Appeals court: Apple must submit to imposition of monitor

A federal appeals panel has refused to disqualify a court-appointed monitor after a judge found Apple colluded with book publishers in 2010 to raise electronic book prices.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled against Apple Inc. Thursday. The three-judge panel concluded that a judge did not act improperly when she declined Apple's request to disqualify a monitor she had appointed to evaluate Apple's antitrust policies.

A lawyer for Apple, based in Cupertino, California, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The 2nd Circuit did not yet rule on a separate appeal in which Apple is challenging the judge's finding that it colluded with publishers.

After a 2013 civil trial, a judge ordered the technology giant to modify contracts with publishers to prevent price fixing.

International Law Attorney - Schatkin Law

With over 25 years of experience, The Law Office of Andrew J. Schatkin has successfully helped people in need of legal counsel and aid.

International law attorney Andrew Schatkin has graduated from the top ranking law school, Villanova University, has received a certificate in international law from Hague, and holds a diploma in International human rights from Strasbourg. He is an expert in different areas of international law, including but not limited to the following: international employment, family, police brutality, and human rights matters.

Andrew Schatkin has authored two books and has plans for four more books focusing on law, religion, and philosophy in the near future. He has been listed in the reference publication, “Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American law, and Who’s Who in the world” for his outstanding feats and handling of both national and international cases.

The Law Office of Andrew J. Schatkin represents both international businesses and clients and even offers translation/interpretation services for all Spanish speaking clients. 

Judge says court battle over giant emerald can proceed

A Los Angeles judge has ruled a trial can go forward to determine ownership of an emerald weighing 840 pounds that was hauled out of a Brazilian mine more than a decade ago.
 
The 180,000-carat emerald is at the center of a court battle between gem traders, miners, real estate tycoons and others vying for the jewel once valued at $372 million.

The latest claim to ownership came from the Brazil government, which wants the gem returned to its country of origin.

The Los Angeles Times reports Superior Court Judge Michael Johnson said this week a motion by Brazil lacked sufficient evidence to warrant halting the case.

The jewel known as the Bahia Emerald is one of the largest of its kind in the world.

Ex-UBS banker pleads guilty in US tax evasion case

A former executive at Swiss bank UBS AG has pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge as part of a long-running U.S. investigation into tax evasion using secret accounts.

Hansruedi Schumacher entered the plea Thursday before a Florida federal judge. Schumacher is cooperating in the investigation and in return, prosecutors will recommend a sentence of five years' probation and a $150,000 fine.

Schumacher admitted in court papers that while at UBS and a second Swiss bank from 1995 to 2009 he helped wealthy U.S. citizens escape the Internal Revenue Service using secret offshore accounts.

Several other bankers and dozens of customers have been prosecuted. UBS itself paid a $780 million fine to the U.S. in 2009 and agreed to disclose names of thousands of its American customers.

Court dismisses 3rd lawsuit against hen cage law

A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld a decision to dismiss a lawsuit by a farmer that challenged a law banning the inhumane confinement of egg-laying hens.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the 2012 decision by a lower court to throw out the lawsuit by egg farmer William Cramer. Cramer's lawsuit said the law is unconstitutionally vague.

It's the third time courts have rejected lawsuits by egg farmers against California's landmark Proposition 2.

"We are thrilled that the court sided with the millions of California voters who supported this measure and chose to end extreme and reckless factory farming practices," said Jonathan Lovvorn, senior vice president and chief counsel for animal protection litigation for the Humane Society of the United States.

The initiative approved in 2008 bans the inhumane confinement of egg-laying hens, breeding pigs and veal calves in cages so small the animals cannot stretch their limbs, lie down or turn around.Since its passage, farmers have complained that the measure lacks specific language designating appropriate cage size and as a result puts them at risk of misdemeanor charges and fines up to $1,000.

In addition, they say they are on the hook for millions of dollars in upgrades but can't get bank loans without knowing whether new cages will be in compliance.

Two justices once open to cameras in court now reconsider

Two Supreme Court justices who once seemed open to the idea of cameras in the courtroom said Monday they have reconsidered those views, dashing even faint hopes that April's historic arguments over gay marriage might be televised.

In separate appearances, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said allowing cameras might lead to grandstanding that could fundamentally change the nature of the high court.

Sotomayor told an audience in West Palm Beach, Florida, that cameras could change the behavior of both the justices and lawyers appearing at the court, who might succumb to "this temptation to use it as a stage rather than a courtroom."

"I am moving more closely to saying I think it might be a bad idea," she said.

During her confirmation hearings in 2009, Sotomayor told lawmakers she had a positive experience with cameras and would try to soften other justices' opposition to cameras.

Speaking at the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics, Kagan told an audience that she is "conflicted" over the issue and noted strong arguments on both sides.

Kagan said that when she used to argue cases before the court as Solicitor General, she wanted the public to see how well prepared the justices were for each case "and really look as though they are trying to get it right."

But Kagan said she is wary now of anything "that may upset the dynamic of the institution."

She pointed to Congress, which televises floor proceedings, saying lawmakers talk more in made-for-TV sound bites than to each other.

Nebraska court could hold up Keystone pipeline

The Republican-led Congress appears ready to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, but no matter what actions are taken in Washington, the entire 1,179-mile project could be delayed until Nebraska signs off on the route.

After several years of intense debate, the routing process is before the Nebraska Supreme Court, and depending on how the justices rule, months or years could pass before construction begins in that state.

Even if approval comes from Washington and the high court, opponents are looking for new ways to block the project, including filing a federal lawsuit on behalf of Native American tribes in Nebraska and South Dakota over the possible disruption of Indian artifacts.

The court is considering whether an obscure agency known as the Nebraska Public Service Commission must review the pipeline before it can cross the state, one of six on the pipeline's route. Gov. Dave Heineman gave the green light in 2013 without the involvement of the panel, which normally regulates telephones, taxis and grain bins.

The justices have given no indication when they will render a decision.

President Barack Obama has said he is waiting for the court's decision, and the White House on Tuesday threatened to veto the bill in what was expected to be the first of many confrontations with the new Congress over energy and environmental policy.