Recently in business Category

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.

"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

A former political fundraiser, Hassan Nemazee, was sentenced today in federal court in Manhattan to 144 months in prison for defrauding Bank of America, N.A. (BofA), Citibank, N.A., and HSBC Bank USA N.A. out of $292 million in loan proceeds, announced U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara and the FBI's New York Office Acting Assistant Director-in-Charge George Venizelos. In addition to the prison term, U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein ordered Nemazee to pay restitution of more than $292 million to the defrauded banks; to forfeit various real properties, corporate entities, hedge funds, securities accounts and bank accounts; and to serve three years of supervised release.

According to the superseding information to which Nemazee pleaded guilty, documents filed in court, and statements made during the guilty plea and sentencing proceedings, from 1998 to 2009, Nemazee obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in loans from BofA, Citibank, and HSBC. To obtain the loans, Nemazee misrepresented to the banks that he owned hundreds of millions of dollars in collateral, in the form of securities and other assets, which he did not own. In fact, Nemazee used fake documents, including bogus account statements, to show his supposed ownership of the collateral. The documents also contained forged signatures of persons associated with Westminster Securities Corporation, the brokerage firm at which Nemazee claimed to hold these assets, as well as Westminster's clearing firm, Pershing LLC.

The fake account statements and other documents that Nemazee provided also contained telephone numbers, supposedly for Westminster and Pershing, which were in fact assigned to "virtual offices" that Nemazee himself had established or to a cell phone that Nemazee himself had obtained. Nemazee created at least two "virtual offices" in Manhattan that held themselves out, at his direction, as being associated with Westminster and Pershing.

One of the loans from BofA, a $100 million line of credit, was guaranteed by Nemazee's longtime friend and business associate, who pledged a multi-million dollar home in Colorado as collateral on the loan, not knowing that the collateral that Nemazee was pledging did not exist. As of August 2009, Nemazee owed approximately $142 million to BofA and $74.9 million to Citibank.

In August 2009 - when Citibank began to ask questions in order to verify the existence of the purported collateral that Nemazee had pledged for the Citibank loan, and after special agents of the FBI had interviewed Nemazee about the Citibank loan - Nemazee drew down on a line of credit that he had fraudulently obtained from HSBC earlier in 2009 and used those funds to pay Citibank the $74.9 million that he owed.

Nemazee was able to continue the fraud for longer than a decade by, among other things, making partial repayments on his borrowings from BofA with proceeds of his fraud on Citibank and making partial repayments on his borrowings from Citibank with proceeds of his fraud on BofA.

Nemazee used the proceeds of his fraudulent schemes to, among other things: purchase an apartment and land in Italy; make monthly maintenance payments on a Park Avenue apartment; pay for the upkeep of a 12-acre property in Katonah, N.Y.; purchase partial interests in a private plane and a luxury yacht; make personal donations to the election campaigns of federal, state and local candidates, political action committees, and charities; and make various other investments.

Nemazee also used his political donations to enhance his reputation and standing in political circles. In 2009, Nemazee unsuccessfully attempted to capitalize on that standing by seeking nomination to a Cabinet-level position, all the while engaged in the fraud for which he was sentenced. Nemazee had previously been nominated as U.S. Ambassador to Argentina in 1999, but his nomination was withdrawn.

Nemazee, 60, of Manhattan, was ordered to surrender on Aug. 27, 2010.

Nemazee's brother-in-law, Shahin Kashanchi, 47, of Telluride, Colo., is separately charged in an indictment with aiding and abetting Nemazee's bank fraud by manufacturing the fake account statements and other documents that Nemazee used to defraud BofA, Citibank and HSBC. Kashanchi's case is pending in Manhattan federal court. The charge and allegations contained in the indictment charging Kashanchi are merely accusations, and Kashanchi is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

U.S. Attorney Bharara praised the investigative work of the FBI. U.S. Attorney Bharara also thanked BofA, Citibank, HSBC, and Pershing for their assistance in the investigation.

"For over a decade, Hassan Nemazee authored a fantastic fiction, stealing $292 million by acting the part of wealthy and influential power broker," said U.S. Attorney Bharara. "In the end, justice is blind to political affiliations and powerful connections, and today, like any other defendant, Nemazee faces the stark consequences of his decision to violate the law."

"Nemazee lived like a prince, with palatial properties on two continents," said FBI New York office Acting Assistant Director-in-Charge Venizelos. "But he financed this lavish lifestyle with hundreds of millions in fraudulently obtained loans, so his empire was really a house of cards. The FBI remains determined to stop those who steal from banks through deceit and trickery."

This case was brought in coordination with President Barack Obama's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, on which U.S. Attorney Bharara serves as a Co-Chair of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Working Group. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

The case is being handled by the U.S. Attorney's Office's Complex Frauds and Asset Forfeiture Units.

The U.S. Golf Manufacturers Anti-Counterfeiting Working Group (the "Anti-Counterfeiting Group") reports that on June 10, 2010, the Beijing Hadian District Court found five individuals guilty of the crime of attempting to sell counterfeit golf equipment.  The court sentenced the five counterfeiters to jail terms of more than one year and ordered that they pay fines of approximately $54,000 (USD).

