|
|
|
US soldier found not guilty in contractor death
Law Center |
2011/10/03 11:19
|
A U.S. soldier has been found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility in the killing of a Hungarian civilian contractor in Iraq, military officials said Saturday.
Pfc. Carl T. Stovall had pleaded not guilty in the March 2009 shooting of Hungarian laborer Tibor Bogdan near Camp Taji, just north of Baghdad. Bogdan was shot while digging a hole at the camp.
The shooting came less than a month into Stovall's third deployment to the Middle East.
He opted to be tried by a military judge at Fort Hood instead of a jury. Testimony was heard this past week.
In a statement Saturday, officials with the military post said the court ordered Stovall to receive a psychiatric/psychological evaluation before a post-trial hearing is conducted on Nov. 10. Stovall faced a maximum sentence of life without the possibility of parole.
Stovall had allegedly once told investigators he believed Bogdan, who worked for a contractor specializing in trash and waste removal, was a terrorist planting a roadside bomb. Prosecutors, however, said Stovall, now 28, has changed his story multiple times, allegedly denying any involvement in one version. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fannie Mae ignored misconduct
Law Center |
2011/10/03 11:18
|
Mortgage giant Fannie Mae knew about allegations of improper foreclosure practices by law firms in 2003 but did not act to stop them, a government watchdog says.
Similar allegations are the subject of a probe by state attorneys general into how lenders and law firms ignored proper procedures to handle a crush of foreclosure paperwork.
An unnamed shareholder warned Fannie Mae of alleged foreclosure abuses in 2003, the inspector general for the agency that regulates Fannie says in a report being released Tuesday.
Fannie Mae responded by hiring a law firm to investigate the claims in 2005. The law firm reported in 2006 that it had found foreclosure attorneys in Florida "routinely filing false pleadings and affidavits."
Fannie officials said they told a government official about the law firm's findings in 2006. That unnamed official, who now works for Fannie's regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said he couldn't recall the conversation, the report says. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court appears to favor Ala. death row inmate
Court Watch |
2011/10/02 11:19
|
The Supreme Court appeared likely Tuesday to order a new court hearing for an Alabama death row inmate who lost the chance to appeal his death sentence because of a mailroom mix-up at a venerable New York law firm.
Both conservative and liberal justices indicated they would throw out a federal appeals court ruling that relied on the missed deadline to refuse to consider Cory Maples' claims that he received inadequate legal representation, dating back to his trial on charges he gunned down two friends in 1995.
Justice Samuel Alito, a former federal prosecutor, said he did not understand why Alabama fought so hard to deny Maples the right to appeal when the deadline passed "though no fault of his own."
Justice Antonin Scalia was the only member of the court who appeared to agree with the state's argument that Maples' protests are overblown because he was never left without a lawyer. The state also says the role of Maples' lawyers in missing the deadline is unfortunate but nothing the court should correct under its earlier rulings.
Gregory Garre, a former solicitor general who is representing Maples in the Supreme Court, said the earlier legal work for Maples was so bad that it violated the Constitution.
Whatever the shortcomings of Maples' trial lawyers, he appeared to "win the lottery" when two lawyers at Sullivan and Cromwell agreed to represent him for free in his appeals, Garre said. The New York-based firm has 800 lawyers and offices in a dozen cities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-workers at Fla. foreclose firm get class action
Class Action |
2011/09/28 10:34
|
Hundreds of former employees at a shuttered South Florida foreclosure law firm have been permitted by a judge to pursue a class action lawsuit involving labor law violations.
A Miami federal judge this week approved class action status for the case against attorney David J. Stern. Stern's firm was one of the biggest handling foreclosures in Florida, but it collapsed amid investigations into so-called "robo-signing" of documents and other alleged irregularities.
Hundreds of Stern's employees were laid off. The lawsuit contends the firm did not follow federal labor laws when it began mass firings.
The case involves at least 700 of Stern's former workers. They are seeking back pay, benefit reimbursements and other damages.
Stern's lawyers say the layoffs were done properly because of unforeseen circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rentech Announces Final Court Approvals of Settlements
Class Action |
2011/09/28 10:33
|
Rentech, Inc. announced today that it has received final court approvals for the settlements of the securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits against the Company and a number of its current and former directors and officers. The lawsuits related to the Company’s restatement in December 2009 of certain of its financial statements for fiscal year 2008 and the first three quarters of fiscal year 2009. The Company believed that it was in the best interests of its stockholders to settle the matters at a reasonable cost to avoid potentially protracted and expensive litigation. The Company and the individual defendants have denied any liability or wrongdoing in connection with the allegations contained in these lawsuits.
The settlement for the consolidated class action lawsuits in United States District Court for the Central District of California (In re Rentech Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 2:09-cv-09495-GHK-PJW) provides for a settlement fund of $1.8 million, from which plaintiffs' counsel will receive an award of attorneys fees and expenses. The settlements for the consolidated shareholder derivative lawsuits in United States District Court for the Central District of California (In re Rentech Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 2:10-cv-0485-GHK-PJW) and the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (Andrew L. Tarr v. Dennis L. Yakobson, et al., LASC Master File No. BC430553) provide that the Company adopt certain governance practices, and pay (or cause its insurance carrier to pay) plaintiffs' attorneys fees and expenses of $300,000. Over 90% of the aggregate securities class action and shareholder derivative settlement payments are covered by Rentech’s insurance carriers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against Omnicare, Inc.
Legal Marketing |
2011/09/27 10:34
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Omnicare, Inc. (“Omnicare” or the “Company”) between January 10, 2007 and August 5, 2010, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
Omnicare provides pharmaceuticals, and related pharmacy and ancillary services to long-term healthcare institutions. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period Omnicare and certain of its executive officers misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse information concerning Omnicare’s business and financial condition. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company submitted claims for reimbursement to the federal Medicare program, and to several state Medicaid programs, for services that did not conform with Medicare and Medicaid regulations, while repeatedly representing that Omnicare was operating in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. The Complaint further alleges that Omnicare’s reported net sales and accounts receivable throughout the Class Period were artificially inflated as they included the proceeds of the nonconforming Medicare and Medicaid claims.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased Omnicare common stock between January 10, 2007 and August 5, 2010, you have certain rights, and have until October 24, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. 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 Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, Toll Free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wis. Supreme Court takes payday loan case
Court Watch |
2011/09/26 09:42
|
The state Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether Wisconsin law permits judges to determine when payday loan interest rates are too high.
The court will consider whether state statutes block judges from determining if a particular interest rate is unconscionable and, if they don't, what evidence would prove rates are too high.
The case stems from loans Jesica Mount of Onalaska secured from Payday Loan Stores of Wisconsin Inc. in 2008. According to court documents, annual interest rates on the loans varied from 446 percent to 1,338 percent.
The loan company filed a lawsuit against Mount after she failed to make her payments. Mount filed a counterclaim alleging the loans violated the Wisconsin Consumer Act because the rates were unconscionable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
