Taking Google Scholar Out For A Test Drive.
Ok, let's get Rothstein out of the way:
John Pacenti and the Herald report on how Scott allegedly bilked this investor just weeks before he took off for Morocco.
The purported "investment opportunity" is insultingly stupid:
The deal offered a return of eight percent per month for the following four months. It involved a purported lawsuit against California-based Dole, which Faulkner said had settled for $500 million in the face of accusations that it had overstated the percentage of pineapple in juices it sold to school districts.So this is a secret whistleblower action -- possibly unfiled -- in which Dole forks over a half billion over mislabeling the content of its pineapple juice? And for some reason Dole wants to pay this half billion out over time?
In what imaginary world do cases like this exist?
But you know, the kids still got some juice and that's the important thing.
Oy what a goyisher kup.
But Scottie says he doesn't know this particular investor and I for one believe him:
Marc, why is your client still giving interviews to the Herald?"I keep seeing names on the Internet who were alleged investors of me and I have no idea who they are,'' Rothstein told The Herald on Thursday. "There are sublayers of people doing very, very bad things to people in my name, so we shall see.''
"Not that I didn't do something wrong, and I'm back here to fix it,'' he said. "I made a decision to come back from Morocco and do the right thing. I know people are laughing and saying he can't repay these people, and they are wrong.''
Also Scott, people are not laughing over whether you can repay the investors -- there's plenty of other things about this fiasco to laugh about, believe me.
Alright, let's move on.
So two lawyers at Mayer Brown recently wrote about County of Nassau v. Hotels.com, where the 2d Circuit raised the issue of CAFA jurisdiction nostra sponte (take that, Latin nerds!) and remanded the case to the district court "to determine whether class certification is appropriate" in order to determine whether CAFA jurisdiction exists.
To learn more, I went ahead and tried to pull up the 2d Circuit opinion on Google Scholar and found it quite easily and for free.
Your move, oh Lexis lady.
This entry was posted on at 6:03 AM and is filed under CAFA, Catherine Van Asselt, Google Scholar, John Pacenti, Lexis, Marc Nurik, Mayer Brown, Scott Rothstein. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response.
- No comments yet.
VIP Followers
Popular entries
-
Several in-the-know readers have passed along an incendiary anonymous memo making the rounds among administrators and trustees regarding fin...
-
(BY HUGO) Environmental Defence Canada recently published a report, Down the Drain: Water Conservation in the Great Lakes Basin , that shows...
-
To paraphrase Mark Harris , it seems that Scott Rothstein continues to rule our world. Here's the latest: 1. Bill Scherer sues the fir...
-
(BY HUGO) The Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks has published 2 new project regulations . One is to amend the Regul...
-
Acting NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon has issued a report on social media cases. Anyone who fails to consider the NLRA in general and the...
-
(BY HUGO) On 27 October 2010, Professor Jake Peters from the USGS Georgia Water Science Centre will give a conference on inter-state tension...
-
Responding to a request from Congressman Darrell Issa (R. CA), David Berry, the Inspector General for the NLRB has determined Craig Becke...
-
The AFL-CIO blog claims a new study shows the excise tax on "Cadillac" health plans would affect significantly more non-union w...
-
So who else is going to the Federation Judicial Reception tonight: This year’s Judicial Reception will recognize three outstanding legal pr...
-
When I first read this story about a potential conflict of interest involving the "extremely Floridian" GrayRobinson that is bei...