|
|
|
Group seeks appellate action on gays in military
Headline Topics |
2011/09/01 09:47
|
The military's ban on openly gay troops will be lifted within weeks, but the policy can still be re-enacted in the future.
That's why a Republican gay rights organization that sued the Obama administration to stop enforcement of the policy says it will ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday to declare the nearly 18-year-old law unconstitutional, affirming a lower court's ruling last year.
With several Republican presidential candidates, including Rep. Michele Bachmann, indicating they would favor reinstating the ban if elected, such a ruling is needed, said Dan Woods, the attorney for the Log Cabin Republicans. Declaring the law unconstitutional would also provide a legal path for thousands discharged under the policy to seek reinstatement, back pay or other compensation for having their careers cut short, Woods said.
The repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' doesn't say anything about the future, Woods said. It doesn't (explicitly) say homosexuals can serve. A new Congress or new president could come back and reinstitute it. We need our case to survive so there is a constraint on the government to prevent it from doing this again.
During her campaign stop in Iowa in August, Bachmann told interviewer Candy Crowley on CNN's State of The Union when asked whether she would reinstitute the law: It worked very well and I would be in consultation with our commanders, but I think, yes, I probably would.
Justice Department attorneys have filed a motion asking the appeals court to dismiss the case, arguing that the repeal process that will lift the ban Sept. 20 makes the lawsuit irrelevant.
The Log Cabin Republicans successfully won an injunction by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips last year that halted enforcement of don't ask, don't tell briefly, before the 9th Circuit reinstated it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colombia court reinstates conviction in Galan hit
Industry News |
2011/09/01 09:47
|
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated the murder conviction of a former justice minister for masterminding the 1989 assassination of presidential candidate Luis Carlos Galan, a courageous foe of drug cartels.
The court also reinstated the 24-year prison sentence a lower court imposed in 2007 on Alberto Santofimio, who was widely considered the political godfather of the late cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar.
Hitmen employed by Escobar killed Galan, and a key witness in Santofimio's trial said he saw the defendant urge Escobar to order the murder.
Kill him, Pablo, testified John Jairo Velasquez, or Popeye, who was Escobar's chief henchman at the time and has confessed to organizing the assassination.
Santofimio, a senator who had been justice minister in the 1970s, was at the time a rival of Galan for the Liberal Party's presidential nomination.
The Aug. 18, 1989, assassination badly traumatized a nation already reeling from a terror campaign by Escobar's henchmen, who killed hundreds of judges, journalists and police. Escobar also targeted civilians with car bombs, even blowing up an airplane in midflight.
The drug kingpin was trying to pressure Colombia's leaders not to extradite drug lords to the United States. Nonetheless, Galan, the presidential frontrunner when he was killed, promised to battle the narcos with extradition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholder class action hits Leighton
Legal Business |
2011/09/01 09:47
|
Shareholders set to take legal action against Leighton over alleged failures to properly report a $907 million turnaround in financial performance.
Law firm Maurice Blackburn on Thursday said it intended to launch a class action against the company, alleging Leighton breached continuous disclosure obligations as set out in the Corporations Act.
On April 11 this year, the Leighton announced it was expecting to post a loss of $427 million for the 2010/11 financial year, a turnaround from a $480 million profit in 2009/10.
The announcement came after a review of its operations, which led to a $282 million drop in profit from its desalination plant project at Wonthaggi in Victoria, a before-tax loss of $430 million on the Brisbane Airport Link and a $295 million write-down on its equity in the Middle East-focused Habtoor Leighton Group.
Maurice Blackburn principal Andrew Watson said Leighton should have told the market about those write-downs by November 2, 2010, or, at the very latest, February 14 this year.
'Shareholders expect a company like Leighton to have proper risk management and internal reporting systems to ensure timely announcements are made when there are difficulties,' Mr Watson said.
Maurice Blackburn says it believes Leighton was seeking approval for design changes on the Brisbane Airport Link because of expected delays as early as April 2009.
Leighton also advised the market that construction of the Victorian desalination plant was on time at least five times between November 2010 and March 2011, Maurice Blackburn alleges.
In response to a query from the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) several days after its announcement of the losses, Leighton said it informed the market of its expected losses as soon as it was aware of them.
'At all times, the company has been mindful of its continuous disclosure obligations,' Leighton secretary Ashley Moir said on April 18.
Last week, the Leightonboard terminated the contract of chief executive David Stewart, who took over from long-time chief executive Wal King in January.
That followed chairman David Mortimer's decision to depart the Leighton board a day earlier. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 law firms in Louisiana and Mississippi to merge
Network News |
2011/08/31 08:46
|
A New Orleans-based law firm is expanding into Mississippi as it merges with a firm based in Jackson.
The New Orleans firm is Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere amp; Denegre L.L.P.
