On November 10, 2010, Susman Godfrey L.L.P. won a $4-plus million judgment for Houston-based oil and gas exploration and production company Frankel Offshore Energy, Inc. and against its business partners, Grimes Energy, Inc., Texas Standard Oil & Gas, LP, and PetroVal, Inc.

Frankel Offshore owned 50% of a business venture and of certain offshore oil and gas properties in the Gulf of Mexico, and the other 50% collectively was owned by Grimes Energy, Texas Standard, and PetroVal.  In its lawsuit, Frankel Offshore claimed that these three companies secretly cut it out of the business venture, formed a new competing company, improperly transferred assets into their new secret company, and sold those assets without any disclosure to Frankel Offshore.  Frankel Offshore alleged that the conduct of Grimes Energy, Texas Standard, and PetroVal amounted to fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract.

The jury agreed.  After a two week jury trial in June 2010, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Frankel Offshore and found that Grimes Energy, Texas Standard, and PetroVal engaged in fraud, breached their fiduciary duties to Frankel Offshore, and breached multiple contracts with Frankel Offshore, including a contract they defrauded Frankel Offshore into signing.

On November 10, after considering post-verdict motions and argument, Judge R.K. Sandill of the 127th District Court in Harris County entered judgment and awarded Frankel Offshore over $4 million based on the jury's verdict.  The Court held that "Frankel Offshore shall recover $1,359,643.55 from Grimes Energy, Inc., $1,970,959.73 from PetroVal, Inc., and $679,571.78 from Texas Standard Oil & Gas, LP, for their breach of fiduciary duties."

Frankel Offshore's lead trial lawyer, Geoffrey L. Harrison, a partner in the Houston office of litigation boutique Susman Godfrey, said he was "thrilled with the Court's ruling, and impressed with the Court's careful attention to the issues raised."  "The jury's verdict and the Court's $4 million judgment is complete vindication for Frankel Offshore," said Harrison.  "Business folks need to get the message that judges and juries are not going to put up with cheating, stealing, secrecy and just plain nastiness," said Harrison.

Frankel Offshore's president, Scott A. Frankel, said he was "delighted with the Court's judgment" and "watching my lawyers work was a thing of beauty."

Frankel Offshore Energy, Inc. was represented by Geoffrey L. Harrison, Alexander L. Kaplan and Yvonne Y. Ho of Susman Godfrey LLP, and by Ashish Mahendru of Mahendru, P.C.

Grimes Energy, Inc., Texas Standard Oil & Gas, LP, and PetroVal, Inc. were represented by John H. Kim of The Kim Law Firm, by Charles Sharman, and by Robert M. "Randy" Roach Jr. of Roach & Newton LLP.

The Mississippi Supreme Court has ended more than seven years of litigation in denying a wrongful death claim that improperly named a deceased man as the plaintiff.

In its Oct. 14, 2010 ruling, the Court held in a 5-3 opinion that the asbestos-related lawsuit filed in 2002 in the name of Lonnie Pittman violated jurisdictional and statute of limitation laws and made all claims by the Pittman family improper and void.  Following Mr. Pittman's death in 2001, his family originally filed suit naming him as the plaintiff, then three years later attempted to substitute an estate representative in the plaintiff's spot.  The Court ruled such substitution was improper.

The decision, authored by Chief Justice William Waller, renders a final judgment in favor of 10 clients represented by the Jackson, Miss.-based firm of Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy as well as other defendants. The Supreme Court ruling reverses a September 2008 decision issued by the Hinds County Circuit Court ordering that the Pittman lawsuit should proceed to trial.  According to Forman Perry attorneys, the Court's opinion both re-confirms historical principles and establishes new precedent for asbestos-related wrongful death suits.

Forman Perry attorneys successfully argued that a tort claim filed directly in the name of a deceased person - rather than the name of a proper estate representative or death beneficiary - is improper.  In ruling that such a claim is jurisdictionally void, the Court agreed that an "amended complaint" cannot relate back to the initial filing, and that the filed suit does not suspend the state's three-year statute of limitations.  Although this principle had been cited by the Mississippi Court of Appeals, it had never been expressly adopted by the state's Supreme Court before the recent decision.

