Malecki Law announces the filing of a civil arbitration complaint in excess of $4 million, plus punitive damages, against MetLife Securities, Inc.  The case is being filed with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") today for alleged improper supervision and selling away, relating to an alleged Ponzi scheme that devastated a Bronx community.  The complaint alleges that the firm failed to properly supervise and maintain the compliance of one of their registered representatives, Mr. Robert H. Van Zandt, in violation of federal and state securities laws, as well as financial industry rules and regulations.  Robert H. Van Zandt is already under investigation by the New York State Attorney General's Office.  "I believe there are a lot of victims out there who don't know what is going on, nor their rights under the rules and regulations of the securities industry," securities fraud attorney Jenice Malecki indicates.

In November of this year FINRA and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission jointly released Regulatory Notice 11-54 stressing the importance of supervision over registered representatives.   Shortly before the release of Regulatory Notice 11-54, FINRA filed a regulatory action against Merrill Lynch and fined the firm $1 million for failing to properly supervise a registered representative and catch a Ponzi scheme that he was running out of a San Antonio, Texas branch office that victimized clients and non-clients of Merrill Lynch, all to which Merrill Lynch was responsible for its failure to supervise.  

The complaint filed by Malecki Law relates to the alleged conduct of Robert H. Van Zandt of the Van Zandt Agency, who is believed to have sold unregistered securities in the form of promissory notes that were represented to prospective investors as part of a secured real estate investment, which appears improperly set up and not secured at all.  It is alleged that these notes were part of yet another "Ponzi" scheme in what Ms. Malecki opines to be "an era filled with ponzi schemes for which the industry should closely monitor to avoid harm to unwitting victims," this alleged ponzi scheme run through a series of shell companies including Burke and Grace Avenue Corp.  

According to his FINRA Broker Check Report, Robert H. Van Zandt was a registered representative with MetLife Securities, Inc. from December of 2004 through February of 2007.  During that time, it is alleged that despite its duties to properly supervise Mr. Van Zandt, MetLife Securities allowed him and others to sell unregistered securities in connection with the operation of this Ponzi scheme for the entirety of his tenure with the firm. 

It is alleged that Mr. Van Zandt used his status in the close-knit Bronx community to earn the trust of his clients, and ultimately, solicited hundreds of investors, defrauding them of over $20 million.  According to the complaint filed with FINRA, Investors were solicited to invest in the scheme while they were having their tax returns done at the Van Zandt Agency and were lured into verbally and through prominently placed brochures promising essentially "guaranteed" returns of 9-12% annually, without appropriate registration, disclaimers, or any earmarks of supervision over this conduct.  It is believed that these investors, many of whom invested their IRA's, proceeds from inheritances, and life savings, have lost substantially all, if not all, of their investment. 

Investors or employees with knowledge of the events at the Van Zandt Agency who seek further information or want to explore their rights should contact Malecki Law by e-mail or phone.  Malecki Law has a uniquely diverse background with significant experience representing clients in securities and investment fraud issues and is "AV Rated" by Martindale-Hubbell.  Malecki Law hosts a website providing information and resources dedicated to the securities industry: www.AboutSecuritiesLaw.com. 

Tony Duquette, Inc., as holder of various intellectual property rights associated with the late designer and artist Tony Duquette, has filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against J. Crew Group, Inc. for trademark infringement and other causes of action.

Tony Duquette, Inc. alleges that J. Crew infringed the Duquette proprietary name and trademarks by producing and marketing a "J. Crew Duquette Factory Leopard Print" sweater. The lawsuit alleges that J. Crew knowingly and willfully used the Duquette trademark without permission or license in connection with a leopard print product because of Tony Duquette's unique association with leopard print in the company's designs and products. Tony Duquette, Inc. has an exclusive licensing arrangement with Jim Thomson, Inc. for a collection of woven and printed textiles including an authorized signature leopard print pattern and with Roubini, Inc. for carpets and tapestries in signature leopard print taken from the Duquette archives. Damages and injunctive relief are sought.

Hutton Wilkinson, President and Creative Director of Tony Duquette, Inc., said, "We filed this claim to ensure our trademarks are used appropriately and only with our permission."

SOURCE Tony Duquette, Inc.

The Second Amendment Foundation's challenge to a federal law that prevents American citizens who reside outside the United States from purchasing firearms while they are in this country will be allowed to move forward, under a ruling today by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The case involves Stephen Dearth, a natural-born U.S. citizen now living in Canada, who is prevented from buying a firearm in this country because he does not currently reside here. The case was filed in March 2009. SAF and Mr. Dearth challenged the law's constitutionality because it prevents Dearth from exercising his Second Amendment rights. SAF is represented by Virginia attorney Alan Gura.

