DIRECT ACCESS 
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted AFSCME, a labor group of government employees, a win in its suit against the American International Group Inc. The AFSCME, a stockholder in AIG, wanted more say in choosing company directors. AIG rebuffed them, getting the Securities and Exchange Commission to block the union’s move to vote on a measure that would have given shareholders more say in choosing corporate directors. The Second Circuit decision will allow shareholders to force companies to hold contested elections for directors, with rival contenders on the ballot. It’s a step forward for shareholder activists who want to push their own nominees. The decision, issued Tuesday, means the SEC has to reconsider its own rules, which is says it will do at its Oct. 18 meeting. The new rules take effect January 2007. (The Reuters wire story explains this matter best. The New York Times offers this.)

 

VISITATION REVIVIFICATION
The Bronx Family Court’s new program for noncustodial parents who want to spend quality time with their children was “relaunched” yesterday, the Daily News reports. The program will use monitors to supervise the visits, the results of which are intended to aid judges in deciding visitation rights. The article doesn’t make clear why the program is re-opening though, or how it’s very different than what the courts do now. We’re curious. Anyone have any thoughts?

 

UNSETTLING
Dick Grasso says he will not settle the lawsuit against him seeking to recover some of the nearly $150 million he made as the head of the New York Stock Exchange. The trial is set for Oct. 16 before Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Charles Ramos. (Grasso has already appealed Ramos’s decision to proceed without a jury.) The former Big Board chief complained that the suit filed by state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer—alleging excessive compensation under laws governing non-profit organizations—has prevented him from rejoining the workforce. And he needed to?

 

COMPETING FOR PITY
Anthony Marshall, Brooke Astor’s son filed papers in Manhattan Supreme Court yesterday “seething” (according to the Times against his accusers. The filings said it was “truly shameful” when Mrs. de la Renta, a friend and temporary guardian of Astor, forced the “82-year-old Mr. Marshall to wander from hospital to apartment looking for his mother.” And you’re wondering about his son, who originally pointed the finger at Anthony Marshall for not properly caring for the 104-year-old Astor? His claims, says dad, are little more than “hateful accusations by this angry and disgruntled son against his own father.” The Daily News not called the “picture paper” for nothing—runs photos of Astor’s apartment, which Anthony Marshall included in court filings to prove she wasn’t living in squalor. It’s going to be a fall of dirty laundry for Judge John Stackhouse, who’s presiding
in the case over care of Astor.

 

(BELOW WAS POSTED FOR 09-07-06) 

 

CONTRACEPTION COVERAGE CONUNDRUM
The Albany Times Union has the inside scoop on opening arguments Wednesday in the contraception case. At issue in the Court of Appeals is whether religious-based organizations should be required to cover birth control under their health insurance plans for employees. (The New York Law Journal also weighed in, calling it a “major religious liberty case.”) Catholic Charities of Albany brought the suit against the state Insurance Department, and attorney Michael Costello on Wednesday asked the court for an injunction that would give the group and others like it temporary freedom from the 2003 state law requiring coverage. There is an exemption for seminaries and the like, and Costello wants the loophole widened. Associate Judge Albert Rosenblatt wasn’t sure. “What about associations of Catholic restaurant owners or hotel owners or police officers and right down the line?” he asked. “Where does it end?” The Times Union’s Michelle Morgan Bolton writes that it was a “fast paced debate.” One example, though, makes it sound pretty circular (and maybe a little maddening for the seven judges?) “You can judiciously craft an appropriate exemption,” Costello urged the judges. “You can either expand it or declare the exemption unconstitutional.” To which Chief Judge Judith Kaye replied: “Aren’t you entangling us in those tenets?” Entanglement achieved.

GUARDIAN AD LITIGIOUS
From the litigation watch, courtesy of The New York Times: J.P. Morgan Chase, which was appointed by the Manhattan Supreme Court as guardian of Brooke Astor’s assets, might sue her son Anthony Marshall. The bank is investigating whether he “improperly obtained” about $14 million from his mother's estate.
 

SMALL CLAIMS, BIG DRAW
A veritable advertisement for the Manhattan small claims court appeared in the Daily News on Thursday.The story by Elizabeth Lazarowitz tells readers how to file, how much time it will take, and what to expect in payoff. The inevitable success story is Alex Sobolevsky, who won a case against his former lawyer, Andrew Kauffman and got $1,500 after four trips to the court. The biggest draws: Vindication—sans attorney fees.

KEEPING ‘EM DOWN ON THE FIRM
Julie Triedman reports in The American Lawyer that more big firms are using contract lawyers, paying them by the hour at a fraction of the cost of a staff lawyer and letting them go after a big case is over. It’s often an Office Space-style hell—a sweatshop in Class A commercial real estate—if this can really be said of anyone making $50,000 over the course of four months for document review. (One out-of-town lawyer lived in her car and took showers at the gym. Meals were provided onsite.) The partners though, are reportedly very pleased with the new class of peons.

LET THE BLOGGING BEGIN…
The NY Examiner offers commentary from anyone and everyone (although the content is a little thin, so everyone might be stretching it) on judicial elections at this link.

DEAD AIR. REALLY.
Some of the ventilation ducts in the luxury DUMBO condos sold by Joshua Guttman, whose huge waterfront Greenpoint property burned down earlier this year are dead ends, alleges an $18 million suit in Brooklyn Supreme Court filed by buyers of apartments in the converted warehouse. The suit, detailed in the Post, also claims a leaky roof, non-existent insulation, and violations of city building codes. The New York Post quotes lawyer Adam Baily’s oh-so-subtle summary: “This guy built a piece of junk…this guy was sent by the devil.”

LITIGATION TINDERBOX?
The New York Post also reports today that the engineer who submitted reconstruction plans for the Bronx store where two firefighters died last week never certified that the work he recommended had been done and city records reveal Building Department inspectors never checked the building, which was structurally damaged in a 2000 arson, six years before it burned to the ground because of an electrical fire. With criminal charges a possibility, according to the Post, could a civil suit be far behind?