Forman Perry's clients that were defendants-appellants in the consolidated appeal included Trane US Inc.; Gardner Denver Inc.; General Electric Company; Gorman-Rupp Co.; Dorr-Oliver Inc.; Keeler/Dorr-Oliver Inc.; Sulzer Pumps (US); Warren Pumps Inc.; Warren Rupp Inc.; and Yuba Heat Transfer LLC.

Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy is a national trial firm focusing on tort, environmental and commercial litigation. The firm is home to more than 85 attorneys in Jackson, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston and New Orleans who have represented clients in state and federal courts across the U.S. for more than 20 years.  More information is available at http://www.fpwkt.com.  For more information contact Barry Pound at 214-559-4630 or barry@androvett.com.

A Cook County jury on Wednesday (Oct. 13, 2010) awarded a 51-year-old carpenter $1.477 million in a catastrophic construction site injury arising out of an accident that occurred when he fell from an inadequate ladder while carrying one end of a 100- to 120-pound beam that he intended to install as a doorway header. The amount included $105,000.00 awarded to his wife Roberta for loss of consortium.

James Conwell was an employee of Kole Construction, a carpentry sub-contractor to James McHugh Construction Company, working at a job site at 1111 S. State Street in Chicago, when the ladder collapsed.  He fell, and the beam struck him on the back of his head and neck.  The serious injuries he suffered at the scene have now been declared by his doctor and the federal government as total and permanent.

After a two-week trial, the jury returned the verdict after closing arguments were presented by attorneys Antonio M. Romanucci, of Romanucci & Blandin, LLC, and Daniel E. O'Brien, of Burke & O'Brien, P.C., who represented the plaintiffs, and Angelo Spyratos and Pamela Pierro, of Momkus McCluskey, LLC, representing the defendant, James McHugh Construction Company.

The Complaint alleged that McHugh was aware that subcontractors on the project were using inadequate ladders for the required work but failed to have them removed from the job site until after the injury.  It also alleged that McHugh had a formal safety program and procedures that it failed to follow, that it failed to enforce its safety rules that required subcontractor employees to wear stickers on their hard hats to verify attendance at mandatory McHugh safety orientation.

The jury agreed with the plaintiffs' contentions that McHugh failed to comply with ANSI and OSHA regulations, to provide safe and suitable equipment, and to make reasonable inspections of the premise to ensure compliance with their own safety program.  After undergoing surgery on the day of his accident to repair a deep neck and facial laceration, Conwell began follow-up treatment.  Visits to numerous specialists confirmed that there was no cure for his persistent aura migraines, neck pain, tinnitus and severe hyperacusis in the right ear as a result of the accident.  Because of the severity of his symptoms, his life has become one of isolation in his home, which has required his wife Roberta to take on the duties of both parents to their school-age son.

The case, James Conwell and Roberta Conwell vs. James McHugh Construction Company, No. 06L4924.  The judge in the case was Hon. Thomas Flanagan.

SOURCE Romanucci & Blandin, LLC

Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), announced plans today to mobilize student voters in support of Proposition 19, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.  SSDP, the nation's largest student drug policy group with over 150 chapters nationwide, will rally an army of student canvassers at its regional conference to be held at San Francisco State University October 16-17. Many events have been scheduled between now and the election on campuses up and down the state.  With a massive fire truck touring California, the students will 'Sound the Alarm to Vote Yes on Prop 19.' (See schedule below.)  Members of the media are invited to tour with the Yes We Cannabis Fire Truck.

"Young voters are the primary victims of the drug war and logically the largest group of supporters of Prop 19," says Aaron Houston, SSDP's Executive Director. "We plan to register thousands of students in the next 10 days and help many first time voters develop plans for Election Day.  Meshing good old fashioned one-on-one on college campuses with mobile alert technology sums up our strategy to turnout young voters," adds Houston.

