|
|
|
Court Shields Bloggers From Disclosing Names
Law Firm Press Release |
2008/07/09 07:22
|
A group of Internet users successfully fought a subpoena seeking their identities for comments written on a blog, but they are not entitled to attorney fees, a California appeals court ruled.
Mordecai Tendler asked Google for subpoenas to get the IP addresses of Web users who allegedly defamed him on jewishwhistleblower.blogspot.com.
When Google refused to comply with the subpoena orders, Tendler requested similar subpoenas for the Blogspot addresses of rabbinicintegrity, jewishsurvivors, and newhempsteadnews. The unnamed Doe defendants fought back with a motion to strike.
Justice Mihara reversed the lower court's award of $42,000 in attorney fees and costs after Tendler ultimately withdrew the subpoenas. Mihara ruled that a request for a subpoena does not fall within the anti-SLAPP statute.
Even the broadest interpretation of the (statute) cannot stretch it to cover a subpoena, the judge ruled. A request for a subpoena is not a complaint.
Mihara also noted that the third-party subpoena request was not even served on the Internet users and could not possibly be expected to initiate a 'cause of action' against that adverse party. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anheuser-Bush Invokes Cuban Embargo To Fight Buyout
State Law Issues |
2008/07/09 07:18
|
Anheuser-Busch has fired back at InBev, claiming the Belgium-based beer company made false statements about its buyout plan to try to buy the American beer giant at a discount. Among other things, Anheuser-Busch claims that InBev's 570 workers in Cuba, where InBev owns 55 percent of the beer market, would run afoul of the U.S. trade embargo.
In its federal claim, Anheuser-Busch challenges InBev's declaration that it would base its North American headquarters in St. Louis. InBev's Cuban operations would prevent that because of the Trading with the Enemy Act and Cuban Assets Control Regulations, the complaint states.
The lawsuit also questions InBev's statement that it has fully committed financing to buy Anheuser-Busch.
Given the current state of the credit markets, no group of lenders would unconditionally agree to loan InBev the $40 billion it will need, the complaint states. Any commitments InBev has received are certainly rife with conditions leaving the proposed lenders free to walk away if, for example, market conditions deteriorate, InBev's or the Company's performance worsens, or they are unable to syndicate their loans. For InBev to tout its purportedly 'fully committed' financing without disclosing these conditions is materially misleading.
Anheuser-Busch seeks an injunction prohibiting InBev from soliciting shareholders until it has clarified the allegedly misleading statements. InBev sued in Delaware state court in June, seeking to oust Anheuser-Busch's Board of Directors after the board rejected InBev's $47 billion offer.
Anheuser-Busch is represented by James Bennett. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refco CEO Bennett Gets 16 Years
State Law Issues |
2008/07/08 07:19
|
Former Refco CEO Phillip Bennett was sentenced on July 3 to 16 years in prison and ordered to pay $2.4 billion for his role in the company's $2.4 billion fraud. Bennett pleaded guilty in February to all 20 charges against him, including conspiracy, securities fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud and money laundering.
Bennett oversaw massive book juggling to hide losses and inflate revenue. The frauds were discovered after Thomas H. Lee Partners bought Refco in August 2004. The company collapsed in October 2005.
U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald held Bennett responsible for stealing approximately $2.4 billion from Refco's banks and investors, the U.S. Attorney's Office said. Bennett, 59, of Gladstone, N.J., was ordered to report to prison on Sept. 4. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ruling Limits Courts' Role In Environmental Review
Legal World News |
2008/07/07 07:17
|
The 9th Circuit rebuffed environmentalists who challenged a logging project in the Idaho Panhandle National Forest, saying it is not the court's job to act as a panel of scientists and order the government to explain every possible scientific uncertainty.
The full appellate court overturned an injunction granted to the Lands Council and the Wild West Institute, clearing the way for selective logging of 3,829 acres of land as part of the Mission Brush Project.
Lands Council argued that the U.S. Forest Service violated federal environmental law by failing to explain its scientific analysis of the project's effect on wildlife, especially the flammulated owl, and by not maintaining at least 10 percent old growth throughout the forest.
The court said it took the case en banc to clarify some of our environmental jurisprudence with respect to our review of the actions of the United States Forest Service.
Judge Smith said Lands Council's arguments illustrate how, in recent years, our environmental jurisprudence has, at times, shifted away from the appropriate standard of review.
It is not the role of federal courts to tell the Forest Service how to validate its hypotheses on wildlife viability, choose which scientific studies should be used for determining compliance with federal law, and order the agency to explain each scientific uncertainty, Smith said.
The court, concluding that the government has complied with federal law, reversed the halt on selective logging.
The thinning project had been proposed, in part to restore the forests to their historic composition, and to decrease the risks of fires, insects and disease.
nbsp; |
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm News RSS Feed
