|
|
|
Texas electoral maps at issue before Supreme Court
Law Firm News |
2012/01/09 09:56
|
A federal law says states and localities with a history of discrimination cannot change any voting procedures without first getting approval from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington. Yet Texas is asking the Supreme Court to allow the use of new, unapproved electoral districts in this year's voting for Congress and the state Legislature.
The outcome of the high court case, to be argued Monday afternoon, could be another blow to a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. In 2009, the justices raised doubts about whether Southern states still should need approval in advance of voting changes more than 40 years after the law was enacted.
The case also might help determine the balance of power in the House of Representatives in 2013, with Republicans in a stronger position if the court allows Texas to use electoral districts drawn by the GOP-dominated Legislature.
The complicated legal fight over Texas' political maps arises from the state's population gain of more than 4 million people, most of them Latino or African-American, in the 2010 census, and involves federal district courts in Texas and Washington, as well as the Supreme Court. It has come to a head now because Texas needs to be able to use some maps to hold elections this year.
The state has so far failed to persuade three judges in Washington, including two appointees of Republican President George W. Bush, to sign off on new political maps adopted by the Legislature. The justices jumped into the case at Texas' request after judges in San Antonio who are hearing a lawsuit filed by minority groups drew their own political lines for use in the 2012 elections. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justices criticize EPA's dealings with homeowners
Legal Interview |
2012/01/08 09:57
|
Several Supreme Court justices are criticizing the Environmental Protection Agency for heavy-handed enforcement of rules affecting homeowners.
The justices were considering whether to let an Idaho couple challenge an EPA order identifying their land as protected wetlands. Mike and Chantell Sackett wanted to build their house on the land. But the EPA says the Sacketts can't challenge the order to restore the land to wetlands or face thousands of dollars in fines.
Justice Samuel Alito called EPA's actions outrageous. Justice Antonin Scalia noted the high-handedness of the agency in dealing with private property. Chief Justice John Roberts said that the EPA's contention that the Sacketts' land is wetlands, something the couple disagrees with, would never be put to a test under current procedure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court hearings resume in Jefferson bankruptcy case
Headline News |
2012/01/05 09:33
|
Court hearings in Jefferson County's record-setting bankruptcy filing are scheduled to resume Thursday. The Birmingham News reports that U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Thomas Bennett is expected to consider a variety of motions.
Jefferson County filed the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history last year over more than $4 billion in debt. Most of the debt stems from borrowing to pay for upgrades to the county's sewer system.
This week, a group of Alabama lawmakers, Jefferson County commissioners and health care professionals met privately to discuss ways to address the county's general fund crisis and other matters.
The Birmingham News reports the three-hour meeting at Vestavia Hills City Hall included Commission President David Carrington; Republican state Rep. Paul DeMarco of Homewood; and Republican state Sen. Jabo Waggoner of Vestavia Hills.
Participants said Tuesday's meeting was the latest in a series of behind-the-scenes efforts among commissioners, Jefferson County legislators, business leaders and others to find ways to solve the county's massive general fund woes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Faruqi Faruqi, LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Headline News |
2012/01/04 09:06
|
The action alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose that: (1) China Med’s acquisition of Bio-Ekon Biotechnology Co. Ltd. was from a third-party seller connected to the Company’s own chairman; (2) China Med overpaid by an estimated $20 million in the acquisition of BBE; (3) China Med’s transaction to acquire BBE involved the Company’s use of fraudulent shell companies, including Finnea International Limited which never owned BBE; (4) according to SAIC filings, BBE actually suffered operating losses prior to China Med’s acquisition; and (5) the Company has spent twice as much on “investing activities” as it has purportedly generated from operations.
On December 6, 2011, Glaucus Research Group released a report focusing on the Company’s fraudulent acquisition of BBE and initiating a strong sell for China Med. On this shocking news, China Med shares plunged roughly 23% at the end of trading on December 6, 2011.
If you purchased China Med securities and would like to discuss your legal rights, visit www.faruqilaw.com/CMED. You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello or Francis McConville toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com or fmcconville@faruqilaw.com. Faruqi amp; Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding China Medical’s conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ecuador court upholds ruling against Chevron
Court Watch |
2012/01/03 09:06
|
An appeals court in Ecuador upheld an $18 billion ruling against Chevron Corp. on Tuesday for oil pollution in the Amazon rain forest more than two decades ago.
The ruling confirmed a February judgment in the case. The Ecuadorean plaintiffs said in a statement that the decision is based on scientific evidence presented at trial proving that waste had poisoned the water supply.
The appellate court relied on a record that proved that Chevron has violated the rights of the communities where it operates, the plaintiffs said in the emailed statement.
The lawsuit deals with pollution of the rain forest by energy company Texaco, which Chevron bought in 2001.
Chevron denounced the appeals court's decision and said it will continue to seek recourse in other courts outside Ecuador.
Today's decision is another glaring example of the politicization and corruption of Ecuador's judiciary that has plagued this fraudulent case from the start, Chevron said in a statement.
The San Ramon, California-based company has previously alleged fraud in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs have also accused Chevron of defrauding the Ecuadorean court to hide the scale of the oil contamination. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chief justice defends court's impartiality
Law Firm News |
2012/01/02 10:53
|
Chief Justice John Roberts said Saturday that he has complete confidence in his colleagues' ability to step away from cases where their personal interests are at stake, and noted that judges should not be swayed by partisan demands.
The comment, included in Roberts' year-end report, comes after lawmakers demanded that two Justices recuse themselves from the high court's review of President Barack Obama's health care law aimed at extending coverage to more than 30 million people. Republicans want Justice Elena Kagan off the case because of her work in the Obama administration as solicitor general, whereas Democrats say Justice Clarence Thomas should back away because of his wife's work with groups that opposed changes to the law.
While not mentioning the upcoming health care ruling, or any case in particular, Roberts' year-end report dismissed suggestions that Supreme Court Justices are subject to more lax ethical standards than lower federal courts and said each Justice is deeply committed to preserving the Court's role as an impartial tribunal governed by law.
I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted, wrote Roberts. They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process. I know that they each give careful consideration to any recusal questions that arise in the course of their judicial duties. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