SSDP already planned a massive canvass in Northern California months ago, but last week the group received a surprise $75,000 dollar donation from David Bronner, President of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps and another $25,000 from Capitol Hemp Clothing and Accessories. "We are ramping up our outreach to even more students thanks to the surprise support," says Houston.

Dr. Bronner's is providing the company's promotional fire truck to 'sound the alarm' on college campuses across California before November's election.  A California based company, Dr. Bronner's buys 20 tons of hemp oil for their soaps from Canada each year.  For ten years the Bronner family has financially supported bringing back non-drug industrial hemp farming in the US as an environmentally sustainable crop that can be made into a wide variety of products including food, cosmetics, clothing, building materials and much more. Traditionally Dr. Bronner's has publicly supported 'hemp only' advocates; however Mr. Bronner is now publicly calling for the end of cannabis prohibition entirely in light of the bloody conflict being fueled in neighboring Mexico and the enormous waste of California taxpayer and police resources in the current budget crisis.  

Mr. Bronner stated:  "I'm calling up businesses like ours that I know are socially and environmentally conscious with a simple message, 'Just Say Now, now is the time to step up support.'  Prop 19 will free up police for fighting real crimes and stop renegade cannabis cultivation by gangs that are destroying our national parks.  Cannabis prohibition, not the herb itself, has been ruining productive and upstanding citizens' lives with courts and jails for decades."

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, is a California ballot proposition which will be on the November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot. It legalizes various marijuana-related activities, allows local governments to regulate these activities, permits local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorizes various criminal and civil penalties. In March 2010 it qualified to be on the November statewide ballot. It requires a simple majority in order to pass. Yes on 19 is the official advocacy group for the initiative. SSDP is the lead student organization working with the Yes on 19 campaign.

The following is a tentative schedule for the Yes We Cannabis Fire Truck Tour and is subject to change.  To confirm exact times of events email Adam Eidinger at adam@mintwood.com

Compensation sought on behalf of all United States citizens who received an ASR™ XL Acetabular System hip replacement.

Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C., one of the nations' leading plaintiff litigation law firms, has filed a class action lawsuit in Ohio against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. on behalf of all United States citizens who received an implant of the ASR XL Acetabular System hip replacement.

On August 24, 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ), announced a voluntary recall of its ASR™ XL Acetabular System hip replacement, after a report published in Britain revealed an unacceptable failure rate of the device, resulting in revision surgery for 13 percent of patients within five years.

Individuals represented by Burg Simpson are seeking answers to a number of questions including, whether DePuy should have known of the defects in the device prior to its sale and implant in patients, and whether DePuy failed to provide timely and adequate post-market warnings of the health risks associated with the its ASR™ XL Acetabular System.

"Hip replacement surgery is among the most painful and disruptive surgeries an individual may have to endure. Once is certainly enough, but to undergo the procedure twice, and as a result of a defective implant is almost unimaginable," said Seth A. Katz, Burg Simpson shareholder, and one of several attorneys working on this case.  

Mr. Katz continues, "When medical devices such as DePuy's ASR XL Acetabular System fail, the impact on a patient's life can be devastating. Given the large number of devices recalled, it is conceivable that thousands of individuals across the United States may unknowingly need revision surgery, even if they are currently not experiencing any pain or discomfort." Although the company announced it will reimburse "reasonable medical expenses" to patients who sign releases providing DePuy complete access to their private medical records, the "offer" may be misleading, according to Burg Simpson shareholder Janet G. Abaray.

