Crime and the Courts
Supreme Court Announces 2012-2013 Adjudicative Term, including Special Sessions PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Crime and the Courts
Written by Steve Davis   
Monday, 06 August 2012 08:15

Des Moines, (August 2, 2012) —The Iowa Supreme Court today announced the calendar for its 2012-2013 adjudicative term, including special sessions to hear oral arguments in communities around the state. The court's adjudicative term is from September 2, 2012, to June 30, 2013.

The court will hear oral arguments in Ottumwa, Waterloo, Sioux City, and Dubuque. The sessions are scheduled for the evening for the convenience of members of the public who wish to attend.   Each of Iowa's two law schools will also host oral arguments with limited seating for the public, and there will be a special evening session in Des Moines for central Iowa residents who may not have been able to attend the court's regular morning and afternoon sessions in the past.

The court's special session schedule:

September 7, 2012

University of Iowa College of Law

9 a.m.

September 19, 2012

Ottumwa

7 p.m.

October 11, 2012

Waterloo

7 p.m.

February 19, 2013

Des Moines

7 p.m.

March 7, 2013

Drake University Law School

9 a.m.

March 12, 2013

Sioux City

7 p.m.

April 10, 2013

Dubuque

7 p.m.

The court will continue its regular schedule of oral arguments in Des Moines during the adjudicative term. All supreme court oral arguments are open to the public.

"After visiting several Iowa communities to hear oral arguments, we confirmed there is a real interest throughout the state in seeing the supreme court at work," Chief Justice Mark Cady said. "Iowans are very interested to hear about the role of the courts and see what we do as justices of the supreme court."

Between May, 2011, and April, 2012, the supreme court heard oral arguments in Cedar Rapids, Mason City, Carroll, Council Bluffs and Bettendorf. Coinciding with each visit, the justices met with high school government and American history classes. Justices of the supreme court visited 36 schools in 21 cities.

"We also plan to continue our school visits," Chief Justice Cady said. "My colleagues and I enjoy visiting with young people about our responsibilities on the supreme court, the Iowa court system, and to answer questions students may have about the judicial branch of government. The students always have excellent questions, and by meeting with them we hope to help explain the role of the courts within our constitutional democracy."

The court will continue its regular schedule of oral arguments in Des Moines during the adjudicative term. All supreme court oral arguments are open to the public.

The court's complete calendar for its 2012-2013 term is attached.

# # #

 
Leahy, Grassley Introduce Legislation To Protect Whistleblowers In Criminal Antitrust Cases PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Crime and the Courts
Written by Grassley Press   
Wednesday, 01 August 2012 08:46

WASHINGTON (Tuesday, July 31, 2012) –U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced legislation today to extend whistleblower protection for employees who provide information to the Department of Justice related to criminal antitrust violations.

Leahy and Grassley have long worked together on legislative priorities that protect whistleblowers. The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act is based on recommendations in a July 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office that found widespread support for anti-retaliatory protection in criminal antitrust cases. It allows an employee who believes that retaliation has occurred to file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor and provides for the employee to be reinstated to his former status if the Secretary finds in his favor. These protections are modeled on existing whistleblower statutes, including the protections Senators Leahy and Grassley authored as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002.

“Whistleblowers are instrumental in alerting the public, Congress, and law enforcement to wrongdoing,” said Leahy. “Congress must encourage employees with reasonable beliefs about criminal activity to report it by offering meaningful protection to those who blow the whistle rather than leaving them vulnerable to reprisals.”

Grassley said “Chairman Leahy and I worked together ten years ago to establish whistleblower protections for private sector employees as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley reform effort.  We updated those provisions three years ago, and today’s initiative is a further extension of our efforts.  The legislation recognizes the value of whistleblowers that are willing to come forward with information about criminal antitrust violations in the private sector.  Their courage will help make certain antitrust laws are enforced, and they deserve protection and recognition for their actions.”

A copy of the legislation can be found online.

 

#####

 

Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,

On Introduction of The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act

July 31, 2012

I am pleased to join with Senator Grassley and today introduce the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act.  This legislation will provide important protections to employees who come forward and disclose to law enforcement price fixing and other criminal antitrust behavior that harm consumers.  Senator Grassley and I have a long history of working together on whistleblower issues, and I am glad we can continue this partnership today.

Whistleblowers are instrumental in alerting the public, Congress, and law enforcement to wrongdoing.  In many cases, their willingness to step forward has resulted in important reforms and even saved lives. Congress must encourage employees with reasonable beliefs about criminal activity to report such fraud or abuse by offering meaningful protection to those who blow the whistle rather than leaving them vulnerable to reprisals.

