an October 1999 reorganization or retired under the firm's age-based retirement policy."
The EEOC began an investigation of Sidley in 2001 after major changes at the firm. According to the suit, the firm for many years had a mandatory retirement age of 65. But in 1999, 32 lawyers -- all over age 40 -- were told that their status was being downgraded from partner to "special counsel" or "counsel," and that their pay would be reduced by about 10%. They also were told that they would soon have to leave the firm.
David A. Richards, one of the 32, said he thought the firm had taken the action, at least in part, to increase profits for the remaining partners. Richards, who was 54 at the time, said when he was told of his change in status, there was "absolutely" no contention that managing partners had problems with his performance.
A year or so later, Richards landed a job with McCarter & English, a large New York firm, where he still works as a real estate lawyer. On Friday, Richards said, "The settlement was overdue, but it gives all involved a satisfactory conclusion." The lawyers who sued now "have confirmation that their discharge was not for the quality of their work."
The commission, Richards emphasized, "has established an important legal principle for all large professional partnerships."
Sidley, through a New York public relations firm, issued a formal statement saying that it "believes that settling this case is preferable to the costs and uncertainties of continued litigation."
"This settlement puts the cost, time and distraction of this litigation behind us. Moreover, continuing litigation with the EEOC would have placed us in an adversarial position with former partners."
The firm said it continued to employ some of the lawyers who were stripped of their partnerships in 1999, but did not say how many.
The consent decree in the case runs until Dec. 31, 2009. During that period, Abner Mikva, a retired federal appeals court judge who also served as a Democratic congressman from Illinois and White House counsel during the Clinton administration, will monitor any complaints from former Sidney partners and report them to the EEOC. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
