Judge says Bear Stearns investor case can proceed.


NEW YORK (Reuters) --
Plaintiffs in one of the biggest
U.S. investor lawsuits
stemming from the financial
crisis got a boost from a
judge, who said a case against
fallen investment bank Bear
Stearns and its outside
auditor, Deloitte & Touche,
can go forward.



The decision means that one-time Bear Stearns
investors can move ahead with a proposed
securities class-action fraud case, though the
judge threw out two related lawsuits that had
been rolled into the litigation. The investors
accuse former Bear chiefs of painting a wildly
misleading picture of the firm's finances ahead of
its March 2008 unraveling.
Among the defendants is former Bear chief risk
officer Michael Alix, who joined the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York in November 2008 as
a top bank regulation adviser. Alix's lawyer was
not immediately available to comment.
Representatives from JPMorgan Chase & Co,
which bought Bear Stearns at a bargain price at
the start of the credit crisis were also not
immediately available for comment.
"It is important to recognize that in ruling on the
defendants' motions to dismiss, the court was
required to assume that the allegations in the
plaintiffs' complaint were true. At this stage of the
case the court was not permitted to and did not
consider whether those allegations actually are
true or whether the plaintiffs have evidence to
support their allegations," a Deloitte spokesperson
said in a statement.
"Deloitte believes that the claims asserted against
it are meritless and intends to defend this case
vigorously," the spokesperson said.
Bear Stearns disintegrated when the firm faced a
run on the bank following enormous mortgage
losses. Bear became the first investment bank to
collapse in a credit crisis that later claimed
Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch & Co Inc.
The fraud case is one of many investor lawsuits
to grow out of the crisis, although plaintiffs in
such cases have typically faced an uphill battle to
prove their claims. Auditing firms so far have
been largely successful in fighting investor
lawsuits, although in this ruling the judge said
Deloitte would also have to remain a defendant
for its role as Bear's auditor.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet in
Manhattan refused to dismiss a lawsuit against
plaintiffs led by the Michigan Retirement System,
which held Bear Stearns shares in its portfolio.
That means the fund can continue to press their
claims and possibly bring it to trial.
But the judge tossed out two related cases. One
was a separate investor lawsuit; the other was
brought on behalf of Bear employees who held
the firm's stock in a retirement plan.
The written ruling was made public late on
Friday.
At the heart of the securities fraud case is an
allegation that Bear Stearns and top executives
inflated the investment bank's stock price by
using misleading mortgage valuations to conceal
potential losses in the housing market.
The investors also accuse Deloitte of recklessly
ignoring red flags about Bear's financial
statements and did not adequately scrutinize its
mortgage valuation models. Deloitte's audits
"were so deficient that the audit amounted to no
audit at all," the plaintiffs argued in court papers.
The case is in re Bear Stearns Companies, Inc.
Securities, Derivative, and ERISA litigation, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York,
08-1963


Source: Http://reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70M1WR20110123
READ MORE ................... Judge says Bear Stearns investor case can proceed.

Turkish PM dismisses Israeli report on flotilla.


May 31, 2010: This image made from video
provided by the Israeli Defence Force shows
what the IDF says is one of several commandos
being dropped onto the Mavi Marmara ship by
helicopter in the Mediterranean Sea. Israeli
commandos rappelled down to an aid flotilla
sailing to thwart a Gaza blockade on Monday,
clashing with pro-Palestinian activists on the lead
ship in a raid that left at least nine passengers
dead.
JERUSALEM – Turkey's prime minister is
dismissing an Israeli inquiry's findings defending
the actions of Israeli troops in the deadly
interception of a Turkish-led protest flotilla to Gaza
last year.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan told reporters in Ankara on
Sunday that the Israeli report had "no value or
credibility."
The Israeli inquiry found that the actions of troops
who met violent resistance aboard one ship were
legal under international law. Israeli troops killed
nine of those on board.
The report said soldiers were attacked by activists
upon landing on the 600-passenger Mavi
Marmara and used lethal force because their lives
were in danger.
The flotilla was dominated by an Islamic charity
from Turkey and had the unofficial backing of
Erdogan's government.
update

