Calif. high court mulling release of law test data

Researcher Richard Sander has been fighting for years to obtain sensitive data collected by the administrator of California's bar examination to help him examine the effects affirmative action policies have on the performance of minority law school students.

On Thursday, the California Supreme Court will rule on the matter after an appeal court ordered the state bar to turn over the data to Sander.

Sander is a University of California, Los Angeles law professor who is seeking information on test takers' race, law schools attended, year graduated from law school, bar pass rate, law school grades and scores from standardized tests for admission to law schools.

Appeals court to review approval of BP settlement

A year ago, lawyers for BP and Gulf Coast residents and businesses took turns urging a federal judge to approve their settlement for compensating victims of the company's massive 2010 oil spill.

On Monday, however, the one-time allies will be at odds when an appeals court hears objections to the multibillion-dollar deal. That's because several months after U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier approved the settlement, BP started complaining that the judge and court-appointed claims administrator were misinterpreting it. The London-based oil giant is worried it could be forced to pay billions of dollars more for bogus or inflated claims by businesses.

Plaintiffs' attorneys who brokered the deal want the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the class-action settlement.

As of Friday, payments have been made to more than 38,000 people and businesses for an estimated $3.7 billion. Tens of thousands more could file claims in the coming months.

The settlement doesn't have a cap, but BP initially estimated that it would pay roughly $7.8 billion to resolve the claims. Later, as it started to challenge the business payouts, the company said it no longer could give a reliable estimate for how much the deal will cost.

The dispute centers on money for businesses, not individuals. Awards are based on a comparison of revenues and expenses before and after the spill. BP says a "policy decision" that claims administrator Patrick Juneau announced in January has allowed businesses to manipulate those figures in a way that leads to errors in calculating their actual lost profits.

Appeals court moves BP forward in settlement dispute

The April 2010 blowout of BP's Macondo well off the Louisiana coast triggered an explosion that killed 11 workers on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and led to millions of gallons of oil spilling into the Gulf. Shortly after the disaster, BP agreed to create a $20 billion compensation fund that was administered at first by the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, led by attorney Kenneth Feinberg.

BP argued that Barbier and court-appointed claims administrator Patrick Juneau misinterpreted terms of the settlement. Plaintiffs' lawyers countered that BP undervalued the settlement and underestimated how many claimants would qualify for payments.

In the panel's majority opinion, Judge Edith Brown Clement said BP has consistently argued that the settlement's complex formula for compensating businesses was intended to cover "real economic losses, not artificial losses that appear only from the timing of cash flows."

"The interests of individuals who may be reaping windfall recoveries because of an inappropriate interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and those who could never have recovered in individual suits for failure to show causation are not outweighed by the potential loss to a company and its public shareholders of hundreds of millions of dollars of unrecoverable awards," Clement wrote.

Judge Leslie Southwick wrote a concurring opinion. Judge James Dennis wrote a partial dissent, largely disagreeing with the other two.

"Because BP has not satisfied its heavy burden of showing that a change in circumstances or law warranted the modifications it sought, the district court correctly affirmed the Administrator's decision rejecting BP's argument and actions to modify the agreement," Dennis wrote.

IMF head Lagarde in court in fraud probe

International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde is facing questions at a special Paris court Thursday over her role in the 400 million euro ($520 million) pay-off to a controversial businessman when she was France's finance minister.
The court hearing threatens to sully the reputations of both Lagarde and France. The payment was made to well-connected entrepreneur Bernard Tapie as part of a private arbitration process to settle a dispute with state-owned bank Credit Lyonnais over the botched sale of Adidas in the 1990s. It is seen by many in France as an example of the cozy relationship between big money and big power in France.
Lagarde has earned praise for her negotiating skills as managing director of the IMF through Europe's debt crisis and is seen as a trailblazer for women leaders. Her decision to let the Adidas dispute go to private arbitration rather than be settled in the courts has drawn criticism, and French lawmakers asked magistrates to investigate.
Lagarde, smiling at reporters, left her Paris apartment Thursday morning and appeared at a special court that handles cases involving government ministers. She has denied wrongdoing.
At the time of the payment, Tapie was close to then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who was Lagarde's boss. Critics have said the deal was too generous to Tapie at the expense of the French state, and that the case shouldn't have gone to a private arbitration authority because it involved a state-owned bank.

RI Supreme Court settles $8,500 Vegas loan dispute

What happens in Vegas shouldn't necessarily stay in Vegas, the Rhode Island Supreme Court said Friday as it ruled a Providence man who called a friend from Sin City to borrow $8,500 for gambling losses must pay it back despite an old law that says otherwise.
The court opinion ends a long legal dispute over the money given to Juan Catala by David S. Vogel, a Providence attorney who ran for Congress last fall as an independent. But despite the ruling from the high court, Catala said he'll never repay his former friend.
"I'll go to jail before I give him a dollar," Catala told The Associated Press.
According to court documents, Catala and his fiancée were on a trip to Las Vegas in 2007 when Catala called Vogel for help. According to Vogel, Catala said he had lost a substantial sum of money gambling and needed to recover his losses. Vogel agreed to wire $8,500 to the Bellagio Hotel.
After Catala refused to repay the loan, Vogel sued. Catala initially disputed that he had received the money but later argued that the loan was void because of a more than century-old Rhode Island law that invalidates loan agreements when the lender knows the money would be used for gambling. On Friday, Catala said Vogel gave him the money as an investment, with the understanding that he would be paid back only if Catala won.

Employment Lawyer's Group - Wrongful Termination

Some of the most complex and financially sizable employment lawsuits center on allegations of wrongful termination. Plaintiffs in such cases range from restaurant servers and factory workers to high-level executives making six- or even seven-figure salaries, and valid causes of a wrongful termination action cover a broad spectrum.

At the Employment Lawyers Group, we have achieved many significant recoveries for people who were fired illegally. We have also helped people obtain compensation after being forced to quit due to intolerable work conditions and those whose employment contracts were violated.

http://www.venturaemploymentlawyer.com/practice-areas/wrongful-termination

Court: Judges cannot indefinitely delay appeals

The Supreme Court says federal judges cannot indefinitely delay a death row inmate's federal appeals to see if the convict can become mentally competent enough to help his lawyer.

The high court unanimously ruled Tuesday against Arizona death row inmate Ernest Gonzales and Ohio death row inmate Sean Carter.

Inmates appealing state death sentences to federal court have a right to a lawyer. But the courts never said whether the inmates have to be mentally competent enough to help their lawyers with their federal appeals. Gonzales and Carter wanted the high court to say that federal judges have discretion to hold up proceedings indefinitely until the inmates are ready.

Justice Clarence Thomas says "at some point, the state must be allowed to defend its judgment of conviction."