President Barack Obama will call on Congress to pass new tax breaks that would allow businesses to write off 100 percent of their new capital investments through 2011, the latest in a series of proposals the White House is rolling out in hopes of showing action on the economy ahead of the November elections.

An administration official said the tax breaks would save businesses $200 billion over two years, allowing companies to have more cash on hand. The president will outline the proposal during a speech on the economy in Cleveland Wednesday.

Amid an uptick in unemployment to 9.6 percent, and polls showing that the November election could be dismal for Democrats, Obama has promised to propose new steps to stimulate the economy. In addition to the business investment tax breaks, he will also call for a $50 billion infrastructure investment and a permanent expansion of research and development tax credits for companies.

The proposals would requires congressional approval, which is highly uncertain given Washington's partisan atmosphere.

"The White House is missing the big picture. None of its plans address the two big problems that are hurting our economy: excessive government spending, and the uncertainty that their policies....are creating for small businesses," House Minority Leader John Boehner said.

Concerns over adding to the mounting federal deficit could also keep some Democratic lawmakers from approving new spending so close to the midterm elections. And even if legislators could pass some of the proposals in the short window between their return to Capitol Hill in mid-September and the elections, it's unlikely the efforts would significantly stimulate the economy by November.

Stimulus measures enacted in 2008 and 2009 allowed businesses to depreciate 50 percent of their capital investments. A separate small business bill the White House is urging the Senate to pass would extend that tax break through the end of this year.

A New York Federal District Court has “substantially denied” Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s motions to dismiss a September 2009 case filed by Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray on behalf of five pension funds.

According to Judge P. Kevin Castel’s ruling, the Court approved the securities fraud and false proxy claims against the two companies and their respective management officials will be allowed to move forward.

Specifically, allegations that they failed to disclose the agreement to pay up to $5.8 billion in discretionary bonuses. Also, liability and false offering claims, as well as false proxy statement claims that BofA failed to disclose Merrill’s fourth quarter 2008 losses will be included in future deliberation.

Dismissed actions include securities fraud claims, which include allege that BofA failed to disclose Merrill’s previous 2008 losses, a Monday announcement said.

“The court’s ruling is a major win not only for Ohio teachers, public employees and all Bank of America shareholders, but it also is a win for shareholders of every company and for our financial system,” Cordray said in his comments. “The court ruled that companies cannot pick and choose what they will tell their shareholders. Companies will not be allowed to hide exorbitant bonuses and huge losses from their shareholders.

Cordray, the state watchdog, also explained in the Aug. 30 statement that he would “move forward move forward aggressively with this action to hold these companies and executives accountable” for the lead plaintiff group, which includes the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, the Teacher Retirement System of Texas and two European public pension funds.

The boyfriend of a Disney executive’s aide admits he tried to sell earnings data to investment companies before they were made public.

The boyfriend of an assistant to a top Walt Disney Co. executive pleaded guilty Monday to conspiracy to commit securities fraud  and wire fraud in federal court in New York in an insider trading scheme that garnered notoriety for its lack of sophistication.

Yonni Sebbag was arrested in May along with Bonnie Hoxie, a former aide to Zenia Mucha, the head of corporate communications for Disney. Both were charged with conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud by selling inside information to investment companies. Read the rest…

Law firm Shapiro & Fishman has accused Attorney General Bill McCollum of pre-election grandstanding and “abuse of power” in connection with McCollum’s recent announcement that his office is conducting a foreclosure fraud investigation into that firm and two others.

The allegations are in response to a coordinated investigation announced by McCollum during an Aug. 10 press conference. McCollum said his office is looking at whether the three South Florida firms engaged in unfair and deceptive actions in their handling of foreclosure cases.

The other firms were the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson in Fort Lauderdale and the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. in Plantation.

The firm’s response came Friday in a motion to quash a subpoena in Palm Beach County Circuit Court.

The Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v NAB curbs the extra-territorial operation of US securities laws.

The extra-territorial operation of US securities laws has been curbed by the United States Supreme Court in Morrison v National Australia Bank (08-1191), by requiring the purchase or sale of the security to be made in the United States, or involve a security listed on a domestic exchange.

The facts in Morrison v NAB

The plaintiffs are residents of Australia, who purchased National Australia Bank Limited's ("NAB") ordinary shares on an Australian exchange.

In February 1998, NAB acquired HomeSide Lending Inc., an American mortgage service provider. HomeSide calculated the present value of the fees it would generate from servicing mortgages in future years using a valuation method, booked that amount on its balance sheet as an asset called a Mortgage Servicing Right ("MSR"), and then amortised the value of the MSR over its expected life.

In 2001, NAB revealed that the interest assumptions and the valuation model used by HomeSide to calculate the MSR were incorrect and resulted in an overstatement in the value of its servicing rights. When NAB disclosed the error its share price fell.

Notwithstanding that they were Australian residents trading securities in an Australian company in Australia, the plaintiffs commenced their class action against NAB in the Southern District of New York.

They relied on section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which prohibits any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered.

The trial judge, upheld on appeal, dismissed the claims on the basis that the court did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the appeal.

Supreme Court upholds decision but substitutes new test

The Supreme Court relied on the longstanding principle of American law that legislation of Congress is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, unless a contrary intent appears. The Court found that section 10(b) is not extra-territorial.

The US Supreme Court therefore adopted a transactional test for the application of section 10(b): whether the purchase or sale is made in the United States, or involves a security listed on a domestic exchange.

This replaced the previous tests for the application of section 10(b) that required either (1) an "effects test," ie. "whether the wrongful conduct had a substantial effect in the United States or upon United States citizens," or (2) a "conduct test," "whether the wrongful conduct occurred in the United States."

The Supreme Court's application of the presumption against extra-territorial operation was bolstered by the amicus briefs from a number of other countries, including Australia, which led the Court to observe:

Like the United States, foreign countries regulate their domestic securities exchanges and securities transactions occurring within their territorial jurisdiction. And the regulation of other countries often differs from ours as to what constitutes fraud, what disclosures must be made, what damages are recoverable, what discovery is available in litigation, what individual actions may be joined in a single suit, what attorney's fees are recoverable, and many other matters."