 |
|

Legal news from Friday, March 6, 2009 |
 |
|


Whole Foods reaches settlement with FTC over Wild Oats merger
Andrew Gilmore on March 6, 2009 4:48 PM ET

[JURIST] Organic grocer Whole Foods Market [corporate website] agreed to a settlement [decision and order, PDF; FTC docket] with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [official website] on Friday over its 2007 merger with rival grocer Wild Oats Market [corporate website]. If approved by the FTC Commissioners, the settlement will require Whole Foods to divest itself of approximately 32 store locations, including 13 operating stores and 19 closed locations, as well as all Wild Oats intellectual property, including the Wild Oats brand name and trademarks. In return, the FTC will stop its legal attempts [JURIST news archive] to block the merger. In a press release [text], the Acting Director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition David Wales said: Over the past two years we never wavered in our belief that Whole Foods acquisition of Wild Oats was anticompetitive, and we were prepared to demonstrate in court the actual, real-world consumer harm that resulted from the transaction[.] The consent order announced today is a major win for consumers and is the result of the superb work done by all the FTC staff. In January, a federal appeals court rejected a complaint [JURIST report] filed by Whole Foods seeking an injunction to bar the FTC from holding administrative proceedings [FTC administrative docket] concerning the Wild Oats merger. Whole Foods and the FTC have been engaged in ongoing litigation [FTC litigation docket] over the Whole Foods-Wild Oats merger since it occurred in 2007. In August 2007, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit refused to block the merger [JURIST report], despite an appeal by the FTC. The court reviewed the case in July 2008 and ordered the district court to reconsider [JURIST report] the potential impacts of the merger on the market. The district court has not yet ruled on the matter.


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

|

Supreme Court dismisses al-Marri 'enemy combatant' appeal as moot
Andrew Gilmore on March 6, 2009 2:45 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Friday granted [order, PDF] a motion by the US government to dismiss as moot an appeal challenging the indefinite detention of suspected al Qaeda operative Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri [NYT profile; JURIST news archive]. The Court had granted certiorari [JURIST report] in December on al-Marri's appeal of a ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upholding his detention. Acting Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler presented a motion [text, PDF] to the Court, asking it to dismiss the appeal as moot in light of the administration's decision last week to try al-Marri in US federal court [JURIST report]. Al-Marri was indicted [indictment text; DOJ press release] last week on two charges of providing material support to al Qaeda and conspiring with others to provide material support to al Qaeda.
In January, shortly after taking office, President Barack Obama ordered an immediate review [JURIST report] of al-Marri's detention. Al-Marri was arrested at his home in Peoria, Illinois by civilian authorities in 2001, and was indicted for other crimes. In 2003, then-President George W. Bush declared him an enemy combatant [CNN report] and ordered the attorney general to transfer custody of al-Marri to the defense secretary, claiming inherent authority to hold him indefinitely. His indefinite detention and classification as an enemy combatant caused controversy between the Bush administration and rights groups including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website], which is providing him with legal representation [case materials]. Al-Marri has claimed abuse [JURIST report] while being held in a US Navy brig in Charleston, South Carolina, where he currently remains.


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

|

Kenya rights activist killings must be investigated: UN special rapporteur
Devin Montgomery on March 6, 2009 9:04 AM ET

[JURIST] UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions [official website] Philip Alston on Friday called for an independent investigation into the Thursday killings of Kenyan human rights activists Oscar Kamau Kingara [advocacy profile] and John Paul Oulu. The two men were officers for the Oscar Foundation [advocacy website], a group critical of the Kenyan government for its use of extra-judicial killings, and were killed in Nairobi [BBC report] following student protests against police. Earlier in the day, a government official had accused [Standard report] the Oscar Foundation of fundraising for the Mungiki [BBC backgrounder] religious group, which has been banned in the country. Alston also called for the resignation [Daily Nation report] of Police Commissioner Hussein Ali and Attorney General Amos Wako in light of the killings, but Ali rebuked Alston's call and said that the police were capable of investigating the murders without a special investigation.
In February, Alston issued a report [text] on extra-judicial killings in Kenya in which he said that killings by the police in the country were "systematic, widespread and carefully planned," and that they were committed with "utter impunity." During his trip to the country, Alston met with Kingara, and the Oscar Foundation in 2007 issued its own report [text, JURIST report] claiming that police had killed more than 8,000 for their alleged connections to the Mungiki group.


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

|

Spain panel proposes sweeping abortion reforms
Ingrid Burke on March 6, 2009 8:58 AM ET

[JURIST] A panel of legal and medical experts headed by Spanish Minister of Equality Bibiano Aido [official website, in Spanish] on Wednesday proposed sweeping reforms [press release, in Spanish] to Spain's current abortion [JURIST news archive] laws. The panel contends that women should have the right to choose to abort during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy. Where the fetus is malformed or where the mother faces serious health risks, the panel suggests the right to abort should extend for up to 22 weeks. In cases where extreme fetal malformation would likely prove incompatible with life, the panel recommends extending the right to abort beyond 22 weeks. The panel also suggests the necessity of lowering the legal age from 18 to 16. These reforms are in sharp contrast with the current law, established in 1985, which allows women over the age of 18 the right to abort only in cases of rape (up to 12 weeks), fetal malformation (up to 22 weeks), and serious health risks to the mother (at any stage). Aido issued a statement [statement, PDF, in Spanish] in anticipation of public opposition to the reforms, urging society to view the law as a necessarily neutral guarantee of fairness to and protection of women in Spain. The Association for Families and Human Dignity [profile, in Spanish], a pro-life advocacy group, has already expressed their view that adding a relaxation of the law would be harmful to women [Diariocritico report, in Spanish] and would result in a spike of the number of abortions performed in the country.
The panel was formed in September [JURIST report] at the request of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero [official profile, in Spanish] as part of a series of social reforms including same-sex marriage [JURIST report] and streamlined divorce proceedings. Since Aido's committee was formed, the conservative Popular Party [official website, in Spanish] has repeatedly expressed the opinion [El Pais report, in Spanish] that relaxed abortion laws would stand in opposition to Article 15 of the Spanish Constitution [text, in Spanish], which guarantees the right to life.