"This is a significant ruling in our favor," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. "Many American citizens face the same dilemma as Mr. Dearth. They are good citizens, they've committed no crimes, and they would certainly be allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights, except for the fact that they live in another country."

The district court dismissed the case, contending that plaintiffs have no standing. This morning's ruling reverses that court, and remands the case back for further action.

In its ruling, the Appeals Court agreed with Dearth's argument that he suffers an "ongoing injury" because the government continues to deny him the right to purchase a firearm. The court said "we conclude his injury is sufficiently real and immediate to support his standing to challenge those laws."

The issue arises with a question on the Federal Form 4473 which asks firearm buyers their state of residence. Since Dearth does not have a state of residence, he cannot legally complete a firearms transaction. SAF filed the case against Attorney General Eric Holder, seeking to enjoin him from enforcing the law. The lawsuit also contends that the gun law violates Dearth's Fifth Amendment right of equal protection.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.  

SOURCE Second Amendment Foundation

Lawyers at the Houston-based complex commercial litigation law firm of Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos are announcing a class-action lawsuit filed today on behalf of shareholders in Pride International Inc. in an effort to stop what the lawsuit alleges is an unfairly priced drilling sector merger announced with Ensco plc.

The shareholder class-action lawsuit filed in Harris County court alleges Pride's directors breached their fiduciary duty to shareholders by agreeing to a low share price and a restrictive merger contract that would preclude other offers.

On February 7, Houston-based deepwater drilling company Pride and British oil rig contractor Ensco jointly announced an agreement for Ensco to buy Pride for about $7 billion. The transaction is expected to close as early as the second quarter of 2011. The lawsuit asks the court to stop the merger to protect shareholders.

AZA partners Demetrios Anaipakos, Amir Alavi and John Zavitsanos filed the case with David A.P. Brower and Brian C. Kerr of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation in New York.

The lawsuit is Cary M. Abrams, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Pride International, Inc., et. al., 113th District Court, Harris County, No. 2011-08672.

Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos is a Houston-based law firm that is home to true courtroom lawyers with a formidable track record in complex commercial litigation including energy, intellectual property, securities fraud, construction, and business dispute cases. AZA is one of only 32 firms in the U.S. to be recognized as "awesome opponents" in a nationwide poll of corporate general counsel who were asked to name the law firms they hope their companies never have to face in court. In fact, AZA has been hired often by the same companies the firm has prevailed against at trial. More information about the firm can be found at http://www.azalaw.com/index.html.

With offices in New York City and Baltimore County, Maryland, Brower Piven focuses on complex class action cases and other representative litigation. Brower Piven's experience ranges from representing institutional and large private investors to small individual investors and retail consumers, in complex commercial litigation and on corporate governance matters. Clients and classes represented by attorneys at Brower Piven have recovered more than $1 billion in past and pending recoveries. More information about Brower Piven can be found at the firm's website, www.browerpiven.com. SOURCE Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos

Now that U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson has declared the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) void because it is unconstitutional, implementation should cease, states the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

While the Judge did not issue an injunction prohibiting implementation, he stated that his "declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction." This is so because of the long-standing presumption "that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court."

The Obama White House, however, called the decision "a plain case of judicial overreaching," and intends to proceed without interruption to carry out the law. Two courts have now declared the individual mandate unconstitutional, while two have upheld it. The Supreme Court will ultimately resolve the issue.

"Whenever the legislature passes a law that progressives object to, such as regulations on abortion, courts immediately stay enforcement," notes AAPS executive director Jane M. Orient, M.D. But this case is apparently very different.

"Congress defied the will of American voters in passing the Act," she stated, "and now the Administration will defy the Court, spending billions of dollars on implementing the Act while the courts proceed."

Individuals and businesses are already being forced to alter their financial decisions in anticipation of the mandate's taking effect in 2014, the Judge noted.

The harm that many anticipate from the Act is shown by the 773 waivers that HHS has already issued to protect current benefits.

The Judge cited Congress itself concerning the dependence of the Act on the individual mandate. In fact, in including it, Congress was "essentially admitting that the Act will have serious negative consequences, e.g., encouraging people to forego health insurance until medical services are needed, increasing premiums and costs for everybody, and thereby bankrupting the health insurance industry."

