A Jordanian criminal court says it has postponed a verdict in the case of a powerful former intelligence chief on trial for alleged embezzlement of public funds, money laundering and abuse of office.
Presiding judge Nashaat Akhras told Mohammed al-Dahabi in court Sunday that his verdict will be pronounced Nov. 11, without giving a reason.
Al-Dahabi ran the General Intelligence Department between 2005 and 2008.
He faces up to 15 years in jail if convicted.
He was arrested in February, when inspectors from the Central Bank of Jordan suspected transactions worth millions of dollars had gone through his bank account.
The rare case against such a high profile official is meant to show Jordan's seriousness in efforts to tackle graft and corruption — a demand voiced in recent street protests.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Teen accused of torching family house due in court
A New Jersey teenager charged with attempted murder and arson for allegedly setting a fire at her family's house is due in court.
The 15-year-old faces a hearing in family court in Gloucester County on Monday. Her name is being withheld because she is a juvenile.
Authorities say the Saturday morning fire was set with gasoline. Most of the damage was contained to the second floor of the single-family house.
The teen and six other family members were injured, including two who were taken to a burn center in Pennsylvania with internal burns.
The suspect is being held at the Camden County Juvenile Detention Center.
The 15-year-old faces a hearing in family court in Gloucester County on Monday. Her name is being withheld because she is a juvenile.
Authorities say the Saturday morning fire was set with gasoline. Most of the damage was contained to the second floor of the single-family house.
The teen and six other family members were injured, including two who were taken to a burn center in Pennsylvania with internal burns.
The suspect is being held at the Camden County Juvenile Detention Center.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Maine high court upholds hypnotist sex charge
Maine's high court has upheld the conviction of a Jay man who sexually assaulted a girl he hypnotized.
The Supreme Judicial Court last week rejected the defense arguments of 39-year-old Aaron Patton, who was sentenced to six years in prison last year after being found guilty of charges including gross sexual assault.
Authorities say the victim began hypnotism treatments with Patton when she was 8 to help her break a fingernail-biting habit. The girl testified Patton began touching her inappropriately when she was 12 and had sex with her starting when she was 14.
After each sexual encounter, she said he hypnotized her so she would keep the relationship secret.
The Supreme Judicial Court last week rejected the defense arguments of 39-year-old Aaron Patton, who was sentenced to six years in prison last year after being found guilty of charges including gross sexual assault.
Authorities say the victim began hypnotism treatments with Patton when she was 8 to help her break a fingernail-biting habit. The girl testified Patton began touching her inappropriately when she was 12 and had sex with her starting when she was 14.
After each sexual encounter, she said he hypnotized her so she would keep the relationship secret.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Court: Reinstate Ohio suit alleging Duke kickbacks
A federal appeals court on Monday ordered reinstatement of a lawsuit that accuses Duke Energy Corp. of paying kickbacks to big Cincinnati-area companies to win their support for a 2004 electricity rate increase.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reversed a federal judge's 2009 decision and reinstated the 2008 antitrust lawsuit filed on behalf of some Ohio businesses and individuals who bills rose.
The district court judge had concluded that federal courts lacked jurisdiction over the case and that the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, which approved the rate increase, had exclusive jurisdiction over state-law claims.
The three-judge appeals panel, however, said in its unanimous ruling that the lower court was incorrect and that "no circumstances exist here that would deprive the district court of jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state-law claims."
The lawsuit claims that, in 2004, the utility known then as Cinergy Corp. paid off large corporate customers who opposed the rate increase request. The lawsuit alleges that the opposition ended after the companies signed rebate deals with Duke.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reversed a federal judge's 2009 decision and reinstated the 2008 antitrust lawsuit filed on behalf of some Ohio businesses and individuals who bills rose.
The district court judge had concluded that federal courts lacked jurisdiction over the case and that the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, which approved the rate increase, had exclusive jurisdiction over state-law claims.
The three-judge appeals panel, however, said in its unanimous ruling that the lower court was incorrect and that "no circumstances exist here that would deprive the district court of jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state-law claims."
The lawsuit claims that, in 2004, the utility known then as Cinergy Corp. paid off large corporate customers who opposed the rate increase request. The lawsuit alleges that the opposition ended after the companies signed rebate deals with Duke.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Federal appeals court in Ore. takes up no-fly case
A federal appeals court judge leaned forward in his chair, turned his head to the Justice Department attorney defending the government's no-fly list and posed a frank question.
"Let's say you want to fly back to Washington, and you find yourself on the no-fly list," 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Alex Kozinsky said Friday. "You're sitting in an airport, stranded. You think, 'my God, I went to law school, I work for (the Justice Department), in my heart I know I did nothing wrong.' What do you do?"
Fifteen Muslim men who faced circumstances similar to the hypothetical one asked by Kozinsky, are suing the federal government over their placement on the FBI's no-fly list. They had tried to board flights — either domestic or returning to the U.S. — and were told they couldn't fly.
Justice Department attorney Josh Waldman demurred and said circumstances differ among people on the list. The answer didn't satisfy Kozinsky.
