JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.
Listen to Paper Chase!

Legal news from Sunday, June 7, 2009

Supreme Court asked to block Chrysler bankruptcy sale
Tere Miller-Sporrer on June 7, 2009 3:31 PM ET

[JURIST] Two groups of petitioners filed an emergency request with the US Supreme Court [official website] Saturday to stop the sale of Chrysler Group [corporate website] assets to Italian automaker Fiat [corporate website]. The first group, consisting of three Indiana state pension and construction funds - the Indiana State Police Pension Fund, the Indiana Teacher's Retirement Fund and the state's Major Moves Construction Fund - claims that the terms of the sale favor unsecured stockholders at the expense of secured stockholders and alleged that the use of Trouble Asset Relief Program Funds (TARP) [official website] to finance the bankruptcy is unconstitutional. The second group, consisting of individuals with products liability claims against Chrysler, claims that the terms of the sale would limit their ability to recover for products liability actions. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has the authority to issue or reject a stay herself [CNN report] or refer the application to the full court.

On Friday, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] approved the sale [JURIST report] of most of the assets of Chrysler Group to Fiat, but said the deal could not be completed until June 8 or until the Supreme Court declines to hear an appeal. The ruling upheld a previous decision [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] by the US Bankruptcy Court for the Second District of New York.

Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page

DOJ lawyers sought to limit interrogation tactics but agreed on legality: NYT
Ximena Marinero on June 7, 2009 10:16 AM ET

[JURIST] Several senior officials working in the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] in the Bush administration sought to limit uses of so-called enhanced interrogation tactics [JURIST news archive] but broadly agreed on the legality of the tactics, according to internal DOJ emails [texts] made public by the New York Times on Saturday. The memos were written by the then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey [official profile; JURIST news archive]. In emails written to then-chief of staff Chuck Rosenberg [law firm profile], Comey talked about having voiced strong concerns about the effects of combined usage of enhanced interrogation techniques,

saying the analysis was flawed and that I had great reservations. . . The AG explained that he was under great pressure from the Vice President to complete both memos, and that the President had even raised it last week, apparently at the VP's request and the AG had promised they would be ready early this week.
Comey emailed that he was also afraid that
the people who were applying pressure now [to authorize the techniques] would not be there when the proverbial [omitted] hit the fan. Rather they would simply say they had only asked for an opinion. It would be Alberto Gonzalez in the bullseye. I told him that my job was to protect the Department and the AG and that I could not agree to this because it was wrong. I told him it could be made right in a week, which was a blink of an eye, and that nobody would understand at a hearing three years from now why we didn't take that week.
The email messages are now part of an ongoing investigation by the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility [official website] of the department lawyers who approved the interrogation tactics. In May, a coalition of progressive organizations filed complaints seeking to disbar [materials, JURIST report] 12 of those former officials. UN Special Rapporteur on torture Manfred Nowak has insisted [JURIST report] that under international law, the US must prosecute the DOJ lawyers who drafted the memos.

Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


Unprecedented Notice of Warrantless Wiretapping in a Closed Case
Ramzi Kassem
CUNY School of Law

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!


Add Paper Chase legal news to your RSS reader or personalized portal:
  • Add to Google
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Add to My AOL


Subscribe to Paper Chase by e-mail. JURIST offers a free once-a-day digest [sample]. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.

R|mail e-mails individual Paper Chase posts through the day. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.


Join top US law schools, federal appeals courts, law firms and legal organizations by publishing Paper Chase legal news on your public website or intranet.

JURIST offers a news ticker and preformatted headline boxes updated in real time. Get the code.

Feedroll provides free Paper Chase news boxes with headlines or digests precisely tailored to your website's look and feel, with content updated every 15 minutes. Customize and get the code.


Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.


Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org