Enforcement by the state attorney general against securities fraud doesn't pre-empt private common-law claims of negligence against investment companies, New York's top court ruled Tuesday.

The Court of Appeals rejected J.P. Morgan Investment Management's argument that New York's Martin Act gives the attorney general exclusive authority over fraudulent securities and investment practices. The court said Assured Guaranty (UK) Ltd. can sue J.P. Morgan.

"We agree with the attorney general that the purpose of the Martin Act is not impaired by private common-law actions that have a legal basis independent of the statute because proceedings by the attorney general and private action have the same goal — combating fraud and deception in securities transactions," Judge Victoria Graffeo wrote.

Assured claimed breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence, alleging J.P. Morgan invested heavily in risky mortgage-backed securities while committing to a conservative investment policy for reinsurance company Orkney RE II PLC, whose obligations Assured guaranteed. After the market crashed, Assured had to cover Orkney losses.

"Here, the plain text of the Martin Act, while granting the attorney general investigatory and enforcement powers and prescribing various penalties, does not expressly mention or otherwise contemplate the elimination of common-law claims," Graffeo wrote. The unanimous ruling upheld a midlevel court, which had reversed a judge.

A psychologist says an alleged Islamic extremist who has admitted killing two U.S. airmen at the Frankfurt airport earlier this year is mentally fit and can be held criminally responsible for his actions.

Psychologist Norbert Leygraf testified Monday to a Frankfurt state court that 21-year-old Arid Uka, an ethnic Albanian from Kosovo, suffered from no mental illnesses at the time of the March killing and remained in fine mental health, the dapd news agency reported.

Uka faces a possible life sentence if convicted of two counts of murder and three counts of attempted murder.

Uka has confessed to the killings, saying he was trying to stop U.S. servicemen from going to Afghanistan. Under German law the court still has to review all the evidence.

A political operative convicted of bamboozling Mayor Michael Bloomberg out of hundreds of thousands of dollars was sentenced to prison Monday un a case that brought the billionaire politician to the witness stand and gave the public a behind-the-scenes look at his campaign and City Hall.

John Haggerty agreed to pay $750,000 in restitution to Bloomberg in addition to his prison term of 1 1/3 to 4 years.

Haggerty, a veteran Republican campaign consultant, was convicted in October after a trial that jurors called a crash course in the workings of politics. Besides the business-mogul-turned-mayor, the case drew in the state's third-largest political party and featured a coterie of Bloomberg insiders sketching their roles in his political, philanthropic and business affairs.

"Since starting my career, I've worked hard to make a reputation in the world of politics and government as a dedicated, honorable individual. Today, my reputation is destroyed," Haggerty told the judge in a strong voice. "If I could do it all over again, I would certainly do it much differently than I did."

He walked out of court briskly, without handcuffs, after state Supreme Court Justice Ronald Zweibel pronounced a sentence he said he felt necessary "to restore the public's confidence in the electoral process and to serve as a deterrent." Haggerty's lawyers said they planned to ask an appeals court to let him out on bail during a planned appeal.

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will use an unprecedented week's worth of argument time in late March to decide the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul before the 2012 presidential elections.

The high court scheduled arguments for March 26th, 27th and 28th over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which aims to provide health insurance to more than 30 million previously uninsured Americans. The arguments fill the entire court calendar that week with nothing but debate over Obama's signature domestic health care achievement.

With the March dates set, it means a final decision on the massive health care overhaul will likely come before Independence Day in the middle of Obama's re-election campaign. The new law has been vigorously opposed by all of Obama's prospective GOP opponents. Republicans have branded the law unconstitutional since before Obama signed it in a March 2010 ceremony.

In an extraordinary move, the justices are hearing more than five hours of arguments over the health care overhaul. In the modern era, the last time the court increased that time anywhere near this much was in 2003 for consideration of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance overhaul. That case consumed four hours of argument.

The Supreme Court will start the week of arguments that Monday with one hour on whether court action is premature because no one yet has paid a fine for not participating in the overhaul.

Federal law generally prohibits challenges to taxes until they are paid. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled earlier this year that the penalty for not purchasing insurance will not be paid before federal income tax returns are due in April 2015, therefore it is too early for a court ruling.

A man accused of firing shots at the White House in an alleged assassination attempt of President Barack Obama is due in court.

A hearing in federal court in Washington on Friday will focus on the mental health of Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, who's accused of using an assault rifle to shoot at the White House last month. The president was out of town at the time.

Acquaintances have said Ortega was acting strangely in recent months, and law enforcement officials have said he had become obsessed with Obama.

A preliminary psychiatric screening found him competent to stand trial, but federal prosecutors are asking for more extensive tests to make certain that they can proceed with the case.

MEGA Brands Inc. announces that the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has approved the previously announced settlement of a class action lawsuit filed against the Corporation in 2008 by a resident of California on behalf of all persons who purchased and/or received "Magnet Toys" in the United States .

MEGA Brands denied any and all liability but agreed to settle the matter to avoid the expense and resources that would be needed for further litigation. The Corporation has made a provision for this lawsuit in its financial statements and considers that, based on the approved settlement, such provision is adequate.

This lawsuit does not allege personal injury claims.  Rather, plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed that certain Magnet Toys contained defective magnets, and they asked for their money back.

For additional information, please refer to the press release issued by the Corporation on September 27, 2011, which is available at http://www.megabrands.com.