|
|
|
NY court: Case against ex-AIG execs can continue
Lawyer News |
2016/06/03 00:07
|
New York's attorney general can continue his legal effort to bar two former American International Group Inc. executives from the securities industry and forfeit any improperly gained profits, the state's highest court ruled Thursday.
The Court of Appeals for the second time refused to dismiss the lawsuit originally filed in 2005 by then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, ruling it should go to trial.
The suit claims ex-AIG chief executive Maurice "Hank" Greenberg and ex-chief financial officer Howard Smith had engaged in fraudulent reinsurance transactions to conceal from investors a deteriorating financial condition.
AIG itself resolved state charges as part of a $1.64 billion agreement with regulators in 2006. The insurance giant was bailed out by the federal government in the 2008 financial crisis.
Greenberg and Smith settled related federal Securities and Exchange Commission complaints without admitting wrongdoing in 2009.
Their attorneys challenged the state lawsuit, arguing that New York's Martin Act against securities fraud authorizes neither a permanent industry ban nor disgorgement of profits, and that releases from other settlements barred further financial forfeit.
"As we have previously stated, in an appropriate case, disgorgement may be an available 'equitable remedy distinct from restitution' under the state's anti-fraud legislation," Judge Leslie Stein wrote. "Moreover, as with the attorney general's claim for an injunction, issues of fact exist which prevent us from concluding, as a matter of law that disgorgement is unwarranted."
The court rejected another dismissal motion two years ago, concluding there was sufficient fraud evidence for trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bahrain court more than doubles opposition leader's sentence
Blog Updates |
2016/05/31 16:30
|
A Bahraini appeals court on Monday more than doubled the prison term for the country's top Shiite opposition figure in a ruling that his political bloc blasted as "unacceptable and provocative."
Sheikh Ali Salman now faces nine years behind bars, up from an earlier four, following his conviction last year on charges that included incitement and insulting the Interior Ministry.
Salman is the secretary-general of Al-Wefaq, the country's largest Shiite political group. He was a key figure in Bahrain's 2011 Arab Spring-inspired uprising, which was dominated by the island nation's Shiite majority and sought greater political rights from the Sunni monarchy.
Authorities crushed the initial uprising in a matter of weeks with help from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Localized protests continue in Shiite communities, with young activists frequently clashing with police.
Occasional small bomb attacks have killed police officers in the country, which hosts the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet.
The case against Salman relates to speeches he gave between 2012 and 2014, though Al-Wefaq has said his words were taken out of context. He was convicted and sentenced by a lower court in June.
Both sides appealed that verdict, with the court ruling Monday in favor of the prosecution while rejecting Salman's appeal, according to a statement carried by the official Bahrain News Agency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court sides with property owners in wetlands case
Lawyer News |
2016/05/31 16:29
|
The Supreme Court is making it easier for landowners to bring a court challenge when federal regulators try to restrict property development due to concerns about water pollution.
The justices ruled unanimously Tuesday that a Minnesota company could file a lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over the agency's determination that its land is off limits to peat mining under the Clean Water Act.
The ruling is a win for property rights and business groups that said it was unfair for government agencies to decide what land is subject to complex environmental laws without a court ever deciding whether the agency is right.
It was the second time in four years that the high court sided with property owners against the government in a dispute over the right to challenge a designation of protected wetlands.
The Obama administration argued that the Hawkes Company could only contest the finding by seeking a permit, an expensive process that could take years to resolve. The company said it should be able to challenge the order immediately in federal court without having to spend more than $100,000 on a permit or risk hefty fines.
Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Corps' decision was the kind of final decision that carries a risk of major criminal and civil penalties if landowners don't go along. He said property owners shouldn't have to wait for the agency to "drop the hammer in order to have their day in court."
The case began when the East Grand Forks, Minnesota, company planned to expand its peat processing operations and asked the Corps for guidance. The agency issued a determination that the property was governed by the Clean Water Act because it affected the Red River of the North about 120 miles away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Egyptian court sentences 36 Islamists to life in prison
Headline Topics |
2016/05/30 16:30
|
An Egyptian court has convicted and sentenced 36 Islamists, including a top leader of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, to life imprisonment.
The state-run MENA news agency says Mohamed Badie and the other defendants were sentenced on Monday for inciting violence that led to the killing of three people in July 2013.
The case goes back to the days after the military's ouster of Islamist president Mohammed Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood member. It's one in a series of mass trials involving members and supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood since they were toppled from power in 2013.
Rights groups have criticized Egypt for the mass trials and many death penalties handed down en masse.
