|
|
|
Supreme Court to Hear Cases on Securities Suits
Breaking Legal News |
2007/03/28 22:25
|
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in Tellabs Inc v. Makor Issues & Rights, where the Court must decide the extent to which shareholders bringing suit against a company must prove the company intended to deceive the public about its financial future. Tellabs, Inc. allegedly made predictions about its future sales that turned out to be incorrect, ultimately costing its shareholders millions of dollars. The company's attorney argued that the lower court's ruling that shareholders must show a "strong inference" of wrongdoing means shareholders must prove with a certainty of over fifty percent that the company intended to deceive the public. Opposing counsel argued that the court should be able to infer more easily, at a burden of forty percent, an intent to deceive based on the company's actions and words. The case comes on appeal from the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which held in January that the shareholder's complaint had enough detail to establish "a strong inference that knew had exaggerated its revenues." This case is one of several cases being considered by the Supreme Court where companies hope to limit class actions suits against them. On Monday, the Court agreed to consider whether shareholders of companies that commit securities fraud should be able to sue investment banks, lawyers, and auditors that allegedly also participated in the fraud. The Court heard arguments Tuesday in a case involving shareholders seeking damages from banks that allegedly violated antitrust laws. |
|
|
|
|
|
Texas governor signs bill allowing deadly force
Breaking Legal News |
2007/03/28 06:09
|
Texas Governor Rick Perry Tuesday signed into law a new so-called "shoot first" law, which allows state residents to use deadly force to respond to threats in their homes, cars, and at jobs. The bill, also known as a "stand your ground" law, was approved by large majorities in both houses of the Texas Legislature. In his statement, Perry said "The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature." The legislation, which requires that the person defending themselves be unprovoked, also provides civil immunity for any justified action under the law. The Texas law takes effect September 1, 2007. Georgia enacted a similar law last July, and Florida adopted a "shoot first" law in 2005. Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi and South Dakota all have enacted similar legislation as well. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has continually called such legislation "phenomenally dangerous," but the National Rifle Association maintains that these laws are necessary to protect innocent citizens. |
|
|
|
|
|
Death penalty repeal bill fails in New Hampshire House
Breaking Legal News |
2007/03/27 21:58
|
The New Hampshire House of Representatives voted Tuesday to reject proposed legislation which would have effectively ended the death penalty in the state. Had it passed, the proposed law would have set the maximum penalty for capital crimes at life in prison without parole.
he debate was emotionally charged by the recent shooting of a police officer for which his assailant now faces execution. Opponents of the bill said overturning capital punishment so soon after the death of Officer Michael Briggs would be an insult to the state's police officers. The New Hampshire legislature attempted to repeal the state's death penalty in 2000 and again in 2001, but the first attempt was vetoed by then-Governor Jeanne Shaheen and the second try failed to pass the legislature. Current governor John Lynch has threatened to veto any legislation which would end executions in the state. Eleven US states have recently suspended the death penalty for reconsideration. Most recently, the Montana Senate voted to repeal the practice. |
|
|
|
|
|
ITT Fined $100M for Illegal Tech Exports
Breaking Legal News |
2007/03/27 14:38
|
ITT Corp. has agreed to pay a $100 million penalty for illegally sending classified night-vision technology used in military operations to China and other countries, U.S. Attorney John Brownlee announced Tuesday. ITT, the leading manufacturer of night-vision equipment for U.S. armed forces, will plead guilty in U.S. District Court on Wednesday to two felony charges, Brownlee said at a news conference. One count is export of defense articles without a license and the other is omission of statements of material facts in arms exports reports. "The criminal actions of this corporation had threatened to turn on the lights on the modern battlefield for our enemies and expose American soldiers to great harm," Brownlee said. ITT defense-related technical data was given to China, Singapore and the United Kingdom in order to cut costs, government investigators said. "Placing profits ahead of the security of our nation is simply not acceptable for any corporation," Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Julie Myers said in a statement. ITT, which Brownlee said is the U.S. military's 12th largest systems supplier, is the first major defense contractor convicted of a criminal violation under the Arms Export Control Act that a Brownlee spokesman said was passed in 1976. According to the prosecutor, ITT agreed to pay a $2 million criminal fine, forfeit $28 million in illegal proceeds to the U.S. government and pay $20 million to the State Department. "ITT will pay $50 million in restitution to the victims of their crimes _ the American soldier," Brownlee said. The fine will be suspended for five years and the White Plains, N.Y.