Supporters and opponents of California's ban on same-sex marriage were
anxiously awaiting a federal appeals court decision Tuesday on whether
the voter-approved measure violates the civil rights of gay men and
lesbians.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that
considered the question plans to issue its long-awaited opinion 18
months after a trial judge struck down the ban following the first
federal trial to examine if same-sex couples have a constitutional right
to get married.
The 9th Circuit does not typically give notice of its forthcoming
rulings, and its decision to do so Monday reflects the intense interest
in the case.
Even if the panel upholds the lower court ruling, it could be a while
before same-sex couples can resume marrying in the state. Proposition 8
backers plan to appeal to a larger 9th Circuit panel and then to the
U.S. Supreme Court if they lose in the intermediate court. Marriages
would likely stay on hold while that process plays out.
The three-judge panel, consisting of judges appointed by presidents
Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, heard arguments on the
ban's constitutional implications more than a year ago. But it put off a
decision so it could seek guidance from the California Supreme Court on
whether Proposition 8 sponsors had legal authority to challenge the
trial court ruling after California's attorney general and governor
decided not to appeal it.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Oracle rejects $272M SAP award, wants new trial
Database software maker Oracle is rejecting a court-ordered award for
$272 million from German rival SAP, saying it would rather have another
trial over SAP's theft of software and customer-support documents.
A jury awarded Oracle Corp. $1.3 billion in the case in November 2010, but a federal judge cut that amount last September. Oracle said then that it would seek a new trial.
In a Monday court filing, the Redwood City, Calif., company says it rejected the award.
SAP AG has admitted that a now-closed subsidiary, TomorrowNow, pilfered Oracle's intellectual property. Oracle argued that this helped SAP undercut Oracle for similar services. SAP said it didn't make much use of the documents and should have to pay only $40 million.
A jury awarded Oracle Corp. $1.3 billion in the case in November 2010, but a federal judge cut that amount last September. Oracle said then that it would seek a new trial.
In a Monday court filing, the Redwood City, Calif., company says it rejected the award.
SAP AG has admitted that a now-closed subsidiary, TomorrowNow, pilfered Oracle's intellectual property. Oracle argued that this helped SAP undercut Oracle for similar services. SAP said it didn't make much use of the documents and should have to pay only $40 million.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Police witnesses called in fake 'Rockefeller' case
A Superior Court judge testified in a murder case against a man who
posed as an heir to the Rockefeller fortune, saying that more than two
decades ago he lent a chain saw to the defendant while the two were
living in San Marino.
William Stewart said he was a lawyer when Christian Gerhartsreiter, then known as Christopher Chichester, asked to borrow an electric chain saw in late 1984 or early 1985.
"He said he had a problem with a branch on a tree that was scratching a window," Stewart said Thursday.
Stewart, who met the defendant at his church, said Chichester kept the tool for several months, returning it just before leaving town in the spring of 1985.
The hearing for Gerhartsreiter will determine whether there is enough evidence to put him on trial for the apparent bludgeoning death of John Sohus that only came to light when the victim's bones were dug up at the former home of John and Linda Sohus in 1994, nearly 10 years after the couple vanished. Gerhartsreiter was a tenant in the guesthouse at the home.
William Stewart said he was a lawyer when Christian Gerhartsreiter, then known as Christopher Chichester, asked to borrow an electric chain saw in late 1984 or early 1985.
"He said he had a problem with a branch on a tree that was scratching a window," Stewart said Thursday.
Stewart, who met the defendant at his church, said Chichester kept the tool for several months, returning it just before leaving town in the spring of 1985.
The hearing for Gerhartsreiter will determine whether there is enough evidence to put him on trial for the apparent bludgeoning death of John Sohus that only came to light when the victim's bones were dug up at the former home of John and Linda Sohus in 1994, nearly 10 years after the couple vanished. Gerhartsreiter was a tenant in the guesthouse at the home.
Judge rules against NYC court protest organizers
A judge has ruled demonstrators don't have a First Amendment right to
protest Friday afternoon in front of a New York City federal courthouse
that has hosted several major terrorism trials.
Judge Lewis Kaplan said Thursday he wouldn't order the federal government to let an Occupy the Courts demonstration occur outside the lower Manhattan courthouse. He says the space isn't a public forum and the government acted reasonably in denying a permit.
A government lawyer says the courthouse poses unique security concerns in part because of terrorism fears.
Protest organizers had asked the judge to overturn the General Services Administration's rejection of their permit application. Their lawsuit said their First Amendment rights were violated.
The nationwide protest marks the second anniversary of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling against limits on spending by independent organizations.
Judge Lewis Kaplan said Thursday he wouldn't order the federal government to let an Occupy the Courts demonstration occur outside the lower Manhattan courthouse. He says the space isn't a public forum and the government acted reasonably in denying a permit.
A government lawyer says the courthouse poses unique security concerns in part because of terrorism fears.
Protest organizers had asked the judge to overturn the General Services Administration's rejection of their permit application. Their lawsuit said their First Amendment rights were violated.
