|
|
|
California Court Weighs Same-Sex Marriage Ban
Court Press News |
2009/03/05 22:05
|
As thousands demonstrated outside, California Supreme Court justices on Thursday weighed whether voters' decision to ban same-sex marriage was a denial of fundamental rights or within what one justice called the people's very broad powers to amend the state constitution.
div id=body_after_content_columnp
Gay rights advocates are urging the court to overturn the ban, approved in November as Proposition 8, on the grounds it was put before voters improperly, or at least prematurely. Under state law, the legislature must approve significant constitutional changes before they can go on the ballot. /ppProposition 8's sponsors, represented by former Pepperdine law school dean and Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, said it would be a miscarriage of justice for the court to overturn the results of a fair election.
The ballot initiative, which passed with 52 percent of the vote, changed California's constitution to trump last year's 4-3 Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage. The court found that denying same-sex couples the right to wed was an unconstitutional civil rights violation./p/div |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long Beach Sues Lehman Bros. CEO and Others
Court Press News |
2009/02/27 09:47
|
The City of Long Beach sued Lehman Bros. CEO Richard Fuld Jr., 12 other top Lehman officers and Ernst amp; Young accountants, saying they suckered the city into buying $20 million worth of 27-day short-term paper on Sept. 3, 2008, despite warning signs of Lehman's impending collapse. Fuld was paid $100 million in salary and stock grants from 2005-2007, according to the complaint.
Long Beach says its $19,963,250 investment in Lehman's short-term paper has been written down to zero.
Despite the fact that defendants were aware of materially adverse facts on Sept. 3, 2008, a mere two weeks before the company filed for bankruptcy, said defendants did not disclose the financial disaster that was about to decimate the company, according to the Superior Court complaint. instead, defendants lulled the plaintiff, and the rest of the market, into a false sense of security that Lehman would survive, right up to the brink of the bankruptcy filing.
Defendants in the claim of fraud, deceit and misrepresentation are Lehman CEO and Chairman of the Board Richard S. Fuld Jr.; CFO and controller Christopher M. O'Meara; controller Erin M. Callan, who resigned in June 2008 but signed Lehman's Form 10-K for FY 2007; and directors Michael L. Ainslie, John F. Akers, Roger S. Berlind, Thomas H. Cruikshank, Marsha Johnson Evans, Sir Christopher Gent, Roland A. Hernandez, Henry Kaufman, John D. Macomber.
Ernst amp; Young was Lehman's auditor for FY 2005-07.
Plaintiffs are represented by Bruce Simon with Pearson Simon amp; Warshaw of San Francisco. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soul Man Sues MGM and The Weinstein Co.
Court Press News |
2009/02/19 09:00
|
Sam Moore, The Legendary Soul Man, sued The Weinstein Co. and MGM Studios for trademark infringement, privacy invasion and unfair competition, saying the studios made an offensive movie allegedly based on his life, called Soul Men. Moore and the late Dave Prater - Sam amp; Dave - sang the immortal ditties, Soul Man, Hold On, I'm Comin' and others.
Moore sued The Weinstein Company dba Dimension Films, MGM Studios, Genius Products, Concord Music Group, Harvey Weinstein, and Bob Weinstein.
The federal complaint states: In early 2008, Sam Moore learned from a press release that TWC and the Weinsteins were producing a new film entitled 'Soul Men' about a lack duo from the 1960s that broke apart and was reunited after a long separation to perform a tribute at the famed Apollo Theater. The movie's title, theme, characters and music (the Memphis sound which became synonymous with Stax Records) immediately raised suspicions that the lead characters of the movie were being passed off as 'Sam and Dave.'
He claims the movie contains many references to Sam Moore. He claims that the shooting script, which Moore apparently obtained, includes the direction: (O)ver the opening credits 'The infectious, foot tapping sounds of 'Sam amp; Dave' rendition of 'Sweet Soul Music' plays over the credits. While that song plays, the script then provides for vintage footage to place the movie's lead characters, the singing duo The Real Deal, into their era - the 1960s and 1970s.
Sam amp; Dave were a hit act from 1961 to 1971. The complaint cites numerous other parts of the shooting script to substantiate the claim that the film is based on Sam amp; Dave. Moore claims that the movie and ads for it have been highly damaging to Sam Moore, because among other things, the movie is filled with incessant, gratuitous and offensive language; the movie contains unnecessary, inappropriate and vulgar sexual content; the lead character identified with Sam Moore engages in the criminal use of a handgun; the lead characters' musical performances, most particularly Sam amp; Dave song, 'Hold On I'm Comin',' are so poor as to make a mockery of Sam Moore's talent; and the characters engage in the use of constant, repeated and despicable racial slurs and epithets.
