Author: JURIST – Paper Chase

[JURIST] Corruption, abuse of power, and a focus on short-term security goals in Afghanistan have intensified the issue of poverty, affecting more than two-thirds of the population, according to a Tuesday report from the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). According to the report 36 percent, or nine million people, live in absolute poverty and cannot meet basic needs. Additionally, 36 percent were found to live just above the poverty line. While the report said that many Afghan leaders shape public policy for their own personal or vested interests, it said that the lack of security, the disparate allocation of resources, and discrimination were also reasons for the extreme poverty. The report focused on the need to address human rights issues in order find a solution to hardships facing the Afghan people:Poverty is neither accidental, nor inevitable in Afghanistan: it is both a cause and consequence of a massive human rights deficit including widespread impunity and inadequate investment in, and attention to, human rights.
Understanding the human rights dimension of poverty is critical to the identification of underlying structural problems and processes that, left unaddressed, run the risk of undermining poverty reduction initiatives. A human rights perspective and analysis helps ensure that causes, and not just consequences, inform the design and implementation of programmes geared to the alleviation or elimination of chronic poverty.The information for the report was provided by a survey given to some of the poorest communities in the Afghan provinces, along with interviews of local and national experts.Afghanistan has received much criticism for its human rights record. Earlier this month, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay delivered a report to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) that said Afghanistan’s human rights progress has been thwarted by armed conflict, censorship, abuse of power, and violence against women. In February, the US State Department (DOS) released its annual 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, criticizing Afghanistan for its continued use of child labor. In November, Pillay urged Afghan President Hamad Karzai to put a stop to executions and join nations calling for a death penalty moratorium after five prisoners were executed over the course of four days.

[JURIST] The Turkish ruling party on Tuesday submitted its controversial reform package to parliament, despite warnings from Turkish President Abdullah Gul that the party should take more precautions before amending the constitution. The reform package contains seven revisions from the original amendments unveiled last week, including a highly-disputed reform to the judiciary system that would allow military and government officials to be tried in civilian court. The reform would also make it harder for the government to disband political parties that challenge the country’s nationalist establishment and would ban the prosecution of the 1980 coup leaders. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) created the amendments to promote democracy in Turkey and support its bid into the European Union (EU). The parliamentary vote will take place next week, but will most likely be put to a public referendum as there may not be adequate support between the parties. Opposition parties have spoken out against the reforms, holding that the amendments are not aimed at enhancing democratic principles, but instead to cement AKP’s standing as the ruling party.
The proposed amendments have been met with opposition by Turkey’s Supreme Court. In an interview last week, the president of the court Hasan Gerceker declared that the proposed amendments threaten separation of power and judicial independence. Turkey has faced several obstacles as it works toward membership in the EU, including its human rights record, its stance towards political parties, and tension between the AKP and the military.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in two cases. In Dillon v. United States, the court heard arguments on whether the federal sentencing guidelines are binding when a federal judge imposes a new sentence. Under the Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling in United States v. Booker, the guidelines are advisory only, but the court has never ruled on Booker’s application to a sentence modification proceeding. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that Booker should not apply in sentence modification proceedings, upholding Percy Dillon’s modified sentence. Counsel for the petitioner, Dillon, argued:Sentencing commission policy cannot override this Court’s clear and unambiguous directive to courts to treat the guidelines as advisory in all cases moving forward, and any interpretation of section 3582(c) that permits the commission to mandate sentences must be rejected, not only as matter of statutory stare decisis, but because it would violate the Sixth Amendment.Counsel for the United States argued:The provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act at issue in this case, unlike the provisions that were at issue in Booker, do not govern the imposition of sentence. They instead provide a discretionary mechanism for the exercise of leniency for defendants who have already been sentenced.In Barber v. Thomas, the court heard arguments on whether the Sentencing Reform Act requires the federal prison system to calculate good time served credits based on the sentence imposed. The federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has been interpreting “term of imprisonment” to mean time served, rather than sentence imposed, as it is interpreted throughout federal sentencing statutes. The BOP’s interpretation has resulted in fewer days of available credit each year of the sentence. Lower courts remain split on the question. Counsel for the petitioners argued that, “he flaw in the Bureau of Prisons system is that they do not give credit towards the term of imprisonment as this statute in 3624(b) dictates.” Counsel for the respondent argued in favor of the BOP’s system.