The Court found that the defendants operated warehouses containing large quantities of counterfeit golf equipment that was sold in golf stores, including the Beijing World Famous Golf Store and the Beijing Te Qi Qiao International Commerce Center.  After receiving complaints from the Anti-Counterfeiting Group, Chinese PSB officers raided these targets and seized more than 2,300 counterfeit golf clubs and a large number of counterfeit golf caps, bags and accessories.  The seized goods were illegal copies of authentic products made by all of the Group's members.

According to the Group, "the jail sentences demonstrate that counterfeiting is a serious crime.  Counterfeiters steal the trademarks and intellectual property rights of brand owners and defraud consumers who think that they are buying genuine products."

The Anti-Counterfeiting Group consists of the world's leading golf equipment manufacturers. Its members and brands include Acushnet Company - Titleist and FootJoy; Callaway Golf - Odyssey, Top-Flite and Ben Hogan; Cleveland Golf /Srixon and Never Compromise; Nike Golf; PING; and TaylorMade-adidas Golf and Ashworth.  The Anti-Counterfeiting Group was formed in 2004 to petition governments to enforce their country's laws against counterfeiters of golf equipment products.  As a result of the Anti-Counterfeiting Group's petitioning efforts, dozens of successful raids of manufacturing, warehouse, assembly and retail facilities have been executed by Chinese law enforcement and civil enforcement authorities over the past five years.  Many business operators have been arrested and have now been prosecuted and sentenced in the Chinese courts.

The April 20, 2010 oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico killed 11 workers and injured more than 100 after suffering a catastrophic blowout. The owner of the rig, Transocean Ltd, is already attempting to limit its liability for the blast by filing a petition in the Southern District of Texas seeking to limit its overall liability to just over $26 million.

"There are limited circumstances when vessel owners are able to limit liability under the Act.  We don't expect that any of those circumstances will apply here," said Ryan Zehl, who is currently representing several workers who were injured in the Transocean explosion.

For the limitation to work, Transocean must prove that it did not have prior knowledge of the explosion's cause and, as a result, could not have prevented it.  If they show this, Transocean's total liability could be limited to the value of the Deepwater Horizon after it exploded and sunk to the bottom of the ocean, which--according to its filings with the court--is $26,764,083.00, well below its pre-accident value of $650 million.

"The Act was passed before insurance covered against disasters, said Zehl. Because vessels, like the Deepwater Horizon, are now insured, the vessel's owner can--and in this case would if the limitation applies--collect more in insurance proceeds than it has to pay out in damages.  Today, it's just an antiquated remedy that gives companies like Transocean a way to escape responsibility."

Transocean deliberately waited to file the limitation until after the Congressional hearings to avoid criticism for taking such insensitive actions in response to a terrible tragedy," said Zehl. "It appears that the company is more concerned about its bottom line than the lives of its employees and their families."

Fitts Zehl LLP is a national maritime and personal injury law firm that focuses on representing workers who were injured or lost their lives in offshore and other work place explosions.  The firm is currently representing several workers who were injured during the Transocean Deepwater Horizon explosion, and has recovered millions in damages on behalf of injured offshore and refinery workers in connection with 3 of the largest work place explosions since 2005: the BP Texas City explosion, and both the Imperial Sugar refinery explosion and the International Paper explosion in 2008.

In a ground-breaking decision that altered US copyright law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today overturned a lower court ruling that had barred publication of 60 Years Later -- Coming Through the Rye. The case will now return to Judge Deborah A. Batts of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Batts, who had barred the book on July 1, 2009, must now apply a new legal standard to the case.

Attorneys for the author, Fredrik Colting, and his US distributor, SCB Distributors Inc., had argued that publication of 60 Years Later -- a thoughtful literary critique on The Catcher in the Rye and J.D. Salinger - would not harm J.D. Salinger's copyright in Catcher. But the lower court did not require Mr. Salinger to show that he would be irreparably harmed if the book is published. Under the appeals court decision today, the lower court must now require Mr. Salinger's representatives to prove actual harm to his copyright in Catcher before a book ban can issue. The lower court also must consider the interests of the public in having the book published.

"We are pleased that the injunction barring the publication of 60 Years Later has been vacated," said Edward H. Rosenthal of Frankfurt Kurnit. "We are confident that when the district court applies the new analysis required by the appeals court, the book will not be enjoined."

For a copy of the decision, visit http://www.fkks.com/jdsalinger.asp.

SOURCE Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz

No on 17 intentionally trying to mislead voters. 'Parade of Horribles' Listed by Opponents in their Ballot Statements are Result of Current Auto Insurance Regulations, Not Prop. 17

Yes on 17, Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates, a coalition of consumers, businesses, senior organizations, taxpayer advocates and insurers, filed a lawsuit today in Sacramento Superior Court to force Proposition 17 opponents to make changes to their ballot arguments and ballot rebuttals and correct the patently false and misleading statements contained therein.

Proposition 17 on the June 8, 2010, California statewide ballot simply makes an existing persistency or "continuous coverage" discount portable, allowing customers to take it with them if they change insurance companies. Prop. 17 will mean more competition and choice in the auto insurance marketplace and will result in lower rates for drivers.