The legislation we introduce today was inspired by a recent report and recommendation from the Government Accountability Office which, based on interviews with key stakeholders, found widespread support for anti-retaliatory protection in criminal antitrust cases.  It is modeled on the successful anti-retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, and is carefully drafted to ensure that whistleblowers have no economic incentive to bring forth false claims.

I have long supported vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws, which have been called the “Magna Carta of free enterprise.” Today’s legislation is a necessary complement to them.  It has bipartisan support and was recommended by the Government Accountability Office.  I urge the Senate to quickly take up and pass this important legislation.  I ask unanimous consent that the full bill text be inserted in the Record.

# # # # #

 
Iowa Supreme Court Opinions July 27, 2012 PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Crime and the Courts
Written by Iowa Judicial Branch   
Friday, 27 July 2012 12:08
Notice: The opinions posted on this site are slip opinions only. Under the Rules of Appellate Procedure a party has a limited number of days to request a rehearing after the filing of an opinion. Also, all slip opinions are subject to modification or correction by the court. Therefore, opinions on this site are not to be considered the final decisions of the court. The official published opinions of the Iowa Supreme Court are those published in the North Western Reporter published by West Group.

Opinions released before April 2006 and available in the archives are posted in Word format. Opinions released after April 2006 are posted to the website in PDF (Portable Document Format).   Note: To open a PDF you must have the free Acrobat Reader installed. PDF format preserves the original appearance of a document without requiring you to possess the software that created that document. For more information about PDF read: Using the Adobe Reader.

For your convenience, the Judicial Branch offers a free e-mail notification service for Supreme Court opinions, Court of Appeals opinions, press releases and orders. To subscribe, click here.

NOTE: Copies of these opinions may be obtained from the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Judicial Branch Building, 1111 East Court Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50319, for a fee of fifty cents per page.

No. 10–0010

STEVEN A. MUELLER, BRADLEY J. BROWN, MARK A. KRUSE, KEVIN D. MILLER, and LARRY E. PHIPPS, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Like Situated vs. WELLMARK, INC. d/b/a WELLMARK BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF IOWA, An Iowa Corporation; and WELLMARK HEALTH PLAN OF IOWA, INC., An Iowa Corporation

No. 10–0898

MALL REAL ESTATE, L.L.C., an Iowa Limited Liability Company vs. CITY OF HAMBURG, an Iowa Municipal Corporation

No. 10–1719

IOWA FILM PRODUCTION SERVICES; MISSISSIPPI FILMS, INC.; POLYNATION PICTURES, INC.; FIELD OF SCREAMS, LLC; UNDERGROUND FILMS, INC.; TICKET OUT PRODUCTIONS; TRICOAST IOWA PRODUCTIONS, LLC; GPX DEVELOPMENT, LLC; SEPTEMBER PRODUCTIONS LLC; LUCKY MP, LLC; and RECESS FILM PRODUCTION, LLC vs. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

No. 11–0095

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF IOWA, INC. vs. RECORDS CUSTODIAN, ATLANTIC COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

 
Morthland Sends Letter Urging Congress to Act on Thomson Correctional Center PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Crime and the Courts
Written by Rep. Rich Morthland   
Wednesday, 25 July 2012 08:45

Moline, IL … Rep. Rich Morthland (R-Cordova) and Rep. Jim Sacia (R-Freeport) delivered a letter yesterday urging the Illinois Congressional Delegation to take action on the proposed sale of the unused Thomson Correctional Center. The proposed sale from the state of Illinois to the Federal Bureau of Prisons has been on the table for more than 2½ years.

“It is frustrating to watch the state’s most advanced prison sit idle while northwest Illinois continues to languish,” Morthland said.

The Thomson Correctional Center has the capacity to confine up to 1,600 federal prisoners and it is estimated putting this prison facility to use will create 1,100 direct and indirect new jobs, and will inject $200 million per year into the economy of Carroll, Whiteside, and surrounding counties.

“The sale has been thoroughly discussed and debated. The majority of the people in the communities directly involved have indicated they would like to see this sale move forward,” said Morthland. “I believe it is in the best interest of the people of northwest Illinois for Congress to act.”

#####

 
Reed, Grassley Seek Tougher Penalties for Wall Street Fraud PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Crime and the Courts
Written by Grassley Press   
Monday, 23 July 2012 13:14

Bipartisan bill would raise SEC’s limits on securities fines, tie penalties to scope of harm, and crackdown on repeat offenders

WASHINGTON, DC – In an effort to prevent financial fraud and strengthen oversight and accountability of Wall Street, U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) are introducing bipartisan legislation to strengthen the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) ability to crack down on securities laws violations.

The Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act (SEC Penalties Act) of 2012 will increase the statutory limits on civil monetary penalties, directly link the size of these penalties to the scope of harm and associated investor losses, and substantially raise the financial stakes for repeat offenders of our nation’s securities laws.

