The Insightful Immigration Blog – Commentaries on Immigration Policy, Cases and Trends: RIGHT TO APPOINTED COUNSEL IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS? THE SUPREME COURT MAY HAVE OPENED THE DOOR IN TURNER v. ROGERS

by Cyrus Mehta

The Insightful Immigration Blog – Commentaries on Immigration Policy, Cases and Trends: RIGHT TO APPOINTED COUNSEL IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS? THE SUPREME COURT MAY HAVE OPENED THE DOOR IN TURNER v. ROGERS: "non-citizen placed in removal proceedings has the privilege of being represented at no expense to the government pursuant to §240(b)(4)(A) and §292 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. While every non-citizen has a right to be represented by competent counsel of his or her choosing, he or she cannot ask the Immigration Court to appoint counsel if indigent. Even though we all know that immigration law is extremely complex, and a respondent’s chances to stave off removal are substantially increased if represented by counsel, this person is out of luck if he or she cannot afford a lawyer or does not have access to one if detained in a remote area where an immigration attorney may not be in close proximity."

Bank of America Announces Massive $8.5 Billion Mortgage-Backed Securities Settlement : The D & O Diary

Kevin LaCroix reports.

Bank of America Announces Massive $8.5 Billion Mortgage-Backed Securities Settlement : The D & O Diary: "The deal itself involves a settlement with the Bank of New York Mellon as trustee to 530 RMBS trusts having an original principal balance of $424 billion and unpaid principal balance of $221 billion. According to the Wall Street Journal’s account of the deal, the dispute had begun with a demand last October from a law firm representing 22 institutional investors.



The investors had demanded that BofA repurchase mortgages that had been packaged into securities, basing their demand on allegations of “breaches of representations and warranties contained in the Governing Agreements with respect to the Covered Trusts (including alleged failure to comply with underwriting guidelines (including limitations on underwriting exceptions), to comply with required loan-to-value and debt-to-income ratios, to ensure appropriate appraisals of mortgaged properties, and to verify appropriate owner-occupancy status), and of the repurchase provisions contained in the Governing Agreements. ”Although the original demand was on behalf only of the 22 investors, the settlement is on behalf of virtually all investors in the trusts."

TortsProf Blog: IL: Med Mal Pattern Jury Instruction is Erroneous

TortsProf Blog: IL: Med Mal Pattern Jury Instruction is Erroneous

OTHERWISE: Republicans reward business with lawsuit limitations

OTHERWISE: Republicans reward business with lawsuit limitations

Cigarette Health Warnings > Interactive Store Counter Photo

Cigarette Health Warnings > Interactive Store Counter Photo: "This interactive retail counter shows how the new cigarette health warnings will look on packages and advertisements starting by September 2012. The before image shows a convenience store with packs of cigarettes and ads behind the counter. The after image shows the packages with the nine new cigarette health warnings applied.

Use your mouse to drag the slider left or right to see the difference in cigarette packaging and advertisement. You can also use the A and D keys to move left or right."

5 yesrs, $500M pd by NYC for police misconduct - NYTimes.com

Watching the Detectives - NYTimes.com

"ACCORDING to a report released yesterday by John C. Liu, the New York City comptroller, over the last five years the city has paid more than $500 million in settlements and judgments against the New York Police Department, often involving misconduct claims against individual officers — and that doesn’t include attorneys’ salaries and administrative costs.

The number of claims for offenses like false arrest and brutality has surged by 43 percent over the last five years; in 2010, 8,104 claims were filed and $136 million was paid out."

