The Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that Philip Morris does not have to pay $100 million in punitive damages to the family of a smoker who sued the tobacco giant over its low-tar cigarettes.

The case, however, is going to another jury to decide just how much the death of Michelle Schwarz from lung cancer in 1999 will cost Philip Morris — and legal experts say it could easily be another big award.

A Multnomah County jury in Portland originally awarded the Schwarz family $150 million in March 2002 before the trial judge reduced it to $100 million.

On Thursday, the Oregon Supreme Court vacated the $100 million award and sent the case back to the trial court to reconsider the punitive damages after ruling the judge failed to properly instruct the jury.

The court said the judge should have told the jury it could not punish Philip Morris directly for harm caused to others besides Schwarz.

But the court also supported the trial judge, who had rejected jury instructions the tobacco company had requested.

A Delaware bankruptcy court judge on Friday cleared the way for auto parts supplier Visteon Corp. to begin soliciting votes on its proposed reorganization plan, which would leave unsecured bond holders in control of the company.

Overruling objections from certain shareholders and holders of unsecured trade claims, Judge Christopher Sontchi approved documents describing Visteon's proposed reorganization plan and the process for creditors to vote on it.

Creditors will have until July 30 to vote on the plan, and Sontchi scheduled a plan confirmation trial to begin Sept. 28.

The shareholders could receive nothing under Visteon's plan, and the trade creditors would get no more than 50 cents on the dollar for their claims, which total about $48 million. Their attorneys argued that the disclosure statement outlining Visteon's plan did not contain enough information on the company's valuation, and that the plan itself was unconfirmable because of how it treats various creditor groups.

Attorneys for Visteon argued that the objections to the disclosure statement were without merit, or that they should be addressed at what promises to be a contentious plan confirmation trial stretching over two weeks.

Mel Gibson’s lawyer slammed Oksana Grigorieva’s claims that she had been treated cruelly by Mel and that he hadn’t been paying child support.  His lawyer actually termed her claims as “sensational allegations” because they were meant to simply tarnish his name in the media.

Right now, the ex-couple is battling over visitation rights.  Oksana received a restraining order last week causing Gibson’s lawyers to ask for a modification so the star can visit his daughter and spend time with her.

Kolodny, Gibson’s lawyer, told TMZ, “Oksana’s deceitful conduct in trying to terminate Mel’s access to his daughter continues.”

Last week, Oksana filed a restraining order against Gibson, and began spreading the rumor that he was not paying any child support.  The actor already has a tarnished image in the media due to past mistakes he made such as the anti-Semitic remarks.  It will be interesting to see how this whole debacle resolves between this Hollywood couple.

The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice nominee Elena Kagan as “well-qualified,” the highest mark the committee offers.

Since 1953, the ABA has had a role in reviewing the qualifications of federal court nominees, including Supreme Court nominees.  A committee of 15 members — two from the Ninth Circuit, one from each of the 12 other federal judicial circuits and one who serves as chair — measures the individual’s integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. 

While the standing committee insulates its work from all other activities of the association, ABA president Carolyn Lamm is familiar with the procedures used to evaluate a nominee’s qualifications.  Lamm served as chair of the committee from 1995 to 1996. 

Lamm explained, “In terms of legal competence, you’re looking at legal, analytical ability.  You’re looking at what they’ve written, how they’ve argued, whether they’ve argued — how they’ve done it.  We listen to opponents, or from those on the same side and from judges to find out, how did they do as lawyers and what is their legal ability?”

A comprehensive evaluation is conducted by interviewing a broad spectrum of the legal community, reviewing pertinent materials written by the nominee, and interviewing the nominee personally.  After the evaluation is complete, the findings are assembled into a report which is reviewed by each member of the standing committee who then individually rates the nominee as either “well-qualified,” “qualified” or “not-qualified.”  The majority vote constitutes the official rating of the ABA standing committee.

To merit a “well-qualified” rating, a Supreme Court nominee must be a preeminent member of the legal profession, have outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience, and meet the highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.  Kagan’s well-qualified rating was unanimous with one abstention.

Investigations of nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court differ in respect to other federal nominees in that they are conducted after the president has selected a nominee; they involve all members of the standing committee; a team or teams of law professors examine the nominee’s legal writings; and a group of practicing lawyers with Supreme Court experience also examines the writings.

Kagan currently serves as solicitor general of the United States.  She was nominated to fill the seat of John Paul Stevens, who will step down at the end of the 2009-2010 Supreme Court term.

When asked how the standing committee evaluates nominees who may not have had prior judicial experience, standing committee chair Kim Askew noted, “There are many, many judges who have served on courts who have never been judges and are very effective judges.  We look at what they do and we go to the three criteria — professional competence, integrity, and temperament — and we look at what they have done in their legal careers in the practice of law, which may or may not be on a bench.”

The past five U.S. Supreme Court nominees were also found well-qualified by the committee.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin its confirmation hearing for Kagan on June 28.  Kim Askew, the chair of the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, has been invited to testify relating to the standing committee’s rating.

The Law Offices of McHenry & Associates, LLP. We are a San Diego immigration law firm specializing in deportation defense, family based and employment based immigration. We provide exceptional legal services to all those who wish to live and work in the United States legally. The Law Offices of McHenry & Associates limits its practice exclusively to U.S. Immigration Law. Whether you are an individual, family or business, if you are in need of an immigration lawyer in San Diego, call the Law Offices of McHenry & Associates to discuss your immigration options.

•Immigration violations
•Deportation defense/removal proceedings
•Marriage petitions or violations
•Family-based green card petitions
•Employment-based green cards
•Extraordinary persons visas
•Travel permission and re-entry
•Immigration waivers
•Citizenship and naturalization assistance

Peter J. Henning follows issues involving securities law and white-collar crime for DealBook’s White Collar Watch. As Congress works on the final version of the financial regulatory bill, a major change in liability for corporate law firms, accounting firms and investment banks has been inserted into the measure. House members of the conference committee agreed to add a provision offered by Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, to restore aiding and abetting liability for private securities fraud cases.

The impact of the amendment is significant because it expands the potential defendants in securities fraud class actions to include more than just the company accused of making misstatements or omissions, and these are defendants with deep pockets.