Showing posts with label against. Show all posts
Showing posts with label against. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Lawsuit against Le-Nature's law firm reinstated

PITTSBURGH (AP) -- A Pennsylvania appeals court has reinstated a malpractice claim against one of Pittsburgh's leading law firms.

The Superior Court ruling Monday involves law firm K & L Gates and Le-Nature's, a bankrupt soft drink maker that was based in Latrobe.

In the lawsuit a bankruptcy court trustee had accused K & L Gates of professional negligence for its role in an investigation that failed to uncover massive fraud at Le-Nature's.

Last year the founder of Le-Nature's was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison for an accounting fraud scheme that cost investors $684 million. Other company executives and associates also received stiff sentences.

A K & L Gates spokesman didn't immediately respond to messages seeking comment.


View the original article here

Monday, May 7, 2012

Ohio court: Judge erred in $2B award against Ford

CLEVELAND (AP) -- An appeals court this week has reversed a decision ordering Ford Motor Co. to pay nearly $2 billion in damages to thousands of commercial truck dealerships, sending the case back to the lower courts for a new trial.

The decision Thursday by the 8th Ohio Court of Appeals overturned last year's ruling that said the automaker had violated dealer agreements and overcharged for commercial trucks over an 11-year period. It determined that a trial judge in Cleveland had abused his discretion in excluding possible evidence in Ford's favor.

The appeals court called the contract in question "ambiguous" and said it can be interpreted in different ways. It said a jury, which originally only heard certain arguments because some were excluded, should have heard all key arguments in the case.

The appeals court also ruled that Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Peter Corrigan erred in not allowing Ford attorneys to challenge expert testimony from the plaintiffs when it was determining damages in the case.

The class-action lawsuit, brought on by Westgate Ford Truck Sales of Youngstown in 2002, included dealers who purchased a series 600 truck or higher from Ford from 1987 to 1997. The lawsuit accused the automaker of violating its contract by failing to reveal that price concessions were given to some dealers.

The jury awarded $4.5 million in damages to Westgate, to which about $6.7 million in interest was added. The Dearborn, Mich.-based Ford later appealed.

The $2 billion award, which included a judgment of about $781 million and about $1.2 billion in interest, covered more than 3,000 dealerships around the country and about 474,000 trucks.

Attorney James Lowe, who represents some of the dealers, said he hadn't seen the decision and declined to comment Friday.


View the original article here

Sunday, May 6, 2012

Ohio court reverses $2 billion judgment against Ford

(Reuters) - The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed a $2 billion judgment against Ford Motor Co this week and ordered a new trial for a group of dealers who said the No. 2 U.S. automaker overcharged them for commercial trucks over an 11-year period.

In its Thursday ruling, the appeals court said the contract at the heart of the dealers' class-action suit was "ambiguous." It also said evidence submitted by Ford was wrongly excluded.

"We hold that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding Ford's mitigating evidence at the damages trial," the court said in its ruling.

Ford disclosed the reversal in a quarterly filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday.

The decision could potentially save the Dearborn, Michigan-based automaker a significant amount of money it would have eventually had to pay disgruntled dealers.

"We look forward to trying the case before a jury that will now consider all the evidence that was improperly excluded during the first trial," said Ford spokeswoman Marcey Evans.

The dealers can request a review by the Ohio supreme court. James Lowe, an attorney for the dealers, said they would consider their options after reviewing the court's opinion.

The dealers first sued Ford in 2002. According to the suit, Ford breached its sales and service agreement with medium- and heavy-truck dealers by offering unpublished discounts through a program that effectively overcharged some dealers.

The suit covered all Ford dealers that bought 600-series larger trucks from 1987 to 1997.

In February 2011, a jury awarded the named plaintiff in the suit, Westgate Ford Truck Sales of Ohio, $4.5 million in damages. In June 2011, the court awarded the entire class of more than 3,100 dealers nationwide nearly $2 billion.

(Reporting by Deepa Seetharaman in Detroit; editing by Matthew Lewis)


View the original article here

Thursday, April 26, 2012

American makes its case against union contracts

NEW YORK (AP) -- Lawyers for American Airlines and its labor unions argued Monday in federal bankruptcy court over the best course for the financially troubled company.

American's lawyers said the company must make painful cuts in labor costs to survive in an increasingly competitive industry. Union lawyers suggested that there is a gentler alternative — a merger with US Airways.

American's parent, AMR Corp., has lost about $12 billion since 2001 and filed for bankruptcy protection in November. The company says it is saddled with higher labor costs than competitors and must eliminate 13,000 union jobs, freeze or terminate pension plans, curb health benefits, and change work rules.

Without union approval, American can only make those cuts — saving $1.25 billion a year — if the bankruptcy court lets it throw out the union contracts. Otherwise, American says, it can't survive.

"A restructured job is better than no job at all," said Jack Gallagher, a lawyer for American, the nation's third-biggest airline.

Once-great carriers such as Pan Am and TWA are gone. "We don't want to join them," he told Judge Sean H. Lane, who will decide whether American can throw out the union contracts.

