|
|
|
Legal questions raised on NY's gas-drilling rules
Headline Legal News |
2011/07/12 09:26
|
While an energy industry economist says New York's proposal to place large areas off-limits to gas drilling is overly restrictive, an environmental lawyer says the proposed watershed protections don't go far enough.
The Department of Environmental Conservation posted its 700-plus-page blueprint for hydraulic fracturing in the lucrative Marcellus Shale region on its website on Friday, allowing industry and environmental groups to start dissecting the proposed plan to allow gas drilling in an area where it's been on hold since 2008.
More than 3,300 gas wells have been drilled since 2005 across the border in Pennsylvania, bringing new jobs and economic benefits as well as environmental problems such as accidental chemical spills, gas-tainted well water and river pollution. New York state regulators have upheld permitting for three years while they conduct an environmental review and draft new regulations.
The proposed New York rules include a section describing several gas-drilling operation accidents in Pennsylvania and outlining New York's measures designed to mitigate such incidents.
"Our biggest concern is the restrictions that have been added," said John Felmy, chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute. "In particular, the New York City and Syracuse watersheds, and taking state lands off the table. Those are big areas."
Felmy said natural gas development in New York's economically depressed Southern Tier would bring billions of dollars in economic activity, thousands of jobs, and new tax revenues. But a coalition of 47 health and environmental groups has called for a statewide ban on hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, saying it poses unacceptable risks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bank of America settlement faces challenge
Headline Legal News |
2011/07/05 22:23
|
Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement with investors over poor-quality mortgage bonds is facing a new challenge.
On Tuesday, a group of bond investors calling themselves Walnut Place said they objected to the terms of the settlement. In a filing with the New York Supreme Court, the investors said they wanted to be excluded from the settlement that was struck after negotiations between the bank and 22 institutional investors such as BlackRock Inc., the Federal Reserve Bank, and Pimco. The settlement was meant to cover a broader group of investors being represented by a trustee.
The Walnut Place group said the 22 investors were self-appointed and didn't represent or solicit the views of the broader group of bondholders. The group also said the talks were held in secret.
A Bank of America spokesman Lawrence Grayson said in a statement that the conversations between the bank and investors were publicly disclosed and were far from secretive. "The settlement agreement was designed to give certificate holders, like those behind the Walnut Place entities, an opportunity to have any objections heard," the statement read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Borrowers sue over apparent loan mod mishaps
Headline Legal News |
2011/07/05 09:28
|
It seemed Maria Campusano's financial problems were behind her when the mortgage on her Victorian home in a Massachusetts mill town was chopped by hundreds of dollars a month.
She soon learned that her troubles had just begun.
Weeks after making her first payment under the new rate, the school district staffer began receiving past-due notices, documents showing wildly inaccurate loan balances and letters threatening foreclosure. She now fears she'll lose her home.
"How can they take away what I have worked so hard for?" Campusano said.
Campusano is one of two named plaintiffs in a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging breach of contract by Bank of America NA and subsidiary BAC Home Loans Servicing LP.
The suit, which was filed in Los Angeles federal court because BAC is located in nearby Calabasas, is among a growing number of legal complaints accusing banks of disregarding what should be binding agreements to reduce the monthly mortgage payments of troubled borrowers.
The suits involve permanent modifications through the U.S. Treasury-administered Home Affordable Modification Program, which offers incentives to loan servicers who extend modifications, as well as so-called proprietary modifications, which banks offer independently of the government guidelines.
They represent a new wave of complaints against banks that have already weathered years of criticism for their reluctance to modify loans and for foreclosing on borrowers after offering them trial modifications. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mich. man sues, wants Chevron stock at '04 price
Headline Legal News |
2011/07/04 00:11
|
A former lawyer intrigued by the global demand for energy says he chose to invest $100,000 in oil giant Chevron Corp. back in 2004, a smart stock bet that now would have doubled seven years later.
But Perry Christy has a big problem: He says Chevron's stock agent never deducted money from his bank account. As a result, he has no records to show he actually owns a certain number of shares.
So Christy, 69, is suing Chevron and Mellon Investor Services and seeking an extraordinary remedy. He wants a federal judge to declare that he should be credited with buying the stock at a June 2004 price, plus any additional shares that would have piled up by reinvesting dividends. Then he'll pay $100,000.
Based on the terrific rise in San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron's stock, it would be like winning the lottery—and then buying a ticket.
"There was some kind of mix-up on the day I placed the order," Christy insisted in an interview at his home in the Detroit suburb of Northville. "Whether mechanical or electronic, I don't think we'll ever know. But it's their screw-up. When you deal with any large bureaucracy, people are focused on their own narrow niche."
After more than a year in court, Chevron and Mellon smell a scam and want the case dismissed, even suggesting that Christy's story of a genuine yet botched investment simply is a lie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.5 Million Dollar Jury Verdict Awarded Against State Farm Insurance
Headline Legal News |
2011/07/04 00:11
|
A six-week trial in Hamilton County Court ended yesterday afternoon with the award of a $14.5 million jury verdict for Joseph Radcliff and his restoration company, CPM Construction of Indiana, against State Farm Insurance.
State Farm had filed suit for insurance fraud and RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) claims against Radcliff and CPM. The case arose out of work done by Radcliff and CPM following the April 2006 hailstorm. Radcliff and CPM’s allegations were that after State Farm received negative publicity in the Indianapolis media for denying hail damage claims, State Farm made unfounded claims of fraud against Radcliff and instigated the filing of felony charges against him. Those charges were dismissed by the Marion County Prosecutor, but the negative publicity resulted in Radcliff’s personal reputation and business being destroyed.
Not only did the jury find that State Farm’s claims against Radcliff were baseless, but they also found that the Radcliff’s allegations of being defamed by State Farm were true. The jury ordered State Farm to pay Radcliff $14.5 million.
Radcliff was represented by Will Riley, lead trial counsel of the law firm Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC along with attorneys Joe Williams, James Piatt and Jamie Kendall of the same firm and Mark McKinzie, Partner in the law firm Riley Bennett & Egloff LLP.
Riley stated, “It was a tribute to the American jury system that one man can take on the largest insurance company in the nation and win.” McKinzie agreed, stating “This sends a strong signal to Bloomington, Illinois that Hoosiers will not put up with this sort of conduct.” Radcliff commented “I am grateful to those who believed in me and helped me get the true facts before the jury and to the jury for giving me, and my failed company, justice.”
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC is a law firm known for its representation of clients in complex litigation. Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP is a law firm known for advising and representing businesses and their owners in various litigation matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
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
