A federal appeals court has ordered two executives convicted in a $1.9 billion corporate fraud case to be resentenced.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said Wednesday the government hadn't proved Donald Ayers and Roger Faulkenberry were guilty of money laundering. Their convictions of conspiracy, securities fraud and wire fraud remain in place.

Faulkenberry is serving 10 years in prison, and Ayers is serving 15 years. They were convicted in 2008 with four other top executives from National Century Financial Enterprises, a Columbus health care financing company. Federal prosecutors likened the case to the Enron scandal.

The court said the government didn't prove that advances Faulkenberry and Ayers made to medical companies were designed to conceal the money's source.

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

The court-appointed trustee seeking to recover billions of dollars lost by jailed financier Bernard Madoff sued three entities Thursday to get back more than $30 million that he said the Madoff family had invested, mostly in oil and gas properties and technology companies.

The three lawsuits filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan by Irving Picard are a follow-up to a lawsuit he filed in November seeking nearly $200 million from family members who he said lived lavishly while using the family finance business like a "piggy bank."

Picard wrote sarcastically in the latest lawsuits that Madoff was "quite generous" with the money he stole from thousands of customers in history's largest Ponzi scheme.

"Foremost among the recipients of Madoff's gifts of customer funds were his closest family members, including his wife Ruth Madoff, his brother Peter, his two sons Andrew and Mark and his niece Shana," Picard said.

"With respect to Mark and Andrew, the lawsuits are without merit, both factually and legally," said Martin Flumenbaum, a lawyer for Madoff's sons.

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

A founding member of a terrorist group has pleaded guilty in the kidnapping of 16 people, including four Americans, at a Philippine resort 15 years ago.

During an appearance in federal court Wednesday, Madhatta Haipe admitted that he and several armed members of the Abu Sayyaf (AH'-boo SEYE'-yahf) Group kidnapped the vacationers for ransom.

Haipe was extradited from the Philippines to the U.S., and at his sentencing Dec. 14 he will face up to life in prison on each of four counts of hostage taking.

Abu Sayyaf is suspected of having received funds and training from al-Qaida and is on a U.S. list of terrorist organizations.

Its bombings, ransom kidnappings and beheadings of hostages have made it the Philippines' most brutal rebel group.

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

Washington state's Supreme Court has lifted the stay of execution for a death row inmate who claimed the state's method of lethal injection violated constitutional bans on cruel and unusual punishment.

The high court unanimously ruled Thursday that Cal Coburn Brown's claims are moot because the state Department of Corrections changed its method of execution earlier this year from a three-drug cocktail to a one-drug system.

The court issued a stay last year just hours before Brown was set to die for torturing and killing a Burien woman in 1991. The state can now reschedule the execution, but the earliest it could happen is September.

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

American Association for Justice Announces Waters, Kraus & Paul Partner as President-Elect

Gary M. Paul, a longtime champion of victims’ rights and a partner with one of the nation’s most prolific plaintiff’s firms, has risen through the ranks of the American Association for Justice (AAJ) to be named president-elect of the organization. Mr. Paul will take office as AAJ president in July 2011.

Mr. Paul is a partner in the Los Angeles office of Waters, Kraus & Paul—the West Coast practice of Waters & Kraus. Nationwide, Waters & Kraus has taken more asbestos-related trials to verdict than any other plaintiff’s firm. In addition, Mr. Paul has more than three decades of experience in complex civil cases ranging from product liability to medical malpractice. His extensive background in plaintiffs’ rights, combined with his dedication to AAJ’s mission to obtain justice for victims of misconduct or negligence, give Mr. Paul a broad frame of reference for the challenges and opportunities ahead.

“There have been many changes within our ranks, and I am sure next year will be no different,” Mr. Paul said. “Change is difficult. But, as the American abolitionist and statesman Frederick Douglass once said, ‘If there is no struggle, there is no progress.’ I am absolutely confident that AAJ will emerge more powerful, more united, and with more members.”

Mr. Paul has been a member of AAJ since 1981 and has served in progressively significant executive roles since 2006, when he was elected parliamentarian. In addition to his leadership with AAJ, he is a past president of both the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) and Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA). He has also been twice named as CAALA Trial Lawyer of the Year, and has appeared on the Thomson Reuters Southern California Super Lawyers® list six times, from 2005 to 2010.