Prop 17 does not create a new discount. Thus any reductions in premiums or increases for those who are uninsured and do not maintain coverage are the result of current auto insurance regulations, not Prop 17.

Despite this, opponents of Prop 17 are intentionally misleading voters by repeatedly stating Proposition 17 creates new penalties. Statements to this effect appear throughout opponents' ballot arguments and rebuttals and are false and misleading. The "parade of horribles" cited in No on 17's ballot arguments are, in fact, already happening today, and exist under current regulations.

Ballot arguments and rebuttals appear in the Official Voter Information Guide compiled by the California Secretary of State and are distributed to every voter in California. Election law (Elec. Code Section 9092, Gov. Code  Section 88006) states that information in the voter guide must not contain "false and misleading" statements.

Opponents' ballot arguments and ballot rebuttals are available on the Secretary of State's website at www.sos.ca.gov.

"Proposition 17 simply allows responsible drivers who already qualify for a continuous coverage discount to take that discount with them if they change insurance companies. It does not create a new discount," said Kirk West, former president of the California Chamber of Commerce and co-chair of Californians for Fair Insurance rates (Cal-FAIR). 

West continued: "Throughout this campaign, opponents have misled and attempted to confuse voters. Their ballot arguments and rebuttals are more of the same statements. As authors of Proposition 103, they understand that the so-called "penalties" they speak of are attributable to current law and not to Prop. 17. Yet they are hiding behind false and misleading statements because they are afraid to acknowledge taking an anti-consumer position on Prop. 17 by opposing a measure that will result in more competition and more choice for more than 80% of California drivers who would benefit under Prop. 17."

Today, more than 80% of drivers maintain auto insurance and qualify for the persistency or continuous coverage discount, but can only get that discount from their current insurer. Thus, if a driver wants to switch to a new insurance company, he or she loses the discount and has to pay more.

Opponents' primary allegation against Prop. 17, made in a variety of ways in the ballot arguments and rebuttals, is that if Prop. 17 is passed and the continuous coverage discount is made portable, drivers seeking insurance who do not continuously maintain insurance coverage will pay more.

In fact, because the persistency or continuous coverage discount is being offered today, drivers who do not maintain continuous insurance coverage are today paying more to offset price reductions for those who do get the discount.

In other words, any reductions in premiums for drivers who qualify for the persistency discount, or the increase in premium for those who do not maintain continuous coverage, are products of existing regulations - not Proposition 17. 

Moreover, Proposition 17 adds new provisions to existing law that require insurers to offer the persistency discount even after lapses of coverage for up to 90 days for any reason other than nonpayment and for military service overseas; and Proposition 17 expressly does not limit an insurer's ability to offer additional grace periods for lapses. Current law offers none of these protections. As a result, repeated statements in the ballot arguments by opponents that Proposition 17 will increase rates for motorists are false and misleading. Any such increases are the result of existing law, not Proposition 17.

March 15, 2010, is the statutory deadline by which all June 2010 ballot argument challenges must be resolved. Prior to the deadline, Yes on 17 and No on 17 will meet in Sacramento Superior Court for oral argument in front of the judge assigned to this case. Since the suit was filed today no court date or judge has been assigned. There will be no ruling prior to oral argument. In past cases, the presiding judge has ruled from the bench immediately after oral arguments.

Background on ballot arguments and rebuttals in California

In ballot proposition campaigns in California, both the Yes side and No campaigns submit ballot arguments and ballot rebuttals for publication in the Official Voter Information Guide prepared by the California Secretary of State's Office.

Ballot arguments are submitted first. The Secretary of State then exchanges the arguments so each side can prepare a rebuttal to the main arguments for and against the proposition.

Rebuttals are in turn submitted, and then made available for public review along with the rest of the Official Voter Information Guide.

Proponents and opponents review ballot arguments and rebuttals and decide if they meet the California standard. If they do not meet the standard and contain false and misleading statements, lawsuits are permitted to ensure voters are not misled.

Ballot argument/rebuttal submission and litigation takes place months in advance of Election Day to allow time for potential litigation, printing and mailing the Voter Guide.

SOURCE Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates

The law firm of McCuneWright, LLP has filed for a preliminary injunction in United States District Court, Central District of California seeking an immediate order requiring Toyota to expand the Sudden Unintended Acceleration recalls.  

McCuneWright, which filed the first and leading class action lawsuit against Toyota to force the automaker to remedy the sudden unintended acceleration defects in all affected makes and models, is asking the court to issue a specific order requiring Toyota to provide a brake over-ride system on all Toyota models equipped with Electronic Throttle Control System -- intelligent ("ETCS-i") that have experienced significant numbers of sudden acceleration events.

The brake override system is a failsafe system that enables the onboard computer to detect when both the throttle and the brake are being activated simultaneously, recognize that there is an error in the signals it is receiving, and immediately return the throttle to idle.  It is an important failsafe system used by other vehicle manufacturers to keep a sudden unintended acceleration event from turning into a runaway vehicle with resulting crashes, injuries, and deaths.

