|
|
|
Former Mitsubishi President Found Guilty
Legal World News |
2008/01/17 13:09
|
A former Mitsubishi president was convicted of professional negligence Wednesday in a fatal head-on crash that followed a systematic cover-up of auto defects at the Japanese automaker. Former Mitsubishi Motors Corp. President Katsuhiko Kawasoe, who had pleaded innocent, was sentenced to three years in prison suspended for five years, a Yokohama District Court official said on customary condition of anonymity. The suspended sentence means he won't have to serve time. Kawasoe and three other company officials were suspected of failing to report defects although they knew the problems could cause serious accidents. They were charged in 2004 with professional negligence resulting in death in a 2002 accident in southwestern Japan in which a driver died in a crash after the brakes failed on his Mitsubishi vehicle. A defective clutch system that was later recalled is suspected of causing the brake failure. The three other officials were also found guilty but were given suspended sentences, the court official said. Kawasoe, who became president in 1997, quit in disgrace in 2000 after acknowledging that the automaker had hidden defects for decades, many secretly repaired without recalls, despite reports of dozens of accidents. The massive cover-up scandal stunned Japan when it surfaced in 2000. The sale of Mitsubishi Motors vehicles plunged, sending the Tokyo-based maker into losses for years. For decades, Mitsubishi kept a two-tier record of driver complaints, tucking away defect reports in a locker that employees called "H," standing for the Japanese word for "secret." Responsibilities were not defined and driver safety concerns were forgotten, according to a company report ordered in response to the scandal. When the concealed defects grew massive over the years, everyone was afraid to speak up, it said. Mitsubishi apologized Wednesday to the family of the driver who died, and the company promised to do better. "The entire company will continue to do its utmost to uphold corporate governance," it said in a statement. The scandal has produced two other criminal trials. In December last year, Yokohama District Court Two found two former Mitsubishi quality-control workers guilty of professional negligence in the death of a pedestrian crushed by a wheel falling off a truck. That trial revolved around the January 2002 death of then 29-year-old Shiho Okamoto, a housewife, who was walking on a sidewalk with her two children when she was crushed to death by a wheel that rolled off a Mitsubishi truck. Her two boys were injured. In another lawsuit, three former Mitsubishi officials, charged in Okamoto's accident, were acquitted in December 2006 of falsifying defect reports and failing to take proper recall measures. Among them was Takashi Usami, former chairman of Mitsubishi Fuso Truck & Bus Corp., the automaker's former truck unit. |
|
|
|
|
|
Donna Jones Named 08 Partnership Chair
Law Firm News |
2008/01/16 17:05
|
Donna D. Jones has been named the 2008 chair of the Downtown San DiegoPartnership. Jonesis a partner in the Real Estate, Land Use and Environmental practice group ofSheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton's San Diego office. The Downtown San Diego Partnership is a nonprofit businessassociation, comprised of 320 local business and property owners, dedicated toadvocating and educating for development and planning on behalf of downtownbusinesses and residents. Jones and theboard were officially installed by San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders at the Partnership'sannual installation meeting on Jan. 15. "Between working with stakeholders tosupport completion of the C Street Master Plan, selection of the developer forthe Civic Center public/private partnership, approval of the Lane Field projecton the waterfront and helping to implement The Plan to End Chronic Homelessness by selecting alocation in the Downtown region for a Central Intake Facility for thehomeless, as well as implementing our Business Attraction program to bring morebusinesses downtown, we at the Downtown San Diego Partnership lookforward to meeting the challenges and opportunities of 2008," commentedJones. As a land use attorney and registered lobbyist, Jones focuses oncompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), permitting andentitlement issues. She has entitledmaster-planned communities; urban infill, multi-family and mixed-usedevelopments; shopping centers; municipal solid waste landfill expansions;peaker power plants and more. Since 1994, Jones has represented Black Mountain Ranch in developmentof the Santaluz and Del Sur communities in the city of San Diego. This representation has included obtainingentitlements for a transit-oriented, "smart growth" community of morethan 3,000 dwelling units, a resort hotel, two golf courses, and commercial andinstitutional development. Jones'representation included negotiating development agreements as well as alldevelopment permits, maps and associated entitlements, and assuring CEQAcompliance for all discretionary actions. In addition, she worked with the developer andhis team in crafting a ballot measure voters ultimately approved to redesignatethe property and allow a significant increase in density. Jones has negotiated master and individual affordable housingagreements, school mitigation agreements, park agreements, road improvement,water, sewer and myriad other infrastructure and related agreements. She hasrepresented developers in formation of community facilities districts, updatesto Public Facilities Financing Plans, and permits from the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Coastal Commission,California Department of Fish and Game, and the Regional Water Quality ControlBoard. She also has successfullyrepresented developers in CEQA litigation brought against their projects.