Under existing law, the SEC can only penalize individual violators a maximum of $150,000 per offense and institutions $725,000.  In some cases, the SEC may calculate penalties to equal the gross amount of ill-gotten gain, but only if the matter goes to federal court, not when the SEC handles a case administratively.  The SEC Penalties Act increases the per violation cap applicable to the most serious securities laws violations to $1 million per violation for individuals, and $10 million per violation for entities.  In cases where the penalty is tied to the amount of money gained by the bad action, the SEC would be able to triple the penalty.  It would also triple the penalty cap for recidivists who have been convicted of securities fraud or subject to SEC administrative relief within the past five years.  The agency would be able to assess these types of penalties in-house, and not just in federal court.

“In order to protect taxpayers and investors, we need tougher anti-fraud laws and forceful oversight of Wall Street.  Some of these institutions that are ‘too big to fail’ have also become ‘too big to care.’  If they look at the bottom line and see they can break the law, get caught, pay a nominal fine, and still profit, the cycle of misconduct will continue.  The law needs to change to ensure the punishment fits the crime.  This bill gives the SEC more tools to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street,” said Reed, the Chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment.  “I am pleased to be joined by Senator Grassley in this bipartisan effort to enhance the SEC’s ability to protect investors and crack down on fraud.”

“If a fine is just decimal dust for a Wall Street firm, that’s not a deterrent,” Grassley said.  “It’s just the cost of doing business.  A penalty should mean something, and it should get the recidivists’ attention.  I especially like the increased penalties for repeat offenders in this bill.   That should help change the dynamic of business as usual.  If this legislation is enacted, as I hope it will be, I expect the SEC to use these new penalties.  The SEC doesn’t always use all of the penalties at its disposal, and it should.”

The SEC is responsible for overseeing approximately 35,000 entities, as well as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), which itself oversees 4,500 brokers; the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), which oversees auditors of public companies; and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB), which regulates municipal securities firms and municipal advisors.

Last year, the SEC successfully brought 735 enforcement actions which resulted in the transfer of $2.8 billion in penalties and returned funds to harmed investors.

However, in a recent case between the SEC and two former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers who were indicted on charges of wire and securities fraud for misrepresenting the health of their funds that cost investors $1.6 billion, the SEC was forced to settle for civil penalties of $800,000 and $250,000, respectively.  Neither of the former executives admitted nor denied the allegations and were banned from the securities industry for three years and two years, respectively.

A summary of the SEC Penalties Act of 2012 follows:

Update Civil Money Penalties for Securities Law Violations. The bill modernizes and updates the maximum money penalties that may be obtained from individuals and entities charged with securities law violations in administrative and civil actions.

Most Serious Violations. The maximum penalty for an individual charged with the most serious violations (i.e., third tier violations involving fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement that resulted in substantial losses to victims or substantial pecuniary gain to the violator) could not exceed, for each violation, the greater of (i) $1 million, (ii) three times the gross pecuniary gain, or (iii) the losses incurred by victims as a result of the violation.  The maximum amount that could be obtained from entities charged with the most serious violations could not exceed, for each violation, the greater of (i) $10 million, (ii) three times the gross pecuniary gain, or (iii) the losses incurred by victims as a result of the violation.

Other Violations. The maximum penalties for individuals and entities charged with other violations would be revised as follows:

1.         The maximum penalty for an individual charged with less serious violations involving fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement (i.e., second tier violations) could not exceed, for each violation, $100,000 or the gross pecuniary gain as a result of the violation.  The maximum penalty that could be obtained from entities charged with these violations could not exceed, for each violation, $500,000 or the gross pecuniary gain as a result of the violation.

2.         The maximum penalty for an individual charged with violations not involving fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement (i.e., first tier violations) could not exceed, for each violation, $10,000 or the gross pecuniary gain as a result of the violation.  The maximum penalty that could be obtained from entities charged with these violations could not exceed, for each violation, $100,000 or the gross pecuniary gain as a result of the violation.

Penalties for Recidivists. The maximum amount of the penalty for repeated misconduct shall be three times the applicable cap when the person or entity within the five years preceding the act or omission is (a) criminally convicted of securities fraud or (b) is subject to a judgment or order concerning securities fraud.

Violations of Injunctions or Bars. The bill provides authority to seek civil penalties for violations of previously imposed injunctions or bars obtained or entered under the securities laws.  It also provides that each violation of an injunction or order shall be considered a separate offense.  However, in the event of an ongoing failure to comply with an injunction or order, each day of the continued failure to comply with the injunction or order shall be considered a separate offense.

-end-

 
<< Start < Prev 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next > End >>

Page 11 of 31