LAW BLOG NEWSLETTER
from The Wall Street Journal Online
April 27, 2009 -- 6:30 p.m.
___________________________________
TODAY'S POSTS
- Coming Soon, to a Movie Theater Near You: Tort Reform Videos!
- Harvard Prof. Rebuffs Notre Dame Over Obama Invitation
- 5th Cir. Hears Appeal in Alleged Halliburton Rape Case
- Motown or Gotham? GM, Chrysler Weighing the Pros and Cons
- Recession Advice to Associates: Keep Your Head Down and Work
- DOJ's Suit Against UBS Playing Out at a Higher Level
- All Quiet on the Western Front: Broadcom, Qualcomm Reach $891M Deal
- More (State) Regulations for Banks? High Court to Weigh In
- ACLU: Chris Christie, Tracker of Cell Phones, Is "Big Brother"
***
Coming Soon, to a Movie Theater Near You: Tort Reform Videos!
And now for a little curmudgeonly rant: We don't like movie trailers. Never have. We don't like that they hold you captive before the movie starts, often give away far too much of a movie's plot, and we really don't like that these days they can delay the start of the movie by 15 or 20 minutes. (Part of it's our own fault - we always feel so silly having finished our Raisinets before the movie's opening credits roll.)
Well, now comes a movie trailer the likes of which we might actually get to the theater early for: a law-related movie trailer. That's right. Next month, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will unveil four short clips to run before feature films in Washington, D.C.-area movie houses. The clips, which you can watch here, all tell a story of supposed "Lawsuit Abuse" - cases in which people were allegedly dragged into the legal system with the filing of a frivolous lawsuit. One features the parents of a 7-year old child who was sued after a skiing accident. Another features a small business that was sued after a goose that was staying on its property snapped at a passer-by.
"Lawsuit abuse and the harm it brings to everyday Americans and small businesses is one of the great American tragedies," says Lisa Rickard, the president of the Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform, formerly of Akin, Gump. That's why the silver screen is the perfect venue for these Faces of Lawsuit Abuse short films."
According to a U.S. Chamber spokesman, the trailers will air "for at least a month" at four theaters in D.C. - including the Regal Gallery Place Stadium 14 (pictured), which is very close to the headquarters of the American Association for Justice, a main lobbying arm for the nation's trial lawyers. After that, says a U.S. Chamber spokesman, they'll move to a handful of theaters outside the Beltway.
We checked in with a spokesman for the AAJ, Ray DeLorenzi, who gave us this fun little quote. "With U.S. Chamber's core membership receiving all those taxpayer bailouts, they must be flush with cash to waste on PR stunts like this. Like their lobbying agenda, these ads are rated NC - not suitable for consumers."
Now, we'll just sit back and hope that someday the AAJ's unveils its own movie trailers. Ah, such fun.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/04/27/coming-soon-to-a-movie-theater-near-you-tort-reform-videos#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
Harvard Prof. Rebuffs Notre Dame Over Obama Invitation
Ivy League law professors are often derided by folks on the center-to-right side of the political spectrum as out-of-touch, Volvo-driving, ivory-tower liberals. While we haven't done our own research on the exact degree to which that's true, we do suspect that the faculties at the top law schools tilt to the political left (though whether Volvos are indeed the car of choice, we have no idea).
That said, we were reminded today that not everyone is of the same political stripe. Take Harvard Law School's Mary Ann Glendon, a conservative pro-lifer who turned down an award from the University of Notre Dame because she disagrees with the school's decision to invite President Obama to deliver this year's commencement address. Click here for the story, from CNN.com.
In a letter to the university's president, Glendon explained her decision not to attend the commencement ceremony and not to accept the Laetare Medal from the university in a letter to Notre Dame's president. She wrote:
"I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree." She also said that she considered the decision to give Obama an honorary degree a violation of a request from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that Catholic institutions not honor individuals who act in defiance of the church's fundamental principles or give awards or platforms that suggest support for the actions of such individuals.
Glendon also said in the letter that she was concerned by the university's use of her planned involvement in the graduation ceremony as a way to balance Obama's appearance.