Toyota has recently announced that it will install this important safety device on all new Toyota and Lexus vehicles.  In its November 26, 2009, recall, Toyota also announced that it would retroactively install this important safety device on just six existing models and further limited the recall to only recent model years -- 2007 -- 2010 Toyota Camry, 2005 -- 2010 Toyota Avalon, 2007 -- 2010 Lexus ES 350, 2007 2010 Lexus GS 350, 2006 -- 2010 Lexus IS 250, and 2006 2010 Lexus IS 350.

The preliminary injunction motion asserts that by limiting this brake over-ride system recall to recent model years for just six vehicle models, Toyota has left more than 75 percent of the affected models and model years out of this important recall.

"Toyota cannot justify limiting this important recall to models and model years that include less than 25 percent of the reported sudden acceleration problems," says Richard McCune, a partner at McCuneWright, LLP. "Toyota has identified an important solution to this problem and it has a duty to its customers and to public safety the apply it to all the Toyota vehicles. Toyota shouldn't wait until there's another deadly crash."

On November 5, 2009, McCuneWright filed the first and leading class action on sudden unintended acceleration, Choi, et. al. v. Toyota Motor Company, et. al. CV 09-08143 AHM (FMOx), in United States District Court, Central District of California.  The preliminary injunction and supporting exhibits can be found on the Court's website or is available at www.mccunewright.com/toyota.

SOURCE McCuneWright, LLP

Jason Eric Kay, age 38, of Longmont, Colo., was arrested this afternoon without incident on charges of misbranding and altering food labels with intent to cause serious injury to the business of any person, the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Food and Drug Administration Office of Criminal Investigations (FDA OCI) announced. Kay will be held overnight in custody. He will likely make his initial appearance in U.S. District Court in Denver tomorrow.

According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, on Jan. 8, 2010, FDA OCI was notified by PepsiCo North America that the company had received multiple complaints from the public involving the re-labeling/tampering of 1 quart Tropical-Mango Flavored Gatorade bottles. The tampered bottles contained unauthorized labels depicting in part, a photograph of professional golfer Tiger Woods and his wife Elin Woods on one side, and the word "unfaithful" on the other side. PepsiCo through its wholly owned subsidiary, manufactures Gatorade. The company had not authorized the labeling of their product in this manner. The company further advised that the bar code on the label was fully functional and none of the bottles appeared to have been opened. Each bottle appeared to be individually numbered. Bottles were removed by personnel at Safeway and King Soopers stores in Erie, Boulder, Broomfield and Longmont, Colo.

"The consumer must have confidence that the labeling on the products they purchase has not been changed or altered in any way so that the information about the product is accurate," said U.S. Attorney David Gaouette. "Once a label is illegally changed, all of the information on that label is put into question."

Kay is charged with:

1. The introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food that is adulterated or misbranded which carries a penalty of not more than 1 year incarceration and not more than a $100,000 fine.

2. The alteration, mutilation, destruction, obliteration, or removal of the whole or any part of the labeling of, or the doing of any other act with respect to food, if such act is done while such article is held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce and results in such article being adulterated or misbranded carries a penalty of not more than 1 year incarceration and not more than a $100,000 fine.

3. With intent to cause serious injury to the business of any person, tainting a consumer product or rendering materially false or misleading the labeling of, or container for, a consumer product which affects interstate or foreign commerce, which carries a penalty of not more than 3 years' incarceration, a not more than a $250,000 fine.

This case was investigated by the Food and Drug Administration Office of Criminal Investigations.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Pena.

A criminal complaint is a probable cause charging document. Anyone accused of committing a federal felony crime has a Constitutional right to be indicted by a federal grand jury.

These charges are only allegations and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Judge Rules Chicago Transit Authority Cannot Ban Computer and Video Game Ads

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) a preliminary injunction in its suit against the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), the ESA said today. The case, which the ESA filed in July 2009, challenges CTA's prohibition of certain computer and video game advertisements as a violation of the guarantees of free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In her opinion, Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer stated, "...the advertisements the CTA wishes to ban promote expression that has constitutional value and implicates core First Amendment concerns."

"This ruling is a win for Chicago's citizens, the video game industry and, above all, the First Amendment," said Michael D. Gallagher, president and CEO of the ESA, which represents U.S. computer and video game publishers. "It is our hope that the CTA sees the futility of pursuing this case further. To do so will waste taxpayer money and government resources. Chicago deserves better and we look forward to bringing this matter to an end."

ESA argued that CTA's Ordinance 008-147, which took effect in January 2009, unfairly targeted the entertainment software industry by prohibiting any advertisement that "markets or identifies a video or computer game rated 'Mature 17+' (M) or 'Adults Only 18+' (AO)." The ESA further contended the ordinance unconstitutionally "restricts speech in a public forum that is otherwise open to all speakers without a compelling interest for doing so." In addition, the ESA's complaint stated that the ordinance impermissibly discriminates on the basis of viewpoint and ignores less restrictive means of achieving the supposed ends of the ordinance. The court ruled that the ESA was likely to succeed on the merits of these claims at trial and, therefore, blocked enforcement of the ordinance until the case could be finally resolved.

