Enron investors await court ruling
Lawyer Blogs
[##_1L|1049464065.jpg|width="142" height="117" alt=""|_##]In a lawsuit that harks back to the Enron Corp. scandal, the Bush administration is at odds with the federal agency that oversees securities markets and with state attorneys general and consumer and investor advocates. President Bush weighed in before the administration decided not to support the investors whose securities fraud case is now before the Supreme Court.
The president's message was that it's important to reduce "unnecessary lawsuits" and that federal securities regulators are in the best position to sue, said Al Hubbard, Bush's chief economic adviser and director of the National Economic Council.
Hubbard said deputy White House counsel Bill Kelley conveyed Bush's perspective to Solicitor General Paul Clement, who represents the government's views before the Supreme Court.
Hubbard said the president communicated his policy views, not specifically what he thought the solicitor general should do.
Bush's role in the case underscores its significance. The outcome of the Supreme Court case could determine whether investors can pursue lawsuits to recover investment losses if they can prove collusion between Wall Street institutions and scandal-ridden companies.
The deadline for siding with investors in the case ended at midnight Monday, and the solicitor general did not file a brief.
The administration will decide in the next 30 days whether to side with the defendant companies or not to participate in the case at all.
The Securities and Exchange Commission voted 3-2 to ask the solicitor general to support shareholders.
Damon Silvers, the AFL-CIO's associate general counsel, criticized Bush's action.
"The president decided that he thinks it's more important to protect his friends than it is to enforce the law," Silvers said.
The issue is whether shareholders can collect damages from investment banks, attorneys and accountants who are thought to have aided in fraud committed by their corporate clients.
The high court's ruling in the case could determine whether the Enron plaintiffs' separate $40 billion lawsuit against the investment banks — stalled by a federal appeals court ruling in March — can proceed.
Thirty state attorneys general sided with investors and referred to the Enron scandal 55 times in a 43-page court filing.
Related listings
-
Newspaper sues state Supreme Court
Lawyer Blogs 06/13/2007A small Kane County newspaper and its former columnist have accused the biggest names in the state judiciary of violating Illinois citizens' basic constitutional rights.In the process, the state court system returns to uncharted waters.The Shaw Subur...
-
Attorney's Wife Indicted on Criminal Charges
Lawyer Blogs 06/12/2007A year after her former employer accused her of embezzling funds from her late husband's New Hampshire law firm, Deborah Woods, 52, of Stratham has been indicted on criminal charges in the case. The Rockingham Country Grand Jury indicted Woods ...
-
Ed. Dept. Questioned over Funding Sources
Lawyer Blogs 06/12/2007Attorneys for the state Department of Education have filed a motion for a new trial to overturn a $7.6 million judgment in a whistle-blower case, despite unanswered questions from a state assemblyman who wants to know where the department is getting ...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.