El Blog de noticias sobre Derecho Anglo-Americano

El Gertrude Ryan Law Observatory ha creado un espacio dedicado al análisis y comentario de
temas de actualidad en el mundo jurídico de los Estados Unidos, orientado a promover y
fomentar la universalización del Derecho en todas sus áreas


lunes, 15 de octubre de 2007

The Wall Street Journal: Tribunal Supremo rechaza a Microsoft

Supreme Court Rejects Microsoft,Best Buy Appeal in Fraud Lawsuit
Justices to Decide on Money-Laundering Case

By MARK H. ANDERSONOctober 15, 2007 11:46 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Microsoft Corp. and a unit of Best Buy Co., ending a bid by the two companies to stop a class-action lawsuit over a joint marketing campaign for MSN Internet Access service.

The companies had appealed a lower court ruling that allowed them to be sued under federal racketeering laws, a development that could open them up to tripled damages if they were to lose the class-action case.

The lawsuit challenges a part of a $200 million marketing agreement between the companies where, among other things, Best Buy agreed to sign up customers for a trial membership in the Microsoft Internet service, allegedly without obtaining their prior consent.

The legal issue in the case is whether the joint agreement between the two companies qualifies as an "enterprise" under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The law was enacted to combat organized crime, but plaintiffs have sought to use civil remedies under the RICO statute to sue companies.

"The rule in effect would make a broad range of routine corporate conduct actionable under RICO," the companies said in the appeal. "This dramatic increase in potential corporate RICO liability with its draconian remedies warrants review."

The companies urged the high court to take up their appeal, citing disagreement among the federal court circuits regarding the corporate "enterprise" question.

Attorneys for the class of plaintiffs acknowledged the circuit split -- a common reason the Supreme Court accepts an appeal -- but argued there wasn't a need to resolve it now. "Microsoft fails to show why a circuit split that has existed for over two decades needs to be resolved now," the attorneys said.

The case now goes back to lower courts for additional litigation. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. recused himself from the case but didn't provide a reason. Justice Roberts has in the past reported stock holdings in both companies. (Microsoft Corp. v. Odom)

Court to Consider Money-Laundering Case
The High Court also agreed to decide whether merely hiding money can constitute money laundering.

The case involves the conviction of a man arrested in Texas while traveling toward Mexico with a large sum of cash hidden in his car. Humberto Fidel Regalado Cuellar was sentenced to 78 months in prison for international money laundering.

Federal law makes it a crime to engage in a financial transaction with proceeds from an unlawful activity in order to conceal the illicit source of the money.

A three-judge panel reversed Mr. Cuellar's conviction on a 2-1 vote, saying that prosecutors had to show that the defendant's activities were designed to create the appearance of legitimate wealth.

The full Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that decision and affirmed the conviction, declaring that it makes no sense to say that Congress chose the word "conceal" to apply only in a certain way.

In asking the justices to take the case, Mr. Cuellar's lawyers said the appeals court decision incorrectly expands the scope of the money laundering law. (Cuellar v. U.S.)
After Monday, the court will not be in session for the next two weeks. The justices will return to the bench the last week in October.

--The Associated Press contributed to this article.
Write to Mark H. Anderson at mark.anderson@dowjones.com

The Wall Street Journal: Jurado falla en contra de farmacéutica

Wyeth Hit With $134.5 Million Verdict

By SARAH RUBENSTEINOctober 12, 2007; Page B6
A Nevada jury awarded $134.5 million to three women who claimed Wyeth's hormone-therapy drugs caused their breast cancer.

Jurors awarded compensatory damages to plaintiffs Arlene Rowatt, Jeraldine Scofield and Pamela Forrester after finding Wyeth was negligent, that its drugs were defective and that the company concealed a material fact about the products' safety. All these issues were a cause of injury or damage to the women, the jury said.

The jury, which also found that Wyeth acted with malice or fraud, awarded damages of $43.5 million to Ms. Scofield, $47.5 million to Ms. Forrester and $43.5 million to Ms. Rowatt.
A Wyeth spokesman declined to comment because the case "is not yet complete," citing a hearing on punitive damages scheduled for today. The plaintiffs' law firm also declined comment, citing today's hearing.

The suit, filed in Washoe County District Court in Reno, is one of some 5,300 hormone-replacement cases filed against Wyeth on behalf of 7,900 plaintiffs, according to the pharmaceutical maker. The complaints allege personal injury as a result of the plaintiffs' use of one or more of Wyeth's hormone- or estrogen-therapy products, including Prempro and Premarin, used to treat menopausal symptoms.