The ESA also contended that the CTA's ordinance is unnecessary because game-related marketing is already subject to the Entertainment Software Rating Board's Advertising Review Council, which strictly regulates computer and video game advertisements that are seen by the general public. The Entertainment Software Rating Board assigns computer and video games ratings and content descriptors, which are both displayed on advertisements for those games.

The Entertainment Software Association is the U.S. association dedicated to serving the business and public affairs needs of companies publishing interactive games for video game consoles, handheld devices, personal computers, and the Internet. The ESA offers services to interactive entertainment software publishers including a global anti-piracy program, owning the E3 Expo, business and consumer research, federal and state government relations, First Amendment and intellectual property protection efforts. 

The Business Software Alliance (BSA), which represents the world's commercial software industry, announced today that BSA, on behalf of its member company Autodesk, Inc. has won a $540,115 judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against two individuals and their businesses alleged to have been producing and selling counterfeit software (Case #C09-02337). The lawsuit was originally filed on behalf of plaintiff Autodesk by the BSA in May 2009.

The individual defendants named in the case are Sean Saad of Manchester, New Hampshire, and Mehran Tabatabayee of Missouri City, Texas. The corporate defendants are HS Squared International, LLC, based in Manchester, New Hampshire and BuyPCSoft.com, Inc., based in Missouri City, Texas.

The case against these individuals and companies revolved around Autodesk's flagship product AutoCAD(R) and includes allegations of copyright infringement, circumvention of copyright protection measures, and trademark infringement. The judgment from the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of California, follows an intensive investigation by BSA involving purchases of suspicious software by BSA investigators and reports by members of the public submitted to BSA and Autodesk. Despite the price tag of up to $3,995 per software title, in each instance counterfeit product was received.

Along with the $540,115 judgment, the defendants are permanently enjoined from committing future acts of infringement involving Autodesk software products and Autodesk trademarks. Additionally, they have been ordered to destroy immediately any and all infringing copies of such software in their possession or control.

"This action is still another reminder that the theft of intellectual property such as software will not be tolerated," said Jenny Blank, Senior Director of Legal Affairs for BSA. "Although the BSA works hard to educate and inform people about the dangers of selling or acquiring illegal software, we sometimes need to take stronger actions to stop blatantly illegal activity."

"This particular investigation began as part of BSA's overall efforts against online sales of illegal software. As part of our global Internet program, we have focused attention on Web sites and individuals who profit illegally from the sale of products which they have no right to reproduce and sell. Ultimately, such fraudsters are duping unsuspecting consumers with substandard and potentially dangerous products," said Blank.

In part to reaffirm the growing severity of the consequences involved in participating in software piracy, BSA recently released "Faces of Internet Piracy," a revealing look at the human side of software piracy. Through this campaign, BSA spotlights true stories of people affected by piracy. According to Blank, "These stories are a wake-up call for distributors and users of illegal software. "Don't take our word for it; just listen to these software pirates explain how they made money by duping thousands of people into purchasing or downloading illegal software from the Internet. Hear how their actions ended up costing them serious fines and prison sentences."

Veteran Managers at SONGS Nuclear Power Plant near San Clemente Say Southern California Edison Retaliated When They Reported Nuclear Safety Concerns

In whistleblower complaints filed this week with the U.S. Department of Labor, two managers at Southern California Edison's San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) say the company violated federal law when it retaliated against them for raising nuclear safety concerns.

Rick Busnardo and Mike Mason have worked at SONGS for 25 and 29 years respectively, and together manage the fabrication shop that builds steel casks for the long-term storage of the plant's spent fuel rods. The integrity of the casks is critical because the spent fuel remains highly radioactive for hundreds of years.

Busnardo and Mason allege that trouble began when they reported a "willful violation" of nuclear-safety standards to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in October 2008, after learning that a fabricator in their shop had performed welding operations that fell short of the plants' quality-assurance specifications. Busnardo and Mason believe their report angered Edison management because the NRC had cited the SONGS plant for a high level of such willful violations several months earlier, and the company wanted to avoid further scrutiny.

When upper-level management began to ostracize Busnardo and Mason and downplay the accuracy of their report, the two managers wrote an email to Edison's CEO and other senior management complaining that the company had created a chilled environment in which employees were afraid to raise safety concerns for fear of retaliation. The managers allege that Edison responded to their whistleblowing by removing their duties, denying Busnardo a promotion, issuing Mason a negative performance review, and attacking their professional reputations.

David J. Marshall, an attorney with the Washington, D.C., whistleblower law firm of Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP who represents the workers, said that Busnardo and Mason have filed their complaints to ensure that SONGS employees and other nuclear workers can raise safety concerns without fear of retaliation. "Busnardo and Mason are protecting the health and safety of their coworkers and their communities," Marshall said. "Millions of people are in serious danger if workers at nuclear power plants can't speak out about safety problems without losing their jobs."

Sixteen new lawsuits allege that KBR, Inc. (NYSE: KBR) jeopardized the health and safety of tens of thousands of American soldiers and private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan by burning vast quantities of unsorted waste in enormous open-air burn pits with no safety controls.