Mutual Fund Shareholder Suits Curbed by U.S. Supreme Court - Bloomberg

Only the person or company in whose name a false statement is issued, i.e. only the one "ultimately responsible" is the "maker" of a false statement. The court immunized Janus Capital's in-house captive investment advisers from 10(b)(5) fraud actions. They accomplished this via a remarkably narrow interpretation of the verb "make". One of the broadest verbs in the English language, its definitions extend for 12 pages in the micro-film edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. The court split along the usual 5-4 lines, with Justice Thomas writing the majority opinion. - GWC

Mutual Fund Shareholder Suits Curbed by U.S. Supreme Court - Bloomberg:

"A divided U.S. Supreme Court threw out a suit against Janus Capital Group Inc. (JNS) in a ruling that will limit the ability of shareholders of mutual fund companies to press securities fraud suits.
The court, voting 5-4 along ideological lines, today said shareholders can’t sue Janus and a subsidiary for helping produce allegedly misleading prospectuses for Janus mutual funds. The majority said that the funds are separate legal entities and that neither the parent company nor the subsidiary were responsible for the prospectuses."

OTHERWISE: Kiobel: Corporations can be human rights violators, plaintiffs say in appeal to SCOTUScase at Court : SCOTUSblog

OTHERWISE: Kiobel: Corporations can be human rights violators, plaintiffs say in appeal to SCOTUScase at Court : SCOTUSblog

Mass Tort Litigation Blog: BP Oil Spill Appeals Judges Appointed

Mass Tort Litigation Blog: BP Oil Spill Appeals Judges Appointed: "he Gulf Coast Claims Facility has appointed twenty-five people to serve as appeals judges for BP's private compensation system. Alabama's Press Register describes the process as follows:
Anyone who files a claim valued at more than $250,000 can protest the claims operation’s initial ruling to the appeals panel. BP can protest the decision on any claim above $500,000.
The judges will serve in panels of three. The panels will have 14 days to rule on each case before them.
If claimants are not happy with the appeals ruling, they can file their claim with the U.S. Coast Guard, or sue BP and other companies involved in the spill."

Little Risk in Being a Corporate Director or Officer - NYTimes.com

As usual the first resort of in self-defense is to exaggerate one's own risk or misfortune. The rich are probably no more self-indulgent than are others, but it's somehow more annoying when the truth is that they're, well...rich, and not victims.

Little Risk in Being a Corporate Director or Officer - NYTimes.com: "BY STEVEN M. DAVIDOFF

They are paid millions, but some complain that it’s no longer worth it.

These men and women argue that, as corporate directors and officers, they have too much chance of liability for a company’s operations. Because of this, they claim, the risks of serving as a director or officer have become too great, and it will become harder to recruit and retain competent directors and officers. But the truth is that they have about the same chance of being held liable for their poor management of a public firm as they have of being struck by lightning."

N.Y. court will hear appeal of claims against Port Authority for 1993 World Trade Center bombing | NJ.com

The jury verdict sheet is a shock. Fault was allocated 68% to the Port Authority and 32% to "The bombers" for the 1993 World Trade Center garage bombing.  A high level PA  team had gone to London and reported back that "Scotland Yard was appalled" by the lack of security at the WTC garage.

This is an opportunity for the New York Court of Appeals to go off the tracks. The jury should never have been asked to compare the Port Authority's neglect with the terrorists fault. The question for the jury was "Was the Port Authority negligent in its efforts to take precautions against a foreseeable risk of attack?" To that its answer was `Yes'. Inquiry should have stopped there. - GWC

N.Y. court will hear appeal of claims against Port Authority for 1993 World Trade Center bombing | NJ.com:

"ALBANY — New York's top court will hear the appeal of claims against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for the 1993 terrorist bombing of its World Trade Center with a rental van of explosives driven by terrorists into its public parking garage.
In lawsuits citing garage security concerns since 1984, a jury found the agency that owned the trade center negligent for failing to maintain reasonably safe premises and 68 percent at fault, blaming the terrorists for the other 32 percent.
A mid-level court upheld the verdict, rejecting the authority's claim of governmental immunity.
The agency says holding it doubly culpable as the terrorists is unreasonable.
The Court of Appeals will hear arguments Wednesday."