JURIST - Paper Chase: Saturday, January 30, 2010

[JURIST] The Hawaii House of Representatives [official website] on Friday postponed indefinitely a vote on legislation [text, PDF] that would have allowed persons in same-sex civil unions [JURIST news archive] the same rights as married heterosexual couples. The postponement was decided by voice vote; only a two-thirds majority in the Hawaii House would allow further action on the bill. In the weeks leading to the vote, the Hawaii Family Forum and the Hawaii Catholic Conference [advocacy websites] had rallied [Maui News report] in a campaign against the civil union bill. Gay rights organization Equality Hawai'i characterized the voice vote result as a "cowardly move" motivated [press release] by "election considerations," and decried the use of the procedure, which avoids having to record the specific vote of each legislator.

The Hawaii Senate [official website] had voted [JURIST report] 18-7 only last week in favor of legislation [text, PDF] allowing same-sex civil unions [JURIST news archive]. The state of Hawaii has been at the forefront of the gay rights movement since the 1990s [timeline]. In 1993, a Hawaii Supreme Court [official website] decision ruled that the state must show compelling reason to deny same-sex marriage. In 1998, Hawaiian voters approved an amendment to the state constitution to reserve for the State Legislature the authority to define marriage. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire, and is set to become legal in Washington DC [JURIST reports], pending Congressional inaction. New Jersey has recognized same-sex civil unions [JURIST report] since 2006.

[JURIST] US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [official profile] Friday dismissed [transcript; press release] two Russian proposals for new European security treaties and reaffirmed US commitment to "unified" European security. In prepared remarks delivered at the L’Ecole Militaire in Paris, Clinton said:

the Russian Government under President Medvedev has put forth proposals for new security treaties in Europe. Indivisibility of security is a key feature of those proposals... However, we believe that these common goals are best pursued in the context of existing institutions, such as the OSCE and the NATO-Russia Council, rather than by negotiating new treaties, as Russia has suggested...

Clinton also affirmed that American troops will continue to be stationed in Europe as part of American commitment to European security, while casting the occasion as an "extraordinary opportunity to work together" with Russia on security.

In recent months, Russia has campaigned to gain a greater say in security issues with both the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) [official website] and the United States. On Tuesday, the parties of the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) agreed [press release] on the "NRC-MR Framework for NATO-Russia Military-to-Military Cooperation" that will set the agenda for working out details on military cooperation. Last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov [official profile; BBC profile] said [JURIST report] that negotiations on nuclear arms reduction would likely resume in early February to draft a new treaty to succeed the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty [text]. In November, the Kremlin proposed [Christian Science Monitor report] a treaty [text] with NATO that would require consultation between all members on European security issues, and that analysts decried as a proposal to give Russia veto power over NATO affairs.

[JURIST] French Prime Minister Francois Fillon [official profile, in French] has asked the country's highest court, the State Council [official website, in French], for input on implementing a proposed law that would ban [AFP report] public wearing of the burqa, the full Islamic veil [Press TV report]. In a letter to Jean-Marc Sauve [official profile, in French], the Vice-Chairman of the State Council, Fillon ordered [text, in French] the Council to "study legal solutions to achieve a ban, that is as wide as possible, on wearing the full veil" while addressing legal concerns that other members of the National Assembly had. Sauve's report is expected back by the end of March.

In July 2009, a French commission began hearing testimony [JURIST report] on the proposed ban. The commission released a report this past Tuesday calling for a partial ban [JURIST report] that would apply in public facilities, including hospitals, schools, and public transportation, and to any individual attempting to receive public services. The panel also recommended that permanent residency and citizenship be denied to anyone displaying their adherence to "radical religious practices." The commission was established [JURIST report] after French President Nicolas Sarkozy [official website, in French; JURIST news archive] strongly criticized [transcript, PDF, in French] the practice of wearing veils, saying that "the burqa is not welcome in France."

[JURIST] A jury in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website] Friday found giant French entertainment corporation Vivendi SA [official website] liable [Dow Jones report] on 57 counts of violating US federal securities laws. The jury found that Vivendi SA had made material misstatements [Bloomberg report] regarding its financial health in 2001-2002 before a three-way merger with Seagram Co. and Canal Plus [corporate website, in French], and that investors who brought stock relying on those misstatements later lost money after its stock price fell. Jean-Marie Messier [BBC profile], Vivendi SA's former CEO, and Guillaume Hannezo, the former finance director, were found not liable by the same jury. Vivendi SA has said that it will appeal [press release] the verdict. The company said:

Vivendi believes that there are many grounds for appeal, including, but not limited to the Court’s decision to include French shareholders in the class, its rulings on jurisdiction and the plaintiffs’ erroneous method of proving and calculating damages, as well as the numerous incorrect rulings made during the course of the trial. Furthermore, Vivendi believed, and continues to believe strongly, that it did nothing wrong and that this case raises significant legal issues for foreign corporations doing business in the United States that need to be definitively resolved.

Arthur Abbey [firm profile], a plaintiff's attorney with Abbey, Spanier, Rodd and Abrams [official website] who litigated the case, said that Vivendi might ultimately have to pay out [WSJ report] between four and nine billion dollars in damages.

Messier, the former CEO, had earlier testified [LAT report; Bloomberg report] that the fall in stock price was not due to securities fraud but because of the then economic climate. In 2003, Vivendi paid a 50 million dollar fine to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) [official website] to settle the complaint. Messier paid a one million dollar fine and agreed [NYT report] to give up his claim to a 26 million dollar severance payment. Vivendi had previously sued [JURIST report] Messier to recover the severance payment, claiming [NYT report] that board members had been coerced by Messier into signing off on the payment, but later withdrew its lawsuit as part of the settlement with the SEC