The lawsuits were filed during the past week in federal courts throughout the nation by Burke O'Neil LLC and co-counsel on behalf of military veterans and private contractors. The suits allege that round-the-clock hazardous emissions from the burn pits caused illnesses such as multiple cancers, respiratory disease, pulmonary complications, chronic coughing, debilitating headaches, and neurological and skin disorders.

KBR is accused of allowing thick, noxious smoke, coming off of flames sometimes colored blue or green by burning chemicals, to hang over U.S. bases and camps across Iraq and Afghanistan since 2004.

According to the complaints, the burn pits are so large that tractors are used to push waste onto them and the flames shoot hundreds of feet into the sky. KBR allegedly burned waste such as biohazard materials including human corpses, medical supplies, paints, solvents, asbestos, items containing pesticides, animal carcasses, tires, lithium batteries, Styrofoam, wood, rubber, medical waste, large amounts of plastics, and even entire trucks.

Susan L. Burke, Elizabeth M. Burke, and Susan M. Sajadi, of Burke O'Neil LLC, in Washington, D.C., and co-counsel represent the more than 200 veterans, KBR employee-contractors and families in the cases which are pending in 37 states.

Elizabeth M. Burke, of Burke O'Neil LLC, stated, "KBR utterly disregarded the safety of the troops when they chose to use open air burn pits and failed to use incinerators and other safer methods of waste disposal. The hazards of operating large open-air burn pits were well known, and KBR promised to minimize the environmental effects of the burn sites they operated in Iraq and Afghanistan. KBR willfully endangered these men and women who honorably served their country in military service or in support of the military."

The legal team for the plaintiffs intends to seek class certification of the lawsuits to cover costs of medical monitoring, future medical expenses, and other damages for other individuals exposed to KBR burn pit emissions.

The new cases were filed in federal courts in Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington. Earlier this year, dozens of other current and former military personnel, private contractors and families of men who allegedly died as a result of exposure to toxic emissions from KBR burn pits brought similar claims.

Crown Athlete Management Company, Inc. ("Crown AMG"), an athlete management, marketing, and sponsorship procurement company, has filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Hansen Beverage Company ("HBC"), doing business as Monster Beverage Company ("Monster") for fraud, intentional interference with contractual relations, and related claims. The lawsuit, filed in San Diego County, alleges that Monster fraudulently induced Crown AMG to enter into agreements, fraudulently concealed its true intentions to exclude Crown AMG from earning fees and commissions, and made numerous false promises to Crown AMG about potential future business opportunities.

In 2003, Scott "Hollywood" Sepkovic founded Crown AMG as a comprehensive marketing, branding, and athlete management firm. According to the lawsuit, that same year, Crown AMG was recruited by Mark Hall, President of Monster, to help market and build brand recognition for the "new" Monster Energy Drink. The Monster Energy Drink had only been launched the prior year, and had yet to establish significant brand recognition.

Over the next 6 years, Crown AMG was instrumental in building brand recognition for Monster worldwide. HBC's sales skyrocketed from $115 million in 2002 to $1.18 billion in 2008. Crown AMG believes that its efforts helped HBC land the #1( )position on the "Forbes 200 Best Small Companies" List in 2005 and 2007. Further, in July of 2006, Fortune Magazine stated that, "Since the beginning of 2004, Hansen Natural's stock [had] risen a Google-stomping 3,900% to $170."

In the lawsuit, Crown AMG alleges that Monster unlawfully interfered with Crown AMG's business by, among other things, filing lawsuits against Crown AMG clients, instructing Crown AMG's clients not to pay Crown AMG, and making false representations to Crown AMG and its clients.

"We are seeking appropriate relief from the court and will continue conducting business in the meantime," said Scott Sepkovic, President of Crown AMG. "I can only say that Crown AMG suffered and continues to suffer actual monetary loss as a result of Monster's interference with Crown AMG's relationships with many companies and individuals."

The lawsuit alleges that Monster adhered to its own motto - "Unleash the Beast" - and ignored the law by bullying its former allies into submission. The lawsuit appears intended to disabuse Monster of that belief, and seeks punitive damages to punish Monster for its alleged unlawful conduct. The lawsuit was filed on November 3, 2009, and no court determination has been reached on the merits.

The Business Software Alliance (BSA), the voice of the world's commercial software industry, has identified Texas as a national hotspot in terms of reports of illegal software use and is urging individuals across the state and in the Houston area specifically to report the use of pirated software by businesses to NoPiracy.com.

In conjunction with the online software piracy reporting network at NoPiracy.com, BSA also maintains the manned 1-888-NO PIRACY hotline. Individuals can confidentially offer information on unlicensed software use as well as register to claim rewards of up to $1 million. Since 2008, BSA has paid a total of $220,650 in rewards for verifiable tips of software piracy. Despite the rewards program, many opt not to take the reward, citing their motivation as simply "to do the right thing."

Reporting by the general public over the past nine months shows that the state of Texas is a top five hotspot for reports of illegal software use with a large portion coming from the Houston area. Dallas-Ft. Worth was a close second in terms of reports of software piracy, while the Austin and San Antonio regions were a distant third and fourth.