"In our opinion, DePuy's 'offer' may deceive potential claimants into believing that the company has actually agreed to advance or reimburse their costs for medical monitoring or revision surgery.  In fact, no specific offer to pay medical costs has been made and no specific plan for reimbursement has been announced.  Moreover, DePuy has stated that before reimbursement of expenses will be provided, it will review the patient's medical records to determine if the patient meets DePuy's criteria for payment.  According to DePuy, the medical records must confirm that the revision is related to the ASR recall and 'not some other type of cause, such as a traumatic fall.'  Blaming the device failure on a fall, or another cause, such as physician error, patient misuse, pre-existing condition or underlying diseases is a standard litigation defense in these types of cases. Thus a patient who releases medical records to DePuy may do nothing but provide DePuy with a jump start on litigation defenses."

Burg Simpson's defective medical device attorneys have successfully litigated hundreds of defective artificial joint replacement cases over the last 30 years in state and federal courts and in the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) arena. Anyone who has received a DePuy hip replacement in the last seven years and is concerned about the potential health risks should, in the first instance, contact their physician.

With offices in Denver, Cincinnati, Cody, and Phoenix, Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C., is a firm of award winning national trial lawyers, practicing in the areas of personal injury, class action, medical malpractice, dangerous drug litigation, defective products, insurance bad faith, employment law, commercial and securities litigation.

The following is a statement by the American Small Business League:

The Department of Homeland Security is being sued by the American Small Business League (ASBL) for refusing to release subcontracting data on a contract awarded to Lockheed Martin. (www.asbl.com/documents/Complaint_48KB_LockheedMartin.pdf)

The ASBL filed suit in United States District Court, Northern District of California on Wednesday, September 15.  The case was filed after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) repeatedly refused to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request for individual subcontracting reports (ISR) and summary subcontracting reports (SSR) on a prime contract awarded to Lockheed Martin.

The ASBL believes the information contained in the reports may show Lockheed Martin and the Department of Homeland Security may have cooperated in an effort to circumvent federal law which requires 23 percent of all federal contracts to be awarded to small businesses. The ASBL is gathering information on several major government prime contractors in preparation for litigation that may include cases filed under the False Claims Act and Section 16(d) of the Small Business Act.

ASBL has won a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) cases against the federal government. Some of the information obtained by the ASBL indicates the federal government diverted small business contracts to Lockheed Martin and hundreds of other Fortune 1000 firms. The Obama Administration is currently awarding small business contracts to firms such as Boeing, Raytheon, L-3 Communications, British Aerospace (BAE), Northrop Grumman, and Dell Computer. (http://www.asbl.com/documentlibrary.html)

The ASBL currently has six lawsuits pending against the federal government and plans to file at least six more cases in federal court before the end of the year.  

"We can always tell how damaging the information we have requested is based on how hard the government fights to withhold it. This looks like we might have uncovered some very damaging information, since the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that this information is releasable in a case I won 20 years ago," ASBL President Lloyd Chapman said. "The Obama Administration has no hope of winning. My guess is they are stalling for time to modify the data before they are forced to release it. President Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history, (http://www.propublica.org/article/obama-details-promises-for-transparency-1107) but under his administration we have been forced to go to federal court to obtain the most basic information on small business contracting programs. It makes you wonder what they're trying to hide."  SOURCE American Small Business League

Edward Gormbley, a former Assistant Vice President at General Electric Capital Services, filed suit in Connecticut Superior Court today seeking $10 Million from GE.  Mr. Gormbley's complaint asserts that GE Capital retaliated and constructively discharged him after he complained that GE Capital fraudulently overvalued one of its largest investment assets, Momentive Performance Materials ("Momentive").

Gormbley, a "Top-Talent" employee of  GE, filed the Complaint after the Company cut his compensation, reduced his responsibilities and destroyed his professional reputation after he repeatedly expressed legitimate concerns to his superiors that GE Capital's valuation methods resulted in a grossly inflated valuation of Momentive in 2008.

Gormbley is represented in the matter  by Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP, in Washington, D.C.   

"Mr. Gormbley repeatedly was warned to keep what he knew about GE Capital's valuation of Momentive to himself," said David Sanford. "When Gormbley refused  to play GE's games, GE swiftly and brutally  retaliated against  him."

