|
|
|
Convicted financier says he can't afford a lawyer
Court Watch |
2012/12/19 08:03
|
An Indiana financier and former chief executive of National Lampoon who was convicted of swindling investors out of about $200 million says he can't afford to hire an attorney to handle his appeal.
In federal court documents filed Monday, Timothy Durham said his multimillion-dollar Indianapolis home is in foreclosure and all of his financial assets are tied up bankruptcy proceedings of the companies he used to control.
Durham's home in Fortville, Ind., about 20 miles northeast of Indianapolis, has a $5 million mortgage but a free-market value of only $3 million, according to the documents.
Durham says his only income this year was $6,000 he received as a director of Dallas-based insurer CLST Holdings Inc. He also has stock in CLST and National Lampoon, the documents say.
Durham was sentenced to 50 years in prison last month on securities fraud and other convictions in the collapse of Akron, Ohio-based Fair Finance. He also was ordered to pay $202.8 million in restitution. Durham received credit for $6 million that already has been recovered.
Durham and two business partners were charged with stripping Fair Finance of its assets and using the money to buy mansions, classic cars and other luxury items and to keep another Durham company afloat. The men were convicted of operating an elaborate Ponzi scheme to hide the company's depleted condition from regulators and investors, many of whom were elderly.
Defense lawyers argued that Durham and the others were caught off-guard by the economic crisis of 2008, and bewildered when regulators placed them under more strict scrutiny and investors made a run on the company. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minn. gay couple in '71 marriage case still united
Court Watch |
2012/12/10 20:46
|
When Jack Baker proposed to Michael McConnell that they join their lives together as a couple, in March 1967, McConnell accepted with a condition that was utterly radical for its time: that someday they would legally marry.
Just a few years later, the U.S. Supreme Court slammed the door on the men's Minnesota lawsuit to be the first same-sex couple to legally marry in the U.S. It took another 40 years for the nation's highest court to revisit gay marriage rights, and Baker and McConnell — still together, still living in Minneapolis — are alive to see it.
On Friday, the justices decided to take a potentially historic look at gay marriage by agreeing to hear two cases that challenge official discrimination against gay Americans either by forbidding them from marrying or denying those who can marry legally the right to obtain federal benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples.
"The outcome was never in doubt because the conclusion was intuitively obvious to a first-year law student," Baker wrote in an email to The Associated Press. The couple, who have kept a low profile in the years since they made national headlines with their marriage pursuit, declined an interview request but responded to a few questions via email.
While Baker saw the court's action as an obvious step, marriage between two men was nearly unthinkable to most Americans decades earlier when the couple walked into the Hennepin County courthouse in Minneapolis on May 18, 1970, and tried to get a license. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Limits on class-action lawsuits at Supreme Court
Court Watch |
2012/11/06 18:25
|
The Supreme Court appeared divided Monday in two cases in which businesses are trying to make it harder for customers or investors to band together to sue them.
The justices heard arguments in appeals from biotech company Amgen Inc. and cable provider Comcast Corp. that seek to shut down class-action lawsuits against the businesses.
Amgen is fighting securities fraud claims that misstatements about two of its drugs used to treat anemia artificially inflated its stock price. Comcast is facing a lawsuit from customers who say the company's monopoly in parts of the Philadelphia area allowed it to raise prices unfairly.
Last year, the Supreme Court raised the bar for some class-action suits when it sided with Wal-Mart against up to 1.6 million of its female employees who complained of sex discrimination. In the Wal-Mart case, the court said there were too many women in too many jobs at the nation's largest private employer to wrap into one lawsuit.
Class actions increase pressure on businesses to settle suits because of the cost of defending them and the potential for very large judgments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
UK court sides with Samsung in Apple suit
Court Watch |
2012/10/20 23:58
|
Britain's Court of Appeal has backed a judgment that Samsung's Galaxy
tablet computer is "not as cool" as Apple's iPad — and therefore
doesn't infringe Apple's rights.
The panel's upholding of the findings of by a lower court endorses the
U.K. judgment which made headlines around the world when it was handed
down in July. Judge Colin Birss had then gushed over Apple's design,
while knocking back the company's case against its rival.
"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking," Birss wrote
at the time, enthusing over its "undecorated flat surfaces," its "very
thin rim" and "crisp edge."
"It is an understated, smooth and simple product," Birss wrote, saying
that Samsung's products "are not as cool."
On Thursday, the Court of Appeal agreed unanimously with Birss, with
Judge Robin Jacob ordering Apple to publicize the court rulings to
make sure consumers knew that Samsung wasn't a copycat.
"The acknowledgement must come from the horse's mouth," Jacob said.
"Nothing short of that will be sure to do the job completely."
Kim Walker, a partner with English law firm Thomas Eggar LLP, said
that the ruling was an endorsement of Samsung's originality — if not
its design.
"It appears that you don't have to be cool to be original when it
comes to intellectual property rights," she wrote in an email. "You
just have to be different!"
The British case is just one of several in Apple and Samsung's
international copyright battle, which has raged across Europe and the
United States. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
MacDonald goes to court in 'Fatal Vision' case
Court Watch |
2012/09/22 22:36
|
Jeffrey MacDonald, a clean-cut Green Beret and doctor convicted of killing of his pregnant wife and their two daughters, is getting another chance to try proving his innocence — more than four decades after the nation was gripped by his tales of Charles Manson-like hippies doped up on acid slaughtering his family.
The case now hinges on something that wasn't available when he was first put on trial: DNA evidence. A federal judge planned to hold a hearing Monday to consider new DNA evidence and witness testimony that MacDonald and his supporters say will finally clear him of a crime that became the basis of Joe McGinniss' best-selling book "Fatal Vision" and a made-for-TV drama.
It's the latest twist in a case that has been the subject of military and civilian courts, intense legal wrangling and shifting alliances. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm & Attorney Directory |
| Law Firm PR News provides the most current career information of legal professionals and is the top source for law firms and attorneys. |
| Lawyer & Law Firm Directory |
|
|
Law Firm PR News RSS