"This is the first time BSA has identified specific U.S. states as 'Software Piracy Hotspots,' although our records over the last years have shown that Houston has consistently been active in terms of illegal software reports," said Jenny Blank, Senior Director of Legal Affairs for BSA. "Our analysis of the trends suggests two things: First, given the number of leads from Southeastern and central Texas, people in the state are obviously quite concerned about this issue and don't like the idea of local companies using what amounts to stolen software products. Second, there are clearly a lot of companies in Texas who are not concerned that they are breaking the law and are willing to take the risks associated with that decision. For many companies, such blatant disregard for the law has proven costly."

Each year, BSA receives on average over 2,500 reports of software piracy from across the country. The majority of the reports come from current or former employees who had information related to the unlicensed software activity.

According to the Sixth Annual BSA-IDC Global Software Piracy Study, the retail value of unlicensed software installed in 2008 -- representing revenue losses to software companies -- was estimated at $9.1 billion in the United States and $53 billion worldwide.

The national average software piracy rate in 2008 was 20%, meaning that one in five pieces of PC software installed in the United States was unlicensed. Texas' rate however is also 20% according to the 2007 State Piracy Report released last year and also conducted by IDC. While in line with the national average, the rate is still dismally high given the cost of piracy to the economy.

Software piracy in Texas cost software vendors an estimated $627 million, which is the third-highest figure of the eight states included in the study. Lost revenues to a wider group of Texas software distributors and service providers cost an additional $1.7 billion, which is, for example, enough to hire more than 9,200 tech workers. The lost state and local tax revenues -- $223 million -- would also have been enough to fund the hiring of more than 4,000 experienced police officers. These are significant economic losses especially in light of the troubled economy.

Reducing piracy brings tangible economic benefits to the local IT industry and local communities. For every $1 of PC software licensed, there is another $3 to $4 of revenues for local service and distribution firms, as well as tax revenues to support local services, according to the BSA-IDC Global Software Piracy Study.

"Staggering economic losses like these clearly appear to resonate with many individuals in Texas who have decided to come forward and confidentially report instances of unlicensed software use in their organizations," said Blank.

Financial Risks

Businesses found to be using unlicensed software may be required to pay thousands of dollars in damages to BSA. A company found using unlicensed software and violating copyright laws could pay damages of up to $150,000 for each software title copied. If convicted, violators can be fined up to $250,000 per title or given a jail term of up to five years, or both.

When BSA receives a tip about a company using pirated software, it typically contacts the company and asks it to conduct an audit of its software assets. If unlicensed software is found, the next step is for both parties to work toward a resolution that involves immediate legalization of software.

Security Risks

Pirated software can also pose security risks to the users' networks and computers. Company computers can be infected with trojans, viruses, malware, and other threats, and this in turn can expose sensitive data and personal information of employees and customers. As companies and government agencies have found, having confidential information exposed to outsiders is costly and can put an organization's reputation at risk.

Tools & Resources to Ensure Compliance

BSA works with businesses to help ensure that their company isn't at risk of the financial, technical, and legal risks associated with illegal software. In addition to the educational and self-audit resources provided online at www.bsa.org, BSA has partnered with the U.S. Small Business Administration to educate up to 100,000 small businesses on software licenses, copyright laws, tips on how to purchase safe and legal software online, and how to develop an SAM program.

Olshan Grundman Frome Rosenzweig & Wolosky LLP today announced that Kyle C. Bisceglie, as trial counsel, Renee M. Zaytsev and other Olshan attorneys including Herbert C. Ross and Joshua S. Androphy won a $44 million jury award in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in Albuquerque for client Guidance Endodontics, LLC. The verdict against Dentsply International, Inc. and Dentsply's endodontics subsidiary, Tulsa Dental Products, LLC, is reputed to be the largest current standing verdict in New Mexico state or federal court history. Olshan's co-counsel in New Mexico was Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris and Sisk, PA led by its distinguished shareholder John J. Kelly, Esq.

The three-week trial from September 18, 2009 to October 9, 2009 before U.S. District Court Judge James O. Browning to a nine member jury was the culmination of multi-year, multi-jurisdiction litigations between Guidance, Dentsply and Tulsa Dental. In this case, Guidance sued Dentsply and Tulsa Dental on November 21, 2008 seeking damages and injunctive relief arising from multiple breaches of an exclusive manufacturing and supply agreement, anti-competitive and unfair business practices under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act and violation of the Lanham Act. The Court granted Guidance both a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in eight days of hearings in December 2008 and January 2009. Dentsply and Tulsa Dental filed multiple claims of their own against Guidance and its founder, Dr. Charles J. Goodis.

At trial, Guidance alleged that the defendants intentionally thwarted Guidance's business by refusing to supply endodontic instruments as stipulated in the agreement between the companies. Additionally, Guidance claimed that Dentsply and Tulsa Dental disparaged Guidance, used their position as Guidance's supplier to their own competitive advantage and targeted Guidance and its customers. Guidance argued that defendants' motive was to retain defendants' dominant market share and high prices in the face of Guidance's low cost provider model of business.

The case was tried approximately ten months after Guidance sued. Guidance sought $6.7 million in compensatory and $52 million in punitive damages, and ultimately won $4 million in compensatory damages and $40 million in punitive damages. As part of its verdict, the jury found for Guidance on two claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and willful breach of the New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act.