Badie was given the death penalty in another case and also life sentences in other ongoing cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man admits kidnapping teen girl, raping her during captivity
Blog Updates |
2016/05/28 16:30
|
A man who kidnapped a 14-year-old girl when she accepted his offer of a ride home from school because her feet were sore, held her in captivity for nine months and raped her repeatedly at his trailer acknowledged his crimes on Thursday.
Nathaniel Kibby pleaded guilty to kidnapping, aggravated felonious sex assault and criminal threatening, and prosecutors asked for a sentence of 45 to 90 years in prison for him.
Kibby, who had pleaded not guilty shortly after his arrest, had been scheduled to go on trial next month on nearly 200 felony charges related to the girl's October 2013 disappearance and the months that followed. But he changed his plea to guilty at a hearing on Thursday.
Before the 35-year-old Kibby could enter his new plea, a prosecutor said Kibby had kidnapped the girl by offering her a ride home from her school and then brandishing a gun when she attempted to get out of his car.
Prosecutor Jane Young said the girl and Kibby didn't know each other and she accepted the ride because she'd worn boots to school and her feet were blistered. Young said when the girl tried to get out of the car in a parking lot Kibby pulled out the gun and threatened to "blow her brains out."
Kibby also pleaded guilty to witness tampering and other offenses. Last week, a judge ruled Kibby's lawyers could not question the girl before his trial about her exposure to media coverage and the amount of freedom she was given to move about his trailer in Gorham, where prosecutors say he used a stun gun, zip ties and a shock collar to control her.
Kibby was charged with kidnapping the girl on Oct. 9, 2013, as she walked home from her high school in Conway. The girl returned to her home in North Conway the night of July 20, 2014, but prosecutors have not elaborated on the circumstances of her return. She waited until a week after she was home to reveal Kibby's identity. She was able to identify Kibby because she spotted his full name inside a cookbook in his home.
Lawyers hired by the girl's family said she had suffered "numerous acts of unspeakable violence" during her months of captivity. Their statement was largely a plea for privacy and did not elaborate on what she endured. The girl, who is now 17 years old, attended Thursday's hearing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court upholds $3M judgment against Gerber Products Co.
Legal Business |
2016/05/27 16:30
|
A sharply divided Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday said a baby food manufacturer must pay more than $3 million to workers for the time they spent dressing and undressing into uniforms and protective gear.
In a 4-3 ruling, the high court upheld a lower court's ruling that Gerber Products Co. should have compensated more than 800 workers at its Fort Smith facility for the time they spent changing into uniforms, donning protective gear such as ear plugs and washing their hands, as well as undressing after their shifts ended. Justices sided with the workers who said Arkansas' Minimum Wage Act required the company to compensate for the activities despite an agreement with the union.
"We hold that the donning and doffing activities constitute compensable work under the AMWA, despite the custom and practice under the collective-bargaining agreement," Justice Karen Baker wrote in the majority opinion.
The ruling drew sharp objections from three justices, who said in a dissenting opinion that because of the decision "the floodgates will open to litigation at the enormous cost to businesses in Arkansas."
"In addition, the majority undermines the collective-bargaining process and destroys any confidence employers and employees have in the enforceability of their agreements," Justice Rhonda Wood wrote.
Gerber had argued the workers' union had agreed to not be paid for the time in a contract that also included larger wage increases for the employees. The company said in a statement it was disappointed with the ruling and was evaluating its options.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US appeals court revisits Texas voter ID law
Law School News |
2016/05/26 23:19
|
A federal appeals court is set to take a second look at a strict Texas voter ID law that was found to be unconstitutional last year.
Texas' law requires residents to show one of seven forms of approved identification. The state and other supporters say it prevents fraud. Opponents, including the U.S. Justice Department, say it discriminates by requiring forms of ID that are more difficult to obtain for low-income, African-American and Latino voters.
Arguments before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are set for Tuesday morning. The full court agreed to rehear the issue after a three-judge panel ruled last year that the law violates the Voting Rights Act.
Lawyers for Texas argue that the state makes free IDs easy to obtain, that any inconveniences or costs involved in getting one do not substantially burden the right to vote, and that the Justice Department and other plaintiffs have failed to prove that the law has resulted in denying anyone the right to vote.
Opponents counter in briefs that trial testimony indicated various bureaucratic and economic burdens associated with the law — for instance, the difficulty in finding and purchasing a proper birth certificate to obtain an ID. A brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union cites testimony in other voter ID states indicating numerous difficulties faced by people, including burdensome travel and expenses to get required documentation to obtain IDs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