In addition to GE Capital Services, the suit names General Electric Company, GE Equity, GE Company Chair and CEO Jeffrey Immelt, and a number of other high-ranking corporate executives as defendants.

Gormbley was hired by GE in 2000, joining its Financial Management Program.  After working in a wide range of divisions throughout the company, he joined GE Commercial Finance, a subdivision of GE Capital in 2006. Throughout  his rise through the ranks, he earned and maintained a spot on the top rung of the company's forced ranking system. His strong, positive performance also won  him a coveted position on GE's corporate audit staff. 

In mid-2008, Gormbley became concerned  because he recognized that GE's valuation of Momentive was inflated by some $2  billion. He shared these conclusions with his superiors.  They were not appreciative. 

GE's first response to Gormbley's bad  news was to ignore the message.  When Gormbley persisted in making his concerns known to an increasing circle of individuals in the company, GE's answer was to kill the messenger.

In early October 2008, while the  financial sector was in a state of turmoil, GE announced a $12 billion stock offering, touting the company's financial soundness and pledging to maintain its high quarterly dividend.  Yet, at the same time, it was becoming increasingly clear that GE Capital was in trouble.  In fact, in private meetings with Bush administration Treasury Department officials, including then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Immelt expressed concerns about GE and GE Capital's finances and financial stability.

In November and December 2008, Gormbley continued to warn GE about Momentive's declining performance and recommended that GE Equity take a write down of Momentive's valuation.  Gormbley was explicitly and implicitly  warned to stop talking about Momentive's decline and its effects on GE.  Gormbley's superiors instructed him to change his valuation methodologies for Momentive calculations and to stop "making things so difficult."

In January of 2009 Gormbley's concerns about GE's over-valuation of Momentive were confirmed.  At that time, GE Equity received  Momentive's board book verifying that the value of Momentive had plummeted.  With this written corroboration of his  concerns, Mr. Gormbley sent an email to the President of GE Capital and other senior GE officials in which he again advocated a write-down of Momentive.  In response, GE chastised Mr. Gormbley  for making the situation public and discouraged him from speaking at  meetings. 

But Gormbley would not stay silent. He  had witnessed and objected to GE Capital's overstatement of Momentive's value and its concealment and misrepresentation of faulty valuation data to internal  controllers, external auditors, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. In its February 2009 Form 10-K filing, GE chose not to include the most updated  valuation information for Momentive, thereby violating the SEC's reporting  requirements.

In response, GE Equity's leadership  initiated a campaign of retaliation that ended Gormbley's career at the company and caused him severe financial and emotional harm.  The retaliation included removing him from a team of energy investment professionals, prohibiting him from pursuing  new deals, passing him over as a board observer on an investment deal in which  he has served as lead underwriter, reducing his performance rating, cutting his  year-end bonus, removing him from the Momentive account, excluding him from  meetings essential to his performance, delaying his 2009 performance review, refusing him the opportunity to work from home or utilize flex time, and  threatening to revoke a $133,000 loan.

"GE did everything it could possibly do  to discredit me, ruin my reputation within the company and generally make my  life miserable," said Gormbley. "When I asked Human Resources to investigate the  retaliation I was being regularly subjected to, my requests were ignored.  To preserve my professional reputation and financial security, I finally had to resign."

The Complaint calculates damages at over $10 million.  

Sanford Wittels & Heisler is a law firm with offices in Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco that specializes in employment discrimination, wage and  hour, consumer and complex corporate class action litigation and has represented  thousands of individuals in some of the major class action cases in the  United  States. The firm also represents individual clients in employment, employment discrimination, sexual harassment, whistleblower, public accommodations, commercial, medical malpractice, and  personal injury matters

Attorneys from Houston's Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos are representing a group of investors in a lawsuit filed against hedge fund auditors Ernst & Young after the group lost more than $17 million following the collapse of a Plano, Texas-based hedge fund that promised low-risk investments.

