|
|
|
Hollinger settles civil fraud lawsuit with SEC for $21.3M
Law Firm News |
2008/03/27 09:09
|
| pHollinger Inc., the Canadian holding company with an interest in former newspaper publisher Hollinger International has agreed to pay the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) $21.3 million to settle claims that from 1999 to 2003 it violated securities law by failing to disclose to investors payments and other transactions that benefited the executives to the detriment of the company. The settlement stems from a lawsuit filed by the SEC in November 2004 against former Hollinger International chairman Conrad Black, former Hollinger president David Radler, and Hollinger Inc. Under the terms of the settlement, Hollinger Inc. has agreed to be permanently enjoined from committing future securities laws violations. The settlement must still be approved by US District Judge William T. Hart before it becomes final./ppRadler was sentenced in December to 29 months in prison for one count of mail fraud, after pleading guilty and agreeing to serve as a witness against Black. Black was convicted in July of mail fraud and obstruction of justice and sentenced to 78 months in prison; he began serving his sentence earlier this month after a federal appeals court rejected his request to remain free on bail while his appeal is pending. Radler, Black and other Hollinger executives were prosecuted in the United States in connection to allegations that they diverted more than $80 million from Hollinger International, now Sun-Times Media Group, and its shareholders during the company's $2.1 billion sale of several hundred Canadian newspapers. /p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Allows Retiree Benefits With Medicare
Law Firm News |
2008/03/25 09:14
|
| pfont color=#000000The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a federal policy that allows employers to reduce their health insurance expenses for retired workers once they turn 65 and qualify for Medicare. /font/ppfont color=#000000The justices turned down an appeal by the 35-million-member AARP to undo a rule that essentially allows employers to treat retirees differently depending on their age. /font/ppfont color=#000000The rules were put into place by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, with the support of labor unions and other groups. They worried that employers would greatly reduce or eliminate health benefits for millions of retirees if they could not take Medicare into account when structuring the health benefit packages they voluntarily provide their retired workers. /font/ppfont color=#000000The EEOC rule makes clear that employers can spend more on retirees under 65 years of age than those over 65 without running afoul of age discrimination laws. /font/ppfont color=#000000The EEOC said it proposed the rule in response to a decision in 2000 by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act requires employers to spend the same amount on health insurance benefits provided Medicare-eligible retirees as those received by younger retirees. /font/ppfont color=#000000AARP said EEOC violated the intent of Congress when it proposed the rule. But the EEOC said the same age discrimination law allows it to carve out an exemption to preserve the long-standing practice that allows employers to coordinate benefits with Medicare. /font/ppfont color=#000000The same appeals court upheld the EEOC policy last year /font/p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyer Melvyn Weiss to Plead Guilty in Scheme
Law Firm News |
2008/03/20 10:55
|
| Prominent attorney Melvyn Weiss has agreed to plead guilty in a lucrative kickback scheme involving payments to plaintiffs in class-action lawsuits against some of the largest corporations in the nation, his defense attorney said Thursday.pWeiss will plead guilty to limited participation in a criminal conspiracy involving payments to plaintiffs, attorney Benjamin Brafman said in a statement./ppI deeply regret my conduct and apologize to all those who have been affected, Weiss said in the statement./ppBrafman did not specify the charges involved in the plea. Weiss previously pleaded not guilty to one count each of conspiracy, mail fraud, money laundering and obstruction of justice in a revised indictment./ppThe plea deal calls for Weiss to receive a prison sentence of 18 to 33 months, with the court able to substitute time in home confinement or community service./ppWeiss also agreed to pay $10 million in fines and forfeiture penalties, according to the statement./ppAuthorities say the firm now known as Milberg Weiss made an estimated $250 million over two decades by filing legal actions on behalf of professional plaintiffs who received $11.3 million in kickbacks./ppThe lawsuits targeted companies such as ATamp;T, Lucent, WorldCom, Microsoft Corp. and Prudential Insurance. /p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court to rule on broadcast indecency
Law Firm News |
2008/03/18 10:10
|
