|
|
|
Judge wants agency to investigate Meijer lawyer
Breaking Legal News |
2011/07/25 08:22
|
A judge believes a lawyer committed perjury when he denied knowing anything about the role of Meijer Inc. in a 2007 recall election of township officials in northern Michigan's Grand Traverse County.
Judge Philip Rodgers said he has referred the matter involving Timothy Stoepker to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission, a watchdog agency.
"I believe it occurred, and I have an ethical responsibility to report it," Rodgers told the Traverse City Record-Eagle.
Stoepker, an attorney at the firm Dickinson Wright in Grand Rapids, represented Meijer during a dispute over a new store in Acme Township. Voters rejected the store in 2005, and township officials were targeted for recall in 2007.
Meijer, a major Midwestern retailer, later acknowledged illegally financing the recall effort and subsequently paid a $190,000 fine.
During a deposition in a civil lawsuit by a township official, Stoepker was asked what he knew about Meijer's role. "I have no knowledge of that at all," he replied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iowa insurers get more time on new health law
Health Care |
2011/07/24 08:21
|
Iowa insurance companies have been given more time to comply with a new federal rule designed to curb insurers' profits.
The regulation that went into effect this year calls for insurance companies to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care and quality assurance. For employer plans covering more than 50 people, the requirement is 85 cents. Insurers that fall short of the mark are required to issue their customers a rebate.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services told the state on Friday that Iowa insurers will be given have to reach the 80 percent mark by 2013, but will be required to meet interim goals until then, the Des Moines Register reported.
The Iowa Insurance Division had requested extra time to comply with the law, citing fears that insurers would leave the state in droves. Six pulled out of Iowa after the law was passed.
Steve Larsen, director of HHS' Center for Consumer Information and Oversight, said in a letter to the state that implementing the law in Iowa in 2011 could cause turmoil in the insurance market. So, he laid out a timetable for compliance that calls for Iowa insurers to spend 67 percent of premiums on medical care this year, 75 percent in 2012 and 80 percent in 2013.
Iowa insurance commissioner Susan Voss said she wasn't displeased by the decision. The state had sought even more time for companies to comply, but, "I don't think we'll see companies exit as a result of this," Voss said.
Of those particularly hard-hit by the law are insurers who sell individual policies because those premiums are more volatile. Employers or large groups can negotiate for better premiums, and the risk in those plans are spread among the group.
There are 56 insurance companies in Iowa that offer individual policies. Seven of those account for 95 percent of the market, with Wellmark holding onto almost 84 percent. Wellmark spent 92 percent of premiums on care but none of the state's other top insurers met the 80 percent standard in 2010.
Federal regulators said that had the law gone into effect this year, Iowa consumers would have received $6.5 million in rebates over three years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bank of Hawaii settles overdraft fee class-action lawsuit
Class Action |
2011/07/20 09:35
|
A tentative $9 million settlement with Bank of Hawaii requires the bank to pay each of its customers who had more than one overdraft fee in a day over the last five years.
Bank of Hawaii, the state's second-largest bank, reached the class-action lawsuit settlement in response to claims that the bank improperly charged overdraft fees on debit card transactions, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported Tuesday.
The lawsuit accused the bank of systematically re-ordering debit card transactions from highest dollar amount to lowest dollar amount, a practice that allowed the bank to deplete customers' available funds as quickly as possible while maximizing the number of overdraft fees.
The $9 million will be put in a settlement fund used to refund customers and pay attorneys' fees, administrative and other costs in exchange for a complete release of all claims against the company, the bank said. It's unclear how many Bank of Hawaii customers are eligible for refunds.
Similar lawsuits against American Savings Bank and Central Pacific Bank, the state's third- and fourth-largest banks, also are pending. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-CEO convicted in scam at auto-chemical company
Breaking Legal News |
2011/07/20 09:35
|
A former corporate executive officer of a New York-based automotive-chemical company was convicted Tuesday in a multimillion-dollar investor fraud scheme that enabled him to buy expensive jewelry and take private jets.
A jury in Manhattan state Supreme Court found Cleveland lawyer James Margulies guilty of charges including grand larceny and scheme to defraud. He faces up to 25 years on the top two counts, which could run consecutively. Bail was set at $1.5 million.
Ira London, an attorney for Margulies, said he planned to file "a very vigorous appeal."
"The jury has spoken. I believe they have convicted an innocent man," he said.
While serving as the company's finance chief — and briefly as CEO — of Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc., from 2004 to 2008, Margulies illegally issued millions of shares of stock to friends and relatives, inflating the share price by making the company look more profitable than it was, prosecutors said.
A teachers' pension fund in Ohio and a church were among the victims of the scheme, prosecutors said.
Margulies personally reaped more than $7 million, spending it on lavish luxuries such as a $350,000 diamond ring for his wife from jeweler Harry Winston, prosecutors said.
