Pay the man

The Alaska Supreme Court has ruled against factory trawl operator Fishermen's Finest, which had challenged the state landing tax as unconstitutional. Here's the court's 31-page opinion.

A legal matter

The Alaska Supreme Court has ruled that amortization of commercial fishing permits and quota shares may not be deducted from income for child support purposes.

Much more detail in this very interesting 18-page opinion.

Reaction to setnet ruling

Two industry groups are applauding the Alaska Supreme Court opinion blocking a proposed statewide vote on banning commercial setnets in Cook Inlet and elsewhere.

Kenai Peninsula Fishermen's Association press release

Resources for All Alaskans press release

Setnetters win

The Alaska Supreme Court, in an opinion issued today, struck down a proposed ballot initiative to ban commercial setnets in certain areas of the state including Cook Inlet.

The ex-husband wins

Here's an interesting opinion from the Alaska Supreme Court in a case involving a marital dispute over individual fishing quota.

Valdez wins, processor loses

Here's an Alaska Supreme Court opinion that seems to very much favor the city of Valdez in a dispute with Sea Hawk Seafoods.

Alaska Supreme Court deals nonresident fishermen a costly blow in the long-fought Carlson case

Read the high court's 26-page opinion here.

The Alaska Department of Law issued the following press release:

Jan. 20, 2012

Alaska Supreme Court reduces judgment by $50 million

ANCHORAGE — A unanimous Alaska Supreme Court decided today in the State v. Carlson case to cut approximately $50 million from a judgment awarded to nonresident commercial fishermen who had filed a class action lawsuit against the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission.

In so doing, the court overturned one of its own earlier decisions in the case, which had ordered the state to pay the interest rate that applies to delinquent taxes — 11 percent compounded quarterly.

In today's decision, the court substituted the standard prejudgment interest rate for court judgments.

The case was filed in 1984 by non-Alaskan commercial fishermen who disputed the higher commercial fishing fees that Alaska charged to nonresidents.

The state was ordered to refund some of the fees after the court found that while the state can charge higher fees to nonresidents, the additional payment must be related to the nonresidents' share of the state's cost of managing Alaska's commercial fisheries.

The amount of overpaid fees that the state was ordered to refund was approximately $12.5 million and the interest initially awarded for this judgment was about $62 million.

Under today's decision, the interest will be reduced to about $12 million.

This is the fifth time the Alaska Supreme Court has heard an appeal in this case. The court issued earlier decisions in 1990, 1996, 2003 and 2008.

In these earlier decisions, the court decided that nonresidents can be charged a higher rate, determined the elements of the fisheries budget that were relevant to calculating the appropriate rate, and set the prejudgment interest rate that would apply to an overpayment.

In today's opinion, the court reconsidered and overturned that interest rate decision, which it made in the third appeal ("Carlson III").

An update on the Carlson case

Deckboss doesn't have time right now to get into the particulars, but he can advise you of a little news with regard to the long-running Carlson case.

The Alaska Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in the matter starting at 10 a.m. today.

For background on the case and the stakes involved, here's a piece by yours truly from the June 2010 issue of Pacific Fishing magazine:

Carlson case grinds on

The Alaska Legislature in April appropriated nearly $75 million to repay nonresident commercial fishermen for overcharges on permit fees. Thousands of fishermen could receive a piece of the money. But don't start looking for a check just yet.

The potential refunds stem from the Carlson class-action lawsuit — litigation so lengthy and contorted it evokes the Dickens novel "Bleak House."

Outside fishermen sued the state in 1984, upset Alaska charged them triple what residents paid for fishing privileges.

The epic case has made four trips to the Alaska Supreme Court. The suit has succeeded in equalizing the annual "base fee" all fishermen pay to obtain or renew a permit — though nonresidents continue to pay a "surcharge" of $140.

Anyway, government lawyers have battled with considerable success through the years to whittle down the state's liability under Carlson. Out of a class that once numbered 95,000 members, only 4,705 now stand to receive any money. These are limited entry permit holders; crew license holders no longer qualify for refunds.

Under the latest ruling from state Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski, the state owes about $12.4 million in refunds plus $62.4 million in interest.

While the Legislature has appropriated these sums, that doesn't mean the state is yet prepared to pay out the money. No, this 26-year court fight is not over.

On March 24, the state attorney general appealed the Carlson case again to the Alaska Supreme Court, asking the justices to either toss the $62.4 million in interest or apply a lower interest rate.

What does it all mean?

"We're not about to cut checks," said Bill McAllister, spokesman for the attorney general.

Sea Hawk scores a court victory

The Alaska Supreme Court today revived a million-dollar claim Valdez fish processor Sea Hawk Seafoods Inc. has against the state.

The ruling is the latest action in a 12-year legal saga involving Sea Hawk, the state and the Valdez Fisheries Development Association, which runs a big salmon hatchery.

Read this dreadfully complex 17-page ruling at your own peril here.