[JURIST] The France Council of State on Tuesday advised the French government that a complete ban on full Islamic veils risks violating the French Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. The government requested that the council, the country’s highest administrative court, review the proposed ban before drawing up legislation. The government has already banned public officials from wearing veils while operating in their official capacity, and also prohibits veils in public schools. The council held that even with the existence of these partial bans, which are based on France’s secular principles, it could find no legal basis for a complete ban on veils in public places. The council held that there could be a legal foundation for the ban in situations that require public security and protections against fraud. This includes access to high security areas, the performance of official proceedings such as marriage and voting, and when acquiring identification materials. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been a strong proponent of the full veil ban and stated that legislation may go forward despite the Council’s warnings.
The Council of State’s review comes weeks after a French parliamentary commission charged with investigating whether to enact laws banning the wearing of burqas or other full veils released its report calling for a partial ban that would apply in public facilities, including hospitals, schools, and public transportation, and to any individual attempting to receive public services. While many people in France approve of the proposed legislation, such measures have also faced opposition from critics who say such a law would alienate France’s Muslim minority and violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), of which France is a signatory.

[JURIST] The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Tuesday threatened to imprison the head of the country’s corruption agency for failing to meet a 24-hour deadline to reopen several corruption cases. Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry gave National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Chairman Naveed Ahsan and acting Chairman Irfan Nadeem another day to reopen the cases, including several against President Asif Ali Zardari. Ahsan pledged in writing that the cases would be reopened. The court’s order displays the continuing tension between Pakistan’s government and judiciary. In response to the court’s orders, police detained Director General of the Federal Investigation Agency Ahmed Riaz Sheikh, who was convicted of corruption eight years ago. Sheikh’s prison sentence was waived in 2002, and he was subsequently promoted within the agency, after former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf issued amnesty in 2007.
Tuesday’s arrest is the first since the Supreme Court struck down the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), which granted immunity to Zardari and 8,000 other government officials from charges of corruption, embezzlement, money laundering, murder, and terrorism between January 1986 and October 1999. In December, a Pakistani court issued an arrest warrant for Interior Minister Rehman Malik on corruption charges. Malik is among 19 officials whose corruption cases the NAB has petitioned to reopen in an anti-corruption court in Rawalpindi. The NAB has also petitioned a Lahore court to reopen the cases of 32 individuals, including that of Defense Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar. The NRO was signed by Musharraf as part of a power-sharing accord allowing former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto to return to the country despite corruption charges she had faced.

[JURIST] The Paris Appellate Court on Tuesday upheld a lower court’s 2008 decision finding French oil company Total and several other defendants criminally liable for an oil spill that occurred of the coast of Brittany in 1999. The court also increased the fine against the defendants from 192 million euros to 200 million euros. Over 20,000 tons of oil seeped from an oil tanker called Erika, which Total chartered from an Italian company, decimating 400 kilometers of coastline and causing harm to wildlife. Total said that it plans to review the judgment before deciding whether to appeal.
Total is not the first oil company to be subject to stiff penalties as a result of an oil spill. In June 2009, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Exxon Mobil owes interest on the more than $500 million in punitive damages awarded against it following the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. According to statistics on major oil spills published by the non-profit International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation, the Total oil spill off the cost of Brittany was the fourth largest oil spill since 1967, while the Exxon Valdez spill is ranked 35.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled 7-2 in Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson that whistle-blowers cannot bring suit under the False Claims Act to recover misspent government funds if the information used in the lawsuits came from state or local agencies’ reports or audits. The suit arose out of public record documents that detailed a failure to obtain bids for the clean-up and reconstruction of storm-damaged portions of North Carolina. The petitioners claimed that the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit erred in concluding that a state audit does not constitute an administrative report, audit, or investigation under the Act. In reversing the decision below, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote:
Since its enactment during the Civil War, the False Claims Act has authorized both the Attorney General and private qui tam relators to recover from persons who make false or fraudulent claims for payment to the United States. The Act now contains a provision barring qui tam actions based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in certain specified sources. The question before us is whether the reference to “administrative” reports, audits, and investigations in that provision encompasses disclosures made in state and local sources as well as federal sources. We hold that it does.Justice Antonin Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer.The ruling could potentially bar thousands of lawsuits by whistle-blowers. However, Congress recently changed the language of the statute as part of the health care reform bill signed into law last week. It is unclear whether the new wording will affect the case on remand.

