The law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, has commenced an investigation into possible breaches of fiduciary duty to current shareholders of El Paso Corporation and other violations of state law by the Board of Directors of El Paso relating to the proposed acquisition of the company by Kinder Morgan, Inc. The firm’s investigation seeks to determine whether El Paso’s Board breached its fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to maximize shareholder value.

On October 16, 2011, El Paso and KMI jointly announced that they have entered into a definitive merger agreement whereby KMI will acquire all outstanding shares of El Paso for $26.87 per share based on the closing prices of each of the companies on October 14, 2011. The joint press release stated that the agreement provides that El Paso shareholders will receive for each of their shares $14.65 in cash plus 0.4187 KMI shares and 0.640 KMI warrants with a five-year term exercisable at $40.00 per share.

According to the joint press release, while under all circumstances El Paso shareholders will receive 0.640 KMI warrants per El Paso share held, subject to proration, El Paso shareholders will be able to elect, for each El Paso share held, either (i) $25.91 in cash, (ii) 0.9635 shares of KMI common stock, or (iii) $14.65 in cash plus 0.4187 shares of KMI common stock. According to the joint release, El Paso’s board, two members of which will join the KMI board after the transaction closes, has agreed not to solicit competing transactions. Further, under certain circumstances, according to the companies, KMI will receive a termination fee of $650 million, or over $0.90 per El Paso share, from El Paso. According to Yahoo! Finance, at least one analyst has set a price target for El Paso of $28 per share.

If you own El Paso common stock and would like to learn more about the investigation being conducted by Brower Piven, you may email or call Brower Piven, who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions. You may contact Brower Piven by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com, by calling 410/415-6616, or at Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, 1925 Old Valley Road, Stevenson, Maryland 21153.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have combined experience litigating securities and other class action cases of over 60 years.

hoffman@browerpiven.com

Immigrants seeking legal status in the United States are being victimized with disturbing frequency by lousy lawyers, a federal appeals panel said Wednesday.

After criticizing the work done and not done by defense lawyers, the three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan took aim at the government, scolding its lawyers for quibbling over irrelevant language in one case in a quest to win.

Victimized by the failures of lawyers on both sides are the immigrants, "a vulnerable population who come to this country searching for a better life and often arrive unfamiliar with our language and culture, in economic deprivation and in fear," the court wrote.

"In immigration matters, so much is at stake — the right to remain in this country, to reunite a family or to work," the court said.

Essentially saying in legal jargon that it was fed up, the appeals court ordered the case of a Jamaican immigrant, Garfield Livern St. Valentine Aris, reopened.

Aris, who entered the United States at age 12 in 1983, was a lawful immigrant who supported his wife and stepdaughter and had no close family members in Jamaica, the court said.

He pleaded guilty in August 1991 to a cocaine possession charge and was sentenced to three years' probation and fined $1,000. Afterward, federal authorities ordered deportation proceedings to begin because of his conviction.

The appeals court said Aris' lawyers "failed spectacularly" once he was victimized by a simple error: A paralegal told him it appeared his hearing was not scheduled on the day that it was. When he didn't show up, he was ordered deported on May 3, 1995.

The appeals court said that the law firm never told him the hearing had occurred and that he had been ordered deported. In June 2005, he learned there was a deportation order against him. When he hired new lawyers, they filed flawed documents on his behalf, the appeals court said.

As a result, he was detained for nine months, and, without his income, his wife and stepdaughter could not afford to pay rent and were forced to move to a homeless shelter.

The appeals panel said in a footnote that it seemed Aris had a compelling argument to remain in the United States because of "social and humane considerations," including the relatively minor nature of his drug offense and because his family is in the country.

The appeals court said it was troubled that, during arguments before it, a government lawyer failed to recognize that it did not matter whether the paralegal who misinformed Aris told him "you do not have a hearing" or "our records indicate that you do not have a hearing scheduled."

The court noted that Aris, who has not been deported, was an immigrant with limited familiarity with U.S. immigration law.

"When lawyers representing immigrants fail to live up to their professional obligations, it is all too often the immigrants they represent who suffer the consequences," the appeals court wrote.

"We appreciate that, unfortunately, calendar mishaps will from time to time occur. But the failure to communicate such mistakes, once discovered, to the client and to take all necessary steps to correct them is more than regrettable — it is unacceptable. It is nondisclosure that turns the ineffective assistance of a mere scheduling error into more serious malpractice."

The court noted the role of government, as well.

"Governmental authorities, whatever their roles, must be attentive to such lapses that so grievously undermine the administration of justice," the appeals panel said.