A commencement "is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame's decision . . . to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church's position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice," Glendon told Notre Dame's president.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/04/27/harvard-prof-rebuffs-notre-dame-over-obama-invitation#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
5th Cir. Hears Appeal in Alleged Halliburton Rape Case
The Fifth Circuit heard arguments on Monday in an interesting case involving a Texas woman who claims she was raped by co-workers while working for Halliburton Co. in Iraq. Click here for the early AP report.
The woman, Jamie Leigh Jones, sued Halliburton and several subsidiaries in 2005. Halliburton says Jones signed an agreement that requires all of her claims against the companies stemming from the alleged rape to be resolved through private arbitration.
But Jones wants her case to be heard by a federal-court jury, not a panel of arbitrators.
Jones's lawyer, Daniel Ross, argued at the lower-court level that the clause should not apply to a claim involving sexual assault because it was not a "work-related" matter. In his decision, federal district court judge Keith Ellison found in her favor, writing: "This court does not believe that plaintiff's bedroom should be considered the workplace, even though her housing was provided by her employer." Click here for a report on that decision, which was handed down last May; click here for that decision itself.
Shortly after the ruling, Halliburton subsidiary KBR issued a statement saying: "KBR in no way condones or tolerates sexual harassment . . . Any reported allegation of sexual harassment is taken seriously and thoroughly investigated."
No criminal charges have been brought in the case.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/04/27/5th-cir-hears-appeal-in-alleged-halliburton-rape-case#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
Motown or Gotham? GM, Chrysler Weighing the Pros and Cons
Where will GM and Chrysler go? In the long run, it's anybody's guess. But in the short term, the answer seems to be narrowing to two cities: Detroit and New York. According to an article in the NYT Monday, courtrooms in those cities appear to be the frontrunners to land the bankruptcy filings of both car companies - if they choose that route.
The stakes are high for both cities, but perhaps higher for the Motor City. The influx of lawyers, bankers, journalists and others spurred by a Detroit filing would likely give a badly needed boost to the Michigan economy. (According to a WSJ story on Monday, car dealers could be the next group to be running to the courthouse doors, bankruptcy filings in hand, once GM or Chrysler file.)
Once upon a time, large corporate debtors would file in jurisdictions all over the country. But in recent years, most have chosen to file either in Delaware, where many business are incorporated, and New York. As a result, each has developed a reputation for having the resources - and the judicial expertise - to handle huge bankruptcies.
But according to the NYT article, Delaware could be pulling up third in the running, largely because of rulings that make it hard to restructure certain types of collective bargaining agreements.
So how does Detroit enter the picture? After all, according to the piece, Detroit's biggest bankruptcy case was by a 1994 filing by F&M Distributors, a retailer with $328 million in assets - a far cry from what G.M. or Chrysler would presumably have on their books at the time of a filing. At the time it filed, for instance, Lehman Brothers had $639 billion in assets.
And Penn's David Skeel says that a Detroit filing might be a bit risky for GM or Chrysler, given that the court has given few signals on how it would resolve complex issues.
That said, Detroit is making a serious play. The jurisdiction's six bankruptcy judges have adopted a rule that could appeal to the automakers' management. They will allow the chief bankruptcy judge to pick who will oversee a giant corporate filing, rather than leaving the selection to chance.
Furthermore, last week, Michigan's attorney general sent G.M. a letter urging it not to go out of state. "I am gravely concerned about the impact of any bankruptcy filing in a jurisdiction outside Michigan," Mike Cox, the attorney general, wrote in a letter to G.M.'s chief executive. Because the company's headquarters, many of its plants and hundreds of thousands of current and former employees are in Michigan, Cox continued, "any potential bankruptcy filing outside the state of Michigan seems bizarre."
For now, G.M. isn't saying what it has planned. If "GM is not able to complete the actions required, it will have no other alternative than to pursue an in-court restructuring, and we would be prepared to do so," said a company spokesman. "The filing location would be just one of many factors we would need to take into account."
