|
|
|
Union to take NSPS case to Supreme Court
Breaking Legal News |
2007/08/14 11:59
|
Officials of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) said today they would file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the Defense Department from implementing portions of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS). The officials announced their plans after the U.S. Court of Appeals denied on Aug. 10 a motion by AFGE and the United Department of Defense Workers Coalition for an en banc, or full court, review of the court's earlier decision upholding NSPS regulations and overturning a lower-court ruling.
AFGE expects this week to file a motion to stay the issuance of the appeals court’s mandate in the case and within 90 days proceed with a petition to ask the Supreme Court to take the case, officials said.
“AFGE has been presented with the opportunity to bring this issue to the honorable justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and will face this head on,” John Gage, AFGE national president, said in a statement. “The [Bush] administration and DOD need to be taken to task on this issue. It’s time to stop the bullying and abuse this administration is directing toward DOD employees.”
Gage added that if NSPS were to be fully implemented, DOD workers “would be subjected to an arbitrary, dishonest and unfair working atmosphere.”
A series of court decisions on NSPS began in February 2006, when a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan gutted NSPS provisions that related to labor relations, collective bargaining, independent third-party review, adverse actions and DOD’s proposed internal labor relations panel. However, on May 18, the Court of Appeals upheld the regulations in a 2-1 decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft Pays A Mere $511M in Legal Fees
Breaking Legal News |
2007/08/13 12:07
|
Legal payouts of $511 million in one year would be enough to sink many companies. But for Microsoft, it amounts to a small victory.
That's what the Redmond company paid in legal settlements and related expenses in its fiscal year 2007, ended June 30. It was Microsoft's lowest total in years -- down from about $2.3 billion in payouts two years earlier.
But with cases still pending, most notably in Europe, it's not clear if the trend will continue.
The $511 million total for the year included payments in antitrust and unfair-competition class actions, intellectual property claims and a payment to extend a patent agreement with Sun Microsystems, Microsoft said in an Aug. 3 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
During the year, the company's highest-profile antitrust payout was the settlement of a consumer class-action suit in Iowa. Microsoft agreed to pay up to $180 million in that case.
In one sign of the change, legal subjects were barely mentioned during Microsoft's annual meeting with financial analysts in Redmond last month. In years past, antitrust issues weighed more heavily on the minds of analysts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Qantas May Face Big US Fines
Breaking Legal News |
2007/08/13 11:32
|
QANTAS has admitted it may have to shell out far more than the $47 million set aside to pay potential fines and damages that could arise from a United States price-fixing investigation.
Managing director Geoff Dixon said yesterday that Qantas was not able to estimate the likelihood of fines in jurisdictions outside the US or what the outcome might be of third party class actions launched elsewhere.
Maurice Blackburn Cashman, a Melbourne legal firm of class action specialists, is suing Qantas, British Airways, Japan Airlines, Air New Zealand, Singapore Airlines and Lufthansa over allegations that fuel surcharges introduced in 2000 were artificially inflated.
The law firm alleges the airlines followed an index originally set up by Lufthansa and used it as a mechanism to inform each other how and when surcharges would be imposed.
Kim Parker, a principal of the law firm's major projects division, yesterday appealed to businesses that have shipped air freight over the past seven years to lodge a claim via her firm if they were unduly affected.
Earlier this month British Airways and Korean Airlines agreed to plead guilty in the US courts and pay separate fines of $US300 million ($355.6 million) after admitting their involvement in fixing fares and cargo charges.
At the same time, on the other side of the Atlantic, the UK Office of Fair Trading imposed an additional fine of pound stg. 121.5 million ($289.4 million).
Two other airlines, Lufthansa and Virgin Atlantic, escaped prosecution by admitting their involvement and giving evidence against other carriers to the US prosecutors.
In his official statement yesterday, Mr Dixon said Qantas had thoroughly investigated the matter and was co-operating with regulators in the US, Europe, Australia, New Zealand other jurisdictions.
"These investigations revealed the practice adopted by Qantas Freight and the cargo industry generally to fix and impose fuel surcharges was likely to have breached relevant competition laws," he admitted.
"To date, it has not been possible to quantify any direct or indirect liability associated with these matters.
"We are confident that the unacceptable conduct was limited to a small number of people," said Mr Dixon, adding that it was not appropriate to offer further comment.