With more than 100 jury trials to his credit, Mr. Paul currently focuses on mesothelioma asbestos cases — two of which were named by The Recorder (published by ALM) on its Top California Verdicts of 2009 list. Together with the nationwide Waters & Kraus team, several asbestos cases have resulted in high-profile plaintiffs’ verdicts in the last five years — along with a number of qui tam/whistleblower settlements.

Mr. Paul was among several AAJ officers announced in July during the group’s annual convention in Vancouver. Other officers include President C. Gibson Vance of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., in Montgomery, Ala.; Vice-President Mary Alice McLarty of The McLarty Firm, P.C., Dallas, Texas; Secretary J. Burton LeBlanc of Baron and Budd, P.C., in Baton Rouge, La.; Treasurer Rhonda Hill Wilson of the Law Offices of Rhonda Hill Wilson, P.C., in Philadelphia, Pa.; and, Parliamentarian Larry A. Tawwater of the Tawwater Law Firm, P.L.L.C., in Oklahoma City, Okla.

About Gary M. Paul
Gary Paul is a partner in the firm’s West Coast practice — Waters, Kraus & Paul. With more than three decades of experience in complex civil matters ranging from consumer and medical product liability to commercial and insurance litigation, Mr. Paul is both a respected author and popular speaker in the field. He is a member of the State Bar of California, the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, the American Board of Trial Advocates, the American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA), and Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC). Mr. Paul is also a former president of the Pound Civil Justice Institute, a think tank of accomplished trial attorneys working to strengthen the practice of trial law through educational programs, publications, and research grants.

Before graduating from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles in 1974, Mr. Paul worked as a missile and space engineer for a decade, and was involved in the design of spacecraft that orbited and landed on Mars. He holds a bachelor’s degree from Arizona State University and a master’s degree from the University of California, Los Angeles. Mr. Paul is a native of Springfield, Ohio.

About Waters, Kraus & Paul
Waters, Kraus & Paul is the West Coast practice of Waters & Kraus, LLP — a nationally recognized plaintiffs’ firm concentrating on complex product liability and personal injury/wrongful death cases. The firm's diverse practice includes toxic tort litigation (mesothelioma-asbestos), qui tam (whistleblower) cases, pharmaceutical and medical product liability litigation, and elder financial abuse cases, among others. With offices in California, Texas, and Maryland, Waters & Kraus, LLP, has litigated cases in jurisdictions across the United States on behalf of individuals from all 50 states, as well as foreign governments.

About the American Association for Justice
The American Association for Justice (AAJ) promotes a fair and effective justice system and supports the work of attorneys to ensure that any person who is injured by the misconduct or negligence of others can obtain justice in America’s courtrooms, even when taking on the most powerful interests. Formerly known as the American Trial Lawyers Association (ATLA), AAJ was founded in 1946, and today represents the world’s largest trial bar as a broad-based, international coalition of attorneys, law professors, paralegals, and law students.

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

A few weeks ago, I reported on a verdict we got against State Farm in Baltimore County. I inadvertently stumbled on the Maryland Daily Record article on the case today.

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

If you ever suffer a major injury in metro Atlanta and are still able to talk, remember to say, "take me to Grady."  This is important because treatment at  a Level 1 trauma center significantly improves prospects of successful outcome. A recent article on "The Effects of Trauma Center Care, Admission Volume, and Surgical Volume on Paralysis After Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury" published in Annals of Surgery  concludes that trauma center care is associated with reduced paralysis after traumatic spinal cord injury, perhaps because of greater use of spinal surgery.  Hospitals that do not have trauma centers follow national guidelines to triage patients to trauma centers less than half the time, keeping patients in their facilities when they should be transported to a Level 1 trauma center.

So, as I said earlier, if you are in a serious accident within a 100 miles radius of Atlanta, remember these four words: "take me to Grady."

Ken Shigley, author of Georgia Law of Torts: Trial Preparation & Practice, is  a Certified Civil Trial Advocate of the National Board of Trial Advocacy, and has been listed as a "Super Lawyer" (Atlanta Magazine), among the "Legal Elite" (Georgia Trend Magazine), and in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers . He practices law at the Atlanta law firm of Chambers, Aholt & Rickard, and has broad experience in catastrophic personal injury, spinal cord injury, wrongful death, products liability,  brain injury and burn injury cases. He is also president-elect of the State Bar of Georgia. This post is subject to our ethical disclaimer.