"I mean you, yourself. It's going to be future denials, you can't fly to vacations, bar mitzvahs," Kozinsky pressed, drawing laughs in the federal courtroom in Portland. "I think people here are interested."
The judge's questions were at the heart of the men's lawsuit, though the subject before the three-judge appeals court panel was a narrower question — whether a federal court in Oregon has a say in the case, since the policies of the Transportation Security Administration are not subject to district court jurisdiction.
Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown rejected the case, saying it couldn't rule on cases involving TSA policies and procedures.
Brown said she made her ruling based on whether the plaintiffs were arguing against the men's placement on the no-fly list by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center or against TSA policies. The Terrorist Screening Center is subject to district court jurisdiction.
"Let's say you want to fly back to Washington, and you find yourself on the no-fly list," 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Alex Kozinsky said Friday. "You're sitting in an airport, stranded. You think, 'my God, I went to law school, I work for (the Justice Department), in my heart I know I did nothing wrong.' What do you do?"
Fifteen Muslim men who faced circumstances similar to the hypothetical one asked by Kozinsky, are suing the federal government over their placement on the FBI's no-fly list. They had tried to board flights — either domestic or returning to the U.S. — and were told they couldn't fly.
Justice Department attorney Josh Waldman demurred and said circumstances differ among people on the list. The answer didn't satisfy Kozinsky.
"I mean you, yourself. It's going to be future denials, you can't fly to vacations, bar mitzvahs," Kozinsky pressed, drawing laughs in the federal courtroom in Portland. "I think people here are interested."
The judge's questions were at the heart of the men's lawsuit, though the subject before the three-judge appeals court panel was a narrower question — whether a federal court in Oregon has a say in the case, since the policies of the Transportation Security Administration are not subject to district court jurisdiction.
Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown rejected the case, saying it couldn't rule on cases involving TSA policies and procedures.
Brown said she made her ruling based on whether the plaintiffs were arguing against the men's placement on the no-fly list by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center or against TSA policies. The Terrorist Screening Center is subject to district court jurisdiction.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Las Vegas Product Liability Attorney - Luis A. Ayon
Las Vegas Product Liability Attorney - Luis A. Ayon
Luis has significant litigation experience in Nevada's state and federal courts. He focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation and contested and adversarial matters in bankruptcy court, real estate litigation and financial institutions litigation.
Prior to joining the firm, Luis was an associate at an international law firm where he focused on commercial litigation as well as contested bankruptcy matters. He also served as the first law clerk for Presiding Civil Judge, the Honorable Elizabeth Gonzalez and worked for one of the nation's largest plaintiffs' firms where he managed a significant case load involving catastrophic brain and spinal injuries, wrongful death, product liability and insurance bad faith claims.
Luis A. Ayon is commited to providing clients with the highest level of personal service. His dedication in his work focusing on all phases of litigation from obtaining fast pre-litigation results to handling cases through trial and appeal has given him extensive experience. His experience can rest assure that all cases will be handled by skilled professionals.Contact Maier Gutierrez Ayon PLLC.
Luis has significant litigation experience in Nevada's state and federal courts. He focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation and contested and adversarial matters in bankruptcy court, real estate litigation and financial institutions litigation.
Prior to joining the firm, Luis was an associate at an international law firm where he focused on commercial litigation as well as contested bankruptcy matters. He also served as the first law clerk for Presiding Civil Judge, the Honorable Elizabeth Gonzalez and worked for one of the nation's largest plaintiffs' firms where he managed a significant case load involving catastrophic brain and spinal injuries, wrongful death, product liability and insurance bad faith claims.
Luis A. Ayon is commited to providing clients with the highest level of personal service. His dedication in his work focusing on all phases of litigation from obtaining fast pre-litigation results to handling cases through trial and appeal has given him extensive experience. His experience can rest assure that all cases will be handled by skilled professionals.Contact Maier Gutierrez Ayon PLLC.
Pomerantz Law Firm Issues Corrected Class Action Notice
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP issues this corrected notice to clarify the deadline for filing for Lead Plaintiff in the securities class action lawsuit Pomerantz has filed against First Solar Inc. ("First Solar" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:FSLR - News) and certain of its officers. The notice issued on March 16, 2012 incorrectly stated that the deadline for filing for Lead Plaintiff was May 14, 2012. The correct deadline for filing for Lead Plaintiff is May 15, 2012.
The class action, (Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc. et al. 12-cv-00555), filed in the United States District Court, District of Arizona, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased First Solar securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.
If you are a shareholder who purchased First Solar securities during the Class Period, you have until May 15, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number.
First Solar designs and manufactures solar modules. The Company uses a thin film semiconductor technology to manufacture electricity-producing solar modules.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) the full impact of certain manufacturing flaws on the Company's earnings; (2) the Company was improperly recognizing revenue concerning certain products in its systems business; (3) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
The class action, (Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc. et al. 12-cv-00555), filed in the United States District Court, District of Arizona, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased First Solar securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.
