[JURIST] Trial proceedings began in Paris Monday in the case of 42 people, including the son of former French President Francois Mitterrand, allegedly involved in the so-called Angolagate [Global Witness report, PDF] scandal regarding the supply of illegal arms to the Angolan government between 1993 and 1998 in contravention of an international ban on weapons sales to the country. The 42 defendants are additionally accused of accepting bribes and kickbacks from the Angolan government in return for arranging nearly $800 million in arms shipments. Also included among the 42 defendants are Russian-Israeli billionaire Arkady Gaydamak and former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua [French Senate profile, in French]. Angola is attempting to stop the court proceedings on the grounds that the trial will violate French law by exposing military secrets of a foreign country. AP has more. AFP has additional coverage.

The Angolagate affair involved large-scale arms sales to the Angolan government during the civil between government forces led by President Jose Eduardo dos Santos [BBC profile] and the UNITA [official website, in Portuguese] anti-communist movement, led by the late Jonas Savimbi. The Angolan civil war was largely a proxy war between Cuban communist-supported dos Santos government and the US-backed UNITA rebels. The Angolan government was supplied with arms, including rifles, land mines, grenades, and tanks.

[JURIST] Citigroup Inc., Wachovia Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. [corporate websites] announced Monday that they had reached an agreement [Citigroup press release] to freeze litigation activity until at least noon Wednesday. The agreement follows a weekend of legal maneuvering, when a New York State appellate judge reversed a court order extending an exclusivity agreement that bars Wachovia from considering or entering into acquisition proposals with parties other than Citigroup. Citigroup brought suit against Wachovia on Friday after Wachovia announced that it had agreed to merge [Wells Fargo press release] with Wells Fargo. Justice Charles Ramos, a trial judge with the Commercial Division of the New York Supreme Court [official website], granted emergency injunctive relief to Citigroup on Saturday, extending the exclusivity agreement [Citigroup press release] with Wachovia until further order. On Sunday, Justice James M. McGuire of the Supreme Court Appellate Division [official website] overturned that order, in part because Ramos made it while outside the state. Wachovia filed a federal lawsuit [complaint, PDF] Saturday in US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website], requesting that the court enter an order declaring the agreement with Wells Fargo "valid, proper, and not prohibited" by its exclusivity agreement with Citigroup. On Monday, Citigroup filed yet another state lawsuit against Wachovia and Wells Fargo, claiming that both had interfered with the acquisition process. Bloomberg News has more.

Wachovia and Citigroup reached an "agreement in principle" [Wachovia press release] last Monday providing that Citigroup would acquire a substantial portion of Wachovia banking operations for about $2.1 billion. As negotiations faltered, Wachovia announced [press release] on Friday that Wells Fargo had offered to buy it as an intact company for $15.4 billion. Wachovia is one of several major financial institutions that have failed or sought mergers [JURIST report] amid turmoil in the subprime investment market [academic backgrounder]. On Friday, President Bush signed into law [JURIST report] a $700 billion bill intended to stabilize financial markets. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 [PDF text] authorizes the US Treasury to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions and to provide insurance and guarantees for any troubled asset originated before to March 14, 2008.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments Monday in three cases, including Altria Group v. Good [merit briefs], 07-562, in which the Court will consider whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act [text] bars state lawsuits based on allegedly deceptive cigarette advertising. A federal judge originally dismissed a suit brought by three Maine smokers who accused Philip Morris of presenting light cigarettes as less harmful than they really are, but the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reinstated the case [opinion text]. Appearing on behalf of Altria during Monday's oral arguments [transcript], former Solicitor General Theodore Olson [official profile] noted that the state law claims "track nearly verbatim the Cigarette Labeling Act's pre-emption provision." Arguing for the respondents, attorney David Frederick said that Congress had "no intention whatsoever to immunize cigarette makers for the false statements that they made in violation of anti-deception-in-the-marketplace rules." Several members of the Court seemed skeptical of the respondents' argument. Justice Samuel Alito suggested that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [official website], which is supporting the respondents, had "passively approved" of the use of the allegedly misleading claims in advertisements. AP has more. SCOTUSblog has additional coverage.

Also argued [transcript] on Monday was another First Circuit case, Locke, et al., v. Karass [merits briefs], 07-610, raising the issue of whether a state may constitutionally require nonunion public employees to pay agency fees to a union acting as an exclusive bargaining unit when part of that money pays for litigation conducted by the union's national affiliate. Joining two other circuits, the First Circuit ruled [opinion text] such a requirement did not violate the First Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment if the expenses "were substantively related to the bargaining process."

Finally, the Court heard arguments [transcript] in Vaden v. Discover Bank [merits briefs], 07-773, presenting the question of whether federal courts have jurisdiction to hear lawsuits brought under the Federal Arbitration Act [text] to compel arbitration when the claim does not raise a federal question but the underlying dispute to be arbitrated involves federal law. Finding that a federal question existed, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that the district court properly compelled arbitration.