An Israeli inquiry commission
defended the actions of the country's troops
during last year's deadly raid on a Gaza-bound
protest flotilla sailing from Turkey, finding in a
report released Sunday that Israel had not
violated international law.
While offering some criticism of the way the
takeover was planned, the commission's
conclusions exonerated the government, the
military and individual soldiers of wrongdoing.
The findings were unlikely to put to rest the
international controversy over Israel's actions,
which badly damaged its relations with Turkey
and led to the formation of a U.N. investigation.
Israeli naval commandos killed nine activists
aboard the Turkish protest ship Mavi Marmara on
May 31 after passengers resisted the takeover of
the vessel in international waters. The
condemnation that followed the bloodshed forced
Israel to ease the blockade on the Hamas-ruled
Gaza Strip.
The nearly 300-page reported released Sunday
by the government-appointed commission said
the naval blockade of Hamas-ruled Gaza, the
decision to intercept the protest flotilla in
international waters and the soldiers' use of lethal
force "were found to be legal pursuant to the
rules of international law."
The commission, headed by a retired Supreme
Court justice, included four Israeli members and
two international observers — David Trimble, a
Nobel peace laureate from Northern Ireland, and
Brig. Gen. Ken Watkin, Canada's former chief
military prosecutor. All signed off on the
conclusions.
A fifth Israeli participant, 93-year-old international
law expert Shabtai Rosenne, passed away during
the deliberations.
Soldiers rappelling from helicopters onto the deck
of the Marmara, with some 600 passengers on
board, were mobbed by several dozen activists
as they landed on deck one by one.
Soldiers were beaten, and some were thrown
onto a lower deck. According to Sunday's report,
two of the soldiers were shot, apparently with
weapons taken from the Israelis themselves. Both
soldiers and activists have said they acted in self-
defense.
The commission faulted the military planners of
the mission for not taking into account the
possibility of serious violence, saying "the soldiers
were placed in a situation they were not
completely prepared for and had not anticipated."
However, looking at 133 individual cases in which
soldiers used force — 16 of them involving
shooting to kill — the commission found soldiers
had acted properly and that their lives had been in
danger. The soldiers, the report said, "acted
professionally in the face of extensive and
unanticipated violence."
Alan Baker, former legal adviser to Israel's Foreign
Ministry, said the report will likely be accepted and
rejected by countries based on their prior feelings
toward Israel.
He said the committee's makeup should boost its
credibility among Israel's allies. He also expected
the U.N.'s commission to take it seriously.
"Whether this will persuade Turkey is doubtful.
Whether this will persuade the Arab countries is
very doubtful. I think the serious countries will
take it very seriously because of the people who
were involved and because of the international
observers," he said.
"I doubt very much whether it will make an
impression on those elements of the international
community who are pushing the anti-Israel
hostility," he added


Source: Http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/23/israeli-inquiry-flotilla-interception-legal/
READ MORE ................... Turkish PM dismisses Israeli report on flotilla.

Writing State Of The Union Speech: A Juggling Act.


President Obama delivers his State of the Union
address Jan. 27, 2010. For White House
speechwriters, the address is one of the more
complicated speeches they must write.