[JURIST] Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Tuesday proposed amending the country’s terrorism legislation in the wake of Monday’s twin suicide bombing attacks on Moscow subway stations. In televised remarks, Medvedev said: We need to focus on improving legislation aimed at preventing acts of terrorism, on the work of various departments charged with investigating such crimes, and on other procedures related to transportation security and safety of people in crowded places. I think we have reason to revisit issues related to the proper administration of justice under terrorist legislation – under the ‘terrorism’ law and related crimes articles – and to talk about the need to improve such practices.
Top Russian officials, including Medvedev, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, and head of the Federal Security Service (FSB) Aleksandr Bortnikov have blamed insurgents from the North Caucasus for the subway bombings. Russia’s ombudsman for Chechnya Nurdi Nuhazhiyev warned Tuesday that Russia could now experience an increase in ethnic hatred crimes against people who appear to be from the North Caucasus.In January, Putin called for a new age of human rights and safety in the Caucasus. In October, the UN published a report on reforms Russia must take to protect human rights, highlighting the Caucasus region. The UN report came less than a week after prominent opposition leader and human rights activist in Russia’s southern province of Ingushetia, Maksharip Aushev, was shot dead while traveling on a highway in the North Caucasus region of Kabardino-Balkaria.

[JURIST] The High Court of Australia on Tuesday ordered that alleged Serbian war criminal Dragan Vasiljkovic be extradited to Croatia to face prosecution. Vasiljkovic, an Australian citizen also known as Daniel Snedden, is accused of war crimes occurring during the 1991-1995 Croatian war of independence. The high court’s decision overturns a September ruling by the Federal Court of Australia, which held that Vasiljkovic should not be extradited due to the risk that his political beliefs would subject him to prejudice if he were returned to Croatia.
The High Court’s decision comes after a prolonged judicial debate over whether Vasiljkovic should be returned to Croatia to stand trial. In 2007, an Australian court ordered that Vasiljkovic be handed over to Croatian authorities. Subsequent appeals resulted in conflicting federal court judgments and ultimately led to Tuesday’s high court decision. Vasiljkovic was arrested in Australia in 2006 pursuant to an extradition request from the Croatian government.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously in Berghuis v. Smith that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community was not violated when the African-American representation on the jury was disproportionate to the community population. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit applied the comparative-disparity test, which calculates the percentage of otherwise eligible jurors from a given group who are excluded from jury service, and held that the defendant’s right was violated. In reversing the decision below, the court declined to adopt an explicit standard. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote:Each test is imperfect. Absolute disparity and comparative disparity measurements, courts have recognized, can be misleading when, as here, “members of the distinctive group comp a small percentage of those eligible for jury service.” And to our knowledge, “o court … has accepted alone as determinative in Sixth Amendment challenges to jury selection systems.”Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion.
The defendant, Diapolis Smith, is an African-American convicted of second-degree murder by an all-white jury in Kent County, Michigan in 1993. At the time of Smith’s trial, African-Americans constituted 7.28 percent of Kent County’s jury-eligible population, and 6 percent of the pool from which potential jurors were drawn.

