|
|
|
Thai court issues warrant for former prime minister
Legal World News |
2007/09/04 11:22
|
A Thai court issued arrest warrants yesterday for former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his wife over their alleged violations of stock-trading laws. It is the second set of warrants issued in the past month against Thaksin, who has been living abroad since he was ousted in a bloodless coup almost a year ago. The other case involved conflict of interest related to the sale of Bangkok real estate. Sunai Manomaiudom, director-general of the Department of Special Investigation, said the Bangkok Criminal Court had issued the warrant at his agency's request. Thaksin has denied all allegations against him, and has said he will not return to Thailand until after new elections are held at the end of this year. Thaksin was deposed last September after the country fell into a political crisis due to mass demonstrations demanding he step down because of alleged corruption and abuse of power. He became a billionaire in the telecommunications sector before entering politics and serving as prime minister since 2001. A controversial business deal by his family, the sale early last year of its telecommunications company Shin Corp to a Singapore state investment company, was a major cause of public discontent. The new warrants for Thaksin and his wife, Pojamarn, involve charges of violating regulations requiring disclosure of corporate information to the Stock Exchange of Thailand. Pichit Chuenban, a lawyer for Thaksin's family, said he would inform the former prime minister of yesterday's court action, and advise him not to return to fight the case for the time being "because the situation in the country is not normal." "We think he should return only after we have an elected government," Pichit said. Thailand is currently administered by an interim civilian government, but a military council exercises power behind the scenes and is intensely hostile toward Thaksin. Sunai had earlier said Thaksin and other family members controlled nearly 80 percent of SC Asset, a real estate company, both directly and through nominee companies, and sold their interests to outside parties last year. They are charged with violating disclosure rules, both by failing to report their ownership and failing to report the sale of shares. Each violation of the exchange's regulations carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison and a fine of US$15,500. Sunai said Thaksin is also suspected of violating a law on Cabinet members holding company shares, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a US$31,000 fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law firm files investor lawsuit against Motorola
Business Law Info |
2007/09/02 06:06
|
Another law firm has filed an investor suit against Motorola Inc., claiming executives didn’t tell the market how bad things were last fall as sales began to slow. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP filed suit last Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of investors who bought Motorola shares between July 19, 2006, and Jan. 4. Motorola’s shares peaked at $26.30 on Oct. 13. On Monday, the stock price was below $17 per share. The suit claims Motorola did not disclose problems with its product line and geographic challenges in Europe that led it to miss its forecasts in the third and fourth quarters.
Named in the suit are CEO Edward Zander; Ron Garriques, former head of mobile devices; David Devonshire, former chief financial officer; Greg Brown, then-executive vice-president of networks; Daniel Moloney, president of connected home solutions; Richard Nottenburg, chief strategy officer; and Padmasree Warrior, chief technology officer. “We will vigorously defend ourselves against these claims,” a Motorola spokeswoman said. Executives, excluding Mr. Zander, sold more than $26 million worth of stock during the period, according to the suit. The Schiffrin law firm is based in Radnor, Pa. Last month, the law offices of Bernard Gross, based in Philadelphia, and Brodsky & Smith of Bala Cynwyd, Pa., each filed suit, also seeking class-action status. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee class action suit may hit Circuit City
Class Action News |
2007/08/31 16:37
|
The California Supreme Court handed workers a major victory Thursday, allowing them to bring class-action lawsuits alleging labor code violations even if they had signed agreements with their employers requiring them to arbitrate such disputes. By letting workers bypass these now-ubiquitous arbitration clauses, the ruling probably will add to the high volume of back-pay and overtime class-action cases already on court dockets, experts say, and will probably set a standard for courts in other states to follow.
"For many workers, class-action lawsuits are the only type of lawsuits they can bring against their employer" because attorneys are reluctant to take on individual suits in which the potential awards are small, said Michael Rubin, a San Francisco lawyer who represented a former Circuit City worker in the case that went to the state Supreme Court.
"Today's decision prevents employers from continuing this divide-and-conquer approach and reinstitutes the worker's rights to join with their fellow workers to sue for common violations of statutory rights," Rubin said.
Some of the primary beneficiaries of the ruling would be thousands of white-collar workers in industries such as retail, food service, insurance, technology and banking who are called managers or assistant managers but who spend much of their day ringing up sales, stocking shelves or sweeping the floor alongside the workers they supervise.
