|
|
|
Court mulls trial in absentia for Hariri case
Topics |
2011/10/15 09:34
|
A panel of judges at a U.N.-backed court investigating the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri will consider whether to stage a trial in absentia for four Hezbollah members accused in the slaying.
The suspects were indicted earlier this year, but Hezbollah has refused to arrest them and send them for trial in the Special Tribunal for Lebanon's purpose-built courtroom.
The court said in a statement Monday that a pretrial judge preparing the case has asked trial judges to determine whether proceedings in absentia should be initiated against the four men.
Iranian-backed Shiite militia Hezbollah denies involvement in the Feb. 14, 2005, truck bombing that killed Hariri and 22 others, including the suicide bomber, in Beirut. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FDIC backs ban on banks trading for own profit
Topics |
2011/10/11 09:32
|
Banks would be barred from trading for their own profit instead of their clients under a rule being proposed by federal regulators.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. backed the draft rule on a 3-0 vote Tuesday. The ban on proprietary trading was required under last year's financial overhaul law.
For years, banks had bet on risky investments with their own money. But when those bets go bad and banks fail, taxpayers could be forced to bail them out. That's what happened during the 2008 financial crisis.
The Federal Reserve has also approved the draft of the so-called Volcker Rule, which was named after former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker.
The Securities and Exchange Commission and Treasury Department must still vote on it, and then the public has until January 13 to comment. The rule is expected to take effect next year after a final vote by all four regulators.
Congress and President Barack Obama had high hopes for the rule. But they left most of the details for regulators to sort out.
It's unclear how strictly the ban will be enforced. For example, it can be hard to tell whether an investment is intended to benefit a bank or its clients and whether federally insured deposits could be put at risk by these trades. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kentucky man sues Facebook over tracking cookie
Topics |
2011/10/11 09:30
|
A Facebook user in western Kentucky has filed a federal lawsuit against the social networking giant, accusing it of violating wiretap laws with a tracking cookie recording web browsing history after logging off of Facebook.
The plaintiff, David Hoffman of Paducah, is asking a judge to grant class-action status to represent the roughly 150 million
Facebook users in the United States. Hoffman's lawsuit seeks a preliminary and temporary injunction restraining Facebook from intercepting electronic information when they are not logged in and from disclosing any of the information already acquired.
It also seeks damages of $100 per day for each of the class members or $10,000 per violation. The Kentucky lawsuit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court, is similar to cases filed in recent weeks in California, Kansas and Louisiana. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
European court rules against Soros in trading case
Topics |
2011/10/05 09:24
|
The European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday that France did not violate George Soros' rights when convicting him of insider trading, defeating a years-long effort by the billionaire financier to clear his name.
Though Soros has faced criticism for other investment decisions before and since, the French conviction over trades in 1988 left a particular stain on the Hungarian-born businessman and philanthropist's five-decade career.
He was fined euro2.2 million in 2002, or $2.92 million at current rates, for purchasing shares in French bank Societe Generale in 1988, days after being informed about a planned takeover bid for the bank.
That was the amount he was accused of making when he sold the shares shortly afterward. France's highest court reduced the fine in 2007 to euro940,000 ($1.25 million at current rates).
Soros argued that France's insider trading rules at the time were unclear, and that the length of the investigation — from 1993 until his indictment in 2000 — made it difficult to call reliable witnesses, violating his right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The human rights court, based in Strasbourg, France, disagreed. In a 4-3 decision, the panel of judges argued that the law applicable in 1988 was sufficient for Soros to have been aware that his conduct might be unlawful.
The Soros Foundation in Paris would not comment on the decision, and Soros' lawyers could not immediately be reached. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court appears to favor Ala. death row inmate
Topics |
2011/10/03 11:03
|
The Supreme Court appeared likely Tuesday to order a new court hearing for an Alabama death row inmate who lost the chance to appeal his death sentence because of a mailroom mix-up at a venerable New York law firm.
Both conservative and liberal justices indicated they would throw out a federal appeals court ruling that relied on the missed deadline to refuse to consider Cory Maples' claims that he received inadequate legal representation, dating back to his trial on charges he gunned down two friends in 1995.
Justice Samuel Alito, a former federal prosecutor, said he did not understand why Alabama fought so hard to deny Maples the right to appeal when the deadline passed though no fault of his own.
Justice Antonin Scalia was the only member of the court who appeared to agree with the state's argument that Maples' protests are overblown because he was never left without a lawyer. The state also says the role of Maples' lawyers in missing the deadline is unfortunate but nothing the court should correct under its earlier rulings.
Gregory Garre, a former solicitor general who is representing Maples in the Supreme Court, said the earlier legal work for Maples was so bad that it violated the Constitution.
Whatever the shortcomings of Maples' trial lawyers, he appeared to win the lottery when two lawyers at Sullivan and Cromwell agreed to represent him for free in his appeals, Garre said. The New York-based firm has 800 lawyers and offices in a dozen cities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court refuses to hear Maryland gun case
Topics |
2011/10/03 11:02
|
The Supreme Court won't hear a Maryland man's argument that the Second Amendment allows him to carry a gun outside of his home for self-defense.
The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Charles F. Williams Jr., who was arrested in 2007 for having his legally-purchased handgun outside his home without a state permit.
The high court has ruled there is a right to keep a gun in the home for protection. But gun advocates say people also have the constitutional right to carry their guns outside the house for self-protection.
Maryland courts say if the Supreme Court agrees with that theory it will need to say so more plainly. The high court refused the opportunity on Monday. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