In addition, Jones worked on CEQA and entitlement issues on the Padres'downtown Petco Park as well as the East Village Square Master Plan and otherancillary development; entitlements for expansion of the Ritz-Carlton LagunaNigel; lobbying and land use advice on numerous residential and mixed useprojects in downtown San Diego; entitlements for expansion of the La JollaYMCA, conversion of a golf driving range to a condominium project for SheaHomes, and negotiations with the resource agencies and local government onzoning, habitat and other land planning and entitlement issues for a21,000-acre property in the county of San Diego, among other projects. Jonesearned a J.D., with high honors as a member of Order of the Coif and as GrandChancellor, from the University of Texas in 1990 and a B.A. in journalism, withhonors, from Texas A&M University in 1981. About Sheppard Mullin Richter &Hampton LLP Sheppard Mullin is a full service AmLaw 100 firm with more than 520attorneys in 10 offices located throughout California and in New York,Washington, D.C. and Shanghai. Thefirm's California offices are located in Los Angeles, San Francisco, SantaBarbara, Century City, Orange County, Del Mar Heights and San Diego. Founded in 1927 onthe principle that the firm would succeed only if its attorneys deliveredprompt, high quality and cost-effective legal services, Sheppard Mullinprovides legal counsel to U.S. and international clients. Companies turn toSheppard Mullin to handle a full range of corporate and technology matters,high stakes litigation and complex financial transactions. In the U.S., the firm's clients include morethan half of the Fortune 100 companies. Formore information, please visit www.sheppardmullin.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Upholds NY Judicial Elections
Court Feed News |
2008/01/16 17:03
|
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld New York's unique system of choosing trial judges Wednesday, setting aside critics' concerns that political party bosses control the system. "A political party has a First Amendment right to limit its membership as it wishes and to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court. In New York, primary voters elect convention delegates who choose candidates for the judgeships. Once nominated, those candidates run on the general election ballot. In practice, they frequently have no opposition. Unsuccessful candidates for judgeships and a watchdog group filed a lawsuit challenging the system. A federal district judge and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that it is very difficult for candidates to get on the ballot if they don't have support of the party leaders. In striking down the system, the two federal courts said judgeship candidates who are not the choice of the party leaders are excluded from elections by an onerous process that violates their First Amendment rights. The high court on Wednesday reversed the lower courts. Scalia said there is nothing unconstitutional about the process. The system's opponents "complain not of the state law, but of the voters' (and their elected delegates') preference for the choices of the party leadership," Scalia said. He said the state legislature is free to return to a primary if it wishes. Justice John Paul Stevens chimed in with a brief opinion distinguishing between a constitutional system and wise public policy, resorting to the words of former Justice Thurgood Marshall. "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws," Stevens said, quoting Marshall. Critics have said the conventions are patronage-driven affairs in which allies of party leaders are rewarded with judgeships and all others are shut out. The appeals court said that between 1990 and 2002, almost half the state's elections for Supreme Court justice — trial judges in New York's judiciary — were uncontested, calling them "little more than ceremony." The appeals court ordered the state to dispense with the conventions and switch to primary elections until state lawmakers come up with a new plan. Many legal and civics groups have come out in favor of appointing judges in New York. The U.S. Supreme Court previously has ruled that states can decide whether to use conventions or primaries to nominate candidates. States also can choose to have judges appointed rather than elected. Margarita Lopez Torres became the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit after Democratic leaders in Brooklyn blocked her from getting the party's nomination for a Supreme Court judgeship. She said the leaders turned against her shortly after her election as a civil court judge when she would not hire people they recommended. Three years later, Lopez Torres said they offered her a second chance if she would hire a leader's daughter. She refused. The state, the Democratic and Republican parties and the elections board joined to ask the high court to reverse the appeals court ruling. Former New York Mayor Ed Koch was among a diverse group of politicians and legal groups asking the court to uphold the lower court rulings. The state Legislature adopted the nominating conventions 86 years ago. Lawmakers scrapped direct primaries for New York's Supreme Court justices because of the potentially corrupting influence of having prospective judges raising campaign money. Other judges in New York are elected through primaries. The plaintiffs have said the current system leads to cozy relationships among judges, lawyers and politicians. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court Limits Trusts' Tax Deductions
Lawyer News |
2008/01/16 17:02
|
The Supreme Court upheld limits Wednesday on income tax deductions for trusts and estates, ruling against the family that created Pepperidge Farm. The court said trusts ordinarily may not deduct the full cost of investment advice on their income tax returns. Those expenses are deductible only when they exceed 2 percent of adjusted gross income, the same limits faced by individual filers, Chief Justice John Roberts said for a unanimous court. The case arose over a relatively small tax dispute, $4,448, involving the income tax return filed by the trust established by the will of Henry A. Rudkin, former chairman and founder of the Pepperidge Farm company. The trust was funded with the proceeds of the sale of Pepperidge Farm to the Campbell Soup Co. The trust had $2.9 million in assets and $625,000 in income in 2000, the year of the disputed return. The trust reported that it spent $22,241 on investment advice and deducted all of it on its tax return. The Internal Revenue Service said the expenses could be deducted only to the extent they exceeded the 2 percent floor. The discrepancy was $4,448. The trust sued in U.S. Tax Court, which ruled for the government. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling. |