Class-action lawsuits by such employees seeking back pay for overtime and missed breaks have risen dramatically over the last decade. Most eventually settle, with employers typically paying millions of dollars to avoid the prospect of bigger losses at trial. In response to these suits, thousands of employers have asked their workers to sign agreements promising to resolve their disputes through arbitration instead of going to court, Rubin said.
Thursday's decision centered on the agreement that Circuit City asked its 46,000 employees to sign, waiving their right to file a class-action lawsuit and limiting damages, the statute of limitations to bring their claims and the attorney fees they could recover.
In a 4-3 ruling, the high court said that some of those agreements undermined employees' "unwaivable statutory rights" and "pose a serious obstacle to the enforcement of the state's overtime laws."
"Corporations are trying to wipe out their employees' ability to hold them accountable" by barring class actions in wages-and-hours cases, employment discrimination and sexual harassment cases, said Arthur Bryant, executive director of Washington-based Public Justice, a public interest law firm that filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiff in the Circuit City case. Thursday's ruling, he said, "essentially preserves employment class actions in California."
The decision follows a ruling two years ago in which the justices invalidated an arbitration clause barring bank customers from bringing class actions to resolve consumer disputes. This month, a San Francisco federal appeals court ruled that Cingular Wireless could not compel customers to sign away their right to file class-action lawsuits against the company. That ruling applies in several Western states.
The Circuit City case was filed by former customer service manager Robert Gentry in 2002, claiming that the retailer had illegally denied him overtime pay. The Los Angeles resident signed an arbitration agreement when he began working for the company in 1995 but later claimed that the agreement violated state labor laws and was unconscionable because employees were coerced into signing and feared retaliation if they didn't.
Circuit City countered that the agreement was not unfair to workers, noting the documents highlighted the advantages of arbitration for employees -- for instance, that their disputes could be resolved faster and more cost-effectively than through litigation. Moreover, the retailer argued that employees had 30 days to opt out of the agreement once they signed it and Gentry had not done so.
The trial and appellate court judges agreed with those arguments and rejected Gentry's claim.
But the Supreme Court called the company's "explanations of benefits . . . markedly one-sided" for failing to mention "any of the additional significant disadvantages" of Circuit City's agreement. For instance, the agreement limited back pay to one year, but an employee filing suit could potentially recover up to three years of back pay.
The high court did not issue a blanket ban on provisions such as the one Gentry signed but remanded his case to the trial court, instructing it to void such agreements if employees can more effectively pursue their rights through class actions.
Circuit City pointed to the lack of a blanket ban as a silver lining in an otherwise disappointing loss and expects "that when the Superior Court considers this case in light of the Supreme Court's new decision, it will once again fully enforce our arbitration agreement," said Jim Babb, company spokesman.
Lawyers say the ruling will spark more class actions.
The decision "dashes the hopes of employers that contractual class-action waivers will be an effective tool to stem the flow of debilitating class-action litigation," said Colleen Regan, a Los Angeles attorney who represents employers.
The "good news," she said, is that the decision does not affect the viability of a "properly constructed arbitration agreement" that does not bar class actions and meets other legal requirements.
Although the Gentry decision binds only California employers, it will probably undermine arbitration waivers nationally. California law tends to set the standard in labor cases, Regan said. "National companies really desire consistency in their human resources policy, so they set the bar at California," she said.
