New Federal District Judge for the Laredo division recommended

Texas senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn have recommended to President Bush that he nominate McAllen, Texas attorney Micaela Alvarez to the U.S. Senate to fill the federal district judgeship for the Southern District of Texas, Laredo Division, that will become vacant later this year when present Judge Keith Ellison transfers to the Houston Division. When he was Governor of Texas, President Bush appointed Ms. Alvarez in 1995 to a state district judgeship in Hildalgo County, but she was subsequently defeated in the 1996 election (Hildalgo County is in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, which is predominantly Democrat). Ms. Alvarez is a 1980 graduate of the University of Texas at Austin and a 1989 graduate of the University of Texas Law School. Between undergraduate school and law school, Ms. Alvarez worked as a social worker, and she has been in private practice in McAllen since 1996.

Let’s tee it up again

The Houston Chronicle is reporting that a Galveston County Grand Jury has indicted Robert Durst again, this time on charges of “tampering with evidence” (I’m not sure that’s exactly how I would characterize cutting up a corpse and throwing it into Galveston Bay, but what the heck). As noted in a prior post, Mr. Durst is well represented by noted Houston criminal defense attorneys, Dick DeGuerin and Mike Ramsey. Mr. DeGuerin, who must feel as if the Durst cases are an annuity for him, commented about the new indictment: “It’s just sour grapes.”

Romance, a Ring, and Bankruptcy

In preparing for Valentine’s Day, a Maryland Bankruptcy Judge issues an interesting opinion ruling that a debtor’s engagement ring should be returned to her ex-boyfriend even after her bankruptcy because the ring was the subject of a conditional gift. The opinion includes the judge’s hilariously understated description of what must have been one wild hearing over the ring. Thanks to Stuart Levine at Tax and Business Commentary for the cite.

Professor Volokh on Congressional review of District Judges compliance with sentencing guidelines

Professor Eugene Volokh, constitutional law professor at the UCLA School of Law and founder of the Volokh Conspiracy blog, pens a provocative op-ed in the LA Times regarding the swirling controversy over Congressional review of federal district judge’s implementation of Congressionally-mandated sentencing guidelines in federal criminal cases. Although voters should be skeptical of a politician’s motives in attempting to limit judges’ discretion in handling criminal cases, Professor Volokh is certainly correct that judges–as are congressman–are governmental officials and not immune from criticism or legislation that limits their discretion.

Proposed Federal Appellate Rule regarding unpublished opinions

In his noteworthy How Appealing blog, Howard Bashman files a good post regarding the ongoing debate over proposed Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, which would allow counsel to cite an appellate court’s unpublished opinions in briefs to the court. Mr. Bashman is a supporter of the proposed rule, as am I.

Fifth Circuit Big News

Two fine federal appellate judges with Texas ties will be getting married to one another this summer. Chief Judge Carolyn Dineen King and Senior Circuit Judge Thomas M. Reavley, of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, are getting married this summer. All the best to both of these fine jurists.

Buying assets out of bankruptcy

Acquiring assets from a company in bankruptcy is arguably the best way to acquire assets in a way that prevents the bankrupt companies’ creditors from asserting any interests or claims against the assets. However, such bankruptcy “cleansing” of sales is not limitless. John Higgins, a Houston attorney and old friend, oversaw the writing of this Houston Business Journal article on asset sales in bankruptcy. It is a good overview of the law in this area for businesspersons and non-bankruptcy lawyers.

NFL Moves for a Stay in the Clarett Case

This previous post reported on the National Football League‘s recent loss in attempting to prevent former Ohio State underclassman running back Maurice Clarett from entering this year’s NFL Draft. Yesterday, the NFL requested that the federal district judge stay the order requiring the NFL to allow Clarett to be eligible for its 2004 draft pending the NFL’s appeal of that order.
Clarett’s attorneys have an interesting strategic decision to make here. Clarett would be eligible for the 2005 NFL Draft under the league’s current rules. Also, my sense is that Clarett has a strong case on appeal and will probably win it. Inasmuch as any such stay would be conditioned upon the NFL posting a rather large bond, Clarett may be better off strategically attempting to move the District Judge to set a high bond in favor of Clarett in connection with granting the NFL a stay of the order. In that case, Clarett could use the next year preparing for the 2005 NFL Draft (I’m sure Ohio State would not mind having him back for a season) and recover a windfall if the NFL posts the bond and then loses the subsequent appeal. Certainly something to consider.
Well, so much for that strategy. The Judge in the Clarett case has already denied the NFL’s motion for stay in this order.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

In the aftermath of Enron‘s demise, Congressmen fell over themselves in self-righteous indignation proposing legislation that would ensure that such a debacle would never occur again. Not only does the nature of man ensure that another Enron debacle will occur, Congressional laws enacted in a misguided attempt to overwrite man’s nature often have unintended (and in this case, quite costly) consequences.
The Wall Street Journal reports today (subscription required) that U.S. companies are complaining that new Enron-resultant rules regarding corporate accountability are costing extraordinary amounts of money and management time.
The rules stem primarily from the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which Congress enacted for the purpose of enhancing corporate governance on the heels of the Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom accounting scandals. The regulations were intended to strengthen corporate accountability and thus, restore investor confidence. Proponents of the statute contended that the new regs will help companies save money because they will avoid costly problems that would occur but for the additional regs.
However, reality is often far different than theory. As the WSJ article points out:

While there is agreement that governance rules are needed, some companies cited the increased cost of complying. “The real cost isn’t the incremental dollars, it is having people that should be focused on the business focused instead on complying with the details of the rules,” said Peter Bible, chief accounting officer at General Motors Corp. “Everybody feels they have to do something to react to the corporate scandals, [but] you really have to scratch your head and say, ‘How is this really benefiting our shareholders?’ ”
The rules are coming into effect at a time when corporations already are battling other increasing costs, including health-care expenses. Even before the most expensive Sarbanes-Oxley rules take effect, companies say their audit costs are increasing by as much as 30% or more this year due to tougher audit and accounting standards, including complex rules to bring more off-balance-sheet items onto the books. Companies also are paying steep fees to fund a new accounting-oversight board — as much as $2 million apiece annually for some large businesses.
* * *
A survey of 321 companies released Tuesday shows that businesses with more than $5 billion in revenue expect to spend an average of $4.7 million each implementing the new 404 rule this year, according to Financial Executives International, which represents top corporate officials. Much of the money is being spent on consultants, lawyers, auditors and new software.

One of my sage clients summed it up in this manner: “The lawyers win again.”

Garden Ridge moves to reject leases

Houston retailer Garden Ridge, currently in a surprising chapter 11 case filed last week and noted in these earlier posts, filed over the weekend a Motion to reject certain store leases that apparently will be a part of its reorganization plan.