pThe Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule for the first time in 30 years on what constitutes indecency on broadcast television and radio./ppThe justices will weigh whether federal regulators may levy large fines on broadcasters who let expletives on the airwaves during daytime and early evening hours./ppThe court could rule that the Federal Communications Commission has broad power to decide what is acceptable for broadcasts. Or the justices could conclude that the 1st Amendment's protection for the freedom of speech does not allow the government to punish broadcasters for an occasional vulgarity./ppThe justices have not ruled on the indecency standard since 1978, when they upheld fines against a radio station for broadcasting comedian George Carlin's seven dirty words monologue in midafternoon. One justice described Carlin's performance as a sort of verbal shock treatment because the familiar curse words were repeated over and over./ppSince then, however, it has been unclear whether the use of a single expletive could be judged indecent. Federal law forbids broadcasting any obscene, indecent or profane language, but Congress has left it to the FCC and the courts to define indecency./ppLast year, the major networks won a ruling in New York that blocked the FCC from enforcing a strict new rule against the broadcasting of fleeting expletives./ppBush administration lawyers urged the high court to take up the dispute and to give the FCC a green light to enforce its crackdown on vulgar words. The government says broadcasters who use the public airwaves have a duty to protect children and families from unexpectedly hearing foul language./ppThe FCC has fined CBS $550,000 for broadcasting Janet Jackson's performance at the 2004 Super Bowl, which included a brief exposure of her breast. The network is appealing the fine in a court in Philadelphia./ppThe president of the Parents Television Council in Los Angeles applauded the court's announcement. Such harsh, unedited profanity is unacceptable for broadcast over publicly owned airwaves when children are likely to be watching, said Timothy Winter, the president./ppHis group claims more than 1.2 million members, and he said many complained when they heard expletives used during Hollywood award shows. It seems you can't have an awards show without someone dropping an F-bomb, Winter said./ppThe FCC cited several incidents that led it to issue the new rule. Singer Bono of U2 exulted upon winning a Golden Globe for an original song, calling it really, really f . . . brilliant. Entertainer Cher described a career achievement award on another program as a rebuke to her critics. So, f . . . 'em. I still have a job and they don't, she said./ppThe major TV networks sued to block the rule. In their defense, they say they have firm policies against the use of vulgar words. They are not included in scripts, for example. But on occasion, they say, these words have slipped passed monitors and gone on the air when a guest performer appeared on a live broadcast./ppThe networks used a five-second delay on several of the live broadcasts cited by the FCC, but a monitor failed to bleep out the expletive./ppThe stakes for broadcasters increased when Congress voted in 2006 to raise the maximum fines for indecency tenfold. Network executives say they could face millions of dollars in fines for letting a single expletive go on the air during a national broadcast./ppIn March 2004, shortly after the Janet Jackson incident, the FCC adopted its zero-tolerance policy for fleeting expletives. The commissioners rejected the defense that Bono had used the F-word as an adjective, not a curse./ppThe U.S. appeals court in New York, in its ruling last year, agreed with the broadcasters that the FCC had not justified its abrupt change in policy. Its judges also said the policy was unclear because the F-word was permitted in some news shows and in the TV broadcast of Saving Private Ryan. The commissioners said the profanity on the D-day beaches was integral to depicting the horror of war./ppLawyers for the broadcasters had urged the Supreme Court to steer clear of the case. They said the FCC should be forced to reconsider and clarify its policy./ppI thought there was no chance they would take this case, said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project. If the FCC is affirmed, the message will be that indecency is whatever the FCC says it is./ppIt is not clear whether the growth of new media will affect the court's view of what is indecent. Since the court last ruled on the issue, cable TV, the Internet and satellite radio have emerged as competitors to traditional broadcasters. But these new media are not regulated by the FCC because they do not transmit signals over the public airwaves. Arguments in the FCC vs. Fox TV will be heard in the fall./ppThe court also agreed to decide whether the special protections added to the Voting Rights Act in 1982 extended to communities where blacks make up less than half the population. /ppThe outcome in Bartlett vs. Strickland could affect how electoral districts are drawn after the 2010 census. The law forbids states from splitting up large blocs of black voters who could elect a black representative to a state legislature or Congress. But it is not clear whether this protection is triggered only if blacks make up a majority of the community./ppThe court will also decide in Melendez-Diaz vs. Massachusetts whether criminal defendants have a right to question lab technicians whose reports are used by prosecutors. In recent years, the court has stressed that defendants have a right to confront all witnesses.
/p |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
