The White House yesterday announced that Diana Sen (NY Litigation) has been selected as one of 97 Regional Finalists across the country for the White House Fellows Program. Founded in 1964 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the program offers exceptional men and women first-hand experience working at the highest levels of the Federal government. Selection as a White House Fellow is highly competitive and based on a record of remarkable professional achievement early in one’s career, evidence of leadership potential, a proven commitment to public service, and the knowledge and skills necessary to contribute successfully at the highest levels of the Federal government.

During March and April 2008, Regional Finalists participate in a rigorous interview process. Based on the results of the interviews, approximately thirty candidates will be named National Finalists. The President’s Commission on White House Fellowships will interview the National Finalists in June 2008 and then recommend candidates to President George W. Bush for a one year appointment as White House Fellows.

Throughout its history, the program has fostered leaders in many fields including Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, United Nations Foundation President and Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, U.S. Army General Wesley Clark, U.S. Senator Samuel Brownback and Marshall Carter, Chairman, New York Stock Exchange.

A Nebraska bill that would have banned the death penalty, replacing it with a sentence of life in prison without parole, failed in the Nebraska Legislature  on Tuesday, receiving only 20 of the 25 necessary votes to move forward. Last month, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that execution by electric chair, the only method authorized in the state, was "cruel and unusual" punishment and therefore prohibited by the Nebraska constitution. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman on Tuesday voiced support for the death penalty, saying that the the legislature should decide on a new means of execution that can pass constitutional muster.

In February, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Brunning filed a motion for rehearing on the ban of the electric chair. Nebraska is the only state to solely rely on the electric chair for capital punishment.

Chicago – Sidley Austin LLP announced that sixlawyers will join the firm in Chicago in the private equity practice.These lawyers, S. Michael (Sy) Peck, Jeffrey Smith, Roger Wilen, DirkAndringa, Alexis Cooper and Nancy Kasko, will integrate theirsignificant experience representing private equity sponsors and theirportfolio companies with Sidley’s well established M&A andsecurities practices and expanding private equity practice.

“Theseare six exceptionally talented and successful lawyers in the privateequity arena and they will make valuable contributions to our privateequity team,” said Fred Lowinger, co-head of the firm’s M&A andPrivate Equity practice. “Our new colleagues will be an integral partof our efforts to expand the scope and depth of our services to theprivate equity community.”

“Sidley offers us the idealplatform to grow our practice in all areas of private equity,” saidPeck. “Sidley is already recognized as global leader in so many areas,including M&A, capital markets, financing, corporate governance andhedge funds. Their global private equity practice is extremely activeand we are thrilled to not only be a part of this, but to add a newdimension of experience to an already substantial practice.”

Thesesix new private equity lawyers have extensive experience in a widerange of complex corporate transactions, including LBOs, equityinvestments, add-on acquisitions, divestitures, public offerings,recapitalizations and restructurings.

On March 17, 2008 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission)
issued a release proposing a new anti-fraud rule under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (Exchange Act), which addresses “naked” short selling, which the
SEC has generally defined as “selling short without having stock available for delivery
and intentionally failing to deliver stock within the standard three-day settlement
cycle.”

Specifically, proposed Rule 10b-21 is intended to target: (i) short sellers who
deceive certain persons, such as their broker-dealers, about the source of borrowable
shares, to circumvent the Regulation SHO “locate” requirement; and (ii) long sellers
who misrepresent to their broker-dealers that they own the shares being sold, also to
circumvent Regulation SHO, as well as certain other rules.

The deadline for submitting comments on proposed Rule 10b-21 is May 20, 2008.

The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a federal policy that allows employers to reduce their health insurance expenses for retired workers once they turn 65 and qualify for Medicare.

The justices turned down an appeal by the 35-million-member AARP to undo a rule that essentially allows employers to treat retirees differently depending on their age.

The rules were put into place by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, with the support of labor unions and other groups. They worried that employers would greatly reduce or eliminate health benefits for millions of retirees if they could not take Medicare into account when structuring the health benefit packages they voluntarily provide their retired workers.

The EEOC rule makes clear that employers can spend more on retirees under 65 years of age than those over 65 without running afoul of age discrimination laws.

The EEOC said it proposed the rule in response to a decision in 2000 by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act requires employers to spend the same amount on health insurance benefits provided Medicare-eligible retirees as those received by younger retirees.

AARP said EEOC violated the intent of Congress when it proposed the rule. But the EEOC said the same age discrimination law allows it to carve out an exemption to preserve the long-standing practice that allows employers to coordinate benefits with Medicare.

The same appeals court upheld the EEOC policy last year

An anti-illegal immigration lawsuit turned out to be much better as a metaphor than as a lawsuit.

When a former leader of Canyon County, Idaho, invoked civil RICO lawsto sue four corporations for hiring illegal immigrants, the move madeheadlines all the way up to The New York Times: The newspaper viewed it as a prism to understand how the immigration issue split the Republican Party.

But an ideologically balanced panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disposed of the complaint last week.Canyon County didn't have standing to argue that the companies' allegedhiring of illegal immigrants unfairly upped the cost of providingpublic services, Senior Judge A. Wallace Tashima ruled.

"We find it particularly inappropriate to label a governmental entity'injured in its property' when it spends money on the provision ofadditional public services," Tashima wrote, "given that those servicesare based on legislative mandates and are intended to further thepublic interest."

Senior Judge William Canby Jr. and Judge Consuelo Callahan joined Tashima.