If you are a shareholder who purchased First Solar securities during the Class Period, you have until May 15, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number.
First Solar designs and manufactures solar modules. The Company uses a thin film semiconductor technology to manufacture electricity-producing solar modules.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) the full impact of certain manufacturing flaws on the Company's earnings; (2) the Company was improperly recognizing revenue concerning certain products in its systems business; (3) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
The Fund Announces the Motion to Institute a Class Action
Noranda Income Fund announced today that the Quebec Superior Court has authorized the motion to institute a class action against the CEZinc processing facility following an incident that occurred at the processing facility on August 9, 2004.
In August 2004, the CEZinc processing facility was served with a class action motion to institute a class action presentable before the Quebec Superior Court, subsequent to an accidental discharge of sulphur trioxide. The original motion to form a class action was dismissed in June 2008. The plaintiff appealed the decision. In August 2009, the Quebec Court of appeal dismissed the motion. In December 2009, the Processing Facility was served with a new motion for leave to institute a class action.
The Fund intends to vigorously contest the proceedings and will not comment on this matter while the proceedings are pending before the Court.
Noranda Income Fund is an income trust whose units trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol "NIF.UN". Noranda Income Fund was created to acquire Noranda Inc.'s CEZ processing facility and ancillary assets located in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Quebec. The CEZ processing facility is the second-largest zinc processing facility in North America and the largest zinc processing facility in eastern North America, where the majority of zinc customers are located. It produces refined zinc metal and various by-products from zinc concentrates purchased from mining operations. The CEZ processing facility is operated and managed by Canadian Electrolytic Zinc Limited.
In August 2004, the CEZinc processing facility was served with a class action motion to institute a class action presentable before the Quebec Superior Court, subsequent to an accidental discharge of sulphur trioxide. The original motion to form a class action was dismissed in June 2008. The plaintiff appealed the decision. In August 2009, the Quebec Court of appeal dismissed the motion. In December 2009, the Processing Facility was served with a new motion for leave to institute a class action.
The Fund intends to vigorously contest the proceedings and will not comment on this matter while the proceedings are pending before the Court.
Noranda Income Fund is an income trust whose units trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol "NIF.UN". Noranda Income Fund was created to acquire Noranda Inc.'s CEZ processing facility and ancillary assets located in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Quebec. The CEZ processing facility is the second-largest zinc processing facility in North America and the largest zinc processing facility in eastern North America, where the majority of zinc customers are located. It produces refined zinc metal and various by-products from zinc concentrates purchased from mining operations. The CEZ processing facility is operated and managed by Canadian Electrolytic Zinc Limited.
Court: Man should have been told about plea offer
The Supreme Court says a man who pleaded guilty to a crime should have been told about a plea bargain offer from prosecutors.
But the high court ruled that a lower court must first decide whether prosecutors would have been required to stick to their offer to Galin Edward Frye after he was rearrested on the same charge.
Missouri prosecutors offered Frye a three-month sentence, while trying to convict him for driving with a revoked license. Frye's lawyer never told him about the offers. Frye pleaded guilty and drew a harsher sentence.
A Missouri appeals court ruled the Frye should have been told about the offer and threw out his conviction.
The high court agreed but says a lower court must decide whether prosecutors could have withdrawn their offer.
But the high court ruled that a lower court must first decide whether prosecutors would have been required to stick to their offer to Galin Edward Frye after he was rearrested on the same charge.
Missouri prosecutors offered Frye a three-month sentence, while trying to convict him for driving with a revoked license. Frye's lawyer never told him about the offers. Frye pleaded guilty and drew a harsher sentence.
A Missouri appeals court ruled the Frye should have been told about the offer and threw out his conviction.
The high court agreed but says a lower court must decide whether prosecutors could have withdrawn their offer.
New York Securities Litigation Lawyer - Robert L. Herskovits
Robert concentrates his practice in the areas of securities litigation and regulatory enforcement matters. Robert routinely advises broker/dealers, industry professionals and investors in varied litigation, arbitration and regulatory matters relating to the securities industry. Robert is certified as an arbitrator for FINRA, AAA and the NFA and formerly served as in-house counsel for an NYSE-member broker/dealer. Prior to forming Herskovits PLLC, Robert was a partner with Gusrae Kaplan Nusbaum PLLC for more than five years. Robert received a JD from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and a BA from Syracuse University. Robert is admitted to practice in the State of New York and before various federal courts, including the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Robert L. Herskovits is committed to providing his client's with the aggressive advocacy and knowledgeable support they need to get results. He has expertise in prosecuting securities litigation and regulatory enforcement matters and his accomplishments are recognized in "Super Lawyers" as one of the rising attorneys in business litigation. Contact Herskovits PLLC today to schedule a free consultation.
Robert L. Herskovits is committed to providing his client's with the aggressive advocacy and knowledgeable support they need to get results. He has expertise in prosecuting securities litigation and regulatory enforcement matters and his accomplishments are recognized in "Super Lawyers" as one of the rising attorneys in business litigation. Contact Herskovits PLLC today to schedule a free consultation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)