The lawsuit focuses on two funds sold by Plano's Parkcentral Global and was filed on behalf of Houston financial consultant Gus H. Comiskey and four Tucson, Ariz.-based entities, including the Thomas R. Brown Family Private Foundation. The now-defunct Parkcentral Global was operated by affiliates of billionaire and former presidential candidate H. Ross Perot before closing its doors after losing a total of more than $2.6 billion.

"Our clients were told that an investment in Parkcentral was designed to preserve capital.  Instead, they lost every penny in record time.  E&Y was supposed to be auditing Parkcentral, but the audited financial statements never once warned Parkcentral's investors of their impending doom," says attorney Demetrios Anaipakos, who will try the case with Amir H. Alavi.

The lawsuit includes claims that New York-based Ernst & Young falsely represented that the company fairly audited Parkcentral Global and the auditor failed in its "watchdog" role to warn relying investors of the risk of fraud and noncompliance by management.  The suit accuses Ernst & Young of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, securities fraud and conspiracy.

This month, Brown Investment Management, L.P., one of the plaintiffs in this suit against Ernst & Young, won a Delaware Supreme Court ruling that requires Parkcentral Global to disclose its former investors. Those investors could be added to the new Houston lawsuit.

The investments of the Brown foundation, Brown Investment Management and the two other family-related ventures totaled $16 million and were lost within 90 days despite a "worst case loss" estimate of 5 percent. Mr. Comiskey, like his fellow investors, lost 100 percent of his investment when Parkcentral Global went under.

Mr. Anaipakos and Mr. Alavi have handled disputes against hedge funds and private equity firms for more than a decade. This lawsuit is separate from a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Parkcentral Global.

The Harris County District Court lawsuit, Brown Investment Management, L.P. v. Ernst & Young, LLP, No. 2010- 53393, was filed Aug. 25, 2010.

Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos represents plaintiffs and defendants in securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and other commercial litigation matters. More information about the firm can found at http://www.azalaw.com/index.html.

More Americans are serving time in prison or jail than at any point in the nation's history, reflecting an incarceration rate that greatly exceeds those found in other advanced democracies.

The growth of the nation's penal population during the past three decades has produced "a new group of social outcasts, defined by the shared experience of incarceration, crime, poverty, racial minority, and low education," according to Harvard University sociologist Bruce Western.

Bruce Western and Brown University economist Glenn C. Loury are guest editors of the new issue of Daedalus, the journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, which examines the social, political, and economic implications of the largely invisible phenomenon of "mass incarceration" in America.

The volume resulted from a multidisciplinary task force of scholars convened by the American Academy in 2008 to examine the unprecedented levels of incarceration in the United States, weighing concerns about crime control, rehabilitation, and more fundamental issues of social justice. Essays in the volume explain the following issues:

"Incarceration and Social Inequality" by Bruce Western and coauthor Becky Pettit (University of Washington, Seattle) explores the profound effects of the prison boom on social and economic inequality in America. The essay documents how the negative effects of time behind bars are cumulative and intergenerational. Mass incarceration, the authors suggest, exacerbates the social problems the prison system is designed to control.

"Crime, Inequality and Social Justice" by Glenn C. Loury examines the tenuous relationship between crime and incarceration. "For two generations crime rates have fluctuated with no apparent relationship to a steady climb in the extent of imprisonment," Loury observes. He argues that for the hundreds of thousands of ex-offenders released each year, "time behind bars will have diminished, not enhanced, their odds of living crime-free lives."

"Toward Fewer Prisoners and Less Crime" by Mark A.R. Kleiman (University of California, Los Angeles) explores a new model of "outpatient incarceration," a tightly monitored supervision system for parolees that could promote public safety and improve the prospects of offenders.

"The Dangers of Pyrrhic Victories Against Mass Incarceration" by Robert Weisberg and Joan Petersilia (both of Stanford University) suggests that the policy debate may benefit from a redefinition of terms: "Rather than speaking of mass incarceration, we should...focus on curtailing unnecessary incarceration." Reducing prison populations will require a significant investment in effective reentry programs, they argue, cautioning that if such programs are not well designed and carefully implemented, reforms may backfire and lead to new waves of imprisonment.