[JURIST] An Illinois Cook County Circuit Court judge ruled Monday that the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 is constitutional. While lifting the temporary restraining order on the law’s enforcement, Judge Daniel Riley approved a 60-day grace period, preventing state officials from enforcing the law pending appeal procedures. The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois (ACLU-IL) brought suit last year arguing that the law violates privacy, due process, equal protection, and gender equality guaranteed by the Illinois Constitution. Responding to the judgment, ACLU-IL Executive Director Colleen Connell said:
In the wake of today’s ruling, we are reviewing our legal options, including an appeal of the Judge’s decision. We note that the Judge was careful and blunt in describing the Illinois law as “unfortunate,” and in noting that enforcement of the Act will result in horrible outcomes for some young women, including “physical and emotional abuse.” However, the Judge ruled in favor of the State because he did not believe that the law would be harmful in every incident where a pregnant minor was compelled to notify a parent of her decision to terminate a pregnancy. We will move swiftly to take all necessary action so that the real threat of abuse so clearly identified by the Judge can be avoided.Anti-abortion advocate the Thomas More Society commended the decision, stating that they looked forward “toward ending underage secret abortions.”Riley granted the temporary restraining order in November, only hours after the Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board ruled to begin enforcing the law. The order was originally sought by the ACLU-IL in support of a suit brought by a local medical doctor and a women’s clinic on behalf of themselves and their minor patients. ACLU-IL alleged that enforcement of the law would cause major harm and compromise the privacy of some Illinois teen-aged women. The Illinois Department of Finance and Professional Regulation (DFPR) granted doctors a 90-day grace period for enforcement of the parental notification requirement, following a ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that reversed a district court injunction barring the law’s enforcement. The 1995 law, which has never been enforced, authorizes state judges to waive the notice requirement if doing so would be in a minor’s best interest, but otherwise requires parental notification for minors seeking an abortion.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously in Jones v. Harris Associates that a shareholder does not have to show that a fund’s investment adviser misled the fund’s directors in order to have a cognizable claim of an excessive fee under § 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the claim is not cognizable unless the shareholder can show that the adviser misled the fund’s directors who approved the fee. In vacating the decision below, the court adopted the Gartenberg standard, which provides that “to face liability under § 36(b), an investment adviser must charge a fee that is so disproportionately large that it bears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s length bargaining. Justice Samuel Alito wrote:By focusing almost entirely on the element of disclosure, the Seventh Circuit panel erred. The Gartenberg standard, which the panel rejected, may lack sharp analytical clarity, but we believe that it accurately reflects the compromise that is embodied in § 36(b), and it has provided a workable standard for nearly three decades. The debate between the Seventh Circuit panel and the dissent from the denial of rehearing regarding today’s mutual fund market is a matter for Congress, not the courts.Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion.
The case was brought by several plaintiffs who own shares in funds advised by Harris Associates. The plaintiffs claimed that the fees were too high in violation of § 36(b).

[JURIST] The number of countries using the death penalty continued to drop during 2009, according to an annual report published Monday by Amnesty International (AI). According to the report, more than 700 people were executed last year in 18 countries, with the most executions carried out in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the US. Regionally, the majority of executions occurred in Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa, while the US was the only country in the Americas to execute prisoners last year. AI’s figures exclude the estimated thousands of executions conducted in China, where the government refuses to release death penalty statistics. AI challenged China and other nations to disclose information about executions and condemned all forms of capital punishment:
Amnesty International believes that the death penalty legitimizes an irreversible act of violence by the state. Research demonstrates that the death penalty is often applied in a discriminatory manner, being used disproportionately against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic and religious communities. The death penalty is often imposed after a grossly unfair trial. But even when trials respect international standards of fairness, the risk of executing the innocent can never be fully eliminated – the death penalty will inevitably claim innocent victims, as has been persistently demonstrated.Despite the continued use of the death penalty in some countries, there is a growing movement toward international abolition. For the first time since AI started publishing its report, there were no executions in Europe for the year. Burundi and Togo also eliminated the death penalty last year, bringing the total number of abolitionist countries to 95. More than two-thirds of the world’s countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice.Earlier this month, Taiwanese Justice Minister Wang Ching-feng resigned in defense of her position against the death penalty. Though Taiwan has not executed a criminal since 2005, Wang said she would not sign the execution warrants of any of the 44 prisoners still on death row. Last month, a South Korean high court ruled that the death penalty does not violate the South Korean constitution. The court’s decision could lead to a reinstatement of the death penalty in South Korea, which has held an unofficial moratorium on capital punishment since 1998. Earlier this year, Mongolian President Elbegdorj Tsakhia announced that he would suspend the death penalty and commute the sentences of all prisoners currently on death row to 30 years in prison. UN Under-Secretary-General Sergei Ordzhonikidze has praised the increase in the number of countries that have suspended or abolished the death penalty. Speaking at the 4th World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Geneva last month, Ordzhonikidze expressed hope that countries that have not abolished the death penalty would adopt the 2007 UN Resolution 62/149, placing a moratorium on the use of capital punishment.