For a White House speechwriter, there is a
conflict in the State of the Union address. It's the
speech that gets all the attention, where the
president lays out his legislative agenda for the
year ahead. But as far as poetry, arc and theme, it
can also be the clunkiest.
"They can be an absolute legislative laundry list,"
says Mary Kate Cary, a speechwriter for President
George H.W. Bush. "And that doesn't make it
very fun to write.
"On one hand, it's nice to have the glory of
saying, 'Well, I wrote the State of the Union
address,' " she says. "But really, you'd rather
want to be known for writing the inaugural
address. That's where the poetry is, and the State
of the Union is a bit of a slog, I think."
A Management Challenge
Most presidential speeches take shape vertically —
that is, one speechwriter is in charge. He or she
sends it up the White House ladder until it reaches
the president.
But the State of the Union takes shape
horizontally. Every department and agency
submits its plans for the coming year. And
everyone has an opinion about what the speech
should say, which can be a management
challenge, says former George W. Bush
speechwriter John McConnell.
"You get a lot of suggestions from throughout
the administration of things that need to go in the
speech," McConnell says. "You get suggested
language at times from people, and you have to
give everything fair consideration."
The planning takes months and starts before
Christmas.
This year, people familiar with the process say
White House speechwriters were working on a
draft on Saturday, Jan. 8. That day, a gunman
opened fire in Arizona, shooting Rep. Gabrielle
Giffords through the head and killing several
others.
For the team writing the State of the Union, the
attack meant the mood of the speech had to
change. During marathon revision sessions, they
struggled over how to appropriately reflect the
moment that the country is in, both after Tucson
and after two years of economic struggles.
'A Leader For The Whole Country'
Former Clinton speechwriter Jeff Shesol says
Tuesday's address can't just be a sequel to the
eulogy that Obama delivered in Arizona.
"An event like Tucson will certainly have an
effect," Shesol says. "That said, it's been clear
already that he's going to talk about the deficit,
he's going to talk about spending cuts, he's very
likely going to talk about tax reform. Those things
were already going to be in the speech, and they
will still be in the speech irrespective of what
happened in Tucson."
Still, the attacks will be a big part of this speech.
People from Tucson will almost certainly sit with
the first lady in the House Gallery.
And former Clinton speechwriter Michael
Waldman says the president would be foolish not
to use this moment to build on the political gains
from the Tucson speech.
Speaking After Tragegy
Obama is hardly the first president to deliver his
State of the Union address after a national
tragedy. Here's a look at memorable lines from
recent presidents who used the address not only
to push their agenda but also comfort the nation.
Ronald Reagan had to delay his State of the
Union address in 1986 so that the country could
honor the seven astronauts who died in the
Challenger space shuttle explosion, which
occurred the day he was originally scheduled to
give his speech. When he took to the podium in
February, he laid out his plan to continue
pursuing space exploration — while also pushing
his tax reform agenda.
"We paused together to mourn and honor the
valor of our seven Challenger heroes. And I hope
that we are now ready to do what they would
want us to do: Go forward, America, and reach
for the stars. We will never forget those brave
seven, but we shall go forward."
When George W. Bush addressed the nation in
2002, he had to console a nation still grieving
over the Sept. 11 attacks and discuss very serious
issues — terrorism and weapons of mass
destruction.
"We last met in an hour of shock and suffering.
In four short months, our nation has comforted
the victims, begun to rebuild New York and the
Pentagon ... captured, arrested and rid the world
of thousands of terrorists ... and freed a country
from brutal oppression."
— Chelsea Keenan
"President Obama will want to use a speech like
this to reassert his standing, not as a divisive
partisan figure but as a leader for the whole
country," Waldman says. "He really began to do
that with the success in the lame-duck session of
Congress and with the powerful and very widely
praised eulogy in Tucson, but this speech is the
next chance to do that."
Working With Both Parties
And the need for someone who can work with
both parties is stronger now than ever.
Behind Obama, Republican House Speaker John
Boehner will be sitting in the chair that Democrat
Nancy Pelosi occupied last year.
So one option is for Obama to strike a
conciliatory tone with Republicans. But McConnell
says there's another option.
"I think back to President Bush in 2007, when he
was facing a new majority and his back was
against the wall, in a sense, because he was
trying to push the troop surge in Iraq, and the
support for that was very thin in the Congress,"
he says. "And he went in there in the State of the
Union, and he gave a very powerful message
and had them on their feet."
And that year, even though Democrats controlled
Congress, the troop surge happened.
Source: Http://www.npr.org/2011/01/23/133087065/writing-state-of-the-union-speech-a-juggling-act
READ MORE ................... Writing State Of The Union Speech: A Juggling Act.