The Reno case is the seventh to reach a verdict since trials began last year. Three of the other six trials resulted in verdicts in favor of Wyeth. Of those favoring plaintiffs, one was overturned and judgment entered in favor of Wyeth, and verdicts in the two others were thrown out and new trials ordered by judges. None of the victorious plaintiffs in those cases had been awarded damages greater than $3 million.

Three other cases also have been dismissed by courts on summary judgment, and a dozen other cases that had been set for trial were voluntarily withdrawn by plaintiffs before trial.
Wall Street didn't appear rattled by the verdict. Wyeth's shares, which have been in a slump lately for reasons related to the company's pipeline and generic drugs, were down 38 cents to $45.78 in 4 p.m. composite trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

Deutsche Bank drug analyst Barbara Ryan said that it is too early in the string of litigation to presume this case would be the start of a trend, and that in general the hormone-replacement cases appear tougher for plaintiffs to win than past "fen-phen" diet-drug litigation against the company. Wyeth is an investment-banking client of Deutsche Bank.

Lawyers for the Madison, N.J., drug maker have argued that the company clearly warned users that there was a slightly increased risk of breast cancer from taking Prempro, which was first marketed in 1995. In a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company said it hasn't established any litigation-reserve fund for its hormone-therapy litigation.

Howard Erichson, a professor at Seton Hall law school in New Jersey, said it is common for surprisingly large damage awards to be lowered. But, he added, "With thousands of cases remaining to be tried, it's a scary thing to know that juries don't like your argument."

Write to Sarah Rubenstein at sarah.rubenstein@wsj.com

Washington Post: Leyes estatales divergentes sobre migración

States' Immigrant Policies Diverge
In Differences, Some See Obstacles For a National Law

By Anthony FaiolaWashington Post Staff Writer Monday, October 15, 2007; Page A01

NEW YORK -- In New York, state officials are about to offer driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and already have extended limited medical coverage to those battling cancer. In Illinois, the state legislature just passed a law forbidding businesses there from using a federal database to check the legal status of employees.

Oklahoma, meanwhile, recently passed some of the toughest immigration laws in the nation, including one making it a felony to "transport" or "harbor" an illegal immigrant -- leading some to fear that people such as school bus drivers and church pastors may be at risk of doing time. Tennessee's legislature this year revoked laws granting illegal immigrants "driving certificates" and voted to allow law enforcement officers to effectively act as a state immigration police.

State Rep. Randy Terrill wrote strict new laws for illegal immigrants in Oklahoma. "Illegal aliens will not come to Oklahoma . . . if there are no jobs waiting for them," he said. (Associated Press)

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

As the Bush administration and Congress sit gridlocked on an immigration overhaul, states are jumping into the debate as never before. In the process, they are creating a national patchwork of incongruous immigration laws that some observers fear will make it far more difficult to enact any comprehensive, federally mandated bill down the line.

The number of states passing immigration-related bills has skyrocketed this year. No fewer than 1,404 pieces of immigration-related legislation were introduced in legislatures during the first half of 2007, with 182 bills becoming law in 43 states. That is more than double the number of immigration-related state laws enacted during all of 2006, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Some observers are alarmed by the trend, calling the widely divergent laws further evidence of America's cultural divide and saying they could pose new hurdles in reaching a national consensus on immigration. Piecemeal policymaking is opening the door to a flurry of legal battles -- the Department of Homeland Security, for instance, is suing Illinois for banning businesses there from confirming an employee's legal status through the federal E-Verify database, which state officials have called flawed and unreliable.

Others argue that the inability to reach a national solution has left states no choice. Governors are grappling with cities and towns that, in the absence of a national or state policy, have taken it upon themselves to pass local immigration laws either protecting or cracking down on illegal immigrants. This has occasionally lead to radically different regulations within individual states.
Still others assert that the rush of state activism has created an unforeseen opportunity. By viewing states as laboratories and studying the successes and failures of their various policies, Americans may find useful information, even a road map, for developing a national strategy.
Perhaps the most compelling current example is Oklahoma, where a package of tough new laws will not only make it a crime to transport or harbor illegal immigrants, but will also strip such immigrants of any right to receive most health care, welfare, scholarships or other government assistance; penalize employers who hire illegal workers; and force businesses to verify the legal status of new hires.