Correction: An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that Lehman Brothers had $6 billion in assets at the time it filed.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/04/27/motown-or-gotham-gm-chrysler-weighing-the-pros-and-cons#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
Recession Advice to Associates: Keep Your Head Down and Work
Had you administered truth serum to your average Big Law partner just prior to the recession, he or she may well have given you an earful about law-firm associates. They're spoiled, he may have said. We pay them $160k per year - a king's ransom for any 26 year-old with virtually no real work experience - and yet their list of complaints is legion. Our hours are too long. We're not getting courtroom experience. Pro-bono work doesn't count toward our billable requirement. Waaaa!!!
Ah, what a difference a few years and a deep global recession make. Granted, with layoffs and pay-cuts and an ever-dwindling amount of work, life has been anything but pleasant for law-firm managers. But on the bright side, they're presumably hearing fewer complaints from associates, who, according to a story in today's NLJ, "are finding that the balance of power has shifted away from them and into the hands of law firm managers."
According to the NLJ story, one mid-level litigation associate is still furious about her firm's decision in March to slash the salaries of associates who didn't bill their target hours in 2008. But that doesn't mean she's going to take up her grievances with the partnership at the national firm. Instead, she has resigned herself to quietly fuming about the cuts, even though she said she met her target hours. "You're really between a rock and a hard place," said the associate.
So what are associates finding themselves staying mum over? To name a few: Working from home, reducing hours, the type of assignments received, sabbaticals and technology allowances.
"If I were an associate, I would keep my head down. I wouldn't want to be the one asking for anything," said Sheri Michaels, a partner and head of the global associate practice group at Major, Lindsey & Africa.
To a large degree, associates seem to be following this advice. Some associates who may have believed they would get challenging assignments are performing less-stimulating tasks such as document review, as work has dried up. But they aren't complaining to partners.
"There has been a lot of work/life pressure from Gen Y attorneys on law firms, and now that voice is being tempered because of layoffs, delayed start dates and rescinded offers," said Deborah Epstein Henry, founder and president of consulting firm Flex-Time Lawyers.
Henry added that the poor economy is dissuading some mothers pursuing flexible or part-time schedules because they fear losing their jobs.
"My general sense is that the economy and the layoffs have impacted attorneys' willingness to ask for flexible work schedules," said one part-time attorney and working mother who asked not to be named. "You want to be careful, bill as many hours as you can, and not be next on the list," she said.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/04/27/law-firm-life-during-a-recession-keep-your-head-down-and-work#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
DOJ's Suit Against UBS Playing Out at a Higher Level
Switzerland's reputation as a tax-haven might be on the wane. But it's not going down without at least a little bit of a fight.
The president of Switzerland, Hans-Rudolf Merz, has asked Treasury secretary Tim Geithner to drop a lawsuit led by the Justice Department seeking to force UBS to turn over the names of some 52,000 wealthy Americans who had stashed their money with the bank. Click here for the story, from the NYT's Lynnley Browning; here, here, here and here for earlier LB posts on the DOJ's suit against UBS.
Under Swiss bank secrecy laws, disclosing clients' names is a criminal offense that can carry prison terms and large fines. UBS has argued that its employees could be prosecuted under Swiss law if they were forced to disclose client information.
But such arguments have yet to move DOJ officials. The Justice Department is unlikely to scale back or drop its case against UBS, a senior person briefed on the matter told the NYT. The agency "is not going to give in," this person said on Sunday.
Formal talks between Swiss and U.S. officials over a new treaty concerning Swiss banking are slated to start on Tuesday. Switzerland is proposing to negotiate a new tax treaty with the U.S. that would reduce the amount of secrecy afforded to wealthy investors trying to avoid paying taxes. Switzerland wants to keep the terms of any new treaty from applying to the 52,000 Americans.
The current treaty, signed in 1996, does not require Switzerland to disclose clients' names, and the United States is eager for a new treaty that does.
The acting consul general of Switzerland in New York told the NYT on Sunday that President Merz had asked Geithner for the names case against UBS to be withdrawn after a new agreement is signed.
