القضاء الأمريكي يعلِّق العمل بقانون منع الاستثمار في السودان

Quote: Court Suspends Sudan Divestment Law By Phil Sletten on Thursday, June 4, 2009. A Merrimack County Superior Court Judge has suspended a 2008 state law. Last year, the Legislature ordered New Hampshire's retirement pension system to divest from companies with operations in Sudan. The bill's sponsors aimed to keep New Hampshire money from contributing to the genocide in Darfur. But the pension system took the state to court over the law. NHPR's Phil Sletten has more. The Sudan Divestment Act requires state retirement systems to withdraw their savings from companies with assets in Sudan. Representative Scott Merrick from Coos County cosponsored the bill. “I don’t think the retirees in this state would feel comfortable, at least I hope they wouldn’t feel comfortable, that some of their money, that has been invested on their behalf, is going to aid the genocide in Darfur.” And New Hampshire Lawmakers are not alone. Merrick says twenty-six other states have similar laws. Eighteen other countries and eleven international religious organizations have also taken their money out of companies with operations in Sudan. And Merrick says it’s working. “Thirteen, I believe, companies operating in the Sudan have either reformed problematic operations or left the country entirely. These are big companies too. We’re talking about billions and billions of dollars.” But two state employee pension systems challenged the law. One of the plaintiffs, the New Hampshire Retirement System, has over 53,000 members, They include local teachers and firefighters, as well as state employees. ######## Ingram is the Executive Director. “The law, though well intended, would have a number of very unintended consequences that would be very negative, and conflict with the constitutional mandate that we invest solely with the purpose of the exclusive benefit of the members of the system.” And Ingram notes the law has already cost the retirement system a large amount of money. Financial analysts have had to find the offending assets and remove them from portfolios. “We’ve incurred, you know, right now preparing to comply, in the range of one-hundred to two-hundred thousand dollars.” Ingram says he sympathizes with the intent of the law, but added that he’s just following the state’s constitution. And the Merrimack County Superior Court agreed. In a preliminary injunction the Judge ruled that the state’s Constitution does not allow the Legislature to modify the investment strategy of the retirement system. But Associate Attorney General Richard Head has a different interpretation of the amendment.Head argued the case for divestment and believes the state law is constitutional. “In essence we’re arguing that the constitutional provision was designed to protect the assets, proceeds and income that is generated by the retirement system to prevent the state from going in and borrowing against it.” He says understanding the context of the 1984 amendment is key to its meaning. “It was when Sununu was governor and he was very specifically trying to borrow some of the money from the, from the retirement system to pay for state government.” The injunction is an early step in the judicial process, and the judge has not yet made a final ruling. If all the parties agree, this case could go to the State Supreme Court. For NHPR News, I’m Phil Sletten.