|
|
|
Insurer settles suit with former USU frat members
Headline Legal News |
2011/05/02 09:08
|
A Georgia insurance company that paid a wrongful death claim on behalf of a former Utah State University fraternity has settled the lawsuit it brought against four of the fraternity's members.
The Herald Journal of Logan reports that attorneys for RSUI Inc. told a 1st District Court judge the company had resolved a dispute with the four men. Court records show attorneys met with the judge April 20 — one day before a planned hearing.
RSUI sought $50,000 each from Sigma Nu pledge Chad Burton and chapter officers Cody Littlewood, Colton Hansen and Mitchell Alm as compensation for a settlement payment to the parents of Michael Starks.
Starks died Nov. 21, 2008, from alcohol poisoning after a fraternity event.
At the time, RSUI was the insurer for the fraternity and its members, including pledges. RSUI attorneys have acknowledged that both the company and the four defendants would have been jointly liable to Starks' parents, George and Jane Starks of Salt Lake City. The company claims it paid the full amount of a settlement with the Starks, although those terms have not been made public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court to hear another arbitration argument
Court News |
2011/05/02 09:07
|
The Supreme Court will consider a plea from companies that cater to people with bad credit to keep disputes with their customers out of court and in the more business-friendly forum of arbitration.
Days after handing businesses a huge victory by limiting class action claims against them, the court said Monday it will take up a new arbitration dispute in the fall.
The new case involves consumer complaints about companies that issue low-rate credit cards to people with bad credit ratings. The consumers said they were promised an initial $300 in available credit, but were charged $257 in fees in the first year they had the credit card.
The consumers sued in federal court, but the companies say the dispute must be handled by an arbitrator, under an agreement the customers signed to receive the card.
The federal Credit Repair Organizations Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, says consumers have a right to sue, which the federal appeals court in San Francisco interpreted as a right to go into court, rather than be forced to submit to arbitration. Appeals courts in Atlanta and Philadelphia have ruled otherwise in evaluating the same language in the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bachmann uses Holocaust to illustrate tax point
Court News |
2011/05/02 09:07
|
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann on Saturday described the loss of "economic liberty" that young Americans face today as a "flash point of history" in which the younger generation will ask what their elders did to stop it.
In a speech to New Hampshire Republicans, Bachmann recounted learning about a horrific time in history as a child — the Holocaust — and wondering if her mother did anything to stop it. She said she was shocked to hear that many Americans weren't aware that millions of Jews had died until after World War II ended.
Bachmann said the next generation will ask similar questions about what their elders did to prevent them from facing a huge tax burden.
"I tell you this story because I think in our day and time, there is no analogy to that horrific action," she said, referring to the Holocaust. "But only to say, we are seeing eclipsed in front of our eyes a similar death and a similar taking away. It is this disenfranchisement that I think we have to answer to."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court sides with Wyoming in dispute with Montana
Court Watch |
2011/05/02 09:07
|
The Supreme Court says Wyoming is not taking too much water from a river system it shares with Montana.
The high court on Monday turned away Montana's complaint that Wyoming is taking too much water from the Tongue and Powder rivers in violation of a 1950 agreement between the states.
Montana claimed that more efficient irrigation in Wyoming is preventing runoff from rejoining the river and flowing downstream.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the 7-1 decision, which says more efficient irrigation is permissible to the detriment of downstream users. Justice Antonin Scalia was the only dissenting vote.
Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case because she worked on it while in the solicitor general's office. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US Supreme Court imposes limits on class actions
Headline Legal News |
2011/04/28 09:32
|
The Supreme Court on Wednesday limited the ability of people to combine forces and fight corporations together when they want to dispute contracts for cell phones, cable television and other services, a move consumer advocates called a crushing blow.
In a 5-4 ideological split, the high court's conservatives said businesses can block their customers from using class actions. The court said the federal arbitration law trumps state laws that invalidate contracts banning class actions.
The decision came in a dispute between AT&T Mobility and a California couple who objected to being charged around $30 in sales tax for what they were told was a free cell phone.
Businesses commonly require arbitration clauses in consumer contracts to protect them from facing their customers in court. The Supreme Court's decision means that corporations now won't need to worry about consumers, shareholders or even employees banding together and fighting them using lawsuits or arbitration, consumer groups said.
"Now, whenever you sign a contract to get a cell phone, open a bank account or take a job, you may be giving up your right to hold companies accountable for fraud, discrimination or other illegal practices," said Deepak Gupta, a Public Citizen lawyer who argued the case.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the decision would hamper the rights of consumers to be protected by state laws.
"Class actions are an effective way to ensure consumer protection, but today's opinion by the Roberts court continued to move in a direction that undermines this access to justice for hard-working Americans," Leahy said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Investment Fraud Litigation |
|
|
|
|
Securities fraud, also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, is a practice that induces investors to make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false information, frequently resulting in losses, in violation of the securities laws. Securities Arbitration. Generally speaking, securities fraud consists of deceptive practices in the stock and commodity markets, and occurs when investors are enticed to part with their money based on untrue statements.
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
|
The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Securities Law News as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case. | Affordable Law Firm Website Design by Law Promo |
|
Legal News RSS Feed
