In Fox v. Vice [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments [day call, PDF; merit briefs] on whether federal statute 42 USC § 1988 [text] permits the court to award defendants attorney's fees based on an action dismissing a claim when the plaintiff also asserts non-frivolous claims. The court will also consider if it is improper to award defendants the full amount of attorney's fees incurred while defending non-frivolous claims along with a frivolous claim. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed [opinion, PDF] the granting of attorney's fees. Counsel for the petitioner Fox argued that the lower court decision violates Congress' intention "to protect defendants from the lying or the vexatious plaintiff who shouldn't be in court at all." Counsel for the respondent Vice argued that the federal statute rightly allows for defendants to receive attorney's fees from plaintiffs, even if the plaintiff wins the case, if the plaintiff filed any frivolous claims.

Demjanjuk's trial, which began in November 2009, has been marked by extensive delay. In addition, the Spanish National Court [official website, in Spanish] announced in January that it is seeking the extradition of Demjanjuk [JURIST report] so he can stand trial on charges relating to his alleged involvement with the Flossenburg [HRP backgrounder] concentration camp where 60 Spanish citizens were killed during World War II. Last May, a German court denied a motion to dismiss the charges [JURIST report] filed by the defense, which argued there was a lack of credible evidence. The court rejected the argument, saying they found the evidence against Demjanjuk to be strong. In October 2009, Demjanjuk was found fit to stand trial after the court rejected appeals relating to his health [JURIST reports], although the court has limited hearings to no more than two 90-minute sessions per day. Demjanjuk fought a lengthy legal battle over his alleged involvement with Nazi death camps during World War II. He was deported to Germany after the US Supreme Court [official website] denied his stay of deportation [JURIST report].

The proposed cap-and-trade program is a major part of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) [text, PDF; official backgrounder]. In December, the ARB approved measures [JURIST report] for the cap-and-trade program, which would provide incentives to companies and factories that decrease their greenhouse gas emissions. The provisions include a permit system in which companies are allotted a quota of greenhouse emissions. If a company does not use all of its quota, it can sell to a company that is going to exceed its quota. Companies that exceed their quota can purchase "offsets" from companies involved in activities that lessen greenhouse emissions, like forestry. The program is reportedly the first of this type in the country. Supporters of the bill in California say they felt compelled to enact AB 32 after Congress failed to approve greenhouse gas reduction legislation. They hope they other states will follow suit. AB 32 was first signed into law [JURIST report] by former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006.

Why would Congress want to limit the enforcement scheme's effectiveness by inhibiting use of the Act's complaint procedure by those who would find it difficult to reduce their complaints to writing, particularly illiterate, less educated, or overworked workers? ... To limit the scope of the antiretaliation provision to the filing of written complaints would also take needed flexibility from those charged with the Act's enforcement. It could prevent Government agencies from using hotlines, interviews, and other oral methods of receiving complaints. And insofar as the antiretaliation provision covers complaints made to employers [...], it would discourage the use of desirable informal workplace grievance procedures to secure compliance with the Act.

Saint-Gobain initially claimed that, because the anti-retaliation provision applies only to complaints filed with the government, it is exempt from suit since Kasten's complaints were directed to a private employer. The Supreme Court refused to address this argument because, though Saint-Gobain raised and ultimately lost this argument in the lower courts, the company did not address the issue in its response to Kasten's petition for certiorari. Justices Scalia and Thomas disagreed with the majority, suggesting that the court has previously permitted parties to defend a judgment on grounds not raised in the brief in opposition when doing so is "predicate to an intelligent resolution of the question presented, and therefore fairly included therein." In an earlier suit brought by Kasten, the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin [official website] held [opinion, PDF] that Saint-Gobain violated the FLSA by placing timeclocks in a location that prevented workers from receiving credit for time they spent dressing in work-related protective gear.

In 2000, Gongadze was kidnapped by ex-police officers, beaten, strangled, beheaded and buried. Following Gongadze's murder, in 2008, three former police officers were convicted and sentenced to jail [JURIST report] by a Ukrainian court for their roles in carrying out the murder. Mykola Protasov was sentenced to 13 years, while Valeriy Kostenko and Oleksandr Popovych each received a 12-year sentence. In 2006, the trial of the former police officers began [JURIST report], but those who ordered the murder had not been found. In 2005, the commission investigating the murder said that the voices of Kuchma, Parliament speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn and other officials were heard on recordings where they were allegedly conspiring against Gongadze. The inquiry also accused Kuchma of ordering Gongadze's kidnapping and murder.

Although in many cases reasonable investors would not consider reports of adverse events to be material information, respondents have alleged facts plausibly suggesting that reasonable investors would have viewed these particular reports as material. Respondents have also alleged facts giving rise to a strong inference that Matrixx acted with the required state of mind.

The decision upholds the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] ruling [opinion, PDF] in favor of the shareholders. Counsel for Matrixx had argued during oral argument [JURIST report] that the reports do not establish any reliable facts about the drug and that a duty to report these results would unfairly affect the company. Matrixx claimed that, absent evidence that "the company has knowledge of facts establishing a reliable basis for inferring that the drug itself is the cause of the reported event," neither the materiality nor scienter requirements of the securities laws were violated.

Katsav was initially indicted on rape charges [JURIST report] in 2009 for allegedly assaulting female employees in the 1990's. In 2008, Katsav rejected a plea agreement [JURIST report] that would have permitted him to plead guilty to lesser charges of indecent assault, sexual harassment and obstruction of justice in exchange for a suspended sentence and the dropping of rape charges. The plea deal had been criticized [JURIST report] by women's and civil rights activists, prompting five separate petitions to overturn the agreement.

Google has recently faced a number of allegations from the international community related to violating privacy laws by capturing personal data through Google Street View cars, used for its Google Maps service. Most recently, the French National Commission of Information Technology and Liberty (CNIL) [official website, in French] fined Google 100,000 euros (USD $141,300) this week for violating French data privacy laws [press release, in French; JURIST report]. In November, the UK Information Commissioner's Office [official website] found that Google had committed a "significant breach" [JURIST report] of the Data Protection Act [text] and required that Google delete the payload data it collected in the UK and implement employee training on privacy principles, security awareness and the Data Protection Act. Other countries, including Canada, Australia and Spain [JURIST reports], have launched similar investigations into the privacy breach. The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [official website] ended its inquiry [JURIST report] into Google's data collection through Street View cars after Google assured the FTC that it did not use any of the collected data and announced that it was committed to compliance with privacy laws [text], instituting new training on privacy principles and appointing a new director of privacy.