Circuit City operates 652 stores nationwide, including 90 in California. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mayor's son pleads guilty in casino scam
Court Feed News |
2007/08/31 15:38
|
| Jacob Nickels, the son of Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, pleaded guilty in federal court Thursday to one count of conspiracy in connection with a casino card-cheating scam based in California. Flanked by his defense attorney and seated in front of his parents and other supporters, Nickels, 26, acknowledged to U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler that in 2005 he took a bribe from an international card-cheating ring while he was pit boss at the Nooksack River Casino in Deming, Whatcom County. "We're very pleased he came forward and accepted responsibility for his actions," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Tate London. Nickels, who smiled after the hearing and accepted hugs from well-wishers, declined to comment. He is scheduled to be sentenced before U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour on Dec. 14. Nickels' attorney, Jeffery Robinson, said Nickels had expressed a desire to plead guilty since he was charged. Nickels, who had worked his way up from dealer to pit boss at the Nooksack Tribe's casino, was accused of accepting $5,000 to introduce one of the ring's alleged co-conspirators to two of his friends who were dealers at the casino, according to a federal indictment unsealed in May. Nickels was charged at that time with one count of conspiracy and four counts of theft of funds from a gaming establishment on Indian lands. Federal prosecutors agreed to drop the four theft charges in exchange for his guilty plea on the conspiracy charge. The mayor said in a statement that the case has proved to be "a difficult time for our family. "Jake today is taking an important step in accepting responsibility for his actions. Although this brings us closer to resolution, it's not over. We love him and will stand by him throughout." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sanofi-Aventis US faces class-action sex bias lawsuit
Legal World News |
2007/08/31 14:36
|
| Sanofi-Aventis US, the American branch of the French pharmaceuticals group, is being charged in a class-action lawsuit for alleged sexual discrimination and harassment. Three former employees of Sanofi-Aventis US joined Wednesday an initial lawsuit filed on March 14 by Karen Bellifemine, a female sales representative at the Bridgewater, New Jersey-based firm. The plaintiffs accuse Sanofi-Aventis US management of sex discrimination, saying they were not promoted because of their gender and were paid significantly less than their male colleagues. The women are seeking more than 300 million dollars in compensation. Sanofi-Aventis denied the allegations. The original plaintiff, Bellifemine, started working at Sanofi-Aventis US in 1995 and is still employed there. The three others -- Amy Zeoli, Michelle Popa and Sue Sullivan -- said they resigned in 2006-2007 over the situation. All four plaintiffs said their bosses had sexually harassed them, in words or unwelcome gestures. Some said they suffered repeated incidences of harassment after reporting the offensive behavior to management. "We'll be moving for class certification on behalf of approximately 6,000 women in the next few months, after we obtain the statistical data which shows that Sanofi pays its female pharma reps less than men, and fails to promote women at the same rate as men," said a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Steven Wittels of Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP. "We are confident that the data will support these claims," he said. Wittels said the 300 million dollars sought was modest because "each woman is entitled to up to approximately 500,000 dollars in damages for compensatory back and future wages and punitive damages." Sanofi-Aventis US issued a terse statement denying the women's allegations. "We are confident that the suit lacks merit and that all of our employees are treated fairly and in compliance with all applicable federal and state laws," the company said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ruling triggers a rush to gay marriages in Iowa
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/08/31 14:31
|
| Gay couples lined up before dawn on Friday to apply for marriage licenses after an Iowa judge scuttled the state's law against same-sex marriage. Two Iowa State University students, Sean Fritz, 24, and Tim McQuillan, 21, got their license along with a waiver bypassing the usual three-day waiting period. Then they rushed off to find someone to tie the knot for them in a bid to become the first in the state to do so -- and succeeded when a Unitarian minister united them in a brief ceremony in the front yard of his Des Moines home. Judge Robert Hanson of the Polk County District triggered the license land rush when he ruled on Thursday that Iowa's law restricting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional. His ruling faces appeals by state officials who want it reversed, but in the meantime the window was open. The gay marriage issue is a hot one politically at all levels. Twenty-six states have constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage. Three states allow civil unions for gay couples -- with only Massachusetts permitting full same-sex marriage. New Hampshire will allow gay civil unions beginning in January. Fritz and McQuillan were among about a dozen couples waiting in a line that formed before dawn at the Polk County Courthouse. Fritz said he proposed to McQuillan on Thursday night after hearing about the judge's ruling and then went to a store to buy wedding rings. "He instant messaged me over the Internet that this was going on," McQuillan said. "When he picked me up around 9 o'clock he proposed to me on the spot. Besides the obvious shock, I still haven't recovered. Maybe it'll set in later this week." Fritz said the two did a "lot of double-checking everything on the Internet to make sure that we got all the paperwork filled out correctly the first time. We didn't want to get refused because we messed up a 't' somewhere." Fritz says he called McQuillan's mother in California to ask permission to marry her son. Not everyone was as happy.House Republican Leader Christopher Rants of the Iowa Legislature called the ruling a "shocking" reversal of the will of the people of the state. He blamed Democrats saying they had refused to back an amendment to the state constitution that would have cemented the ban. Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor who has been campaigning in Iowa, called the decision another example of a ruling by an activist court. He said it demonstrates the need for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution outlawing gay marriages. Michelle Gardner of Ames, a neighbor of Fritz and McQuillan who served as a witness on their marriage application, said "I'm just so happy to be in Iowa for this and so happy to be a part of their wedding." Her 10-year-old daughter, Esther, clutching a bouquet, was in line to be the couple's flower girl. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