He also paid more than a million dollars on the mortgage of his first home, bought a second home and spent $500,000 on a vacation club membership, prosecutors said.
Margulies was charged in the scheme in 2010 along with John D. Mazzuto, who pleaded guilty Jan. 14 to his role in issuing fraudulent shares of stock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court reverses conviction on online Obama threat
Court Watch |
2011/07/20 02:36
|
A federal appeals court on Tuesday overturned the conviction of a man who posted Internet messages threatening Barack Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign.
A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Walter Bagdasarian's violent and racist screeds against Obama were "repugnant" but not criminal. The court also said it was obvious the San Diego man wasn't planning to attack the candidate and that the postings were protected by Bagdasarian's free speech rights.
Bagdasarian was convicted in 2009 of two felony counts of threatening a major presidential candidate.
Bagdasarian posted several messages to a Yahoo Finance message board in October 2008, including one that called Obama a racial epithet and another that said "he will have a 50 cal in the head soon" — a reference to a .50 caliber gun.
A retired Air Force officer forwarded the postings to the Secret Service. Yahoo provided Bagdasarian's subscriber information to investigators, who raided his house and seized six guns and a hard drive containing an email with similar sentiments.
Bagdasarian admitted posting the messages, but said he was drunk and joking.
He waived his right to a jury trial. District Judge Marilyn L. Huff found him guilty and sentenced him to 60-days in a half-way home.
But the appeals panel said no "reasonable person" could have taken seriously Bagdasarian's posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When is a Person an Employee of Another?
Legal Business |
2011/07/18 09:36
|
On July 19, 2011, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a decision which I found surprising in McCann v. City of Anderson, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 48A02-1009-PL-1060. At issue was whether a trial court had properly granted summary judgment on the question of whether a warrant officer was an employee of the Anderson City Court. Despite the procedural posture of the case and factors that weighed in favor of finding an employer-employee relationship, the Court affirmed a decision granting summary judgment to the defendants.
In this case, McCann was a police officer, who eventually became warrant officer for the Anderson City Court in 1998. He held that post until 2005, when the judge asked that McCann be reassigned. As a result of this dismissal, McCann filed suit based on the Indiana Wage Statute, arguing that he had been an employee of the Court and was entitled to funds that had been allocated to the position of warrant officer by that court. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the trial court granted the defendants' motion.
On appeal, the Court quoted GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397, 402 (Ind. 2001), for the seven factors that a court should consider when determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists. The Court then analyzed each of these factors and determined that three weighed in favor of the existence an employer-employee relationship and four against, with the "most important" factor weighing against.
Thus, over all, four of the seven factors, including the most important, "Control over the Means Used," indicate McCann was not an employee of the City Court. Because the City Court was not McCann's employer, he cannot be due any "unpaid wages" from the City Court. Therefore, he cannot assert a claim against the City Court under the Indiana Wage Statute.
The aspect of this decision that is most surprising is that the Court reached this conclusion despite the procedural posture of the case. It could have easily held that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to McCann, the seven factors weighed both for and against a finding of an employer-employee relationship between McCann and the City Court created a genuine issue of material fact. This indicates that the factor the Court identified as being "most important", whether the purported employer exercised control over the means used by the purported employee to perform work, is very important indeed.
Lesson:
1.It will be exceedingly difficult to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship if the purported employer did not exercise control over the means that the purported employee used to perform his work.
Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
http://www.indianalawupdate.com/entry/When-is-a-Person-an-Employee-of-Another |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyer defends Nevada truck firm in Amtrak crash
Class Action |
2011/07/11 00:53
|
A lawyer for the Nevada trucking company whose tractor-trailer slammed into an Amtrak train, killing six people, defended the company’s safety record Thursday and said it was not at fault in two previous accidents cited in state safety records.
John Davis Trucking Co. has been cooperating with local, state and federal investigators and is as anxious as anyone to learn why the driver who died in the June 24 crash ignored flashing lights and crossing gates before skidding the length of a football field into the side of the train, Steven Jaffe of Las Vegas said.
But he said four negligence lawsuits filed against the Battle Mountain company — combined with the ongoing investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board — has kept the brothers who own the family-run business from sharing information that would help shed more light on the tragedy.
“There’s a lot more than meets the eye,” Jaffe told The Associated Press. “I think when it all comes down to it, the public is going to see a very different John Davis Trucking than was originally put out there.
“I believe the evidence will show their conduct was defensible in all of this,” he said. “I have a great deal of trust in the legal system, and if some day we go in front of a jury, I’m confident it will give us the chance to say that we did everything right.”
Federal records reviewed by the AP show the state Department of Public Safety cited the company for 16 vehicle maintenance violations over the past two years and noted it had been involved in two crashes during that period, including one in February 2010 that injured a person in Washoe County.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