Qantas yesterday continued to dismiss speculation it was selling its Frequent Flyer program to the Canadian company Aeroplan which also runs Air Canada's loyalty business.
The Australian carrier's corporate affairs department recycled late yesterday a statement issued on Friday denying that it was about to list the $3 billion-plus business and bring in Aeroplan as a partner.
Qantas fell 4 yesterday to $5.35. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Former Corrections Officer Sentenced to 21 Months
Breaking Legal News |
2007/08/13 10:44
|
Ricky Bernard, a former Bureau of Prisons corrections officer at the Federal Prison Camp in Bryan, Texas, was sentenced today to 21 months in prison for engaging in sexual misconduct with three inmates. Bernard previously pleaded guilty in federal court in Houston to federal civil rights charges.
At his guilty plea on Oct. 20, 2006, Bernard admitted that on numerous occasions he had sexual contact with inmates under his supervision while on duty as a Bureau of Prisons officer in 2003 and 2004. Bernard also admitted that he subsequently lied about the sexual misconduct with inmates to federal law enforcement officers, including by sworn affidavit.
“Sexual misconduct by an officer is very disturbing,” said Wan J. Kim, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. “When law enforcement officials violate the law and the public trust, we will not hesitate to prosecute them.”
The Civil Rights Division is committed to the vigorous enforcement of every federal criminal civil rights statute, such as those laws that prohibit the willful use of excessive force or other acts of misconduct by law enforcement officials. The Division has compiled a significant record on criminal civil rights prosecutions. In the past six fiscal years, as compared to the previous six years, the Criminal Section filed 25 percent more color of law cases, charged 15 percent more defendants, and obtained convictions of 50 percent more defendants.
The investigation was spearheaded by Special Agent Monte Carson of the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General. Civil Rights Division Trial Attorneys Karima Maloney and Jennifer Dominguez prosecuted this case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. court upholds ban on some DirecTV ads
Breaking Legal News |
2007/08/10 09:24
|
| A U.S. appeals court on Thursday upheld a lower court's decision that prohibits satellite television operator DirecTV Group Inc from airing TV advertisements that claimed superior service in markets where Time Warner Cable Inc operates. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the lower court erred in preliminarily blocking DirecTV's Internet advertisements, saying the ads were "not even remotely realistic." The appeals court also set aside a part of the lower court's order, saying the way it was worded "could be construed to prohibit the unfavorable comparison of even Time Warner Cable's analog programming." Analog programming refers to basic cable packages, as opposed to digital packages that allow expanded programming and additional features such as high definition (HD) or video on demand. The television ads, which featured ex-Star Trek actor William Shatner and pop star Jessica Simpson, aired last December and in January. They ended with the tag line: "For an HD picture that can't be beat, get DirecTV." Time Warner Cable filed the lawsuit in December, accusing DirecTV of false advertising and deceptive business practices. In February, Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction against DirecTV preventing it from running ads in Time Warner Cable's markets that disparaged the quality of Time Warner's high-definition programming. DirecTV was also ordered then to take down any similar advertisements on its Web site, or other sites. The Internet ads include one in which the picture quality of DirecTV is compared with that of "other TV," which the ad later identifies as representing basic cable, according to the appellate court ruling. The DirecTV side of the screen shows a clear image of football player Kevin Dyson making a touchdown at the Super Bowl, while the image on the "other TV" side is blurry, according to the ruling. "It is difficult to imagine that any consumer, whatever the level of sophistication, would actually be fooled by the Internet advertisements into thinking that cable's picture quality is so poor that the image is 'nearly entirely obscured,'" the court ruled. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action suit accuses law firm of swindling property owners
Breaking Legal News |
2007/08/10 03:25
|
In the eyes of some home owners there seems to be a collection force worse than the IRS: lawyers hired by burdened cities to gather delinquent property taxes.
Representing Pete Gotcher, and all others similarly situated in the U.S., attorney Gilbert T. Adams filed a class-action lawsuit against the Linebarger, Goggan Blair & Sampson law firm, claiming the attorneys suspect collection methods violate the Texas Tax Code.
The suit was filed on Aug. 7 in the Jefferson County District Court.
For more than 30 years Linebarger Goggan has solely focused on collections.
"The early decision to concentrate our energy and resources on delinquent tax collections in Texas led to successes that have elevated Linebarger Goggan from a 'Texas firm' to the national stage," the firm's Web site said. "The firm is now a major player in the collection industry with over 2,800 clients, serving both the public and private sectors from offices in Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia."
