| 
                   
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     
                Ala court voids $8.4M verdict against GE Capital  
                      Court Watch |    
                      2011/12/02 11:04 
                     | 
                   
                  
                    
                 
                      
                        The Alabama Supreme Court has reversed an $8.6 million verdict against GE Capital Aviation Services in a lawsuit filed by Pemco World Air Services Inc. 
 
The justices ruled Friday that a lower court was wrong when it refused to overturn a verdict returned by jurors in 2009 in Dale County. The Tampa, Fla.-based, Pemco has a plant in Dothan. 
 
Pemco refurbishes airplanes, and GE Capital leases and finances aircraft. The companies accused each other of breach of contract and fraud in 2004 over a contract to convert Boeing 737 owned by GE Capital from passenger planes into freighters.  
 
Jurors sided with Pemco, but the Supreme Court says evidence didn't support the claim. The justices sent the case back to Dale County for a new trial.  
 | 
                       
                     
                 
	  | 
                                    
                  
|     
                    
 | 
 
 
 
                
              
                
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     
                Farmers Insurance Settles Class Action Lawsuit  
                      Court Watch |    
                      2011/12/01 10:24 
                     | 
                   
                  
                    
                 
                      
                        Farmers Insurance entered into a settlement of a nationwide class action lawsuit, In Re Farmers Med-Pay Litigation, pending in the District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma. The settlement includes Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company, Farmers Group, Inc., Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, and certain related entities. The Court entered a final order approving the settlement on November 29, 2011.  
 
Plaintiffs alleged that Farmers failed to pay reasonable expenses for necessary medical services related to automobile accidents under Medical Payments and Personal Injury Protection ("PIP") coverage in automobile policies based on Farmers' use of certain claim adjustment systems and procedures. Farmers denies all of Plaintiffs' claims in the lawsuit. However, Farmers agreed to resolve the lawsuit to avoid the burden and expense of continued litigation.  
 
The Settlement Class includes all persons who submitted claims for payment of medical bills related to an automobile accident under Med-pay or PIP coverage if (a) the claim was adjusted from January 1, 2001 to February 9, 2009 based upon a recommended reduction from Zurich Services Corporation ("ZSC"), (b) the claim was paid at less than the amount billed, and (c) total Med-pay or PIP payments were less than the respective limits of coverage. The Class also includes medical providers who were assigned the right to assert these claims.  
 
Those affected by this settlement must complete and submit a valid claim form postmarked no later than December 29, 2011. Further information and claim forms can be obtained by visiting www.MedpayClaimsAdministration.com. 
 
 | 
                       
                     
                 
	  | 
                                    
                  
|     
                    
 | 
 
 
 
                
              
                
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     
                NY court hears hedge fund boss' bail arguments  
                      Court Watch |    
                      2011/11/30 10:24 
                     | 
                   
                  
                    
                 
                      
                        A federal appeals court did not immediately rule Wednesday whether hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam must report to prison next week for an 11-year sentence for insider trading, the longest term ever given for the crime. 
 
Attorney Patricia Millett told the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan that Rajaratnam should remain free on bail while the appeals court hears a challenge to his conviction in the biggest insider trading case in history. 
 
Rajaratnam, 54, was sentenced in October after his conviction this year on charges that he engaged in insider trading from 2003 through October 2009 at the Galleon Group of hedge funds that he founded. Prosecutors said insider trading schemes involved the stocks of at least 19 different public companies and resulted in at least $70 million in illegal gains. 
 
Rajaratnam was also ordered to forfeit $53.8 million and to pay a $10 million fine. 
 
Millett said court papers filed to secure wiretaps that provided evidence crucial to his conviction were improperly made, raising a substantial question of law that entitles him to remain free until the appeals court hears the case sometime next year. 
 
 | 
                       
                     
                 
	  | 
                                    
                  
|     
                    
 | 
 
 
 
                
              
                
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     
                Supreme Court won't hear skycaps' appeal on tips  
                      Court Watch |    
                      2011/11/28 09:37 
                     | 
                   
                  
                    
                 
                      
                        The Supreme Court has left in place a ruling that denied $333,000 to airport skycaps who claimed they were cheated out of tips when American Airlines started charging curbside baggage fees. 
 
The court on Monday rejected an appeal from nine skycaps at Logan International Airport in Boston. They wanted the court to review a federal appeals court ruling that overturned a lower court decision in their favor. 
 
The skycaps sued under a Massachusetts law aimed at preventing employers from keeping tips intended for workers. The 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston held that the law was pre-empted by federal aviation law regulating airfares. The court also said that soon after institution of the baggage fee, American Airlines clearly indicated with signs that the $2 fee was not a tip. | 
                       
                     
                 
	  | 
                                    
                  
|     
                    
 | 
 
 
 
                
              
                
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     | 
                   
                  
                     
                Conn. teeth-whitening rules challenged in court  
                      Court Watch |    
                      2011/11/16 09:46 
                     | 
                   
                  
                    
                 
                      
                        Connecticut's rules that only a dentist can provide certain teeth-whitening services are being challenged in court. 
 
The Institute for Justice filed the lawsuit in federal court in Hartford on Wednesday. The Arlington, Va.-based law firm says the state Dental Commission's regulations promote a monopoly for dentists by banning certain teeth whitening at salons and shopping malls. 
 
A spokesman for the state Department of Public Health says officials haven't read the lawsuit and won't comment. 
 
Regulations imposed in June cite inherent risks in teeth whitening and say whitening involves the practice of dentistry for diagnosing causes of discoloration, customizing treatment and other work. 
 
The Institute for Justice, which takes on libertarian causes, says the regulations have put several practitioners out of business. | 
                       
                     
                 
	  | 
                                    
                  
|     
                    
 | 
 
 
 
                
              
              
 |            
      
          
                
                   | 
                 
                 
                
                     				
                 
                    
                      
                        
		
	| 
		
		
		 
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		 
		
		
		
			  | 
			
				
					Investment Fraud Litigation   | 
				  
			 | 
		  
		
		 
	 |   
 | 
                       
                     
										
                    								
                  
                    
	
                   								
		
                    
	    
                    
 
 
          
 | 
  
  
Securities fraud, also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, is a practice that induces investors to make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false information, frequently resulting in losses, in violation of the securities laws. Securities Arbitration. Generally speaking, securities fraud consists of deceptive practices in the stock and commodity markets, and occurs when investors are enticed to part with their money based on untrue statements.  
 |  
 
  
  | 
                 
              | 
            
           
          
            |   | 
           
          
            |   | 
           
          
            |   | 
           
          
             | 
           
         
 The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Securities Law News as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case. | Affordable Law Firm Website Design by Law Promo | 
  
 
      	
	 |