The president's message was that it's important to reduce "unnecessary lawsuits" and that federal securities regulators are in the best position to sue, said Al Hubbard, Bush's chief economic adviser and director of the National Economic Council.

Hubbard said deputy White House counsel Bill Kelley conveyed Bush's perspective to Solicitor General Paul Clement, who represents the government's views before the Supreme Court.

Hubbard said the president communicated his policy views, not specifically what he thought the solicitor general should do.

Bush's role in the case underscores its significance. The outcome of the Supreme Court case could determine whether investors can pursue lawsuits to recover investment losses if they can prove collusion between Wall Street institutions and scandal-ridden companies.

The deadline for siding with investors in the case ended at midnight Monday, and the solicitor general did not file a brief.

The administration will decide in the next 30 days whether to side with the defendant companies or not to participate in the case at all.

The Securities and Exchange Commission voted 3-2 to ask the solicitor general to support shareholders.

Damon Silvers, the AFL-CIO's associate general counsel, criticized Bush's action.

"The president decided that he thinks it's more important to protect his friends than it is to enforce the law," Silvers said.

The issue is whether shareholders can collect damages from investment banks, attorneys and accountants who are thought to have aided in fraud committed by their corporate clients.

The high court's ruling in the case could determine whether the Enron plaintiffs' separate $40 billion lawsuit against the investment banks — stalled by a federal appeals court ruling in March — can proceed.

Thirty state attorneys general sided with investors and referred to the Enron scandal 55 times in a 43-page court filing.

Ms. Taylor was ordered to appear before the Senate committee on July 11. Ms. Miers, who was briefly a nominee for Supreme Court justice, was told to appear before the House panel the following day.

The committees had already voted to authorize such subpoenas, so it was not surprising that they decided today to go ahead and issue them. Still, the action stepped up the political confrontation over the dismissals, and over the general performance of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and the state of the Justice Department.

So far, the White House has said it will not make any current or former officials available to testify before the panels on the matter except in private interviews, with no transcripts kept. The lawmakers have disdained that arrangement as unacceptable.

"By refusing to cooperate with Congressional committees, the White House continues its pattern of confrontation over cooperation, and those who suffer most in this case are the public and the hard-working people at the Department of Justice," Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Senate committee, said in a statement today.

Representative John D. Conyers of Michigan, the chairman of the House committee, said the subpoenas were "a demand on behalf of the American people."

"The breadcrumbs in this investigation have always led to 1600 Pennsylvania," Mr. Conyers said, referring to the White House by its street address. "This investigation will not end until the White House complies with the demands of this subpoena in a timely and reasonable manner, so that we may get to the bottom of this."

The White House reacted quickly today to the subpoenas, arguing that the committees could easily obtain all the facts they need through interviews and relevant documents, but that the Democratic chairmen "are more interested in drama than facts," as Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman, put it in an exchange with reporters.

The latest development follows the Senate Democrats’ attempt to pass a symbolic "no confidence" resolution against Mr. Gonzales. That attempt was thwarted on Monday when Mr. Gonzales’s critics fell seven votes short of the 60 needed to clear a procedural hurdle. That effort, too, was dismissed by the White House as a publicity stunt.

Wild Oats Markets Inc. and Whole Foods Market Inc. will go to court late next month in an attempt to keep the planned merger between the two companies alive.

The Federal Trade Commission has raised concerns about whether the two natural foods grocers should be allowed to merge. The two have agreed to a temporary restraining order, pending the July 31 hearing. The hearing is expected to conclude the next day.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will rule on whether to approve the FTC's request for an injunction to block the merger.

Austin, Texas-based Whole Foods (NASDAQ: WFMI) and Boulder, Colo.'s Wild Oats (NASDAQ: OATS) agreed in February to merge. Whole Foods offered $18.50 a share, plus taking over all of Wild Oats' debt.

Whole Foods has 195 stores, including two in New Mexico, and annual sales last year of $5.6 billion, while Wild Oats has 109 stores, including four in New Mexico, and $1.2 billion in sales.

A small Kane County newspaper and its former columnist have accused the biggest names in the state judiciary of violating Illinois citizens' basic constitutional rights.

In the process, the state court system returns to uncharted waters.

The Shaw Suburban Media Group, which runs the Kane County Chronicle, is suing seven Illinois Supreme Court justices, three Illinois appellate court justices and the Cook County circuit court judge who presided over a defamation trial against the newspaper.

It is the latest fallout from the lawsuit Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Thomas won against the paper and its former columnist, St. Charles resident Bill Page.

"They filed a frivolous lawsuit in federal court and they should be sanctioned for that," said Chicago attorney Joseph Power, who represents Thomas. "It is absurd."

Thomas, of Wheaton, filed a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper and Page for three columns Page wrote in 2003. The columns accused Thomas of abusing his power to gain support for a friend running for a Kane County judgeship. Page claimed Thomas would agree to reduced punishment for then-Kane County State's Attorney Meg Gorecki - who was facing ethics violations - in exchange for support of his candidate.

Last Nov. 15 a Kane County jury sided with Thomas after a nearly three-week trial.