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

|

UN may investigate Sudan for expelling foreign aid groups
Bhargav Katikaneni on March 6, 2009 8:23 AM ET

[JURIST] UN High Commissioner for Human Rights [official website] spokesman Rupert Colville said Friday that his office may investigate whether Sudan's expulsion of foreign aid agencies [Oxfam press release] is a possible breach of human rights law or war crime. Colville said that such an investigation had not yet begun, but strongly criticized [NYT report] Sudan for ordering the groups to leave. Also Friday, UN High Commissioner for Refugees [official website] spokesman Ron Redmond warned that the removal of the aid agencies could have a serious impact [press release] not only in Darfur, but also in the rest of Sudan and the region: Our experience shows that when vulnerable populations are unable to get the help they need, they go elsewhere in search of protection and assistance. If food can't get through to people, for example, then those people will soon suffer and have to look elsewhere.
With some 4.7 million Sudanese including 2.7 million internally displaced already receiving assistance in Darfur, we are very concerned over the prospect of new population movements in the region should the fragile aid lifeline inside Sudan be disrupted. There are also 40,000 Chadian refugees in West Darfur. The statements come after an earlier plea [press release] by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon [official website] asking Sudan to allow the the agencies to remain in the country.
The expulsion of the groups is seen as retribution [JURIST report] by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir [ICC materials, PDF; JURIST news archive] against Western powers after the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] issued [decision, PDF; JURIST report] a warrant for his arrest earlier this week, charging him with seven counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The controversial arrest warrant [JURIST news archive] had been sought by ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile], who in July filed preliminary charges [text, PDF; JURIST report] against Bashir alleging genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes committed in the Darfur region in violation of Articles 6, 7, and 8 of the Rome Statute [text]. The ICC announced last week [JURIST report] that they would decide whether to issue an arrest warrant on Wednesday. The announcement came after the New York Times reported [NYT report] last month that the warrant had been issued, leading a court official quickly to issue a denial [JURIST report].


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

|

EPA reconsiders California request to regulate vehicle emissions
Christian Ehret on March 6, 2009 7:59 AM ET

[JURIST] The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [official website] on Thursday held a hearing [press release] to reconsider California's request to regulate automobile greenhouse gases [materials]. Chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board [official website] Mary Nichols was joined by environmental groups and other state officials [AP report] at the hearing to encourage the EPA to reverse its prior decision [text] denying California's request. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia seek to adopt standards similar to California's. The Clean Air Act provisions on state standards [text] prohibit states from "adopt[ing] or attempt[ing] to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines." However, a state can obtain a waiver for exemption from this policy following a public hearing "if the State determines that the State standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards." No such waiver will be issued if the EPA finds that "the determination of the State is arbitrary and capricious," "such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions," or that "such State standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with" Section 202(a) [text] of the Clean Air Act [materials].
California's request was initially denied in March 2008 on the grounds that California's regulations were aimed at addressing global climate change and that the Clean Air Act "intended to allow California to promulgate state standards" to "address pollution problems that are local or regional." In January, President Barack Obama ordered [memorandum; JURIST report] the EPA to reassess its 2008 holding. In May 2008, a report by the US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that the Bush White House had influenced the March 2008 decision and that the administration later refused to turn over requested documents [JURIST reports] concerning the decision to the committee, citing executive privilege. The 2007 Supreme Court decision of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency [decision, PDF] held that the EPA has the authority to regulate automobile greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.


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

|

Rights group urges Sri Lanka and Tamil Tigers to evacuate civilians
Tere Miller-Sporrer on March 6, 2009 7:06 AM ET

[JURIST] The Sri Lankan government [official website; JURIST news archive] and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) [group website; JURIST news archive] should agree on an evacuation plan for civilians [press release] caught in hostilities between the groups in the country's Vanni region, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] Wednesday. HRW said that approximately 150,000 civilians are caught in the area, and that more than 2,000 have been killed in the last two months. Also Wednesday, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) [advocacy website] head of South Asian operations Jaques de Maio said the situation in the country was dire [interview text]: [I]t is definitely one of the most disastrous situations I have come across. Yet it would be possible to avoid further unnecessary suffering and death by allowing civilians who want to leave to get out of the area. It is urgent that more humanitarian assistance be brought into the Vanni now.
Maio said that the ICRC had already been able to evacuate approximately 2,400 sick and wounded civilians from Vanni over the last three weeks with some cooperation from of the government and LTTE, but said that the evacuations have still been dangerous and that the fighting has destroyed hospitals and other infrastructure.
Last month, HRW released a report [text, PDF; JURIST report] alleging that both the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE are guilty of human rights violations. Earlier this year, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile; JURIST news archive] issued a statement [press release; JURIST report] condemning the deteriorating conditions of those trapped in the Vanni region, and called for investigations and prosecutions for the killings and other human rights abuses. HRW has repeatedly accused both sides of violations, and since 2007 has also criticized the government's de facto internment centers and its role in the increase in unlawful killings and other human rights violations [JURIST reports].


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

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