|
|
|
SEC Sued by a Stanford Financial Investor
Headline Legal News |
2009/02/26 14:39
|
The Securities and Exchange Commission wrongfully froze the assets of account holders in Stanford Financial Group's Houston and Antigua institutions when it shut down the company's operations based on allegations of fraud, a Stanford investor claims in Federal Court.
J. Mark Brewster says his funds are being held for Stanford Financial by Pershing LLC, an investment firm affiliated with the Bank of New York Mellon, but the SEC prohibits Pershing from allowing him and other Stanford investors access to the $50 billion in savings Pershing is holding.
Brewster claims the SEC violated due process by to obtaining orders from a federal judge in Dallas when the courthouse was closed for President's Day "without notice to anyone and without an opportunity to be heard by anyone."
"There were no members of the public present," Brewster says. "Instead the SEC lawyers simply provided a written statement to the court to act without any 'notice or hearing.'"
They used these orders to shut down Stanford Financial's Houston offices, and to appoint Ralph Janvey, a Dallas lawyer in private practice, as receiver to manage Stanford customers' $50 billion in assets.
"The order gives absolutely no information about (Janvey) not even his address or phone number," Brewster says. "Only the SEC knows him.
"How he came to be selected by the SEC as the agency's favored take-over specialist is shrouded in mystery in violation of due process and without any transparency," Brewster states.
U.S. Marshals carried out the SEC's order to shut down Stanford Financial's offices in Houston and Antigua on Feb. 16, based on allegations that the company was running an $8 billion Ponzi scheme.
But Brewster complains, "The SEC's motion is full innuendo, bravado and hyperbole, but lacks any facts to the alleged violations by SFG or why seizure of innocent investors' accounts is warranted."
Brewster is represented by Sondra Jurica. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oklahoma Employees Allowed to Keep Guns In Locked Cars
Topics in Legal News |
2009/02/23 10:04
|
Oklahoma employers can't stop employees from storing guns in their locked vehicles in company parking lots, the 10th Circuit ruled. A three-judge panel reinstated laws that hold employers criminally liable for banning the storage of guns in locked cars, saying the amendments do not "materially impede or thwart" federal law.
After several employees had been fired for keeping guns in their locked vehicles, the state Legislature amended its gun laws in 2004 to hold employers criminally liable for prohibiting guns in vehicles.
A group of businesses challenged the amendments as too vague and an unconstitutional taking of company property. They also argued that the amendments violated their due process rights and were pre-empted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA).
A federal judge granted their motion for a temporary restraining order and ordered extensive briefing on the issue of pre-emption. The judge then rejected the plaintiffs' constitutional claims, but determined that the laws were pre-empted by federal law and permanently enjoined their enforcement.
On appeal, the state argued against "conflict pre-emption," saying the amendments didn't impede or block any federal laws or policies.
The federal appeals court in Denver sided with the state, saying the OSHA regulates work-related hazards, not workplace violence.
"OSHA has not indicated in any way that employers should prohibit firearms from company parking lots," Judge Baldock wrote.
The panel reversed the injunction and reinstated the amendments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 Year Old Pleads Guilty In Father's Shooting Death
Headline Legal News |
2009/02/20 09:27
|
Now that the charges against a 9-year-old boy accused in a double homicide have been resolved, attorneys in the case say they are hopeful he will receive the treatment he needs to move past the incident and have a chance at a normal life.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys say treatment options were a vital part of a plea agreement the boy signed Thursday. He had faced two counts of premeditated murder in the deaths of his father and his father's roommate. He pleaded guilty to negligent homicide in the death of 39-year-old Timothy Romans, and the murder charge stemming from the death of his father, 29-year-old Vincent Romero, was dropped.
"I think this experience probably can change an individual, and I'm hoping this doesn't tremendously change him," said defense attorney Benjamin Brewer. "To be as normal a kid as possible, it would be something we'd like to strive for."
Apache County Attorney Michael Whiting said prosecutors had two options in the case: proceed and risk that the boy be found incompetent and receive no treatment or have him enter a plea agreement.
"We discussed that and felt better that he be under the state's care, that he get treatment," he said.
The boy has not been sentenced. Apache County Superior Court Judge Michael Roca will decide whether the boy will serve time in a county juvenile facility, be institutionalized for treatment or live with relatives.
The boy's plea spares the rural community of about 4,000 from what would have been an emotional trial and prevents the boy from serving time in the state juvenile corrections system or being tried as an adult.
He was polite in court and was never asked to explain any motive for the killings.
Defense attorney Ron Wood said the plea deal was a compromise that wouldn't please everyone.
"I don't know it was the best thing. That remains to be seen," he said. "This resolution of the case causes more potential for working out in (the boy's) favor."
The boy's mother cried throughout the hearing and, through her lawyer, objected to the plea deal. But Superior Court Judge Michael Roca accepted it.