That "comports with my philosophy that illegal aliens will not come to Oklahoma or any other state if there are no jobs waiting for them," said Randy Terrill, a Republican state legislator and the author of the bill. "They will not stay here if they know they will get no taxpayer subsidy, and they will not stay here if they know if they ever come into contact with one of our fine law enforcement officers, they will stay in custody until they are physically deported."
Hispanic business groups, citing school enrollment losses and church parish figures, say the laws, which start going into effect later this year, have caused as many as 25,000 undocumented workers to flee the state in recent months. The loss is being decried by the Oklahoma State Home Builders Association.

"In major metro areas we are seeing people leave based on the perception that things are going to get bad for them and that this state doesn't want them here," said Mike Means, executive vice president of the association. "Now we're looking at a labor shortage. I've got builders who are being forced to slow down jobs because they don't have the crews. And it's not like these people are going back to Mexico. They're going to Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, Arkansas, anywhere where the laws aren't against them."

Means said that while construction wages haven't yet gone up in Oklahoma, they are likely to do so if the shortage worsens. Advocates of such laws say that is precisely how strict regulations on illegal immigration can help American workers -- by forcing wages higher. But construction industry leaders counter that a wage increase in Oklahoma, where builders are already paying $15 to $20 an hour for labor in a state with low unemployment, would lead to a net loss of jobs as some businesses are forced to close, particularly if other states allow less stringent hiring practices.
"This is what happens when you don't have a national policy," Means continued. "If I'm an Oklahoma builder on the border with Texas, you're going to face unfair competition because they don't have the laws we do. This needs to be standardized."
While local governments have been enacting a growing number of pro- and anti-immigration ordinances, states, with notable exceptions such as California, have until recently been more cautious. Experts say that is partly because achieving consensus on a state level is far harder than in smaller communities, but also because many states have awaited guidance from the federal government.

State Rep. Randy Terrill wrote strict new laws for illegal immigrants in Oklahoma. "Illegal aliens will not come to Oklahoma . . . if there are no jobs waiting for them," he said. (Associated Press)

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

But as state officials have concluded that they can no longer afford not to act, they are often finding that doing so is an invitation for discord.

That is particularly true in New York, where Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer (D), the former attorney general who championed labor rights for immigrants, touched off a firestorm after announcing last month that he was reversing pre-Sept. 11 rules that had made it virtually impossible for illegal immigrants in the state to obtain a driver's license.

"The federal government has failed to establish a coherent or rational policy, and as a consequence, we are left to deal with this on a state level," Spitzer said in an interview with The Washington Post last week. "We're left dealing with the reality of up to 1 million [illegal] immigrants in New York. . . . I would prefer to have [them] carrying a legitimate form of identification, a driver's license that allows them to get insurance, allows our law enforcement to track their driving records and brings these drivers out of the shadows."

The ruckus over the policy change has been particularly heated because several of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers used illegally obtained driver's licenses as identification when renting vehicles or boarding flights. Spitzer argues that his plan will make it harder to get a license illegally, by requiring new electronic equipment in motor vehicles offices across New York to verify foreign passports and other documents used to obtain a license.

But many here counter that no matter what equipment is used, granting driver's licenses with a foreign passport as a primary proof of identity constitutes a significant security threat. Still others argue against the notion that illegal immigrants should be awarded any kind of government-issued identification.

Opposition is so fierce, particularly among state Republicans, that a handful of county clerks have publicly rebelled. Several have said they will instruct their driver's license offices -- many of which are staffed by county, not state, employees -- to disregard the new guidelines. And the Monroe County government, near Rochester, has gone as far as voting to continue making a valid Social Security number a requirement for a driver's license, setting up a potential legal showdown with the state.

"The government is trying to bring them into the fold, but how can you extend a privilege to drive legally in the United States to someone who is here illegally?" asked Frank J. Merola, the Republican clerk of Rensselaer County, near the state capital, Albany. "I'm not saying, 'Let's go out there and round them up,' but I am saying that it's wrong to reward them for breaking the law."

Not surprisingly, the plan, to go into effect in phases within eight months, is being hailed by New York's thriving immigrant community. A 33-year-old Manhattan lounge singer who would provide only his first name, Amilcar, because he arrived in the United States illegally from Mexico, said he has had to turn down numerous offers for work in New Jersey and elsewhere because he could not drive himself and was unable to afford the cost of transporting his equipment.

"But this is going to open new doors for me now," he said excitedly, noting that he has already made plans to buy a car. "I feel like having a driver's license is a going to be a great new freedom. It's why I came to America in the first place."

Staff writer Robin Shulman in New York contributed to this report.