Archives

Categories

Registration

Resources

Archive for April, 2010

Ex-Exec at Fla. Law Firm Charged in Ponzi Scheme

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

By Breaking Legal News, Breaking Legal News.

The former chief operating officer at the now-defunct law firm run by admitted Ponzi scheme operator Scott Rothstein was charged Tuesday with money laundering conspiracy for her alleged role in the $1.2 billion scam.

Debra Villegas, 42, was accused of helping Rothstein concoct the fake legal settlements used to lure investors — even forging the names of fictional plaintiffs and defendants on the documents. Villegas, of Weston, became the second person charged in the scheme that brought down the Fort Lauderdale-based firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler — and there could be more to come.

"We remain committed to prosecuting investment fraud schemes and all who participate, from top to bottom," said U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sloman of Miami.

Villegas faces a maximum of 10 years in prison if convicted. Prosecutors are also seeking forfeiture of $1.2 million in cash, a home in Weston valued at about $407,000 that Rothstein transferred to Villegas and $130,000 Maserati Granturismo Coup that was a gift from Rothstein.

An attorney for Villegas did not immediately respond to an e-mail message seeking comment. She is scheduled to appear in court Wednesday; the type of charging document filed by prosecutors typically indicates that the defendant will eventually plead guilty.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

Ex-broker’s Enron-related case may be near end

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

By Breaking Legal News, Breaking Legal News.

A federal judge has ordered a one-month delay in the Enron-related May retrial of a former Merrill Lynch executive.

U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein Jr. agreed to delay Robert S. Furst's retrial to June 1 to accommodate plea negotiations. Prosecutors and defense attorneys told Werlein during a hearing Friday that they are close to a deal that would resolve the case.

Furst and two other executives were convicted in 2004 of helping push through Enron's sham sale to Merrill Lynch of three power barges moored off the Nigerian coast in 1999. The deal was struck to make the Enron energy division's earnings appear larger.

But an appeals court threw out their fraud and conspiracy convictions in 2006 after finding fault with the prosecution's legal theory.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

Supreme Court questions ban of biotech alfalfa

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010

By Breaking Legal News, Breaking Legal News.

Supreme Court justices on Tuesday sharply questioned a lower court's decision that has prohibited biotech giant Monsanto Co. from selling genetically engineered alfalfa seeds, possibly paving the way for the company to distribute the seeds for the first time since 2007.

The case has been closely watched by environmentalists and agribusiness. A federal judge in San Francisco barred the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa nationwide until the government could adequately study the crop's potential impact on organic and conventional varieties.

St. Louis-based Monsanto is arguing that the ban was too broad and was based on the assumption that their products were harmful. Opponents of the use of genetically engineered seeds say they can contaminate conventional crops, but Monsanto says such cross-pollination is unlikely.

Organic groups and farmers exporting to Europe, where genetically modified crops are unpopular, have staunchly opposed the development of such seeds.

Environmentalists are concerned with the case's effect on a federal law that requires the government to review a product's effect on the environment before approving it. The U.S. Agriculture Department earlier approved the seeds, but courts in California and Oregon said USDA did not look hard enough at whether the seeds would eventually share their genes with other crops.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

Yaz Lawsuit

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010

By Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog, Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog.

Bayer, the manufacturer of Yasmin and Yaz birth control, is slowly moving in the right direction by strengthening its warning about blood clots. There is no plan to update the warning with respect to gallbladder injuries. Plaintiffs' lawyers in the Yaz/Yasmin lawsuits contend that the progestin contained in the pills, drospirenone, is causing serious health problems in otherwise healthy women, including deep vein thrombosis (blood clots in the deep veins), strokes, heart attacks and gallbladder disease.

The FDA informed Bayer in a letter earlier this month that it is responsible for updating its warning on a key issue in the Yaz lawsuits: whether Yaz causes blood clots. Still, Bayer is not putting a warning on Yaz/Yasmin that is going to clear its duty-to-warn obligation in future blood clots cases (and, again, this warning has no impact on the Yaz gallbladder cases). The new Yaz/Yasmin labels make clear Bayer is not backing all the way down: "The serious side effects of the pill occur very infrequently, especially if you are in good health and are young."

