|
|
|
Alberto Gonzales joins Nashville law firm
Legal News |
2011/10/06 16:39
|
Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the first Hispanic attorney general in U.S. history, has joined one of Nashville’s largest law firms and will play a role in mentoring younger lawyers.
Gonzales, 56, will focus on government relations, government investigations and white-collar defense for Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis LLP, the firm said Wednesday.
He also will be involved in the firm’s diversity initiatives, which include a mentoring program.
“It is a great honor for me to join Waller Lansden, a firm that I greatly admire,” Gonzales said in a statement. “Waller Lansden has a reputation for providing incisive legal representation while caring deeply for its clients. The firm’s breakthrough initiatives to encourage diversity in the workplace are admirable.”
Gonzales became the first Hispanic attorney general in U.S. history when President George W. Bush appointed him in 2005.
But he left the post in 2007 under a cloud of controversy stemming from allegations that, under his watch, the U.S. Justice Department improperly hired and fired several U.S. attorneys for political reasons. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Action Filed Against Former, Current A&P Execs
Legal News |
2011/09/19 15:54
|
A class action has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. Inc. (A&P) for the period between July 23, 2009, and Dec. 10, 2010. The complaint, filed Sept. 9 by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, Philadelphia and Atlanta, claims that some former and current A&P executives violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A&P itself wasn’t named as a defendant in the action because it filed for bankruptcy protection in December 2010.
Those named in the action are former Executive Chairman and CEO Christian Haub, former CEO and President Eric Claus, former CFO and Treasurer Brenda Galgano, Vice Chairman and Chief Strategy Officer Andreas Guldin, former CEO and President Ron Marshall, and current CEO and President Sam Martin.
The complaint alleges that during the period mentioned above, the defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the class action alleges that the executives failed to reveal that A&P was facing increased low-cost competition from retailers such as Walmart and Target, which negatively affected its business and financial condition; that the Pathmark acquisition was a “complete disaster” for the company, as Pathmark’s operations were in far worse condition than had been represented to investors; that A&P wasn’t operating according to internal expectations and couldn’t achieve the guidance endorsed by the defendants; and that, as a result of these factors, the defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the company, its operations and prospects.
The class action seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of A&P securities during the period noted above. Those who are member of this class can view a copy of the complaint or join the class action online at www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/aandp |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ga. court upholds Open Meetings fines
Legal News |
2011/09/14 15:55
|
Georgia's top court is requiring the city of Statesboro to pay the legal costs of residents who sued it for violating the state's Open Meetings Act.
The unanimous opinion released Monday upholds a Bulloch County judge's ruling that requires the city pay $4,250 in legal fees after it found the Statesboro mayor and city council met outside the Statesboro City Hall chambers to discuss the city's 2011 budget.
A group of residents sued the city, mayor and five council members and sought an injunction barring any more "secret" meetings, and the city appealed after a judge ruled against it in September 2010.
The opinion written by Justice Harold Melton says "the Open Records Act explicitly authorizes the assessment of attorney fees." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wal-Mart Uses Class Action Against Netflix
Legal News |
2011/09/09 07:35
|
Wal-Mart is using its failed class action lawsuit with Netflix to attract new users to its video streaming service, Vudu.
A federal court in California agreed late last week to allow Wal-Mart to pay $27.5 million to 40 million Netflix subscribers. The kicker? They can make the payment in the form of gift cards for Walmart.com. As a result, this also gives Wal-Mart access to Netflix's customer database.
The class action suit came in response to a dinner meeting in 2005, where the CEOs of Netflix and Wal-Mart allegedly agreed to share the DVD market. According to consumer advocates, under the pact, Wal-Mart agreed not to rent DVDs if Netflix promised not to sell them. Class action suits were filed against both companies in 2009, claiming that this agreement violated antitrust laws.
While Wal-Mart decided to settle the case, Netflix is still fighting the allegations, claiming the suit "has no merit."
Wal-Mart's settlement, which still has to be finalized in February 2012, comes as the discount giant is in the process of aggressively promoting its Vudu service, which it acquired in February 2010. At the same time, Netflix is in dire need of an image cleanup, following several unfriendly consumer moves, including a recent price hike and the falling out of its Liberty Starz deal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court upholds conviction in Iowa coach's death
Legal News |
2011/09/07 07:34
|
An appeals court has upheld the first-degree murder conviction of a mentally ill man who shot his former football coach in the school's weight room.
Mark Becker had argued that he was legally insane when he shot Aplington-Parkersburg High School Coach Ed Thomas in June 2009. A jury found Becker guilty and rejected his insanity defense.
Doctors testified at the trial that Becker is a paranoid schizophrenic but they disagreed over whether he knew right from wrong when he shot Thomas.
Becker's lawyers argued that jurors were given incorrect instructions about the legal definition of insanity.
The Iowa Court of Appeals on Thursday agreed one instruction was incorrect but said jurors were given another instruction that correctly defined insanity. Taken together, the court says jurors were properly instructed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Group seeks appellate action on gays in military
Legal News |
2011/09/01 16:48
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Court Cannot Exclude Evidence Because It Is Self-Serving
Legal News |
2011/08/31 15:47
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
