Big Day in Massachusetts
 
A couple of pretty important decisions yesterday -- not really commercial or corporate law stuff, mind you, but worth a mention.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court decided that poor criminal defendants have to be cut loose after 7 days if they don't get a court-appointed lawyer.  I tend to be pretty conservative, but that just has to be the right answer.  Time for the state to pony up and start paying court-appointed lawyers enough to keep the supply up with the demand.

Also in the "hear hear" category is a decision from the Honorable George O'Toole of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, who decided that the MBTA can search bags on the Orange Line around the Democratic National Convention in light of the general terrorist threat.  A victory for common sense over dogged ideology.

More up my personal legal alley, was a recent decision from Judge Diane M. Kottmyer of the Massachusetts Superior Court, who held that an employee's non compete provision did not survive a change in the employee's position at the company.  R.E. Moulton, Inc. v. Lee.

The First Decision Interpreting the New Massachusetts Business Corporation Act
 
Approximately 11 hours after MGL 156D, the new Massachusetts Business Corporation, went into effect, Justice Alan Van Gestel held what has to have been the first hearing on a motion under the new Act.  Justice Van Gestel issued a written opinion the next day.  Gardner v. Applied Geographics, Inc., 2004 Mass. Superior LEXIS 240 (July 2, 2004).  A majority shareholder sought an order obligating the Company to hold an annual shareholder meeting.  The Company contended that it had held three special meetings in lieu of an annual meeting, but the minority shareholders had collectively refused to attend in order to block a quorum and prevent the plaintiff from imposing her will on the Company.   (The Company bylaws required a 2/3 majority to constitute a quorum.)  The Court interpreted Section 7.03 of Chapter 156D and concluded that special meetings without a quorum did not count.  The Court ordered that the annual meeting be held on July 16, 2004, and further reduced the quorum at this meeting to 51% of the shares issued, outstanding, and entitled to vote.

No more slack?

Here's a story to strike fear into the hearts of litigators out there. Apparently Judge Frank H. Easterbrook has written an opinion coming down hard on the practice of seeking more time at the last minute to file a brief.

Any time you give people some slack it can be abused, but a blanket rule that no slack will be given is not a good idea either. Judge Easterbrook's opinion implicitly has this covered, as refers to last minute motions when the party doesn't have a "good reason."

Another Friday Morning Jaw Dropper . . .

Where do these people come from? Here's a link to a story about a paralegal at a big firm who sent phony invoices to a big client totaling nearly $600,000, collected the dough, and spent it on psychics.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Inconsistent, maybe . . .

But I'm rooting for Tyco's Ex-General Counsel, Mark Belnick, to walk. I just don't believe he would knowingly have stolen from the company. Inconsistent, I suppose, because from what I've read, I'm rooting for the lynch mob in the Kozlowski proceedings.

On a more substantive note, in Alternative Systems Concepts, Inc. v. Synopsis, Inc., No. 03-1406 (1st Cir. July 7, 2004), the Court gives a nice summary of the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which in broad strokes holds a party to a position that it has previously convinced another court to accept.