Bayer is in an interesting spot with Yaz/Yasmin. These birth control drugs combined were Bayer's most profitable drug last year. Yaz and Yasmin are also Bayer's biggest seller and the leading birth control pill in North America. I strongly suspect Bayer realizes a strong warning means less prescribing doctors which means less profits. But if Bayer ignores the growing evidence that Yaz and Yasmin are more dangerous than other comparable birth control pills, they are risking lawsuit payouts that exceed the generous profits they now enjoy. Nothing short of a Yaz recall is going to stop the flow of future lawsuits.

Originally posted at Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. Please visit http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/.

Goldman wages PR fight to clear its name

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010

By Breaking Legal News, Breaking Legal News.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is fighting to clear its name, but not in a court of law.

Goldman has hit back hard against civil fraud charges with a public relations blitz aimed at poking holes in the Securities and Exchange Commission's case and repairing the bank's reputation. Every time the SEC has punched, Goldman has quickly counterpunched.

Public relations consultants say it's too early to know if the strategy is working for Wall Street's most powerful bank. Some big Goldman clients are publicly backing the firm, yet its stock has yet to recover from the double-digit nosedive that followed the SEC lawsuit on April 16.

To help its cause, Goldman has hired Mark Fabiani, a big player in the PR world with strong ties to top Democrats. Fabiani earned the nickname "Master of Disaster" for his handling of crises during the Clinton administration. He now works as a media consultant specializing in corporate crisis management. Goldman has also brought in top corporate attorneys. And its executives, including CEO Lloyd Blankfein, have been out in public, not hunkering down.

The damage control efforts will be on display Tuesday when Blankfein and Fabrice Tourre, the employee named in the SEC fraud charges, are questioned by a Senate subcommittee probing the bank's role in the financial crisis.

Goldman's PR campaign, which runs counter to its long history of secrecy, is a bold yet risky move. Some analysts say a poor performance on Capitol Hill could worsen the bank's image problems and make it harder for it to attract and retain lucrative clients. If the strategy fails, analysts say, it could cost Blankfein and other Goldman executives their jobs.

But the company got a boost last week when several big clients including the investment firm Blackstone Group and Ford Motor Co. said they're sticking by the bank. More support came from Warren Buffett, whose company, Berkshire Hathaway, has a big Goldman stake. Berkshire Hathaway has said Buffett isn't concerned about his investment in the bank.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

Capitol & K roundup: Lanny Davis starting own law firm

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010

By Breaking Legal News, Breaking Legal News.

Lanny J. Davis, former special counsel to President Clinton, said last week that he is organizing his own law firm, Lanny J. Davis & Associates, to market his services to other law firms and to do work for communications and political strategists on either side of the political aisle.

In a release, Davis said he will remain closely associated with his former law firm, McDermott Will & Emery, continuing to service its clients and working with its attorneys. He said the new arrangement would allow him to pursue media crisis and public policy work with a variety of firms, including prominent Republican firms. He noted that he once served as a member of President George W. Bush's privacy and civil liberties oversight board.

"In today's Washington, there is usually no clear 'red' solution or 'blue' solution -- almost always, the best solution is a 'purple' or bipartisan solution," Davis said in a statement. "Similarly, there are often no purely legal solutions to legal problems either."

Davis is well known around town, and said he will continue to contribute to the "Legal Crisis Strategies" blog that he started in 2009 with his former colleague at McDermott, attorney Eileen M. O'Connor.


Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

Wrongful Death Compensation: How Much?

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010

By Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog, Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog.

I stumbled on an interesting Chicago Law Review article today by Eric Posner (Judge Richard Posner's son) and Cass Sunstein (now with the Obama administration). I like Sunstein's views on a number of issues, including animal rights.

