|
|
|
Class Sues Microsoft for Vista to XP $104 Downgrade
Court Watch |
2009/02/13 08:55
|
A federal class action claims Microsoft used its market power to force consumers to buy computers with a pre-installed, clunky and defective Windows Vista operating system, forcing them to spend more money to "downgrade" to the more reliable Windows XP. The class claims Microsoft extended its $104 "downgrade" offer twice, to reap "tremendous profits" from it.
"Microsoft prohibited its OEMs [Original Equipment Manufacturers] Dell/HP/Sony etc. from selling new computers with Windows XP operating systems pre-installed," the class claims. They say Microsoft made it impossible for consumers to buy new computers with Windows XP, but charged $104 extra to downgrade from Vista to XP. Microsoft extended its $104 downgrade offer twice, most recently until July 31, 2009, to reap "tremendous profits" from the combination of clunky new system and relatively better old one, the complaint states. It claims that nearly 1 in 3 people who buy a computer with Vista downgrade to XP.
The Windows Vista operating system, released on Jan. 31, 2007, was not well received.
Plaintiffs claim Microsoft controls 90% of the "relevant market," and announced on July 18, 2007, that it had sold more than 180 Vista licenses - totting up gross sales of $30 billion to $60 billion from it. "However, these figures are believed to include Vista licenses that are downgraded to Windows XP."
The complaint claims Microsoft "willfully acquired monopoly power and have maintained such monopoly control over the relevant market by suppressing competition in the Intel-compatible PC operating systems software market through restrictive and exclusionary conduct. Defendants suppressed competition with the specific intent of acquiring and obtaining such monopoly power."
They claim Microsoft fixed prices for Windows XP at "supra-competitive levels" and forced consumers to downgrade to it due to the clunky Vista program.
They claim, "Microsoft prohibited its OEMs [Original Equipment Manufacturers] Dell/HP/Sony etc. from selling new computers with Windows XP operating systems pre-installed."
The class demands treble damages for unfair business practices and state antitrust violations. Plaintiffs are represented by Beth Terrell with Terrell Marshall & Daudi. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ruth Madoff Could be a Conspirator in Ponzi Scheme
Court Watch |
2009/02/12 11:32
|
Ruth Madoff, the wife of disgraced money manager Bernard Madoff could face conspiracy charges if it is proven that she knew about her husband’s massive Wall Street money scam and purposely tried to hide assets before he was arrested.
“I fully expect her to be named [in civil lawsuits] shortly,” said Adam Rabin, a Florida attorney who represents individuals victimized by Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.
New court documents released Wednesday revealed Ruth Madoff, 67, withdrew $10 million from one of her husband’s company bank accounts on Dec. 10, 2008, the day before he was arrested on federal fraud charges. Two weeks earlier, on Nov. 25, 2008, she withdrew $5.5 million from the same account.
“It certainly raises questions,” said the Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin, who discovered the wire transactions as part of an investigation into the Boston-based company Cohmad Securities which Bernard Madoff co-owns. Secretary Galvin has determined that Cohmad was an extension of Madoff’s New York investment firm funneling in as much as $67 million a month from investors.
“In order to be guilty of a conspiracy [either criminal or civil] you don’t have to know all the details of a scheme,” said attorney Ryon McCabe, Rabin’s partner and former federal prosecutor. McCabe argues that if prosecutors want to hold Ruth Madoff legally responsible “all the government would have to do is prove that she knew [about the scam] and on at least one occasion took part” by withdrawing money just before the scheme was exposed.
As of right now, Ruth Madoff is not named in the federal case against her husband. However, Rabin believes that could change. The new revelations “could be used to put pressure on her to assist with the investigation.”
This is not the first move by Ruth Madoff that has raised eyebrows. A CBS News investigation that aired on Jan. 30 discovered Bernard Madoff's wife also took steps before her husband’s arrest to protect their $9.5 million Palm Beach, Florida home from being taken away in a bankruptcy proceeding. A unique Florida “homestead” law allows some homes to be shielded from creditors. Property records, obtained exclusively by CBS News show Ruth tried to get "homestead" status in 2006 at the same time federal authorities were probing Bernard Madoff. Her initial application in 2006 was rejected. She then reapplied on September 18, 2008, less than two months before federal authorities detained her husband.
“She may have been trying to get the homestead status to protect her home from civil creditors,” said Ryon.
Attorney Ira Lee Sorkin who represents both Bernard and Ruth Madoff declined to comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two Sago Mine Disasters Settle
Court Watch |
2009/02/03 09:31
|
Two families of dead mine workers form Sago Mine disaster settle death claims.