Moore alleges conspiracy, trademark violation and dilution, unjust enrichment, unfair competition, deceptive competition, unfair publicity and privacy invasion. He wants all copies of the movie and all products associated with it recalled, plus punitive damages and disclaimers.
Moore is represented by Steven Zralek with Bone McAllester amp; Norton. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Sues Microsoft for Vista to XP $104 Downgrade
Court Press News |
2009/02/13 08:55
|
A federal class action claims Microsoft used its market power to force consumers to buy computers with a pre-installed, clunky and defective Windows Vista operating system, forcing them to spend more money to downgrade to the more reliable Windows XP. The class claims Microsoft extended its $104 downgrade offer twice, to reap tremendous profits from it.
Microsoft prohibited its OEMs [Original Equipment Manufacturers] Dell/HP/Sony etc. from selling new computers with Windows XP operating systems pre-installed, the class claims. They say Microsoft made it impossible for consumers to buy new computers with Windows XP, but charged $104 extra to downgrade from Vista to XP. Microsoft extended its $104 downgrade offer twice, most recently until July 31, 2009, to reap tremendous profits from the combination of clunky new system and relatively better old one, the complaint states. It claims that nearly 1 in 3 people who buy a computer with Vista downgrade to XP.
The Windows Vista operating system, released on Jan. 31, 2007, was not well received.
Plaintiffs claim Microsoft controls 90% of the relevant market, and announced on July 18, 2007, that it had sold more than 180 Vista licenses - totting up gross sales of $30 billion to $60 billion from it. However, these figures are believed to include Vista licenses that are downgraded to Windows XP.
The complaint claims Microsoft willfully acquired monopoly power and have maintained such monopoly control over the relevant market by suppressing competition in the Intel-compatible PC operating systems software market through restrictive and exclusionary conduct. Defendants suppressed competition with the specific intent of acquiring and obtaining such monopoly power.
They claim Microsoft fixed prices for Windows XP at supra-competitive levels and forced consumers to downgrade to it due to the clunky Vista program.
They claim, Microsoft prohibited its OEMs [Original Equipment Manufacturers] Dell/HP/Sony etc. from selling new computers with Windows XP operating systems pre-installed.
The class demands treble damages for unfair business practices and state antitrust violations. Plaintiffs are represented by Beth Terrell with Terrell Marshall amp; Daudi. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ruth Madoff Could be a Conspirator in Ponzi Scheme
Court Press News |
2009/02/12 11:32
|
Ruth Madoff, the wife of disgraced money manager Bernard Madoff could face conspiracy charges if it is proven that she knew about her husband’s massive Wall Street money scam and purposely tried to hide assets before he was arrested.
“I fully expect her to be named [in civil lawsuits] shortly,” said Adam Rabin, a Florida attorney who represents individuals victimized by Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.
New court documents released Wednesday revealed Ruth Madoff, 67, withdrew $10 million from one of her husband’s company bank accounts on Dec. 10, 2008, the day before he was arrested on federal fraud charges. Two weeks earlier, on Nov. 25, 2008, she withdrew $5.5 million from the same account.
“It certainly raises questions,” said the Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin, who discovered the wire transactions as part of an investigation into the Boston-based company Cohmad Securities which Bernard Madoff co-owns. Secretary Galvin has determined that Cohmad was an extension of Madoff’s New York investment firm funneling in as much as $67 million a month from investors.
“In order to be guilty of a conspiracy [either criminal or civil] you don’t have to know all the details of a scheme,” said attorney Ryon McCabe, Rabin’s partner and former federal prosecutor. McCabe argues that if prosecutors want to hold Ruth Madoff legally responsible “all the government would have to do is prove that she knew [about the scam] and on at least one occasion took part” by withdrawing money just before the scheme was exposed.
As of right now, Ruth Madoff is not named in the federal case against her husband. However, Rabin believes that could change. The new revelations “could be used to put pressure on her to assist with the investigation.”
This is not the first move by Ruth Madoff that has raised eyebrows. A CBS News investigation that aired on Jan. 30 discovered Bernard Madoff's wife also took steps before her husband’s arrest to protect their $9.5 million Palm Beach, Florida home from being taken away in a bankruptcy proceeding. A unique Florida “homestead” law allows some homes to be shielded from creditors. Property records, obtained exclusively by CBS News show Ruth tried to get homestead status in 2006 at the same time federal authorities were probing Bernard Madoff. Her initial application in 2006 was rejected. She then reapplied on September 18, 2008, less than two months before federal authorities detained her husband.
“She may have been trying to get the homestead status to protect her home from civil creditors,” said Ryon.
Attorney Ira Lee Sorkin who represents both Bernard and Ruth Madoff declined to comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