The subject article is how the legal system assigns money damages to the loss of human life in wrongful death cases with an eye towards creating greater uniformity. The authors approach this question like it was a mathematical equation to be solved. For grief, the authors conclude that $500,000 is a good starting place, suggesting this formula as the paradigm to determine compensation in wrongful death cases:

To derive a willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid grief from a spouse's death, one would need to (1) determine the average length of time that the grief persists (for example, until remarriage); (2) find an equivalent happiness difference in an area of life that has been reliably monetized (for example, willingness to pay to avoid disease or depression); (3) convert this difference into annual units; and (4) multiply (1) by (3).

I understand the goal of uniformity and I even understand the formula. The problem is homogenizing the equation for everyone. Values vary because juries vary but also because facts vary wildly from case to case. Moreover, the formula is artificially low because it uses how much you will spend to avoid a loss to determine how you value the loss. For example, if you are willing to pay $5 to avoid a 1/100,000 risk of death to your spouse, than the loss of your spouse is worth $500,000.

Originally posted at Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. Please visit http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/.

Supreme Court Stays out of Asian Carp Dispute

Monday, April 26th, 2010

By Breaking Legal News, Breaking Legal News.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Monday not to get involved in a dispute over how to prevent invasive Asian carp from making their way into the Great Lakes.

The justices turned down a new request from Michigan to consider ordering closure of Chicago-area shipping locks to prevent the fish from threatening the Great Lakes. The locks could provide a pathway to Lake Michigan for the unwanted carp.

The court had previously declined twice to order the locks closed on an emergency basis while it considered whether to hear the case. This time, the court rejected a proposal by Michigan and six other states to use a long-standing case involving water diversion from Lake Michigan as a vehicle for seeking to permanently sever a man-made linkage between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basin.

Michigan has led the legal fight to close the locks, arguing that the ravenous carp, weighing up to 100 pounds, could decimate the lakes' $7 billion fishing industry by starving out competitors such as salmon and walleye.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

U.S. top court to rule on California video game law

Monday, April 26th, 2010

By Breaking Legal News, Breaking Legal News.

The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether a California law banning the sale and rental of violent video games to minors violated constitutional free-speech rights, the first time it will consider a video game case.

The justices agreed to hear an appeal by the state after a U.S. appeals court based in California struck down the law, which also imposes strict video game labeling requirements, as unconstitutional.

The high court is expected to hear arguments in the case and then issue a ruling during its upcoming term, which begins in October. It will be one of the most important cases so far for the upcoming term.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, the state argued that the free-speech guarantees of the First Amendment do not bar a state from prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors under 18.

The law, which was adopted in 2005, has never taken effect because of the legal challenge.

The law prohibits the sale of an interactive video game to anyone under 18 if the game was so violent it was "patently offensive," according to prevailing community standards and lacked serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Michael Gallagher, president and chief executive of the Entertainment Software Association, which represents U.S. computer and video game publishers, said the group looks forward to presenting its arguments and defending the industry's works.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

Should You Ask for an Amount in Opening?

Monday, April 26th, 2010

By Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog, Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog.

Paul Luvera discusses a tough issue for Plaintiff's lawyers: do you clue the jury in during your opening statement as to how much you are going to ask for in closing? I struggle with this and often opt for a middle ground. I lay out the foundation of what I'm going to ask for: medical bills, wages, and the formula I think is appropriate (x per day for the rest of her life). This way, I'm getting them used to the idea without having to spit out a number without any evidence.

As Paul points out, a one size fits all rule is difficult because each case depends on different facts. One critical question has to be considered: is the cap an issue? If what you have is clearly a cap case and minimal or no economic damages, you can dial back a bit on the damages argument which might help you avoid the risk of losing credibility. Because every time you ask for money - which is what a plaintiffs' lawyer does by definition - you do lose some measure of credibility with a jury.

One of the issues in this post - raising the damage amount in voir dire - is not of much interest to Maryland personal injury lawyers because our voir dire is so ridiculously limited.

Paul also points out that David Ball feels pretty strongly about putting up a number in opening. Which is reason enough to consider it in every case.

Originally posted at Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. Please visit http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/.