Charlotte, NC (JusticeNewsFlash.com)–Documents filed in the Kanawha Circuit Court in West Virginia claim lawyers, for the estates of two mine workers killed in the Sago Mine explosion, have settled their wrongful death claims. The West Virginia Gazette reported this week a total of six Sago MIne families may have resolved lawsuits involving the fatal mine explosion on January 2, 2006.
The deadly explosion happened at the Sago Mine owned by Wolf Run Mining a subsidiary of International Coal Group. The wrongful death lawsuits were filed by family members when a sealed underground tunnel exploded in the Sago Mine south of Buckhannon. A fire boss, Terry Helms, died after the blast from carbon monoxide poisoning and 12 remaining miners took shelter awaiting rescue. Only one man survived the more than 40 hours it took for rescue workers to reach the trapped miners.
Families of the deceased miners, who died from inhaling toxic fumes and smoke resulting in carbon monoxide poisoning, settled with two of the mine companies suppliers. Burrell Mining Products manufactured concrete foam blocks used to seal abandoned areas of the mine, like the sealed tunnel that exploded, and Raleigh Mine and Industrial Supply distributed the concrete foam blocks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Girl Says Officer Forced Her into Oral Sex
Court Watch |
2009/01/28 10:12
|
A girl says an Ulster County deputy sheriff forced her to perform oral sex on him under threat of arrest. She claims Ulster County knew deputy Jeffrey Geskie was unfit to be an officer as citizens had sued him and the county twice before "for his violent and unconstitutional, unlawful acts."
The girl, now 18, says she was sunbathing legally in Marbletown at 2 p.m. on June 2, 2008, when Geskie, in uniform, approached her, claiming she was trespassing. She says he searched her purse, and claimed to find drug paraphernalia.
The complaint continues: "Deputy Sheriff Geskie then indicated in sum or substance that if the plaintiff did not remove her clothes, she would be arrested, placed in prison and he would notify her prospective college institution of her arrest and possession of drug paraphernalia. Deputy Geskie recorded the name of her future college in a note. Deputy Geskie, while in full uniform and with his service weapon on his person indicated to the plaintiff that, in sum or substance, that she had three options:
(1) go to prison and have her school informed of her arrest;
(2) perform oral sex upon him; or
(3) have sexual intercourse with him.
Deputy Geskie further ordered the plaintiff that upon the removal of all of her clothes, she was [to] spin around for him several times so that he could see all of her exposed, naked body. Under color of law and under direct threat of incarceration and imprisonment, Deputy Sheriff Jeffrey Geskie did force the plaintiff to have oral sex with him including ejaculating in the plaintiff's mouth and face. Deputy Sheriff Jeffrey Geskie forced her to perform oral sex while he was wearing his uniform and under the threat of incarceration."
The complaint adds: "On two separate occasions, Deputy Sheriff Geskie, the County of Ulster and the Ulster County Sheriff's Department have been sued by members of the public for his violent and unconstitutional, unlawful acts. (See attached Exhibit 'A,' Boos v County of Ulster, Ulster County Sheriff's Department and Deputy Jeffrey Geskie - Case Number 1:07-cv-00828 filed on 8/15/07, and Exhibit 'B,' Krom v County of Ulster, Ulster County Sheriff's Department and Deputy Jeffrey Geskie - Case Number 06-CV-0760 filed on June 19, 2006).
"Upon information and belief, following the previous complaints against Deputy Sheriff Geskie, no action was taken by the municipality, County of Ulster, or the Ulster County Sheriff's Department. More egregious is the fact that the Ulster County Sheriff's Department awarded Deputy Sheriff Jeffrey Geskie meritorious service awards for 2005, 2006 and 2007 despite having knowledge of his previous unlawful acts against citizens and the public at large. Said awards condoned the acts of Deputy Geskie."
She demands $15 million. She is represented in Federal Court by Joseph O'Connor of Kingston. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court turns down daughter in pension dispute
Court Watch |
2009/01/26 14:24
|
| The Supreme Court says the daughter of a DuPont Co. worker is out of luck in her effort to collect his retirement benefits. The justices, in a unanimous decision Monday, said Kari Kennedy can collect nothing from DuPont because companies are bound by what a worker puts down on forms designating who is to receive retirement and other benefits after his death. In this case, William Kennedy divorced his wife of 22 years and she waived her rights to the retirement money in their divorce decree. Kari Kennedy said her father wanted her to have the money after his death. But Kennedy never changed his beneficiary on the retirement account, and DuPont properly paid $402,000 to Liv Kennedy, his ex-wife, Justice David Souter said. The case is Kennedy v. Plan Administrator, 07-636. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