The individual mandate is imposed to try to avert adverse consequences of the Act itself. Applying the Necessary and Proper Clause to justify it would have the perverse effect that the more disruptive a statute is, the more "necessary" a statutory fix would be.

"Senators need to abide by their oath to uphold the Constitution, and act promptly to repeal this unconstitutional bill," Dr. Orient stated.

SOURCE Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs who were injured while working in the rescue, recovery and debris removal activities at the site of the World Trade Center following the 9/11 terrorist attacks and subsequent collapse of the twin towers have confirmed today that they have surpassed the requisite ninety-five percent (95%) opt-in threshold required in their agreement with the City of New York and its Contractors. As a result, the Settlement is officially effectuated, as Settlement Allocated Claims Neutral Matthew Garrettson, Esq., announced earlier today.

"We are extremely happy to be able to confirm that we have met and, in fact, exceeded the 95% threshold set forth in the Settlement Process Agreement ('SPA') with the City of New York and its Contractors," said Paul J. Napoli, Senior Partner of Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern, LLP, who was appointed in 2004 as Plaintiffs' Co-Liaison Counsel in the federal litigation pending before the Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in the United States District Court in lower Manhattan.  "Now we can move forward and see that our clients, who have suffered far too long without compensation for their serious illnesses and injuries, receive the help and closure they so desperately need," Napoli continued.

As reported by the Allocation Claims Neutral today, settlement opt-in numbers are as follows.  A total of 10,043 eligible plaintiffs have submitted opt-in documents.  This figure does not account for deficiencies in some of the plaintiffs' documents that will have to be corrected.  Broken down by injury "Tier" level, of the 10,043 eligible plaintiffs who have submitted documents, opt-in numbers indicate that:

1. Tier 1: 2,383 out of 2,726 eligible Tier 1 plaintiffs (87.4%);
2. Tier 2: 1,567 out of 1,619 eligible Tier 2 plaintiffs (96.8%);
3. Tier 3: 785 out of  807 eligible Tier 3 plaintiffs (97.3%);
4. Tier 4: 5,308 out of 5,411 eligible Tier 4 plaintiffs (98.1%);
5. All Tiers: 10,043 out of 10,563 all eligible plaintiffs (95.1%).

The original SPA with the City is worth $625-$712.5 million, depending on the percentage of overall plaintiffs opting in to the settlement.  That settlement has been made sweeter by a group of additional settlements negotiated with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ($47.5 million), two of the three contractors responsible for work performed at the Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island with WTC debris ($24.3 million), the insurers for the Marine defendants responsible for the barges transporting WTC debris ($28 million), respirator manufacturer Survivair ($4.15 million) and Tishman ($1.4 million).

Bill Groner, another Senior Partner in the Worby firm, echoed Napoli's satisfaction with the result of the months-long efforts to contact each of their 10,000-plus clients and obtain their executed settlement papers.  "We are thrilled to successfully conclude on behalf of the settling plaintiffs what is believed to be one of the most complex mass torts in history arising out of a horrific event that has forever changed our Country.  Our clients sacrificed their safety and health to come to the urgent need of their fellow citizens, their City and our Nation and providing them with compensation for their resulting injuries and suffering is long overdue. We are so happy to finally see the light at the end of the tunnel for these deserving clients," said Groner.

Asked whether latecomers to the settlement might still choose to submit their signed settlement documents and obtain settlement funds despite the expiration of the opt-in deadline at midnight on November 16, Napoli could not say with certainty whether the Allocation Neutral and the Court would accept such late-filed papers.  "We did everything humanely possible to help our clients decide whether to accept the offer in time to meet the deadline. Of course we will try to convince the Allocation Neutral and the Court to allow late comers to opt in, but there is certainly no guarantee that such late comers will be accommodated now that the deadline has passed."

The following is being issued by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC:

Lead women plaintiffs in the sex discrimination case against Wal-Mart (Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.) today filed a briefing opposing Wal-Mart's request to the U.S. Supreme Court that it review a lower court's class action decision.

In April 2010, after nearly a decade of pre-trial wrangling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of class action status for the case.  The lawsuit alleges systemic discrimination against women in compensation and promotions at Wal-Mart and its subsidiary, Sam's Club. It is the largest civil rights class action in history.  Wal-Mart has lost the class action issue four times before the U.S. District and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"This latest appeal is just another attempt to delay the case," said Betty Dukes, a Pittsburg, Calif., Wal-Mart greeter for whom the case is named. "After nearly 10 years, the women of Wal-Mart deserve our day in court."