Swiss officials have said in recent weeks that any new treaty might fall apart unless the legal case against UBS is dropped, because upset Swiss citizens could force a national referendum on the matter and reject it. The Swiss Parliament could also reject it, the official said.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/04/27/dojs-suit-against-ubs-playing-out-at-a-higher-level#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
All Quiet on the Western Front: Broadcom, Qualcomm Reach $891M Deal
It may have been a quiet weekend on the M&A front, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a good bit of dealmaking going on. We're talking about the global settlement reached over the weekend by rival southern California-based chip makers, Broadcom and Qualcomm.
Under the deal, Qualcomm agreed to pay $891 million to Broadcom over four years. The companies will end their litigation and have agreed to exchange rights to each others' patents. In addition to ending patent suits in the U.S., Broadcom agreed to drop antitrust complaints it has filed against Qualcomm in Europe and South Korea. Click here for the WSJ story; here for the NYT's; here for an earlier LB post on the case.
Throughout the last several years, the two chip makers have waged a series of court battles.
Broadcom is a major supplier of communications chips but is a newcomer to the cellular arena. One obstacle to Broadcom's plans in the cellular market was the need to negotiate a patent license from Qualcomm, which invented some widely used cellular technologies.
To put pressure on Qualcomm to grant favorable licensing terms, Broadcom filed multiple patent suits and other litigation against Qualcomm. Though Qualcomm filed suits of its own against Broadcom, the latter had chalked up more court victories so far.
In June 2007, Broadcom prevailed in a jury trial in California federal court after it claimed that Qualcomm had violated three patents that include methods for transmitting high-speed data over cellphones. A week later, the United States International Trade Commission ruled that Qualcomm had violated a separate Broadcom patent that governed power management in cellphone chips. Broadcom asserted that Qualcomm was using the technology without paying licensing fees.
Under the settlement, Broadcom will not have to pay Qualcomm patent royalties on the chips it sells. "Other than the payment we are making, neither of us is making ongoing payments," Mr. Rosenberg said.
Qualcomm's payments to Broadcom include $200 million that will be paid in the current quarter, ending June 30, the companies said.
Ed Snyder, a telecommunications industry analyst with Charter Equity Research, told the NYT that the agreement was good for both companies but said "clearly, Broadcom is coming out ahead."
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/04/27/all-quiet-on-the-western-front-broadcom-qualcomm-reach-891m-deal#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
More (State) Regulations for Banks? High Court to Weigh In
All those interested in Federalism and the interplay between state and federal regulation might tune in to Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments in a case called Cuomo v. Clearing House.
The specific issue in the case: whether New York's antidiscrimination laws should apply to national banks. If the state wins, it would mark a break with decades of precedent that mostly favors the powers of the federal government and open a new era for 50 state regulators to play a bigger role. Click here for the story, from the WSJ's Jess Bravin.
The background: Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the Treasury regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, has allied with the banks it supervises to set aside state laws ranging from disclosure requirements on loans to limits on surcharges at automated teller machines. The comptroller's office argues that the National Bank Act, first adopted in 1863, envisions a system where national banks operate efficiently across state lines without regard to a patchwork of local regulations and authorities.
The Supreme Court almost always has agreed. But things might be changing. The financial crisis many blame on a mortgage industry rife with abuse could undercut the argument that the National Bank Act was intended to shield national banks from state law-enforcement measures. Additionally, in Tuesday's case, the comptroller's office seeks to extend its power further than ever. The agency and the banks it oversees assert that even when state laws do apply to national banks, the comptroller alone - and not state authorities - holds power to enforce them.
All 49 other states, plus the District of Columbia, joined a friend-of-the-court brief backing New York and its current attorney general, Andrew Cuomo.
"The states are broadly concerned about the erosion of state authority," says Bob Cooper, a spokesman for the Idaho attorney general.