Originally posted at Atlanta Injury Law Blog . Please visit http://www.atlantainjurylawblog.com/ .

George Washington Law Review has published an article titled, appropriately, Against Summary Judgment. The premise of the article is that summary judgment is an archaic procedural device that usurps the role of the jury.

Nonsense. Summary judgment resolves cases that juries should not have to decide because the law bars the claim... or the defense.

I find particularly annoying this premise of the article: summary judgment is bad because most cases that now go to summary judgment would settle early rather than go to trial. In other words, cases that should fail because they have not stated a claim under the law will still settle because the defendant will want to avoid the risks and costs of litigation.

Setting aside offensive summary judgment for a second which is an important tool in a plaintiffs' lawyers arsenal, I'm a personal injury lawyer who would theoretically benefit from such a paradigm shift in jurisprudence. What a great system for personal injury lawyers, right? You get paid on all claims, not just the just claims. Can't get a doctor to support your claim that the injuries from the car accident are related a plaintiff's injuries? Who cares? Let a jury decide or, better yet, try to induce settlement because the defendant does not want - for whatever reason, including litigation costs - to go to trial.

It is a home run with one little victim: justice. It is not fair for defendants to fight claims that are not really legitimate claims because the law does not allow them. If you file a lawsuit and don't have a case the law supports, that claims should be dismissed as quickly as possible. Moreover, it unfairly lessens the settlement value of legitimate claims brought by victims who are both hurt and have a real cause of action under the tort laws that we have agreed upon as a society.

When you think about it, the mirror image of this insanity is caps on non-economic damages. Cases that should not be brought should be dismissed; juries verdicts in meaningful cases should be allowed to stand.

You can find this law review article discussing why summary judgment should be abolished here.

• Sample Motions for Summary Judgment (20 example motions/responses)
• Why Plaintiffs' Lawyers Should Use Summary Judgment More Often (an underutilized tool in personal injury car accident cases)
• Thoughts on Defending Motions for Summary Judgment

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

George Washington Law Review has published an article titled, appropriately, Against Summary Judgment. The premise of the article is that summary judgment is an archaic procedural device that usurps the role of the jury.

Nonsense. Summary judgment resolves cases that juries should not have to decide because the law bars the claim... or the defense.

I find particularly annoying this premise of the article: summary judgment is bad because most cases that now go to summary judgment would settle early rather than go to trial. In other words, cases that should fail because they have not stated a claim under the law will still settle because the defendant will want to avoid the risks and costs of litigation.

Setting aside offensive summary judgment for a second which is an important tool in a plaintiffs' lawyers arsenal, I'm a personal injury lawyer who would theoretically benefit from such a paradigm shift in jurisprudence. What a great system for personal injury lawyers, right? You get paid on all claims, not just the just claims. Can't get a doctor to support your claim that the injuries from the car accident are related a plaintiff's injuries? Who cares? Let a jury decide or, better yet, try to induce settlement because the defendant does not want - for whatever reason, including litigation costs - to go to trial.

It is a home run with one little victim: justice. It is not fair for defendants to fight claims that are not really legitimate claims because the law does not allow them. If you file a lawsuit and don't have a case the law supports, that claims should be dismissed as quickly as possible. Moreover, it unfairly lessens the settlement value of legitimate claims brought by victims who are both hurt and have a real cause of action under the tort laws that we have agreed upon as a society.

When you think about it, the mirror image of this insanity is caps on non-economic damages. Cases that should not be brought should be dismissed; juries verdicts in meaningful cases should be allowed to stand.

You can find this law review article discussing why summary judgment should be abolished here.

• Sample Motions for Summary Judgment (20 example motions/responses)
• Why Plaintiffs' Lawyers Should Use Summary Judgment More Often (an underutilized tool in personal injury car accident cases)
• Thoughts on Defending Motions for Summary Judgment

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

The State Investment Council has hired a law firm to help recover damages and losses from questionable investments and fees paid to third-party marketing agents.

The council on Tuesday approved the selection of a Day Pitney LLP, which has nine offices on the East Coast, including in New York, Boston, Washington, D.C., and Hartford, Conn.

The law firm will receive a sliding scale contingency fee based on what it recovers for the state.

1 of the council's former outside investment advisers has pleaded guilty in a New York pension scandal and acknowledged that some investment deals in New Mexico were done because of pressure from politically connected individuals. The names of those people have not been disclosed.

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