The brief filed in opposition to Wal-Mart's Petition argues that the Ninth Circuit ruling upholding the class was proper.  It states that Wal-Mart ignores the compelling facts that led the trial court--in a detailed 84-page opinion--to conclude that there was significant proof to raise an inference of company-wide pay and promotion discrimination.  The evidence also showed that Wal-Mart lagged far behind its competitors in its promotion of women and long knew of the discrimination against its female employees but failed to act.

Wal-Mart's real argument, ultimately, is that "it is too big to be held accountable," according to the women's brief.  "The class is large because Wal-Mart is the nation's largest employer and manages its operations and employment practices in a highly uniform and centralized manner."  

The brief also states that the class certification decision in this case does not threaten employers with good records on diversity or open the floodgates to class actions.

"In fact, in the nearly four years since the Ninth Circuit first affirmed Dukes in February 2007, not a single Title VII class action - small or large - has been certified within the Ninth Circuit.  In the same four-year time period, nine Title VII class actions have been certified in the federal courts across the entire country - about two cases a year.  Only four of these cases involved private corporate employers.

"The very small number of Title VII class action cases certified in the recent past underscores another important point...  It highlights how different Wal-Mart is from the typical employer. Wal-Mart is a uniquely large and unusually uniform and centralized company."  Wal-Mart has lagged far behind its competitors in its promotion of women. The evidence against Wal-Mart fully supports a class action.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to take the case by the end of the year.

For more information and a copy of the Opposition brief, visit www.walmartclass.com.

Dukes v. Wal-Mart plaintiffs are represented by The Impact Fund, Berkeley, Calif; Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Washington, DC; Equal Rights Advocates (ERA), San Francisco; Davis Cowell & Bowe, San Francisco; Public Justice Center, Baltimore; and Tinkler Law Firm and Merit Bennett, Santa Fe, N.M.   SOURCE Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Earlier this morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a divided ruling upholding Illinois' mandatory moment of silence law.  The law requires all Illinois public schools to begin the school day with a moment of silence "for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day."   In January 2009, a U.S. District Court found the law to be unconstitutional.  Today's ruling reverses that decision.   The following statement can be attributed to ACLU of Illinois Senior Staff Counsel Adam Schwartz:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois is disappointed that this divided appellate court panel today gave its endorsement to a statewide law that coerces children to pray in our public schools.  In the words of Appellate Judge Williams' dissent from this decision:

"The Act makes what I believe to be an unnecessary reference to prayer, signaling a predominantly religious purpose to the statute.  And by enumerating prayer as one of the only two specific permissible activities, the Act conveys a message that Illinois students should engage in prayer during the prescribed period as opposed to a host of other silent options."

Judge Williams also concluded the government's supposed secular purpose - calming children - was a "pretext," among other reasons because legislative sponsors equated the moment of silence in school with the prayers recited each day before the General Assembly convenes.

The appellate court's majority also ignored District Judge Gettleman's determination below that under the law, a "teacher is compelled to instruct her pupils, especially in the lower grades, about prayer and its meaning..."   This is not the appropriate role of public schools.  Beyond encouraging prayer, the law also prefers those religions that practice silent prayer over those that do not.

As the courts long have recognized, it is not the role of government (including public schools) to tell children when and how to pray.   Religious exercise is a matter for students and parents, not politicians and school officials.

Even without this law, students in Illinois remain free to pray on their own, in a non-disruptive manner, throughout the school day.  Public school students in Illinois do not require the permission of the General Assembly to engage in this constitutionally protected activity.  

SOURCE ACLU of Illinois

A new report released today by the American Association for Justice (AAJ) illustrates how the civil justice system is the most effective force in uncovering abuses by corporate nursing homes and insurance companies that target elderly Americans.

There are 1.5 million elderly Americans currently residing in nursing homes - facilities that are now operated by mostly large corporate chains banking on the upcoming influx of baby boomers. Many of these vulnerable residents have suffered abuse by staff members and even died from dehydration or infection caused by inadequate care. The report explains how litigation has revealed this neglect and abuse and allowed residents and their families to hold offending corporations accountable.

"Corporate nursing homes and insurance companies have continually chosen to put profits ahead of the well-being of our most vulnerable population," said AAJ President Gibson Vance. "Where regulatory and legislative bodies have been unable to cope with this distressing rise of neglect and abuse of our elderly, the civil justice system has stepped into the breach."