Testifying before Congress in 2007, the federal agency's head, Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan, saw it differently. "We believe it's counterproductive for states to focus their finite enforcement resources on national banks that are already heavily regulated - especially when there are lightly regulated state entities, like many subprime lenders and mortgage brokers, that clearly have been the source of real problems," Mr. Dugan said.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/04/27/more-state-regulations-for-banks-high-court-to-weigh-in#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
ACLU: Chris Christie, Tracker of Cell Phones, Is "Big Brother"
Privacy advocates have warned for years about the dangers of government agents tracking suspects through their cell phones without obtaining warrants. Feds routinely ask courts to order cellphone companies to provide tracking data used to locate suspects, without showing probable cause. They often get their wish. (For background, click here.)
Two years ago DOJ began recommending to its prosecutors to first obtain search warrants before acquiring location information for cell phones. But the Obama DOJ appears to be continuing the Bush DOJ's position that getting data without a warrant doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment, though there are ongoing legal challenges to that notion in courts across the country.
That hasn't stopped the outcry from some groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union. The latest target of their ire: Christopher Christie (pictured), who recently resigned as U.S. attorney for New Jersey and announced a run for governor as a GOP candidate.
On Thursday the group released material they got from DOJ that showed Christie, who started his tenure in 2002, authorized the tracking of suspects' cell phones, including 19 cases since November 2007. Nearly all of the cases resulted in criminal prosecution. Here's the Star-Ledger story.
Christie, who dismissed the ACLU comments as "overblown hyperbole," said the tracking was legal and that the U.S. attorney's office began tracking phones without warrants before he took over.
"Chris Christie wasn't sitting around wondering where everyone was. We were trying to investigate and prosecute crime, and I think our record is pretty good that we did it well," he told the Star-Ledger.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/04/24/aclu-chris-christie-tracker-of-cell-phones-is-big-brother#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
___________________________________
LAW VIDEO
Matthew Gluck, a partner at Milberg LLP, tells Kelsey Hubbard how his firm hopes to help victims of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme get compensated.
http://online.wsj.com/video/what-madoff-victims-can-expect/87A19AE4-927F-4852-A1BF-9B8E59A20EF8.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
___________________________________
TOP LAW NEWS
The Supreme Court will rule on whether Treasury can block states from enforcing state consumer-protection and fair-lending laws against national banks.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124078827601457447.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
* * *
An FDA employee who accused her boss of sex discrimination and won a judgment said the agency has asked her to resign as part of a settlement.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124084973049259719.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
* * *
The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by Sanofi-Aventis, ending the company's six-year effort to protect a patent on its $3 billion-a-year blood thinner.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124083942029259257.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
* * *
Switzerland asked the U.S. government to drop a legal case involving UBS in return for passing a new tax accord between the two countries.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124078132545157093.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
* * *
Qualcomm said it agreed to pay $891 million to Broadcom over four years, as part of a settlement of a series of bitter legal disputes between the two chip makers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124079729503758125.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
* * *
The Supreme Court will rule on whether Treasury can block states from enforcing state consumer-protection and fair-lending laws against national banks.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124078827601457447.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
___________________________________
ADVERTISEMENT
Take Advantage of Online Journal Research and Tools!
Utilize our valuable research and tools for important business,
investing and financial planning decisions. Our research includes
quotes and up-to-date information on nearly 30,000 companies as well
as an article archive and extensive market data.
http://online.wsj.com/advanced_search?mod=emtdfix
Contact WSJ's Law Blog at lawblog@wsj.com
__________________________________
ONLINE JOURNAL E-MAIL CENTER
TO UNSUBSCRIBE DIRECTLY from this list, go to:
http://setup.wsj.com/EmailSubMgr/do/delete?addr=ignoble.experiment%40ARCONATI.US&id=145
Your request will take effect within 48 hours.
TO VIEW OR CHANGE any of your e-mail settings, go to the E-Mail Setup Center:
http://online.wsj.com/email
You are currently subscribed as ignoble.experiment@ARCONATI.US
FOR FURTHER ASSISTANCE, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-369-2834
or 1-609-514-0870 between the hours of 7 am - 10 pm Monday - Friday and 8 am - 3 pm Saturday or e-mail onlinejournal@wsj.com.
___________________________________
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy -
http://online.wsj.com/public/privacy_policy
Contact Us -
http://online.wsj.com/public/contact_us
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep a civil tongue.