"The Contradictions of Juvenile Crime and Punishment" by Jeffrey Fagan (Columbia University) contrasts society's fear of child criminals and its desire to punish them harshly with the nation's "transcendent philosophy of child saving." He explains how incarceration at a young age increases the risk of future imprisonment, and diminishes for young males the chances of marriage, employment, and social stability over a lifetime.

"Punishment's Place: The Local Concentration of Mass Incarceration" by Robert J. Sampson and Charles Loeffler (both of Harvard University) examines how the geographic concentration of incarceration produces a negative feedback loop that has destabilizing effects on poor urban neighborhoods.

Additional authors in the volume include:

Marie Gottschalk (University of Pennsylvania) on "Cell Blocks and Red Ink: Mass Incarceration, the Financial Crisis, and Penal Reform."

Candace Kruttschnitt (University of Toronto) on "The Paradox of Women's Imprisonment."

Nicola Lacey (London School of Economics) on "American Imprisonment in Comparative Perspective."

Jonathan Simon (University of California, Berkeley) on "Clearing the 'Troubled Assets' of America's Punishment Bubble."

Loic Wacquant (University of California, Berkeley; Centre de Sociologie Europeenne, Paris) on "Class, Race, and Hyperincarceration in Revanchist America."

"The authors in this volume have contributed valuable scholarly research that can help inform corrections and criminal justice policy at the state and federal levels," said Leslie Berlowitz, Chief Executive Officer of the American Academy. "Building on a long tradition of Academy work on social policy, these experts provide critical analysis and pragmatic approaches for addressing what may be the most important civil rights issue of our time."

The Academy's project on The Challenges of Mass Incarceration in America was supported, in part, by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Academy thanks the Foundation for their support while acknowledging that the findings and recommendations presented in the Daedalus volume are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Academy or the Foundation.

"Over three million Wal-Mart hourly employees who worked in 30 states have received good news," states Lead Counsel Robert J Bonsignore of Bonsignore and Brewer. The Lead Counsel in the consolidated action referred to as "MDL 1735" went on to explain that, "The appeal of the Final Approval of an $85 million settlement has been dismissed and absent further appeals employees can expect to be paid before the end of the year."  Employees are projected to receive between $25.00 and $300.00, depending on their length of service and number of incidents claimed. Depending on the number of claims made the amount of the payment may vary and could go up to $1,000. 

"The summary affirmation of the approval cuts about two years off the appeal process and was based on the hard work of the legal team Lead Counsel Robert Bonsignore assembled and directed," said R. Deryl Edwards, class counsel for several states including Arkansas.  "The summary affirmation of the settlement recognizes the real value of the settlement and the fact that it was reached only after years of hard fought litigation during which Plaintiffs counsels not only worked tirelessly without pay but advanced millions of dollars without any certainty of being paid," Attorney Bonsignore said. Bonsignore went on to add that, "The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court's ruling puts an end to an attempt by 4 of 3.4 million employees, who are represented by lawyers who make a living objecting to class action settlements to block the rest of the class from receiving benefit of the settlement," Attorney Robert Bonsignore went on to say. It is important to add that Wal-Mart stood by their employees.

The settlement class is the largest wage and hour case in United States history. Robert Bonsignore, the employees' national Lead Counsel said during oral argument, "Today is a good day for all concerned. The focus however is singular this case is all about the employees. In addition to the economic value, a real ongoing value is afforded the employees through the injunctive relief component of the settlement." In addition to making $85 Million dollars available, Wal-Mart also agreed to injunctive relief designed to institutionalize measures that eliminate, minimize and/or red flag for corrective action occurrences that were the subject of the employee's action.

Further information contact Robert Bonsignore on his cell phone at 781 856 7650, office 781 350 0000.

SOURCE Bonsignore and Brewer