A common theme in the report is abuse by insurance companies taking advantage of senior citizens. It highlights the story of a South Dakota farmer named Rudy, who was one of a flood of patients that companies signed up for long-term care insurance in the 1990s. Rudy moved into a nursing home at his doctor's suggestion, only to have his benefits cut after three years when the company declared his care was no longer "medically necessary," despite faithfully paying his monthly premium.

Thousands of seniors met similar fates as insurance companies miscalculated mortality rates and searched for ways to deny claims and cut off benefits, figuring few of their terminated policyholders would fight back. Trial attorneys across the country eventually found evidence of corporate programs aimed at terminating seniors' benefits, and helped stop these deplorable practices.

Unfortunately, while litigation has revealed incidences of abuse and neglect, many other offenses never see the light of day due to nursing homes inserting forced arbitration clauses in the fine print of lengthy admission contracts. Residents and their families often sign these contracts while under considerable stress and anxiety without realizing they are being stripped of their access to court. Congress has introduced legislation to ban forced arbitration in nursing home and other consumer contracts.

The report, titled "Standing up For Seniors: How the Civil Justice System Protects Elderly Americans," can be found at www.justice.org/seniors.  AAJ has previously released reports examining the role of the civil justice system in improving cars and the environment, which can also be found in the Research section of www.justice.org.

As the world's largest trial bar, the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) works to make sure people have a fair chance to receive justice through the legal system when they are injured by the negligence or misconduct of others--even when it means taking on the most powerful corporations.  Visit http://www.justice.org.

SOURCE American Association for Justice

The Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs (OJP) today announced that in fiscal year 2010 nearly $4 million was awarded to enable state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to address education, deterrence, enforcement and evidence gathering for prosecution of intellectual property crime in coordination with federal efforts.  Over $2 million in discretionary awards, announced today, were made to 13 state and local jurisdictions.

"IP enforcement is more than just protecting businesses from economic loss - it is also about protecting Americans from dangerous goods ranging from counterfeit pharmaceuticals to lead-tainted jewelry," said Laurie O. Robinson, OJP's Assistant Attorney General. "The Department of Justice is implementing a strategy that includes federal, state and international partners to combat this type of crime."

The funding to the 13 state and local jurisdictions provides support for:

• Enforcing criminal intellectual property laws, including the reimbursement of expenses incurred in performing criminal enforcement operations, such as overtime payments and storage fees for seized evidence.
• Educating the public to prevent, deter, and identify criminal violations of intellectual property laws.
• Establishing task forces to include state, local law, or tribal enforcement entities, or both, exclusively to conduct investigations and forensic analyses of evidence and prosecutions in matters involving criminal intellectual property laws.
• Assisting state, local, and tribal law enforcement officers and prosecutors in acquiring computer and other equipment to conduct investigations and forensic analyses of evidence in matters involving criminal intellectual property laws.

The local award recipients are:

• County of Fresno (Fresno, CA) ($49,992)
• Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (Los Angeles, CA) ($200,000)
• County of Sacramento (Sacramento, CA) ($200,000)
• Miami Shores Village (Miami Shores, FL) ($64,885)
• Attorney General's Office, Mississippi, (Jackson, MS)  ($166,365)
• North Carolina Department of the Secretary of State (Raleigh, NC) ($199,978)
• Bronx County District Attorney (Bronx, NY) ($113,103)
• New York City (NY, NY) ($192,200)
• The New York County District Attorney's Office (NY, NY) ($199,800)
• Houston Police Department (Houston, TX) ($200,000)
• City of San Antonio (TX) ($200,000)
• Chesterfield County, VA (Chesterfield, VA) ($200,000)
• Virginia Department of State Police (Richmond, VA) ($149,907)

"Intellectual property crime is not a victimless crime - it affects every American citizen," notes Jim Burch, Acting Director of OJP's Bureau of Justice Assistance.  "Dangerous counterfeit products and lost retail revenue resulting from intellectual property crimes pose significant threats to the safety and economic security of the American people."

Awards were also made to the City of Los Angeles Police Department, the National Crime Prevention Council, The National Association of Attorneys General and the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C).  The announcement of the awards was made at the opening of a one day training summit, Real Crime - Real American Jobs, Why You Should Care about Intellectual Property Rights, for law enforcement, policy makers, and industry representatives, in Pasadena, CA.

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP), headed by Assistant Attorney General Laurie O. Robinson, provides federal leadership in developing the nation's capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice, and assist victims.  OJP has seven components: the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the National Institute of Justice; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; the Office for Victims of Crime; the Community Capacity Development Office, and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking.  More information about OJP can be found at http://www.ojp.gov.