|
|
|
Fed court revives rendition lawsuit against Boeing
Business |
2009/04/29 07:48
|
A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that a Boeing Co. subsidiary can be sued for allegedly flying terrorism suspects to secret prisons around the world to be tortured as part of the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that a lower court judge wrongly tossed out the lawsuit after the government asserted the case was a "state secret" that would harm national security if allowed to go forward.
The trial court judge dismissed the case before the prisoners could present evidence allegedly showing that the company's participation in the program was illegal. The Bush administration and then the Obama administration argued that the lawsuit should be thrown out before the government turns over any evidence because the nature of the legal action is itself a classified matter. The federal government inserted itself into the lawsuit on the company's side because it said feared top-secret information would be disclosed. The appeals court, however, said the five prisoners suing San Jose-based Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. can try to prove their case without using top-secret information that legitimately needs protection from disclosure. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wamu Sues jpmorgan to Recover $4 Billion in Deposits
Bankruptcy |
2009/04/29 02:49
|
Lawyers for Washington Mutual Inc. have filed a bankruptcy court complaint against JPMorgan Chase & Co. over some $4 billion in disputed assets.
Seattle-based WaMu, which filed for Chapter 11 reorganization along with its Washington Mutual Investment Corp. affiliate in September, contends in the complaint that the funds are part of its bankruptcy estate.
The complaint was filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware on Monday, one month after New York-based JPMorgan filed its own adversary action asserting that the funds were included in its $1.9 billion purchase of substantially all of WaMu's banking assets from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. |
|
|
|
|
|
Judge upholds $100M Mattel verdict over Bratz
Business |
2009/04/28 07:48
|
A federal judge upheld a $100 million jury verdict Monday for Mattel Inc. in a lengthy legal battle over rights to the Bratz doll, a rival to Mattel's Barbie.
U.S. District Judge Stephen Larson also confirmed in his ruling late Monday that the Bratz doll — marketed by MGA Entertainment Inc. since 2001 — is Mattel property. He appointed a temporary federal receiver to take control of the Bratz brand and MGA's assets.
The receiver will decide who produces the doll and under what terms, but the order authorizes the receiver to maximize profits by "selling Bratz-branded dolls and other goods through appropriate channels of trade and distribution."
Mattel attorneys have said in court that the company is willing and able to produce Bratz dolls once receivership issues are sorted.
MGA President Isaac Larian said his company will appeal the ruling.
Mattel sued MGA in 2004, alleging that Bratz designer Carter Bryant developed the concept for the pouty-lipped doll while working for Mattel. After a four-year legal dispute, a jury last year awarded Mattel $10 million for copyright infringement and $90 million for breach of contract. After the verdict, Mattel sought to block MGA from ever making the Bratz dolls, and Larson ordered the company in December to end its sales in early 2009. MGA argued that retailers would not order the toys unless the court could guarantee they would remain in stores through most of this year. MGA got a reprieve in January when Larson ruled that the dolls could remain in stores for the rest of the year. He left open the possibility that Mattel or a court-appointed receiver could ultimately market the dolls this year. A hearing is scheduled for May 18 to discuss whether the receivership should be made permanent. |
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court takes up special education case
Court Watch |
2009/04/28 07:47
|
The Supreme Court is again trying to decide when taxpayers must foot the bill for private schooling for special education students.
The court will hear arguments Tuesday in an Oregon case in which a local school district contends that students should at least give public special education programs a try before seeking reimbursement for private school tuition.
A federal appeals court sided with a high-school student identified in court papers only as T.A. The student enrolled in a $5,200-a-month private program and sought reimbursement from the Forest Grove School District. The Supreme Court heard a similar case from New York in 2007, but split 4-4 on the outcome. The case is Forest Grove School District v. T.A., 08-305. |
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court OKs regulation of language on TV
Breaking Legal News |
2009/04/28 07:46
|
The Supreme Court is giving tentative approval to government regulation of the use of even a single curse word on live television.
But the court, in a 5-4 decision Tuesday, is refusing to pass judgment on whether the Federal Communications Commission's "fleeting expletives" policy is in line with First Amendment guarantees of free speech. The justices say a federal appeals court should weigh the constitutionality of the policy.
The decision throws out a ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. The appeals court had found in favor of a Fox Television-led challenge to the policy and had returned the case to the FCC to let the agency provide a "reasoned analysis" for its tougher line on indecency. The commission appealed to the Supreme Court instead. |
|
|
|
|
|
Regulators urge BofA, Citi to boost capital
Securities |
2009/04/28 03:37
|
Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc., which have each received $45 billion in government bailout funds, have been told by regulators that "stress test" results show they may need to raise additional capital, The Wall Street Journal said Tuesday.
Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America is looking at a shortfall in the billions of dollars, the paper said, citing people familiar with the situation. Both banks plan to rebut the preliminary findings, according to the paper, with Bank of America expected to respond Tuesday ahead of its shareholder meeting Wednesday. Bank of America declined to comment.
Citigroup said in a statement, "Until the results of the stress tests are announced, our regulators have prohibited all financial institutions, including Citi, from making any comments related to the stress tests." A Citi spokesman added that the bank is continuing with its plan to exchange debt for equity and shed assets as part of a program to further bolster its capital position. Citi has reached a basic agreement to sell its Japanese brokerage unit, Nikko Cordial, to Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc. for 500 billion yen ($5.2 billion), according to The Nikkei business newspaper. Citi declined to comment on the potential sale of the unit. Shares of Citigroup fell 18 cents, or 5.9 percent, to $2.89 in morning trading. Bank of America shares declined 59 cents, or 6.6 percent, to $8.33. Treasury Department spokesman Andrew Williams said Treasury officials would not comment on whether regulators told Bank of America and Citigroup they may need to raise more capital. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court refuses to let officer sue over his arrest
Law Center |
2009/04/28 02:47
|
The Supreme Court has refused to let an Atlantic City, N.J., police officer sue prosecutors and investigators for wrongfully arresting and charging him with the murder of his wife.
The high court on Monday refused to hear James L. Andros III's appeal of a lower court decision throwing his lawsuit out.
Andros was arrested after an on-call medical examiner mistakenly listed the death of his wife, Ellen, as homicide through asphyxiation in 2001. The charges were dropped a month before his trial after it was determined his wife had died of a rare heart condition. By that time, the veteran Atlantic City policeman had been suspended from his job and lost custody of his two young daughters. Judges at the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Andros could not sue because the prosecutors were acting in their official role in charging him and the investigators had probable cause to suspect him in his wife's death. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|