The Obama administration and leading power companies are going before the Supreme Court in an effort to block a global warming lawsuit aimed at forcing cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

The justices are hearing arguments Tuesday in the court's second climate change case in four years. A half-dozen states, New York City and three land trusts sued four private utilities and the Tennessee Valley Authority over emissions of carbon dioxide from plants in 20 states. The lawsuit says carbon dioxide, which is produced when coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels burn, is one of the chief causes of global warming.

The administration and the companies say federal courts should not set environmental policy. The administration says the Environmental Protection Agency is developing regulations that would accomplish what the states are seeking.

The Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments from Microsoft Corp. asking it to overturn a $290 million patent infringement judgment against the world's largest software maker, a ruling that could have a profound effect on how corporations protect and profit from their future inventions.

An eight-justice court on Monday heard arguments from the Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft, which wants the multimillion dollar judgment against it erased because it claims a judge used the wrong standard.

Business groups are closely watching this case. The U.S. government made more than $64 billion off of international licensing and royalties from patents in 2009, with an expected growth rate of 15 percent a year. A ruling for Microsoft could make companies less likely to invest in new inventions, but a ruling for i4i, the company which brought the lawsuit against Microsoft, could make it harder for large corporations to fight off such challenges.

The cost of fighting off a patent lawsuit could be as much as $4 million per defendant, companies say.

1. An attorney is entitled to adequate security for the payment of outstanding attorney's fees if a court orders the attorney to produce portions of a former client's file.
2. Attaching an attorney's lien to a settlement or favorable outcome of the client's case is inadequate security for the payment of an attorney's lien.
3. The amount of security that is adequate should correspond with the amount of the lien.
4. An attorney seeking adequate security for the payment of an attorney's lien should present evidence of the amount and reasonableness of the fee.

There has been a debate raging lately among consumer bankruptcy attorneys about how to counsel a client who grows and cultivates medical marijuana.  The basic question is:  does a crop, illegal under federal laws, constitute property of the bankruptcy estate and need it be disclosed in the bankruptcy schedules.  The problem lies in the fact that, while legal in California if it meets certain standards for medical uses, the act of growing marijuana constitutes a crime under the laws of the United States.  Filing a bankruptcy petition could put the various federal government police agencies on notice of a crime that could ultimately lead to confiscation and prosecution.  A sad day indeed for the medical marijuana grower and erstwhile bankruptcy debtor. On the other hand, failing to list an asset is itself a Federal Bankruptcy crime.

What to do?  I would say that filing the bankruptcy case, as long as all assets are disclosed, has very little chance of leading to prosecution for illegal possession and cultivation.  The federal government has pretty much given up the fight against medical marijuana growers and dispensaries that are otherwise legal under state law.  But, such marijuana could be considered a valuable asset.  It seems like an unlikely proposition that a trustee would actual attempt to administer a marijuana crop by selling the asset for the benefit of creditors. However, I think the good advice here is to file the case only if the asset can be fully disclosed and fully exempt and simply avoid the issue.  A debtor usually has the choice of timing of the filing of the bankruptcy case.  I would recommend to only file when the assets have been consumed or otherwise disposed of in the ordinary course of the business and affairs of the debtor.  This could simply be after the debtor has sold some of his or her crop and spent down the proceeds to below the  exemption threshold that applies in the particular case.  Maybe it is time to invest proceeds into an IRA or other asset where a larger exemption might be available.

Read more: http://www.sflawyer.net/blog/?p=16