Posts on ‘July 2nd, 2009’
Commentary: Supreme Court’s Unexpected ‘Judicial Minimalism’ in Voting Rights Case
In recent years, the Supreme Court has been quick to nullify federal and state laws, agency rules and presidential actions, say Jenner & Block’s Paul M. Smith and Joshua Block. They write that it was thus an unexpected — but welcome — development for the Court to rely exclusively on statutory interpretation and to avoid the hotly contested constitutional question at the heart of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Judge Names Receiver in Madoff Feeder Fund Suit
Goodwin Procter partner David Pitofsky was appointed Monday as receiver of the $1.7 billion Ascot fund put together by financier J. Ezra Merkin, almost all of which was invested with Bernard Madoff and lost. Pitofsky was appointed receiver in a lawsuit brought by the New York attorney general’s office seeking recovery from Merkin of $2.4 billion in his client’s funds which he had “recklessly” invested with Madoff despite “clear warning signals” that the funds were being mishandled.
Mayer Brown Taps Litigation Co-Head as Partner-in-Charge of N.Y. Office
One month after a management shake-up at Mayer Brown, the firm announced that Richard Spehr, co-head of its New York litigation group, will take the helm of the firm’s 200-lawyer New York office. The appointment comes amid a raft of changes at Mayer Brown, including its adoption of a new governance structure approved in April, shortly after former Mayer Brown Chairman James Holzhauer stepped down. Two weeks ago, three Mayer Brown partners, including the vice chairman, Paul Maher, joined Greenberg Traurig’s new London office.
Appeals Court Rejects Disappointed Buyer’s Suit Over Used Mercedes Touted as ‘Gorgeous’
An eBay ad’s claim that a used Mercedes was “gorgeous” was not enough to sustain claims of fraud and breach of warranty filed by a disgruntled buyer after problems surfaced, a New York court has ruled. “While the advertisement did describe the car as ‘gorgeous,’ this generalized expression was merely the seller’s opinion … and constitutes ‘no more than puffery,’ which should not have been relied upon as an inducement to purchase the vehicle,” especially since the transaction involved a used car, the court found.