According to the plaintiffs' original petition, Linebarger Goggan has been charging and collecting fees from delinquent Texans that are not "expressly provided for in the state's Tax Code."
"Despite the explicit provisions of the Tax Code and defendant's own contracts which define the total compensation due, these defendants wrongfully and deceitfully demand and extract payments from taxpayers in amounts exceeding those permitted by law for abstract or title search fees," the suit said.
The suit says that in some instances the firm and its lawyers benefit directly as "undisclosed principals" while in all instances the "defendants benefit by passing on their overhead expenses to the taxpayers," and in no instances are the fees a "liability of or payable by the taxing entities."
This is not the first suit of its kind. On behalf of Camella O'Brien, plaintiffs' lawyer Adams first filed a lawsuit against Linebarger Goggan back in 2005.
O'Brien's suit also alleged the firm was "deceitfully scheming" money from taxpayers in "amounts exceeding those permitted by law."
In essence, Adams and his clients argue Linebarger Goggan operate an "illegal and deceptive practice," and maximize the firm's partners' profits by extracting money, "which is in addition to statutorily authorized fees to attorneys," from Texas property owners as "fees" not permitted by the Tax Code.
On the other hand, Linebarger Goggan says the firm places honesty and integrity at the center of its professional duty, the firm's Web site stated.
"The firm has made an uncompromising commitment to the highest ethical standards in the collection industry and the practice of law, reflected in the following actions: the retention of an outside ethics advisor who is a former president of the Texas State Bar; and the establishment of an in-house general counsel who developed, implemented and oversees compliance with the firm's current code of ethics."
The four-count suit faults the firm with fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy.
"Linebarger Goggan has developed a scheme, plan or system for the extortion of these monies and concealed their misdeeds," the suit said.
The plaintiffs seek a return of the monies allegedly "illegally obtained," common law and statutory damages, exemplary damages, "and to achieve a formal declaration that such fees are not authorized," the suit said.
Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th Judicial District, has been assigned to the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aguirre files suits against law firm
Breaking Legal News |
2007/08/09 06:01
|
| City Attorney Michael Aguirre picked a new legal fight for San Diego this week, filing two malpractice suits against a New York law firm that probed the city's financial failures and prepared a report on them a year ago. The lawsuits, which target a high-powered law firm that has handled billion-dollar deals for business clients, were filed without City Council approval. As a result, they will test not only Aguirre's legal strategies, but also new council limits on his ability to file lawsuits without authorization. Aguirre alleges that Willkie Farr & Gallagher overbilled the city and essentially failed to follow terms of a contract to assist the risk-management firm Kroll Inc. with a project that became an 18-month, $20 million effort. The suit alleges that the law firm duplicated much of Kroll's work, submitted inadequate bills to disguise that, and went beyond the scope of its agreement, in part by billing the city for “lobbying” meetings with The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board and the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. Partner Benito Romano, who led the New York law firm's engagement in San Diego, stood by the firm's work yesterday but declined further comment about the complaint because he hadn't seen it. In a letter that spelled out its arrangement as “counsel and assistance” to Kroll, the law firm's duties are broadly said to include “other matters that . . . may require inquiry or investigation.” The two complaints were filed in San Diego Superior Court and could be consolidated. One suit was filed on behalf of the city of San Diego and the other on behalf of California residents, although both basically seek the same results. Aguirre is demanding $29.2 million, a total that is triple the $9.7 million the city paid Willkie Farr & Gallagher. Outside attorney Bryan Vess, who will work on a contingency basis, filed the lawsuits for Aguirre on Tuesday after Mayor Jerry Sanders and most City Council members had begun vacations timed with a monthlong August recess. Aguirre's office made them public yesterday in response to inquiries. Councilwoman Toni Atkins was surprised by the filing and looked forward to hearing more about it in a briefing next month. “I think the council would like to be part of the discussion,” Atkins said. “Which is not to say that we wouldn't agree with him, but we weren't given the chance.” San Diego's legal bills began piling up after Aguirre was elected in 2004 on a vow to root out corruption at City Hall. Increasingly, the council has argued that it should authorize all of Aguirre's lawsuits because it controls spending, but Aguirre says as the lawyer for San Diego he can file suits as necessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