-based company can reduce it dollar-for-dollar by investing in the development and production of more advanced night-vision technology so the U.S. military maintains battlefield advantage. The government will maintain the rights to any technologies ITT develops and can share them with rival defense firms bidding on future contracts, Brownlee said. |
|
|
|
|
|
Pricing rules divide high-court justices
Breaking Legal News |
2007/03/27 08:52
|
Consumer protection collided with modern economic theory yesterday as the Supreme Court wrestled with a 96-year-old standard intended to promote competition. At issue is a 1911 Supreme Court ruling that is based on an assumption that any agreement between a manufacturer and stores to set minimum retail prices for products is almost always anti-competitive. Not so, said Washington attorney Theodore Olson, representing a manufacturer of women's accessories. The idea that such agreements are automatically illegal is "outdated, misguided" and the restriction itself is anti-competitive, Olson argued. The case stands at the intersection of discount chains and such niche retailers as Kay's Kloset in Texas, which lowered its prices below an agreed-upon minimum with manufacturer Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. Leegin cut off its shipments to the family owned business when Phil and Kay Smith refused to raise their prices. Leegin said that by maintaining price consistency among its retailers, stores can offer improved customer service. The extra service, said the manufacturer, enables smaller stores to compete against rival brands sold by bigger cut-rate competitors. If the old standard is abandoned, what about the argument that every American will pay far more, asked Justice Stephen Breyer. Representing the Bush administration, Deputy Solicitor General Thomas Hungar said that there is a consensus among economists that such agreements are not necessarily anti-competitive. Consumers "want other things besides cheap," said Justice Antonin Scalia. Some consumers prefer more service at a higher price, said Scalia, and the fact that such price-floor agreements might raise prices "does not prove anything." The Smiths successfully sued Leegin, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's finding that Leegin and its retailers agreed to fix retail pric-es on the manufacturer's Bright-on brand. If Leegin can get the 1911 Supreme Court ruling overturned, it would be much more difficult for the Smiths to prevail because they would have to show that the Leegin agreement is anti-competitive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virginia's Governor Vetoes Bills On The Death Penalty
Breaking Legal News |
2007/03/27 08:48
|
Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine announced Monday that he has vetoed five bills promoting the death penalty. House Bill 2750 and House Bill 2347 sought to make the murder of a judge and the murder of a witness in a criminal case, respectively, into capital crimes; Senate Bill 1116 proposed a similar measure. House Bill 2348 and its counterpart Senate Bill 1288 would have made accessories to first degree murder eligible for the death penalty. Kaine acknowledged the seriousness of the targeted offenses but said he did not believe that it was necessary to expand the death penalty "to protect human life or provide for public safety needs." Kaine, a Democrat and a Roman Catholic, ran his 2005 campaign as an anti-death penalty candidate, but said he would not disrupt the current state laws. Monday's vetoes are expected to be overturned by the predominately Republican Virginia General Assembly during a vote on April 4. Virginia currently has the second-highest number of executions in the US after Texas. |
|
|
|
|
|
LV police to pay $1.48 million to settle lawsuit
Breaking Legal News |
2007/03/27 03:55
|
Las Vegas police will pay almost 1.5 (M) Million dollars to settle a federal lawsuit alleging a cover-up after an officer's wife hit and killed a bicyclist in 1994.
The lawsuit alleged that 26-year-old Janet Wagner had been drinking -- but that her police officer husband and others delayed contacting the N-H-P. Sheriff Douglas Gillespie says Wagner wasn't at fault -- but that the record-setting settlement addresses the appearance that she got preferential treatment. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|