|
|
|
Court likely to overturn Calif. law on livestock
Court Line News |
2011/11/11 09:46
|
The Supreme Court seemed ready Wednesday to block a California law that would require euthanizing downed livestock at federally inspected slaughterhouses to keep the meat out of the nation's food system.
The court heard an appeal from the National Meat Association, which wants a 2009 state law blocked from going into effect. California barred the purchase, sale and butchering of animals that can't walk and required slaughterhouses under the threat of fines and jail time to immediately kill nonambulatory animals.
But justices said that encroached on federal laws that don't require immediate euthanizing.
The federal law does not require me immediately to go over and euthanize the cow. Your law does require me to go over and immediately euthanize the cow. And therefore, your law seems an additional requirement in respect to the operations of a federally inspected meatpacking facility, Justice Stephen Breyer told a California lawyer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SearchMedia Announces Settlement on Securities Class Action
Topics in Legal News |
2011/11/11 09:42
|
SearchMedia Holdings Limited, one of China's leading nationwide multi-platform media companies, today announced that it reached a tentative partial settlement agreement for a securities class action lawsuit pending against the Company and a number of its current and former directors, officers and employees.
The securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Murdeshwar v. SearchMedia Holdings Limited, et al., Case no. 1:11-cv-20549-KMW) against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in relation to various disclosures regarding the Company's acquisition of SearchMedia International Ltd. and the financial condition of that company.
The partial settlement agreement is made on behalf of the defendants who served as directors and officers of Ideation Acquisition Corp. (the Settling Defendants) without any admission of wrongdoing on the part of the Settling Defendants and provides for a settlement fund of $2.75 million, which the Company expects to be entirely funded by its insurance carriers. The partial settlement agreement remains subject to court approval and certain other conditions including execution of a stipulation of settlement, notice to class members, and an opportunity for class members to object or opt out of the settlement.
The securities class action lawsuit remains pending against other defendants who reside in China and who have not been served with the complaint and summons. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ala. county files for largest municipal bankruptcy
Topics in Legal News |
2011/11/10 09:46
|
Alabama’s most populous county filed what became the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history in an effort to retake control of its beleaguered sewer system and wipe away as much of its whopping $4.15 billion in debt as possible.
Jefferson County’s Chapter 9 filing on Wednesday gives it protection from creditors while it develops and negotiates a plan for adjusting its debts. It could accomplish that by extending debt maturities, reducing the amount of principal or interest, or refinancing the debt by obtaining a new loan.
Perhaps the biggest is the potential impact on the county’s 658,000 residents, who could be asked to pay higher sewer rates. Officials say it’s too early to assess the full impact, though bankruptcy filings can lead to layoffs, tax increases, pension reductions for public workers, and spending cuts on things like schools and roads. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pomerantz Law Firm Has Filed a Class Action
Court Line News |
2011/11/10 09:46
|
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman amp; Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Diamond Foods, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action (CV 11 5399 RS) filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, is on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Diamond during the period from December 9, 2010 through and including November 4, 2011 (the Class Period), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act). This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.
If you are a shareholder who purchased DMND securities during the Class Period, you have until January 6, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x350. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the Company overstated its earnings by improperly accounting for certain crop payments to walnut growers; (2) the Company's acquisition of Pringles snack business would be delayed; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C., is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court upholds conviction in Pa. murder case
Headline Legal News |
2011/11/08 09:22
|
The Supreme Court used its first opinion of the new term on Tuesday to uphold the murder conviction of a man in a Pennsylvania grocery store shooting.
The high court on Tuesday upheld Eric Greene's conviction in the 1993 shooting death of the owner of a grocery store in North Philadelphia.
Greene had complained that the confessions of some of the men who were with him at the time of the shooting should not have been introduced at his trial since they were not testifying. The introduction of those redacted confessions violated his right to confront his accusers, Greene said.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his conviction, despite the fact that the Supreme Court had decided a similar case in 1998 that would have supported Greene's claim.
The Supreme Court, which heard arguments on this case in October, unanimously agreed with the lower court. The 1998 decision in Gray v. Maryland came after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled on Greene's case, noted Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the term's first opinion of an argued case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court looks at warrantless GPS tracking
Lawyer Media News |
2011/11/08 09:21
|
The Supreme Court has expressed deep reservations about police use of GPS technology to track criminal suspects without a warrant.
But the justices appeared unsettled Tuesday about how or whether to regulate GPS tracking and other high-tech surveillance techniques.
The court heard arguments in the Obama administration's appeal of a court ruling that threw out a drug conspiracy conviction because FBI agents and local police did not have a valid search warrant when they installed a GPS device on the defendant's car and collected travel information.
The justices were taken aback when the lawyer representing the government said police officers could install GPS devices on the justices' cars and track their movements without a warrant.
The court has previously ruled there is no expectation of privacy on public roads. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