The federal lawsuit filed Tuesday seeks to have the libel verdict and $4 million judgment, reduced by the trial judge from the $7 million the jury granted, against the paper thrown out. The lawsuit also asks for a ban to be instituted on filing a new lawsuit against the paper while Thomas and the justices remain employed in the state court system.

The lawsuit also asks for attorney fees, an unspecified amount of damages and a stay on the 9 percent daily interest accruing on the judgment while the newspaper appeals.

Essentially, the lawsuit contends the newspaper can not receive a fair appeal of the case because the appellate court judges are under the control of Thomas. Also, unlike other cases, the newspaper cannot appeal for a hearing before the Illinois Supreme Court because five of the current seven justices were witnesses in the case and must recuse themselves, leaving less than the quorum required by law to hear a case.

"In a broader sense, the complaint is precedent-setting because this suit is the first in the nation to challenge the fairness of a personal lawsuit brought by a judge controlling a state court system," wrote Washington, D.C.-based attorney Bruce Sanford. He frequently represents media interests and filed the lawsuit on behalf of the newspaper and Page.

Sanford said the judgment cannot be enforced because it violates the civil rights of the newspaper.

Power said the newspaper had an opportunity to file a request to have Cook County Judge Donald O'Brien, a former defense attorney, removed as the trial judge in the case and did not. It was originally at the newspaper's behest the Supreme Court justices recused themselves.

"You can't have it both ways," Power said.

Sanford contends neither the federal courts nor a state-appointed panel of judges can fix the constitutional problems by hearing the case. The state lacks a procedure for this type of situation, because a similar case has never arisen.

"We have filed this lawsuit with great reluctance as we hoped the state court system would be able to protect our rights. That plainly is not the case," said Thomas Shaw, president of Shaw Suburban Media Group.

The lawsuit questions Thomas' ethical right to file the lawsuit in the first place because justices are expected to put the avoidance of the appearance of judicial impropriety above their personal gain.

Power said Thomas has as much a right to protect his reputation and a trial by jury as anyone else.

Once the defamation case hit the court, the lawsuit contends the newspaper and Page's due process, equal protection and First Amendment rights were violated by allowing justices to refrain from commenting on their deliberations in the Gorecki case because of judicial privilege and having Illinois judges hear a case with their boss, Thomas, as the plaintiff.

The trial judge and subsequent appellate court judges were all selected by the Supreme Court, five of whom are involved in the case, Sanford contended in a news release.

"One cannot doubt the obvious unfairness inherent in asking the inferior judicial officers appointed to this appeal to sit in judgment over a $4 million award to their Chief Justice and to evaluate the testimony of both the Chief Justice and his fellow Justices - their judicial bosses ...," Sanford wrote.

"I have never seen anything like it before. A Chief Justice enlists his colleagues on the bench as his witnesses to help him win a huge trial verdict and then expects the newspaper to be satisfied with its right to appeal within the court system he controls."

Corporate Board Member magazine ranked Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP as the best corporate law firm in Los Angeles and ninth nationally in its seventh annual survey of general counsels.  In a separate survey, the firm ranked seventh by directors for law firms they would most want representing their companies on national matters.

Approximately 800 directors and over 200 general counsels of publicly traded companies were surveyed to identify the top 20 firms nationally and the top five firms in 25 major U.S. cities. The rankings are included in the July/August issue of the magazine in the "America's Best Corporate Lawyers" feature and is available at http://www.boardmember.com/issues/current.


http://www.gibsondunn.com

"Joe has a great deal of experience working with hedge funds that make secured asset-based loans," said Richard P. Eckman, chairman of Pepper's Financial Services Practice Group. "He also is experienced in collateral debt offering transactions, a growing part of our practice, as well as aircraft financings, and the drafting and review of liquidity facilities. He is a terrific addition to our hedge fund and finance practices, and we are delighted to welcome him to the firm."

Mr. Voyticky joins Pepper from the New York office of Allen & Overy LLP, where he was a senior associate concentrating on structured finance, global loans and leveraged finance. His practice also includes working on unsecured credit facilities, receivables purchases and sales, synthetic leases, leveraged leases and restructuring transactions.

"Pepper has a sophisticated finance and hedge fund practice, and I am excited by the prospect of helping it grow in New York and nationally," said Mr. Voyticky. "I look forward to building my practice while being a resource to existing firm clients on finance matters."

Mr. Voyticky is a graduate of Union College (B.A. 1989) and Harvard Law School (J.D. 1992).

About Pepper Hamilton

Pepper Hamilton LLP (www.pepperlaw.com) is a multi-practice law firm with more than 450 lawyers in seven states and the District of Columbia. The firm provides corporate, litigation and regulatory legal services to leading businesses, governmental entities, nonprofit organizations and individuals throughout the nation and the world. The firm was founded in 1890.

Pepper expanded its New York office and moved to a new address in Manhattan in October 2006. In addition to assisting clients in the financial services industry, lawyers in the New York office handle corporate matters, private equity, commercial and pharmaceutical litigation, international transactions and dispute resolution, employee benefits and executive compensation, and corporate restructuring and bankruptcy.

Pepper's Financial Services Practice Group includes more than 45 lawyers focusing on issues affecting the financial services industry.