In court Thursday, the boy was more talkative and relaxed than in previous hearings, laughing and chatting with his lawyer and mother.
But his demeanor became more serious as the hearing got under way. The judge questioned him for nearly half an hour, about whether he understood his rights, the terms of the plea agreement and the consequences.
The boy answered respectfully and politely, using "yes, sir" or "no, sir" in most cases. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Soul Man" Sues MGM and The Weinstein Co.
Court Watch |
2009/02/19 09:00
|
Sam Moore, "The Legendary Soul Man," sued The Weinstein Co. and MGM Studios for trademark infringement, privacy invasion and unfair competition, saying the studios made an offensive movie allegedly based on his life, called "Soul Men." Moore and the late Dave Prater - Sam & Dave - sang the immortal ditties, "Soul Man," "Hold On, I'm Comin'" and others.
Moore sued The Weinstein Company dba Dimension Films, MGM Studios, Genius Products, Concord Music Group, Harvey Weinstein, and Bob Weinstein.
The federal complaint states: "In early 2008, Sam Moore learned from a press release that TWC and the Weinsteins were producing a new film entitled 'Soul Men' about a lack duo from the 1960s that broke apart and was reunited after a long separation to perform a tribute at the famed Apollo Theater. The movie's title, theme, characters and music (the Memphis sound which became synonymous with Stax Records) immediately raised suspicions that the lead characters of the movie were being passed off as 'Sam and Dave.'"
He claims the movie contains "many references to Sam Moore." He claims that the "shooting script," which Moore apparently obtained, includes the direction: "(O)ver the opening credits 'The infectious, foot tapping sounds of 'Sam & Dave' rendition of 'Sweet Soul Music' plays over the credits. While that song plays, the script then provides for vintage footage to place the movie's lead characters, the singing duo The Real Deal, into their era - the 1960s and 1970s."
Sam & Dave were a hit act from 1961 to 1971. The complaint cites numerous other parts of the shooting script to substantiate the claim that the film is based on Sam & Dave. Moore claims that the movie and ads for it have been "highly damaging to Sam Moore, because among other things, the movie is filled with incessant, gratuitous and offensive language; the movie contains unnecessary, inappropriate and vulgar sexual content; the lead character identified with Sam Moore engages in the criminal use of a handgun; the lead characters' musical performances, most particularly Sam & Dave song, 'Hold On I'm Comin',' are so poor as to make a mockery of Sam Moore's talent; and the characters engage in the use of constant, repeated and despicable racial slurs and epithets."
Moore alleges conspiracy, trademark violation and dilution, unjust enrichment, unfair competition, deceptive competition, unfair publicity and privacy invasion. He wants all copies of the movie and all products associated with it recalled, plus punitive damages and disclaimers.
Moore is represented by Steven Zralek with Bone McAllester & Norton. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Sues Microsoft for Vista to XP $104 Downgrade
Court Watch |
2009/02/13 08:55
|
A federal class action claims Microsoft used its market power to force consumers to buy computers with a pre-installed, clunky and defective Windows Vista operating system, forcing them to spend more money to "downgrade" to the more reliable Windows XP. The class claims Microsoft extended its $104 "downgrade" offer twice, to reap "tremendous profits" from it.
"Microsoft prohibited its OEMs [Original Equipment Manufacturers] Dell/HP/Sony etc. from selling new computers with Windows XP operating systems pre-installed," the class claims. They say Microsoft made it impossible for consumers to buy new computers with Windows XP, but charged $104 extra to downgrade from Vista to XP. Microsoft extended its $104 downgrade offer twice, most recently until July 31, 2009, to reap "tremendous profits" from the combination of clunky new system and relatively better old one, the complaint states. It claims that nearly 1 in 3 people who buy a computer with Vista downgrade to XP.
The Windows Vista operating system, released on Jan. 31, 2007, was not well received.
Plaintiffs claim Microsoft controls 90% of the "relevant market," and announced on July 18, 2007, that it had sold more than 180 Vista licenses - totting up gross sales of $30 billion to $60 billion from it. "However, these figures are believed to include Vista licenses that are downgraded to Windows XP."
The complaint claims Microsoft "willfully acquired monopoly power and have maintained such monopoly control over the relevant market by suppressing competition in the Intel-compatible PC operating systems software market through restrictive and exclusionary conduct. Defendants suppressed competition with the specific intent of acquiring and obtaining such monopoly power."
They claim Microsoft fixed prices for Windows XP at "supra-competitive levels" and forced consumers to downgrade to it due to the clunky Vista program.
They claim, "Microsoft prohibited its OEMs [Original Equipment Manufacturers] Dell/HP/Sony etc. from selling new computers with Windows XP operating systems pre-installed."
The class demands treble damages for unfair business practices and state antitrust violations. Plaintiffs are represented by Beth Terrell with Terrell Marshall & Daudi. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
