|
|
|
Appeals court won't rehear BP settlement issue
Headline Legal News |
2014/05/20 12:54
|
A federal appeals court on Monday refused to reconsider its previous ruling that businesses don't have to prove they were directly harmed by BP's 2010 Gulf Of Mexico oil spill to collect settlement payments.
The decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans could be a step toward resuming a claims process that was suspended after a district court ruling in December. However, BP spokesman Geoff Morrell said in an emailed statement Monday night that the company is considering its legal options.
BP had asked the full 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to rehear the case after a three-judge panel's March ruling. The court voted 8-5 against a rehearing.
The action preserves U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier's (BAHR'-bee-ay) ruling that BP had agreed in a 2012 settlement to pay claims without requiring proof that losses were directly caused by the spill resulting from the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, which killed 11 workers.
Judge Leslie Southwick wrote in Monday's order that a 2012 policy statement, issued by the court-appointed claims administrator and developed with "input and assent from BP," spelled out the criteria for business claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investors to Supreme Court: Deny Argentine do-over
Headline Legal News |
2014/05/09 13:30
|
Argentina's opponents have filed their last arguments with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging justices to deny the South American government's appeal of a $1.4 billion debt ruling because President Cristina Fernandez has repeatedly vowed not to honor any ruling that goes against her.
Argentina wants the court to overturn a ruling it says would provoke a catastrophic default by forcing it to pay $1.4 billion in cash to the investors it calls "vulture funds." These investors, led by billionaire Paul Singer's NML Capital Ltd., snapped up Argentina's defaulted debt when its economy crashed a decade ago and have litigated ever since, seeking payment in full plus interest even after 92 percent of other bondholders agreed to provide generous debt relief in exchange for regular payments on new bonds.
"Argentina already has made clear that it will not obey any adverse decision on the questions it presents," reads NML's brief, filed just before Wednesday night's deadline.
"Argentina ultimately is not interested in any court's views concerning those questions. By Argentina's lights, it has the final word, and it will recognize a judicial ruling only if it accords with Argentina's conclusions," NML said.
The "Aurelius Respondents," another group of hedge funds and holding companies based in the Cayman Islands and the US state of Delaware to avoid scrutiny and taxes, also filed a brief, urging the justices to deny Argentina's "do-over" request. "A chorus of disinterested parties has recognized that Argentina is without peer in its mistreatment of private-sector creditors," their brief said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Casino law hinges on Massachusetts high court case
Headline Legal News |
2014/05/05 16:21
|
The fate of casino gambling in Massachusetts may hinge on a case before the state's highest court Monday.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is set to hear arguments in a case centered on whether a question should be allowed on the November ballot asking voters if they want the state's 2011 casino law repealed. The court is expected to issue a decision by July.
If allowed on the ballot, the referendum could upend the state's ongoing casino licensing process.
Gambling giants MGM, Wynn, Mohegan Sun and others have expressed concern they could lose millions of dollars they've invested in the planning, development and promotion of their proposals if the referendum prevails. They also argue the state risks losing much more.
"Jobs certainty and billions of dollars in economic development hang in the balance," said Carole Brennan, a spokeswoman for MGM, which has proposed an $800 million casino project in downtown Springfield. "The Gaming Act allows for the creation of more than 10,000 jobs and the recapture of billions of dollars in tax revenues that are currently leaving the state. It doesn't make sense to forgo those opportunities."
State Attorney General Martha Coakley, a Democrat running for governor this year, has ruled that the question violates the state constitution and shouldn't be allowed on the ballot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court rejects appeal on sex-offender rules
Headline Legal News |
2014/04/25 11:18
|
The California Supreme Court declined to review a lower court's ruling striking down sex-offender restrictions in Orange County that were among the strictest in the state.
Wednesday's move means that local bans in dozens of California communities are trumped by state law and invalidated, as the 4th District Court of Appeal found in January.
"We're obviously disappointed," Susan Kang Schroeder, chief of staff for Orange County's district attorney, told City News Service. "We put our heart and soul in every brief and every argument to protect the children of Orange County from dangerous sex offenders. ... We still believe it was the right thing to do."
Some 30 cities statewide, half of them in Orange County, have passed sex-offender ordinances that the Supreme Court's action effectively invalidates. To revive them, state law would have to be changed to allow for different local restrictions.
Orange County's restrictions passed in 2011 barred offenders from parks and beaches unless they had written permission from the sheriff.
But in 2012, a county court overturned the misdemeanor conviction of a sex offender, Hugo Godinez, for going to a company picnic at a Fountain Valley park and asked the appeals court to rule on the case and the legality of the regulations.
The appeals judges found that the rule conflicts with laws passed by the state that already provide a "comprehensive statutory scheme regulating the daily life of sex offenders." It struck down a similar ordinance in the city of Irvine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court Rejects Holocaust-Denying Bishop's Appeal
Headline Legal News |
2014/04/15 15:13
|
A German court has rejected an ultraconservative British bishop's appeal against his conviction and fine for denying the Holocaust in a television interview.
The state court in Nuremberg said Friday it found no legal errors in a January 2013 decision by judges in nearby Regensburg to convict Richard Williamson of incitement and fine him 1,800 euros ($2,500).
It was Williamson's second appeal against the ruling and follows a lengthy legal saga — an earlier conviction was overturned on procedural grounds.
Williamson told a Swedish TV station in during a 2008 interview conducted near Regensburg that he didn't believe Jews were killed in gas chambers during World War II. Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany.
A traditionalist breakaway Catholic group, the Society of St. Pius X, expelled Williamson in 2012. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Law Firm Web Design Information |
| Law Promo has worked with attorneys, lawyers and law firms all over the world in designing beautiful law firm websites that look great on all devices, from desktop computers to mobile phones. Law Promo can construct your law firm a brand new responsive law firm website, or help you redesign your existing site to secure your place in the mobile world. Solo Practice Law Firm Website Design |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