|
|
|
|
|
Appeal Filed in Kucinich Debate Lawsuit
Court Feed News |
2008/01/16 17:00
|
The Nevada Supreme Court said Tuesday MSNBC can exclude Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich from a candidate debate. Lawyers for NBC Universal Inc., had asked the high court to overturn a lower court order that the cable TV news network include the Ohio congressman or pull the plug on broadcasting the debate Tuesday night with Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. An hour before the debate, the state Supreme Court's unanimous order said that blocking the debate unless Kucinich got to participate would be "an unconstitutional prior restraint" on the news network's First Amendment rights. The justices also said the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering Kucinich's participation even though he first requested and was denied relief from the Federal Communications Commission. "It's a matter of being on stage and answering questions. That's the issue," lawyer Bill McGaha argued for Kucinich during a hearing before four justices in Las Vegas. Three other justices participated by closed-circuit video conference from Carson City. Donald Campbell, a Las Vegas lawyer representing NBC Universal, accused Kucinich of trying to make a jurisdictional "end run" around the FCC and federal courts by suing in Nevada state court to be added to the debate. FCC broadcast rules do not apply to cable TV networks, Campbell said, adding that forcing MSNBC to add Kucinich or not broadcast the debate amounted to prior restraint and would be a "clear and unequivocal" violation of First Amendment press freedom. "Mr. Kucinich's claim ... undermines the wide journalistic freedoms enjoyed by news organizations under the First Amendment," Campbell said in his appeal. Campbell said MSNBC decided to go with the top three candidates after the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. Kucinich drew less than 2 percent of the Democratic vote in the New Hampshire primary, after attracting little support in the Iowa caucuses. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court limits investor suits against 3rd parties
Lawyer Blog News |
2008/01/16 15:02
|
In a case born of the accounting scandals that rocked the nation in the first half of the decade the Supreme Court Tuesday limited the ability of defrauded investors to sue accountants, bankers and lawyers who may have helped a company commit the fraud.
The 5-3 decision represents a victory for corporate America, the business lobby and the Bush administration, all of which urged the court to insulate those third parties from so-called "scheme liability," which attempts to reach outside companies who may have contributed to the stock fraud.
"The Supreme Court today handed down a major victory for the U.S. economy and investor welfare," said Stephen Shapiro, the Chicago lawyer who argued the defendants.
The ruling is likely to have a major impact on class-action lawsuits arising from the implosions of Enron Corp. and HealthSouth Corp., among others, making it less likely that those suits will survive. It brought a torrent of criticism from investor advocates and some on Capitol Hill, including Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
The decision, Dodd said, will "protect wrongdoers from the consequences of their actions."
The case involved investors who sued Scientific-Atlanta Inc. and Motorola Inc., vendors for cable company Charter Communications Inc., alleging that the vendors were part of a scheme to misrepresent Charter's revenue and pump up its stock price. When the accounting errors were revealed the stock price plummeted.
The dispute was one some observers labeled the "Roe vs. Wade" of securities law, with more than 30 friend-of-the-court briefs filed. When the case was accepted by the court, speculation mounted on the Bush administration's position. In an unusual move, the White House ignored the advice of the Securities and Exchange Commission, accepting instead the Justice Department's recommendation to side with such groups as the U.S Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the five-justice majority, said that because the vendors made no specific representations about the health of Charter's finances to Charter's investors the vendors weren't liable under federal securities laws. Only the SEC has the authority to bring such "aid-and-abetter" actions against third parties, the court held.
Jeffrey McFadden, a Washington securities litigator, said, "The court looked at the case in very practical terms: Who were the parties that actually made the statements that deceived someone?"
In October Kennedy voiced concern that siding with the investors would result in an explosion of securities litigation. And on Tuesday he seemed to echo that concern in writing, "Were the implied cause of action to be extended to the practices described here, there would be a risk that federal power would be used to invite litigation beyond the immediate sphere of securities litigation."
Kennedy noted the potential impact on the U.S.economy, saying that "contracting parties might find it necessary to protect against these threats. Overseas firms with no other exposure to our securities laws could be deterred from doing business here."
Shapiro, with Chicago firm Mayer Brown, said the outcome actually benefits most investors because a decision the other way would have driven up the costs of outside legal and financial services.
Along with Kennedy, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito formed the majority. Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself from consideration of the case because he owns stock in one of the parties.
Justice John Paul Stevens, with Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, dissented. Stevens wrote that Charter could not have pulled off the accounting fraud without the vendors' help and that the vendors knew that investors would rely on Charter's inflated stock price as a measure of the company's worth. |
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|