It is combining with Watkins Ludlam Winter amp; Stennis, P.A., a firm that includes former Mississippi Gov. William Winter.
The firms say in a news release Tuesday that the merger should be complete by Jan. 1, and the combined firm will have 375 attorneys.
It will go by the current name of the New Orleans firm, Jones Walker.
After the merger is complete, Jones Walker will have 15 offices in Louisiana, Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Mississippi, Texas and the District of Columbia. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Court Cannot Exclude Evidence Because It Is Self-Serving
Network News |
2011/08/31 08:46
|
In Reed v. City of Evansville, _ N.E.2d _ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 82A05-1012-PL-768, Evansville sought to have some of the evidence the Reeds submitted in opposition to the City's motion for summary judgment because it was self-serving. Today, the Court of Appeals clearly stated that parties should not make this same objection in the future.
The Reeds filed a claim against Evansville and Evansville moved for summary judgment, arguing that the notice was not timely under the Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted that motion and the Reeds appealed.
On appeal, the Court held that the trial court erred when granting summary judgment to the City, because there were genuine issues of material fact. The court then addressed the City's cross-appeal, which challenged the trial court's denial of the City's motion to strike some of the Reeds' evidence. The City moved to strike some of that evidence because it was self-serving. The Court had none of it.
http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/A-Court-Cannot-Exclude-Evidence-Because-It-Is-Self-Serving |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholder Class Action Filed Against WebMD Health Corp.
Headline Court News |
2011/08/30 09:33
|
The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer amp; Check, LLP:
Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of WebMD Health Corp., who purchased or otherwise acquired WebMD securities between February 23, 2011 and July 15, 2011, inclusive (the Class Period).nbsp; If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the Complaint or join this class action online at http://www.ktmc.com/cases/webmd/.
Members of the class may, not later than October 3, 2011, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.nbsp; A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.nbsp; In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class.nbsp; Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.nbsp; Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. nbsp;
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer amp; Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or David M. Promisloff, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com.nbsp; For additional information about this lawsuit, or to join the class action online, please visit http://www.ktmc.com/cases/webmd/. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC Announces Class Action
Court Watch News |
2011/08/30 09:33
|
Cohen Milstein Sellers amp; Toll PLLC announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against SinoTech Energy Limited, and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters.
The lawsuit, which is captioned Crayder v. SinoTech Energy Limited, et al., 11-CV-05935, alleges violations of the United States securities laws on behalf of purchasers of SinoTech's American Depository Shares (ADSs) from November 3, 2010 through August 16, 2011 (the Class Period), including purchasers of ADSs in the Company's November 3, 2010 initial public offering (the November IPO). Claims for November IPO purchasers arise under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act). Claims for other Class Period purchasers fall under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
The lawsuit asserts numerous problems with SinoTech's previously issued financial statements and declarations about its future prospects. Among other claims, the complaint alleges that: (1) the Company's sole import agent, which accounted for more than $100 million worth of oil drilling equipment orders, is an empty shell company with no sign of operations; (2) the Company's only chemical supplier is also an empty shell company, with little or no revenues; (3) the Company's largest subcontracting customer, which provides the vast majority of SinoTech's revenues, has unverifiable operations with minimal revenues; (4) the financial statements SinoTech issued in the United States are inconsistent with similar filings the Company made in China; (5) the Company has engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (6) positive statements the Company made regarding its internal financial controls were false and misleading.
On August 16, 2011, a research analyst writing under the name Alfred Little published an investigative report (the Report) detailing these and other problems at SinoTech. The day the Report was issued, the Company's stock price plummeted more than 40%, falling from $4.02 per share on August 15, 2011 to $2.35 per share at the close of trading on August 16, 2011 - a decline of $1.67 per share on unusually high trading volume. The NASDAQ halted SinoTech trading after the market closed on August 16, 2011, announcing that trading would remain halted until the Company fully satisfied NASDAQ's request for additional information. To date, trading has not resumed.
If you purchased the common stock of SinoTech and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 18, 2011 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must decide that your claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that you will adequately represent the class. Your share in any recovery will not be enhanced or diminished by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may retain Cohen Milstein Sellers amp; Toll PLLC or other attorneys to serve as your counsel in this action, or you may do nothing and remain an absent class member.
Cohen Milstein Sellers amp; Toll PLLC has significant experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving securities fraud. The firm has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and West Palm Beach, and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the nation.
The firm’s reputation for excellence has repeatedly been recognized by courts which have appointed the firm to lead positions in complex multi-district or consolidated litigation. Cohen Milstein Sellers amp; Toll PLLC has taken a lead role in numerous important cases on behalf of defrauded investors, and has been responsible for a number of outstanding recoveries which, in the aggregate, total over a billion dollars. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. For more information visit www.cohenmilstein.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