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled Monday that patents held on two genes linked to hereditary ovarian and breast cancer are invalid. The ruling was in response to a suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) on behalf of patients and scientists challenging patents held by Myriad Genetics on the BCRA genes. Judge Robert Sweet held that, “ecause the claimed isolated DNA is not markedly different from native DNA as it exists in nature, it constitutes unpatentable subject matter.” The complaint also alleged that the patents were unconstitutional under the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I of the Constitution, but the court did not address the constitutionality of the patents because the case could be decided under patent law. ACLU staff attorney Chris Hansen hailed the ruling as a “victory for the free flow of ideas in scientific research,” stating:
The human genome, like the structure of blood, air or water, was discovered, not created. There is an endless amount of information on genes that begs for further discovery, and gene patents put up unacceptable barriers to the free exchange of ideas.Opponents of the ruling contend that restricting patents on human genes will actually decrease the amount of genetic research performed by the public sector because it will no longer be profitable for companies to study human genes. They also say the result of the ruling will be to push genetic research into primarily government-funded institutions such as universities. Monday’s ruling is expected to be appealed.If Monday’s ruling stands, it could invalidate patents covering nearly 2,000 human genes. Genetic research companies currently hold patents to approximately 20 percent of the human genetic code. Many of the patented genes are associated with diseases such as Alzheimer’s and cancer. The holder of a gene patent can prevent others from studying the gene and can also develop testing for specific genetic mutations, which they can then market without direct competition.

[JURIST] The Hague Appeals Court on Tuesday upheld the UN’s immunity from prosecution by rejecting claims brought by relatives of victims of the Srebrenica massacre during the 1992-1995 Bosnian conflict. The relatives, known as the Mothers of Srebrenica, alleged that the Netherlands should be liable for the deaths because Dutch soldiers operating under the UN flag negligently failed to protect civilians by forcing the victims out of a UN-designated “safe area” and turning them over to Bosnian Serbs, resulting in the death of 8,000 Muslim men and boys. The court found that immunity is essential to the UN’s ability to carry out its duties, and that the Dutch acting as UN peacekeepers could not be held responsible. The decision upheld the district court’s 2008 decision to dismiss the claims. The Mothers of Srebrenica have vowed to appeal the case to the Netherlands Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice if necessary.
Earlier this month, former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic, charged with committing war crimes during the Bosnian conflict, appeared before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to make his opening statements. Karadzic began by denying any plan to expel Muslims from Serbia, and blaming Muslims and Western countries for triggering the civil war. Karadzic also accused Bosnians of planting corpses and embellishing reports about fatalities, calling the Srebrenica massacre a farce promulgated by Bosnian Muslims to incite hatred against Serbian forces. Karadzic is defending himself against 11 counts including genocide and murder, and he faces life in prison if convicted.

[JURIST] German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday maintained that Turkey should become a European Union (EU) “preferred partner” rather than continue as a candidate country for EU accession. Turkey has only opened 12 of the 35 chapters toward accession to the EU, and continues to face diplomatic challenges that compromise its bid towards accession. In particular, Turkey has yet to resolve its relation to Cyprus, and Merkel urged Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to open Turkey’s ports to vessels from Cyprus and take steps towards a conciliatory solution to the impasse on the island. Merkel also exhorted Turkey to agree to increase sanctions for Iranian nuclear development and toned down prior discussions on teaching Turkish in the German school system. On Friday, after talks with EU officials in Brussels, the Turkish chief negotiator for Turkish accession to the EU, Egemen Bagis, rejected the German proposal for a “preferred partnership.”
Germany is the country with the largest community of Turkish emigres, with an estimated 2.5 million, and Turkey is one of its largest trading partners. Germany is also one of the staunchest opponents among EU members to Turkish EU membership. Turkey has faced several obstacles as it works toward accession. Turkish human rights and foreign relations are reportedly compromising the country’s efforts toward EU accession, receiving mixed reviews in October in the European Commission’s annual reports on enlargement strategy and candidate progress. Last May, an EU advisory council said that Turkey should do more in terms of judicial reform, protection of citizens’ rights, and various other efforts in order to further its request for accession.

