|
|
|
State Supreme Court rules on illegal taxes
Legal Business |
2011/08/01 09:04
|
The state Supreme Court made it easier this week for California taxpayers to seek refunds from cities and counties, ruling that a claim of an illegal local tax can be pursued as a class action on behalf of everyone who was overcharged.
The unanimous decision Monday in a Los Angeles case overturned lower-court rulings requiring local taxpayers to file individual refund claims.
In a class action, a representative can win damages that are distributed to an entire group of people affected by the same unlawful action. Class-action status often determines whether a tax can be effectively challenged, said Paul Heidenreich, a lawyer for consumer organizations in the case.
When only one person can sue at a time, there's little incentive to do so with small amounts at stake, he said.
The ruling may not affect San Francisco, however. Deputy City Attorney Peter Keith said the city has ordinances that set rules for tax refund claims and prohibit class actions. He said the court allowed class-wide suits only when a city or county has no laws of its own regulating tax refunds.
Francis Gregorek, lawyer for the plaintiff in the Los Angeles case, said a future ruling may be needed to determine whether a city can shield itself from class actions.
Class actions have become a hotly contested legal battleground. The U.S. Supreme Court restricted their use in two California cases earlier this year, refusing to allow as many as 1.5 million women to sue Wal-Mart Stores Inc. as a group over pay and promotion practices, and rejecting class-wide arbitration of a cell phone customer's overcharge claim against ATamp;T.
Gregorek's client, Estuardo Ardon, sued Los Angeles in 2006, claiming that a city telephone tax was illegal because it was linked to a federal excise tax that had been ruled invalid. Gregorek said the suit seeks millions of dollars in refunds for all phone customers in the city and has led to challenges against similar taxes in other communities.
The case has remained on hold while state courts determined whether Ardon can represent other customers. An appellate court said he could sue only as an individual, citing the state Supreme Court's 1992 ruling that rejected class-action status for a challenge to the state's taxes on vehicles bought by Californians in other states. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony lawyer rises from obscurity to legal fame
Legal Business |
2011/07/12 09:25
|
Three years ago, Jose Baez's name was barely a blip in the legal community.
This was a lawyer who made his way to the profession after dropping out of high school, getting a GED and going into the Navy. He tried several failed businesses — including two bikini companies — before he eventually enrolled at Florida State University and St. Thomas University School of Law. It took another eight years for him to be admitted to the bar.
Now he's arguably one of the most recognizable attorneys in the country after his client Casey Anthony was acquitted in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, in a case marked by a captivated national audience and searing scrutiny of every legal twist.
For the last three years since, Baez faced questions from other attorneys and TV commentators about his lack of criminal law experience and tactics. Now he's a legal celebrity almost certain to be offered interviews, book offers and possibly movie deals that could bring hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I think this is obviously life-altering for Jose Baez, said Terry Lenamon, a former member of Anthony's defense team, who left the case in 2008 after a disagreement over strategy.
Baez, 42, took Anthony's case pro bono in 2008, after getting a referral from a former client who shared a cell with Anthony following her initial arrest. He has handled the case since then, operating on state funds available to Anthony because of her indigent status, and from an early $200,000 she received from licensing photos and videos to ABC News. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bank of America settlement faces challenge
Legal Business |
2011/07/05 22:24
|
Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement with investors over poor-quality mortgage bonds is facing a new challenge.
On Tuesday, a group of bond investors calling themselves Walnut Place said they objected to the terms of the settlement. In a filing with the New York Supreme Court, the investors said they wanted to be excluded from the settlement that was struck after negotiations between the bank and 22 institutional investors such as BlackRock Inc., the Federal Reserve Bank, and Pimco. The settlement was meant to cover a broader group of investors being represented by a trustee.
The Walnut Place group said the 22 investors were self-appointed and didn't represent or solicit the views of the broader group of bondholders. The group also said the talks were held in secret.
A Bank of America spokesman Lawrence Grayson said in a statement that the conversations between the bank and investors were publicly disclosed and were far from secretive. The settlement agreement was designed to give certificate holders, like those behind the Walnut Place entities, an opportunity to have any objections heard, the statement read. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
BofA Near $8.5B Deal to Settle Big Investors' Claims
Legal Business |
2011/06/29 10:30
|
div class=entrydiv class=articlepBank of America Corp. is close to finalizing a deal to pay $8.5 billion to settle claims by a group of investors that the bank sold them poor-quality mortgage-backed securities that went sour when the housing market tanked, according to a person familiar with the settlement talks./ppThe Charlotte, North Carolina, bank was continuing talks late Tuesday with the group, which includes the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Pimco Investment Management, the world's largest bondholder, and Blackrock Financial Management. It is expected to announce an agreement as early as Wednesday, the person said on condition of anonymity because the matter was still developing./ppThe deal comes eight months after the group fired off a letter to Bank of America demanding that it repurchase $47 billion in mortgages that its Countrywide unit sold to them in the form of bonds. The investors have argued that Countrywide's practice of modifying loans found to have faulty paperwork or those written outside of normal underwriting standards breached signed agreements with the investors. By continuing to service bad loans rather than speeding up foreclosures, the group has claimed that Countrywide ran up servicing fees, enriching itself at the expense of investors. The New York Fed is involved because it took over assets held by American International Group Inc., which faltered under the weight of bad home loans that it insured./ppBank of America, which paid $4 billion for Countrywide in 2008, has dismissed suggestions that its handling of loan modifications and other efforts to prevent foreclosure have violated the terms of the mortgage-backed securities that the investors hold. In November, CEO Brian Moynihan said he was in day-to-day hand-to-hand combat with investors' demands./p/div
/div |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
