//

On Wednesday May 19, 2010, political brokering delayed a crucial vote on a bill (S. 3217) aimed at preventing a reoccurrence of the recent financial crisis by enacting sweeping Wall Street reforms.  (See: “Dodd mends fences as Wall Street reform vote slips.”)  The CONGTMY database on Westlaw has recent and relevant Congressional transcripts that capture the debate surrounding this bill.

Both sides of the floor have been proposing amendments to the bill, and to fully comprehend the voluminous nature and winding procedural history of  this bill, see the US-BILLTRK database.  The bill, would impact the way attorneys advise clients in the financial field, and many attorneys will be watching for the final version and the developments leading to the final version.

// < ![CDATA[ var sc_project=5841089; var sc_invisible=1; var sc_security="013ba72d"; // ]]>

A  power struggle between Minnesota’s legislature and the state’s Governor-a struggle recently moderated by Minnesota’s high court- is unfolding, and modern questions about one of America’s ancient political bulwarks, the separation of powers, arise.  On May 5, 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and other state officials could not use a state unallotment statute to reduce allotments made by the state legislature.  Governor Pawlenty made these unallotments, totaling over 2 billion dollars, in an attempt to balance Minnesota’s budget in 2009 after the legislature and executive branch failed to enact a balanced budget.  

The statute in question is: Minn.Stat. § 16A.152, and the case in question is, Brayton v. Pawlenty, et al.  (The case is available at 2010 WL 1780074.)  The Brayton plaintiffs were six Minnesota residents that qualified for aid under a Minnesota Supplemental Aid Special Diet program, and the plaintiffs challenged the validity of the unallotments that reduced funding for the special diet program.  The Brayton court held that the unallotments affecting the Special Diet program violated the separation of powers, and the practical effect of the Brayton opinion will be to nullify the governor’s entire package of unallotments. 

A flurry of news coverage, editorials, and opinion articles followed the Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion.  These materials are on Westlaw and WestlawNext, and given the lofty political and governmental implications of this ongoing battle between two branches of government, a very simple search will retrieve results. Those interested, can simply search “Pawlenty unallotment”  on WestlawNext in the News content database, and sort by date.  

• pawlenty unallotment(100)

Content: News

Jurisdiction: None

var sc_project=5841089; var sc_invisible=1; var sc_security="013ba72d";

Pending government investigations of insider trading that possibly occurred during the financial crisis that started in 2008 are leading to the potential for complex civil actions against finance and investment firms.  Hubuschman et al. v. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. et al. is a derivative action brought by Goldman Sachs shareholders against the company’s officers and directors.  (The complaint is on Westlaw at 2010 WL 1654116 and the docket can be located here: (1:10cv03476))

Finance blogs are taking notice and the Wall Street Journal blog indicates that other figures from the finance industry and other financial firms might be implicated later this summer.   The Hubuschman complaint was filed on April 26, 2010, and it may be just the opening salvo by attorneys and shareholders against firms like Goldman Sachs.  As the Summer of 2010 unfolds, access to pleadings like the Hubuschman complaint on Westlaw will help interested attorneys and associates see the legal issues raised by such complex derivative actions.