[JURIST] Former International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) senior vice president Robert Moffat pleaded guilty Monday to conspiracy and securities fraud charges stemming from his involvement in the largest hedge fund insider trading case in US history. US Attorney Preet Bharara said, ” willfully ignored his professional and legal responsibilities,” and provided inside information in breach of fiduciary duties, facilitating illicit securities transactions. Moffat’s plea is in connection with the probe surrounding Galleon Group hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam and former hedge fund consultant Danielle Chiesi. Moffat’s conviction is the eleventh among 21 people currently under investigation by the Department of Justice.
Last month, a federal judge decided Rajaratnam’s criminal trial will begin October 25. Former Intel Capital executive Rajiv Goel pleaded guilty to insider trading charges in connection with the Galleon probe earlier in February. Rajaratnam, Chiesi, Goel, and Moffat were arrested in October and charged along with two other individuals and two business entities with insider trading. The complaint alleged that the individuals provided Galleon Group and another hedge fund with material nonpublic information about several corporations upon which the funds traded, generating $25 million in illicit gain. Rajaratnam and Chiesi pleaded not guilty in December after being indicted for insider trading.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in two cases. In Renico v. Lett, the court heard arguments on whether double jeopardy is violated by a new trial after a state trial court declared a mistrial due to the jury’s inability to reach a verdict. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court that the second trial violated the rights of the defendant, Reginald Lett. The decision overturned a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court, which found that the second trial did not violate the double jeopardy bar. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Sixth Circuit failed to properly defer to the Michigan court under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Counsel for the respondent, Lett, argued that, “habeas relief was properly granted.”
In Morrison v. National Australia Bank, the court heard arguments on whether foreign investors are entitled to bring fraud-on-the-market claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 when the stock purchased was that of a foreign company on a foreign securities exchange. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court to dismiss the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It found that actions outside of the US were more responsible for the fraud than anything that occurred within the US. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the federal court had jurisdiction over the claim. Counsel for the respondents argued, “unlike the rights of action that this Court has addressed in other extraterritoriality cases, the section 10(b) right is purely implied. Congress didn’t intend for this right of action to exist even domestically, let alone extraterritorially.” Counsel for the US government argued as amicus curiae on behalf of respondents.

[JURIST] Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a bill Monday re-implementing a ban on human cloning in Russia, according to the Kremlin Press Service. The bill, which replaces a previous ban on human cloning that expired in 2007, prohibits attempts to clone human beings until the state determines how to regulate the practice. The bill does not prevent embryonic stem cell research. The lower and upper houses of Russia’s parliament approved the legislation earlier this month.
Last year, the US National Institute of Health (NIH) issued proposed guidelines for funding human embryonic research, which would allow funding only if the embryos would have otherwise been destroyed and the donor consented to their use for research. The guidelines also state that stem cells cannot be obtained from somatic cell nuclear transfer, or cloning, and from embryos specifically created for research. In 2007, the UN Institute of Advanced Studies called for a global ban on cloning. In 2005, the UN General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution calling for a total ban on human cloning, after negotiations for a binding treaty collapsed. More than 50 countries have enacted domestic bans on human cloning.

[JURIST] Some forms of online piracy in France are on the rise in spite of the recently passed anti-piracy law, according to a March study conducted by the Marsouin Unit at the University of Rennes. While 15 percent of individuals using Peer-to-Peer networking have stopped using such sites, Internet piracy has increased by 3 percent since the law was passed, the study says. Much of the increase may attributable to the use of streaming technology and downloading sites not covered by the law. The new law has yet to take effect.
Online piracy has assumed increasing importance in the eyes of legislators across Europe, as many countries, including the UK, consider legislation that reflects the law enacted in France. The French bill was approved by the Constitutional Court in October after being given final approval by the French Parliament the previous month. Under the so-called “three strikes” law, the French government could send notices to Internet service providers to terminate an individual’s Internet access for up to one year after a third violation of intellectual property laws for downloading or sharing movies and music. One of the key reasons this version of the law was upheld by the court, after it struck down an earlier version, is the requirement of judicial review prior to denial of Internet service.