Lawyers for unions that represent nearly 55,000 pilots, flight attendants and ground workers at American said the airline's turnaround plan is unfair and unworkable. It's endorsed only by the company's paid witnesses, said union lawyer Edgar N. James.

"There are alternatives out there that don't require these draconian cuts," he said.

The union lawyer was referring to last week's bombshell — American's unions endorsed a potential takeover bid by US Airways Group Inc., the fifth-largest U.S. carrier, which has failed in previous merger attempts with United and Delta. Union officials approved tentative contracts that would kick in if US Airways can take control, with terms including pay raises and fewer job losses.

US Airways CEO Doug Parker says he would keep both airlines' hubs and planes, stick with the American Airlines name, and create a bigger company that could compete against United and Delta. But AMR CEO Thomas Horton says he's not interested in a merger until his company finishes cutting costs in bankruptcy.

American has exclusive rights to present a restructuring plan to the court until Sept. 28. The unions and other creditors could ask the court to cut that period short if there is a legitimate alternate proposal.

Horton told American Airlines employees in a letter Monday that the US Airways announcement changed nothing. He said US Airways has its own long-standing problems, and that only American and its creditors can determine the company's future.

While it would be natural to look for "an easy way out" — a dismissive reference to letting US Airways take over — "there is no easy path back to renewal and growth and industry leadership," Horton said.

Horton has said American can bounce back on its own, with new revenue from international flying, a planned expansion at five big U.S. hubs, and orders for 460 new planes that will be more fuel-efficient and comfortable.

But to carry out that turnaround, American says, it needs relief from union work rules that limit its flexibility and drive up costs. The most important are restrictions in the pilots' contract that limit American's use of certain planes and prevent it from outsourcing flying to other U.S. airlines, which Horton wants to do. Another rule allows crews to fix seats while a plane is outside but not while it's in the hangar.

Before the hearing, union members rallied outside the courthouse a few blocks from Wall Street. They carried signs saying "Merge don't purge" and chanted "We got sold out."

The fight inside the courtroom is about more than just American. If the company gets its way, it will cement a decade-long upheaval that has seen most other large U.S. airlines use the bankruptcy process to cut wages, shed pension obligations, and eliminate cumbersome union work rules.

American is expected to take the entire week to make its case. That will be followed by a two-week break for the company and unions to try to negotiate agreements outside court. The Transport Workers Union will start voting on American's final offer next week, a spokesman said. If any of the three unions haven't settled by May 14, they will present their case, and the judge is expected to issue a decision in early June.

AMR lost more than $10 billion in the decade leading up to its Chapter 11 filing, and the losses keep piling up — another $1.7 billion in the first three months of 2012, most of it for restructuring expenses. Other major U.S. airlines, however, have returned to profitability by raising fares, imposing more fees on passengers, and by cutting labor costs.

"We're going through a major restructuring of labor relations in the airline industry," said Gary Chaison, a professor of industrial relations at Clark University in Massachusetts.

The unions, which forced American to capitulate on wages in the 1990s, have lost much of their clout. Even if they agree to concessions now, Chaison said, they'll probably be asked to give up more in a few years as the airlines keep cutting costs.

___

Follow David Koenig at http://www.twitter.com/airlinewriter

Follow Scott Mayerowitz at http://www.twitter.com/globetrotscott

Mayerowitz reported from New York, Koenig from Dallas.


View the original article here

Monday, April 23, 2012

Judge dismisses claims against banks in GE lawsuit

By Nick Brown

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed claims against Goldman Sachs Group Inc (NYS:GS - News), JPMorgan Chase & Co (NYS:JPM - News) and 40 other defendants that they helped mislead investors in General Electric Co's $12.2 billion stock offering in 2008.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, who took over the case in February, said a January ruling denying the defendants' bid to dismiss claims failed to consider key court rulings and improperly relied on certain statements.

Cote's ruling does not entirely dismiss the class action lawsuit filed by GE investors, keeping intact claims that GE (NYS:GE - News) and its chief financial officer, Keith Sherin, made misleading statements about the quality of the company's loan portfolio.

The State Universities Retirement System of Illinois, the lead plaintiff, filed the lawsuit in 2009, saying GE and myriad financial firms were responsible for investor losses during a six-month period when GE's stock price fell to about $10 from about $26.

The plaintiffs alleged that GE withheld information regarding its health and the health of its GE Capital finance arm, including exposures to subprime and other low-quality loans. They also said GE misleadingly touted itself as being safer than rivals, despite the effects of the financial crisis.

Among those dismissed from the lawsuit on Wednesday are Barclays PLC (LSE:BARC.L - News), Citigroup (NYS:C) and Bank of America Corp (NYS:BAC - News).

"The January opinion improperly relied on statements that were not incorporated into the offering documents, and on statements that were modified and superseded by later statements," Cote said.

It also failed to take into account a court ruling that had established rules on whether stated opinions could be grounds for a lawsuit, Cote said.

Attorneys for the dismissed defendants did not respond to requests for comment. Lawyers for the plaintiffs could not immediately be reached.

A GE spokesman did not respond to an email seeking comment.

The case is In re: General Electric Co Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 09-01951.

(Additional reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Ryan Woo)


View the original article here