Day: January 28, 2010

Scruggs, Minor, and some legal odds and ends (pun intended) – Nielsen, Wilson, Robie and Tort Reform

The “drafts file” is overflowing (again) and time is short (again) – nothing to do but pull a handful of things I think worth a mention and go for what Sop has called a “round-up” post.

First up is an update on Young v Scruggs – brief because the case is stuck on proper service of the summons issued to Dick Scruggs, a discussion I passed on recenty when reporting Defendant’s Rebuttal.  What’s happened since the, however, is more interesting.  First, the defendants fied a Motion to Strike Purported Summons that basically restated the argument Scruggs was not lawfully served and there was a pending motion to dismiss on that basis.  Next, plaintiffs pop up and file Notice the summons has been reissued – and on that same day, according to the docket,  defendants filed anAmended Motion to Strike that cites and attaches a recent Mississippi Supreme Court ruling on the subject that’s worth a look.

The latest news on USA v Minor (Whitfield and Teel) makes for interesting reading – so did the recently filed Motion for Rehearing that was sitting in drafts when most media had the story up.  Here’s the Motion and here’s the latest:

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), Paul Minor notifies the Court of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. FEC, No. 08-205 (Jan. 21, 2010). That decision clarifies that the jury instructions in this case, which allowed the jury to convict the defendants of honest services fraud for campaign contributions made with only an intent to influence and without any quid pro quo, violate the First Amendment. h/t Legal Schnauzer (entire letter posted there)

Now, news on the “odds” – the first “odd” appears to be Gerald Nielsen or, more accurately, Mr. Nielsen appears to be odd – long on ego but short on memory.  Continue reading “Scruggs, Minor, and some legal odds and ends (pun intended) – Nielsen, Wilson, Robie and Tort Reform”

Hey Barack. Out here on Main Street we’re still not buying in.

I only blog about my accounting practice indirectly when I express popular sentiment as I hear it from my small business clients. We in the trenches of the economy have a vantage point on the action the generals simply don’t have. I listened to part of  the State of the Union last night and heard all the promises and nope none of us are buying in. CNN Money has a good story that drives home the point, here is a snippet:

….small business owners across the nation say they feel left out of the stimulus and recovery action.

“Basically, it seems to me that Washington’s efforts have been to help Wall Street, not Main Street,” said Kim Griebling, president of Custom Flag Company in Westminster, Colo. Griebling and her father bought the company in 1998 and now employ a staff of eight. As the economy deteriorated, so did the demand for flags.

Griebling applied in September for an America’s Recovery Capital (ARC) loan, an emergency financing program created as part of February’s stimulus bill. The program offers qualifying business owners a small, government-backed loan on very attractive terms, but those trying to land ARC loans face a gauntlet of administrative obstacles. While bailed-out financial giants like AIG got financing fast from Washington, business owners wait months. Continue reading “Hey Barack. Out here on Main Street we’re still not buying in.”

An outside look at the False Claims Act cases: Holding State Farm Accountable (Why McIntosh is Evidence of Fraud)

Occasional slabbed commenter James Barbieri was kind enough to share his May 2009 law school thesis which thoroughly analyzes the 2 False Claims Act cases against Team Insurance Inc and concludes, as this post title indicates, that the McIntosh adjustment is evidence of fraud against the US Government. For anyone interested in this topic it is an excellent read. Given the recent GAO report on continued financial management problems in the National Flood Insurance Program that Nowdy recently profiled and its implications for the previously completed MID State Fram Market Conduct Study and the Department of Homeland Security OIG’s report I was immediately attracted to this passage which shows that people do get it:

……..OIG and the Mississippi Insurance Department (“MID”) have already conducted sufficient post-Katrina claims analysis to warrant reopening all Katrina files.

OIG published results of an audit of 131 combined wind and flood claims. In the Executive Summary, OIG “concluded that the NFIP did not pay for wind damage for structures included in our sample.” But on page six of the same report, OIG provides evidence of NFIP paying for wind damage:

“Based on the review of files in our sample, we did not find material evidence that the NFIP paid for wind damage. Although 44 out of 131 cases (34%) included errors that related to cause of damage resulting in some degree of duplication, e.g. flood and homeowners policies paying for the same type of damage…, only two (1.5%) of these cases clearly identified wind as the preponderant cause of damage, thus resulting in an improper payment by NFIP in the amount of $432,600.”

It is contradictory for OIG to conclude: “we did not find material evidence that the NFIP paid for wind damage” and then reveal “an improper payment by NFIP in the amount of $432,600” in a sample of 131 cases. Extrapolation to the total population of 209,404 Katrina flood claims (on which the Federal Government paid $15,850,563,024) would yield in excess of $600 million in improper NFIP overcharges. Continue reading “An outside look at the False Claims Act cases: Holding State Farm Accountable (Why McIntosh is Evidence of Fraud)”