|
 |
 |
Oveissi v. The Islamic Republic of Iran
Judgment obtained for $7.5 million against Iran arising from the assassination of Gholam Ali Oveissi in February 1984 by the agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”) and its intelligence service, the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (“MOIS”).
|
Oveissi v. The Islamic Republic of Iran
Obtained judgment, subject to determination of amount of damages, against Iran arising from the assassination of Gholam Ali Oveissi, a military leader in pre-revolution Iran, who was gunned down on a Paris street in February 1984 by the agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”) and its intelligence service, the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (“MOIS”). Mr. Spertus and Mr. Landes were retained for the appeal from a district court order dismissing the case, and after prevailing on appeal and navigating complex choice of law issues, ultimately obtained a district court judgment in favor of Plaintiff's claims establishing culpability as a matter of law.
|
United States v. Alaa El Beialy, CR 10-882-JHN
Defendant ACQUITTED on 11 of 16 counts submitted to the jury. Represented individual at trial on multiple counts involving structuring transactions to avoid reporting requirements and fraud and misuse of visas, permits and other documents in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1546(a), and other charges. Defendant ACQUITTED of all Section 1546 charges and most significant structuring charges.
|
United States v. Karen Montoya, CR 08-1116-PA
Defendant ACQUITTED on all counts charged. Represented former Ralphs grocery store executive in a 2009 criminal fraud trial involving allegations of unlawful hiring practices during 2003 labor strike. Client acquitted on all counts after 3-week jury trial. |
United States v. Tamer Ibrahim, CR 00-852-CAS
Retained to represent defendant years after sentencing and appellate waiver. Re-opened case, prevailed on appeal and writ of corum nobis, and defendant was released FORTHWITH after writ of corum nobis was GRANTED. Court of Appeals confirmed defendant entitled to re-sentencing after parallel forfeiture proceedings revealed prosecutor’s misstatement of fact at original sentencing.
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
 |
