|
|
|
Supreme Court declines to review insider trading case
Areas of Focus |
2015/10/06 16:01
|
The Supreme Court said Monday it won't hear the Obama administration's appeal of a lower court ruling that made it tougher to prosecute people for trading on leaked inside information.
The justices let stand a decision by the federal appeals court in New York last year that threw out insider trading convictions of two high-profile hedge fund managers.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the convictions of Anthony Chiasson, of Manhattan, and Todd Newman, of Needham, Massachusetts, after finding they were too far removed from inside information to be prosecuted.
Prosecutors warned the ruling could hinder the government's campaign to curb insider trading on Wall Street, a crackdown that has resulted in more than 80 arrests and 70 convictions over several years.
Chiasson, who co-founded Level Global Investors based in Greenwich, Conn., and Newman, who had worked for Diamondback Capital Management based in Stamford, Conn., traded on tips from insiders on stock in technology companies Dell Inc. and Nvidia Corp. that generated $72 million in profits. The former portfolio managers were both convicted in December 2012.
The appeals court said prosecutors failed to present enough evidence the men willfully engaged in insider trading or conspired to break the law. It ruled that the government must show a person receiving a tip knew that an insider disclosed confidential information and that the tipster passed the information expecting a personal benefit.
In legal briefs filed with the court, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said leaving the appeals court ruling in place would "hurt market participants, disadvantage scrupulous market analysts and impair the government's ability to protect the fairness and integrity of the securities markets."
Both men have denied insider trading. Their lawyers argued that they believed they were making trades based on legitimate research.
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in Manhattan told reporters on a conference call Monday that the Supreme Court's decision means "that there's a category of conduct that arguably will go unpunished going forward."
"If you have a CEO who has access to material, non-published information about earnings or anything else of a very sensitive nature and decides he wants to tip a relative or a buddy or a crony, knowing that person is going to trade on it to the tune and profit of millions of dollars, we would have to think long and hard, given Newman, whether to prosecute a person like that," Bharara said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court upholds sentence for son of Schwarzenegger ally
Areas of Focus |
2015/06/03 19:05
|
A California appeals court on Tuesday upheld former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision to dramatically reduce the manslaughter sentence of a political ally's son, saying his conduct may be considered wrong but it didn't violate any laws.
On his last day in office in 2011, Schwarzenegger commuted the sentence of Esteban Nunez to seven years from 16 years in the stabbing death of college student Luis Santos in San Diego. Esteban Nunez's father is Fabian Nunez, speaker of the state Assembly while Schwarzenegger was governor.
Frederico and Kathy Santos, the victim's parents, and San Diego County District Bonnie Dumanis sued to overturn the shortened sentence, arguing that the governor violated a voter-approved constitutional amendment that requires victims to be notified before a decision. But the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento agreed with a trial judge that the amendment approved in 2008 and known as Marsy's Law does not apply to commuted sentences.
"We are compelled to conclude that, while Schwarzenegger's conduct could be seen as deserving of censure and grossly unjust, it was not illegal," Associate Justice Harry E. Hull Jr. wrote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court sets stage for historic gay rights ruling
Areas of Focus |
2015/01/19 22:19
|
The Supreme Court is getting back in the marriage business. The justices agreed Friday to decide a major civil rights question: whether same-sex couples have a right to marry everywhere in America under the Constitution.
The court will take up gay-rights cases that ask it to overturn bans in four states and declare for the entire nation that people can marry the partners of their choice, regardless of gender. The cases will be argued in April, and a decision is expected by late June.
The court chose not to decide this issue in 2013, even as it struck down part of a federal anti-gay marriage law that paved the way for a wave of lower court rulings across the country in favor of same-sex marriage rights.
At that time, just 12 states and the District of Columbia permitted gay and lesbian couples to wed. That number has jumped to 36, almost all because of lower court rulings.
"The country is ready for the freedom to marry today," said James Esseks, leader of the American Civil Liberties Union's same-sex marriage efforts.
The appeals before the court come from gay and lesbian plaintiffs in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The federal appeals court that oversees those four states upheld their same-sex marriage bans in November, reversing pro-gay rights rulings of federal judges in all four states. It was the first, and so far only, appellate court to rule against same-sex marriage since the high court's 2013 decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Egypt court bans festival honoring Moroccan rabbi
Areas of Focus |
2014/12/31 16:53
|
An Egyptian court has banned an annual festival in honor of Moroccan rabbi that was regularly attended by hundreds of Jewish pilgrims, mainly from Israel and Morocco.
After the 1979 peace treaty with Israel, Egypt began allowing organized trips to the tomb of Yaakov Abu Hatzira in the Nile Delta north of Cairo. The Culture Ministry declared the site an Egyptian monument.
The Administrative Court of Alexandria on Monday banned the visits and stripped the ministry's designation. It acted on a complaint filed by local residents who objected to the mingling of men and women and the consumption of alcohol at the festival.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court reverses woman's conviction in child's death
Areas of Focus |
2014/09/22 23:52
|
A state appeals court Wednesday overturned the conviction of a South Texas woman imprisoned for capital murder in the 2006 salt poisoning death of her 4-year-old foster son.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted a new trial for Hannah Overton of Corpus Christi. She was sentenced to life in prison without parole in the death of Andrew Burd.
Overton has argued she had ineffective counsel during her 2007 trial, and the state's highest appeals court agreed.
The court in its ruling noted Overton's defense attorneys opted not to present the testimony of an expert medical witness. The court said it "was not a reasonable decision" to withhold testimony by the physician that could have benefited Overton.
She also argued that prosecutors had withheld evidence in her trial, but the appeals court did not address that claim.
Overton contended Andrew had emotional and medical problems, including an eating disorder in which he'd consume odd food items. The boy had elevated sodium levels when he died at a Corpus Christi hospital. Tests also showed he had bleeding on the brain and swelling. A doctor who examined the child testified at Overton's trial that he could have survived if taken to the hospital earlier. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio to court: Privatizing prisons in budget is legal
Areas of Focus |
2014/09/08 23:01
|
State lawyers tell the Ohio Supreme Court that using a budget bill to privatize state prisons didn’t violate a constitutional provision holding bills to a single subject.In a brief filed today, Ohio said the state’s budget, like any family’s, involves both revenues and expenses — not just appropriations.
The filing comes in a legal dispute with the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association. The prison workers’ union filed suit over privatization in 2012, contending that lawmakers extended beyond the single-subject rule when they used the budget to sell a state prison and turn others over to private operators.
An appellate court agreed, finding in October there was no “rational relationship” between the privatization plan and state spending.The state says privatization saved Ohio money and so had “obvious budget connections.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada gay marriage laws in court
Areas of Focus |
2014/09/07 23:01
|
For the first time since it declared California's gay marriage ban unconstitutional, the federal appeals court in San Francisco is readying to hear arguments over same-sex weddings in a political and legal climate that's vastly different than when it overturned Proposition 8 in 2012.
State and federal court judges have been striking down bans in more than a dozen states at a rapid rate since a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year.
Now, three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — all appointed by Democrats and one of whom wrote the opinion overturning Proposition 8 — are set to hear arguments Monday on gay marriage bans in Idaho, Nevada and Hawaii.
"It seemed like such an uphill battle when I started," said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "I really couldn't imagine then that we would be where we are now."
Minter has been fighting for gay marriage for 21 years, was instrumental in challenging bans in California and Utah and is representing gay couples seeking to overturn Idaho's prohibition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Headline Legal News for You to Reach America's Best Legal Professionals. The latest legal news and information - Law Firm, Lawyer and Legal Professional news in the Media. |
|
|
