Court won't hear restitution claim in Ponzi case
Recent Cases
The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from investment funds seeking repayment of their losses in a $3.7 billion Ponzi scheme operated by Minnesota businessman Thomas Petters.
The funds together lost $165 million and challenged a federal judge's order denying restitution to any of Petters' victims. Among other things, the court said the victims would have other ways of recouping some of their money.
The justices on Monday refused to disturb the ruling.
A federal law generally requires a court to order restitution as part of a defendant's sentence, but allows for some exceptions. The judge in this case said that restitution would be too complex, take too long and result in the payment of less than a penny for each dollar victims lost.
Related listings
-
Court orders reconsideration of parole judgment
Recent Cases 06/13/2011The Supreme Court has ordered a lower court to reconsider its decision to release a criminal on parole. The high court threw out a lower court decision ordering John Pirtle and other prisoners released from prison on parole. Pirtle was convicted of k...
-
NY jury convicts 3 in NYC hedge fund trial
Recent Cases 06/12/2011The second trial to result from a massive investigation into insider trading at hedge funds ended Monday with the conviction of a trio of Wall Street traders on charges they paid hefty bribes to coax confidential information out of shady lawyers. A j...
-
Toyota class action suit to start with Utah case
Recent Cases 06/11/2011The first lawsuit to go to trial in a massive class action against Toyota Motor Corp. over acceleration problems that led the company to recall 14 million cars will involve a crash that killed two people in western Utah, a federal judge said Friday. ...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.