[JURIST] Senior officers in the Ugandan military [official website] could held responsible for the use of child soldiers under a new US law, according to a Monday report [text] in Kampala's Daily Monitor. The Child Soldiers Accountability Act of 2008 [text], signed into law [press release] by US President George W. Bush on Friday, provides for up to 20 years in prison for anyone found guilty of the recruitment or use of soldiers under the age of 15, and for up to life in prison if that use is associated with the death of a child. It also allows for the deportation or exclusion of that person from the US, gives the country jurisdiction over them if they are found present in the US, and provides for associated attempt and conspiracy crimes. The Monitor said that given the breadth of the bill and international allegations [CSUCS report, PDF] of child soldier use made against Uganda's military, it was possible that some Ugandan officers could be prosecuted under the law if they travel to the US. Ugandan officials were quoted rejecting the claim that military officers were guilty of using child soldiers.

In January, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon issued a report [text] pushing for the enforcement of sanctions against 13 countries where groups or governments continue to use child soldiers [JURIST news archive] in armed combat. According to the report, child soldiers continue to be used in Afghanistan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Congo, Myanmar, Nepal, Somalia, Sudan, Chad, Colombia, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Uganda in violation of international laws that protect children in armed conflict. Ban noted that the use of child soldiers violates in particular the Geneva Convention of 1949 and its 1997 protocols, the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989 and its optional protocol, and the International Labour Organization Convention No. 182 [texts].

[JURIST] International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile; JURIST news archive] on Monday renewed his call for the arrest of Ugandan rebel leader and war crimes suspect Joseph Kony [BBC profile; case materials] after new attacks attributed to the rebels. Moreno-Ocampo said Kony's group, the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], was responsible for attacks on Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) civilians [ICC release] earlier this month. Moreno-Ocampo also said that despite claims by Kony that he is willing to negotiate a peace deal [JURIST report], the recent attacks were characteristic of the LRA and called the peace talks an intentional distraction:

These attacks all follow a similar method with markets surrounded and looted, students abducted from school, properties burned and dozens of civilians killed, including several local chiefs. Tens of thousands have now been displaced... Kony-just as he has many times in the past--uses the peace talks to gain time and support, to rearm and attack again. The price paid today by civilians is high. The criminals remain at large and continue to commit crimes and they are threatening the entire region. Arrest is long overdue.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Monday began its 2008 term [calendar, PDF], in which it has agreed to hear cases involving pre-emption of state law, the separation of church and state, and broadcast indecency, among other issues. The Court began hearing oral arguments Monday with Altria Group v. Good (07-562) [docket; cert. petition, PDF], presenting the question of whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act bars state lawsuits based on allegedly deceptive cigarette advertising.

Other prominent cases on the court's docket so far include:

• Winter, et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. (07-1239) [docket; cert. petition], to be argued Wednesday, where the Court will review a Ninth Circuit ruling rejecting the Bush administration's attempt to exempt the US Navy from environmental laws [JURIST reports] so that the Navy could continue using sonar in its anti-submarine warfare training off the coast of southern California.


• Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association (07-869) [docket; cert. petition, PDF], scheduled for argument on November 3, in which the Court will consider whether certain sections of the Idaho Voluntary Contributions Act [text] unconstitutionally abridge labor unions' free speech rights as related to payroll deductions for political activities.


• Wyeth v. Levine (06-1249) [docket; cert. petition, PDF], also scheduled for argument on November 3, in which the Court will consider whether Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [official website] approval of a drug's warning label protects its manufacturer from liability when a patient has a bad reaction to the drug that forces her arm to be amputated.


• FCC v. Fox Television Stations (07-582) [docket; cert. petition, PDF], to be argued November 4, where the Court will review a decision that the FCC violated the Administrative Procedure Act [text] by failing to articulate a reasoned basis for its change in policy on the broadcast of "fleeting expletives."


• Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (07-665) [docket; cert. petition, PDF], set for argument on November 12, in which the Court will consider whether a private, religious group can donate a monument for display in a public park.


• Philip Morris USA v. Williams (07-1216) [docket; cert. petition], to be argued December 3, where the court will for a third time consider a $79.5 million punitive damages verdict against Philip Morris USA [corporate website]. The Court previously ruled [JURIST report] that the punitive damages award based "in part on [a jury's] desire to punish the defendant for harming persons who are not before the court" amounts to an unconstitutional taking of property without due process.

[JURIST] Officials for Bank of America [corporate website] announced Monday that they have agreed to an $8.4 billion settlement [press release] in response to allegations by 11 state attorneys general that subsidiary Countrywide Financial [corporate website] engaged in deceptive business practices that harmed consumers. California Attorney General Jerry Brown, a leading figure in the negotiations, sued [complaint, PDF; press release] Countrywide in June, claiming that the company and some of its officers encouraged the purchases of risky, complex loans so that the company could then sell those loans and make a profit. Under the terms of the agreement [California attorney general press release] announced Monday, eligible subprime and pay-option mortgage borrowers from the 11 states will receive loan modifications under a "home retention program" allowing them to afford their mortgages, and some will receive interest-rate reductions and waivers of penalties. In addition, Bank of America agreed to temporarily stop offering subprime mortgages. Bank of America Chief Financial Officer Joe Price said in a press statement:

Our program represents principal and interest reductions over time to borrowers on loans Countrywide owns and on loans Countrywide services on behalf of investors. By taking projected foreclosure losses and instead directing those funds into these proactive foreclosure prevention efforts, we create a solution in the best interests of both our customers and the investors whose loans and securities we service.