The nationwide protest marks the second anniversary of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling against limits on spending by independent organizations.
Hausfeld LLP Files Class Action Suit
Hausfeld LLP has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of
those who sold HearUSA common stock between January 18, 2011 and July
31, 2011, inclusive. The lawsuit, filed January 18, 2012, seeks to
pursue remedies against Siemens Hearing Instruments, Inc. (“Siemens”)
for violations of Sections 10(b), 9(a)(2) and 18(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78i(a)(2), and 78r(a)] and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (“SEC”) [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]. Siemens is engaged, in part,
in the manufacture of hearing products, and HearUSA was involved in the
distribution of Siemens’ hearing products. The complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and is
captioned MTB Investment Partners, LP vs. Siemens Hearing Instruments,
Inc.
The complaint alleges that Siemens engaged in a fraudulent scheme to drive down the price of HearUSA common stock in an attempt to acquire HearUSA’s assets for less than their fair market value by, in part, filing false and misleading statements with the SEC. The result of Siemens’ false and misleading statements, according to the complaint, was to drive down the market price of HearUSA common stock from 90¢/share on January 18, 2011 to 35¢/share on July 28, 2011.
According to the complaint, Siemens made a number of false and/or misleading statements in its public filings which caused HearUSA stock to plummet. These public filings stated that Siemens at no point had the intention to acquire HearUSA, despite the fact that it had been in the advanced stages of a negotiated buyout process for HearUSA. The public filings further stated that Siemens, if it wanted to acquire HearUSA, could do so at no consideration to shareholders because of debts owed to Siemens by HearUSA. The complaint alleges that this assertion misrepresented the status and extent of the debt owed to Siemens by HearUSA and Siemens’ ability to acquire HearUSA pursuant to the credit agreement entered into between the two companies. The complaint alleges that, in making these statements, Siemens effectively told the market that HearUSA stock was worthless, and that the market responded accordingly.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, William Butterfield of Hausfeld LLP at (202)540-7200 or via email at wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com.
The complaint alleges that Siemens engaged in a fraudulent scheme to drive down the price of HearUSA common stock in an attempt to acquire HearUSA’s assets for less than their fair market value by, in part, filing false and misleading statements with the SEC. The result of Siemens’ false and misleading statements, according to the complaint, was to drive down the market price of HearUSA common stock from 90¢/share on January 18, 2011 to 35¢/share on July 28, 2011.
According to the complaint, Siemens made a number of false and/or misleading statements in its public filings which caused HearUSA stock to plummet. These public filings stated that Siemens at no point had the intention to acquire HearUSA, despite the fact that it had been in the advanced stages of a negotiated buyout process for HearUSA. The public filings further stated that Siemens, if it wanted to acquire HearUSA, could do so at no consideration to shareholders because of debts owed to Siemens by HearUSA. The complaint alleges that this assertion misrepresented the status and extent of the debt owed to Siemens by HearUSA and Siemens’ ability to acquire HearUSA pursuant to the credit agreement entered into between the two companies. The complaint alleges that, in making these statements, Siemens effectively told the market that HearUSA stock was worthless, and that the market responded accordingly.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, William Butterfield of Hausfeld LLP at (202)540-7200 or via email at wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com.
Heitman Law Firm, PL. - Florida Construction Law Attorney
Palm Beach Construction Law Attorney
High Quality Legal RepresentationBy quality, we mean degree of excellence. Heitman Law Firm practices construction law. Mr. Heitman is an expert in construction law, board certified by the Florida Bar. He is a member of an elite group of board certified construction attorneys. In addition, Mr. Heitman is a Florida Licensed Professional Engineer, with years of experience building real world construction projects. As such, the Firm is extremely well qualified to render its clients high quality legal representation.
Client Service
Heitman Law Firm serves its clients by first comprehending the specific issues our clients face and then tailoring our representation to those specific needs. Construction law cases often involve legal, technical, engineering, design, constructability and scheduling issues. We speak the language of construction. We understand your business. We know how to read a set of plans. Our client service is based on the idea that the client should not be required to pay to bring us up to speed on the construction issues. Instead, we make it our business to be ahead of the learning curve.
Herskovits PLLC - New York Securities Litigation Law Firm
New York Securities Litigation Law Firm
New York Securities Litigation AttorneysWe are trusted advisors for litigation and regulatory enforcement matters. When disputes arise – in the enforcement, customer and employment context – we are skilled negotiators, using every available resource to protect our clients and minimize disruption to their business.
When litigation is unavoidable, however, we are tenacious advocates with time-tested experience before state and federal courts and regulatory bodies, and in a broad range of arbitration and mediation settings.
Leveraging decades of collective experience in the financial services sector, our firm was established to help clients respond to this rapidly changing environment and highly complex marketplace.
Please click the links below to learn more about our law firm's practice areas:
Securities Litigation and Arbitration
Securities Industry Regulatory Defense
Broker-Dealer Advisory Services
Securities Industry Employment Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)