"We are pleased with the jury's decision," said Mr. Bisceglie. "Clearly the jury sent a message to Dentsply about its business practices, and our hope is that Dentsply will heed and respect the jury's decision." The jury verdict could have far-reaching consequences for the endodontic and dental industry.

SOURCE Olshan Grundman Frome Rosenzweig & Wolosky LLP

Porter Wright Partner Joyce Edelman was the lead attorney in litigation that resulted in the Ohio Supreme Court imposing nearly $6.4 million in fines against American Family Prepaid Legal Corporation and Heritage Marketing and Insurance Services Inc. and their co-owners, Jeffrey and Stanley Norman, and directing the companies to cease all operations in the State of Ohio. These penalties resulted from Porter Wright's representation of the Columbus Bar Association in connection with the association's efforts to curtail an illegal trust mill scheme that preyed upon Ohio's elderly population and involved the unauthorized practice of law by non-lawyers.

In a statement released today, Columbus Bar Association President Elizabeth Watters lauded Ms. Edelman and her colleagues at Porter Wright: "I want to thank Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, LLP and its team of skilled lawyers - especially Joyce Edelman - who selflessly assisted the Columbus Bar on a pro bono basis. Their hard work and support was reflected in this decision, and they did a masterful job in arguing the case to the Supreme Court's Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law and the Ohio Supreme Court. The case and the decision reflect the very best aspects of the law and the legal profession at work to benefit the public and protected it from the unprincipled and the greedy."

In the lawsuit, the Columbus Bar Association alleged that, over a number of years, American Family and Heritage Marketing ran a trust mill scheme in which they and their agents convinced thousands of Ohio senior citizens to pay nearly $2,000 for allegedly discounted prepaid legal services, which were never provided. Instead, the only product customers received was a living trust and other estate planning instruments, which, in many cases, were unnecessary or inappropriate to meet the customers' legal needs. To convince customers to buy, agents used aggressive tactics during in-home presentations that took advantage of customers' advanced age. They also used marketing materials that misrepresented facts, deceptively exaggerated the disadvantages of the probate process to frighten customers into purchasing living trusts, and overstated the need for and cost of attorney services during the probate process. The combination of tactics employed by the agents created a high-pressure, deceptive sales pitch to which many vulnerable citizens fell prey. Those citizens were often further victimized as a result of the companies' follow-up visits, which pressured customers to buy follow-on products such as insurance services and deferred annuities. Because the scheme resulted in non-lawyers offering legal advice, the Columbus Bar Association stepped in to protect the public.

Approximately 40 Porter Wright lawyers, law clerks, and staff members contributed to the firm's efforts on behalf of the Columbus Bar Association. Among those, Associate Aaron Shank worked hand-in-hand with Ms. Edelman to protect the public's interest. In all, the firm has invested thousands of pro bono hours on these matters during the last several years.

Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP is a large regional law firm that traces its origins to 1846 in Ohio. With offices in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Dayton, Ohio; Washington, D.C.; and Naples, Florida, Porter Wright provides counsel to a worldwide base of clients.

SOURCE Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP

A new investigative report from Consumerist.com shines a spotlight on the business practices of Cash4Gold, which bills itself as the "World's #1 Gold Buyer," and on the company's efforts to silence Internet criticism through litigation and financial incentives.

The report adds that the gold-buying company recently sued Consumerist.com by appending the consumer-focused website to existing lawsuits against two former employees. The employees, Michele Liberis and Vielka Nephew, are accused of defamation and disclosing confidential information about the company in public statements and in Liberis' post about Cash4Gold on a consumer-complaint site. That site, ComplaintsBoard.com, was also added to the suits.

The legal action against the Consumerist.com stems from its post last February titled "10 Confessions of a Cash4Gold Employee," which was part of the site's ongoing coverage of the company. The post was based on comments that Liberis, who formerly worked in C4G's customer service department, had submitted anonymously to ComplaintsBoard.com describing how Cash4Gold manages to pay customers a fraction of what their gold is worth.

In its advertising, the Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.-based company had promised "top dollar" to people who send in their valuables to be melted down. But in a test conducted with the help of its sister company, Consumer Reports, Consumerist.com found that Cash4Gold offered as little as 11% of the "melt value" of gold necklaces that were submitted for appraisal. "The results reinforce advice we've offered before," the Consumerist.com report says, "which is that consumers should not use these services because the payments they offer are too low. No matter how nice the person is who gives it to you, a bad deal is still a bad deal."

Led by co-executive editors Ben Popken and Meg Marco, the Consumerist.com investigation is the months-long culmination of reporting that includes interviews with former employees Liberis and Nephew, Cash4Gold customers, the Better Business Bureau, the local fire department and the US Postal Service.

"We follow-up on such challenges conscientiously," says Marc Perton, Executive Editor for Online Media at Consumers Union, "and so we immediately set out to learn whether the company's allegations had merit, both through our own research and through requests to Cash4Gold for more information." The company has declined to cooperate, though, and just this week canceled a scheduled interview with Cash4Gold CEO Jeff Aronson.

The investigation provided support to Consumerist.com's decision to publish the "10 Confessions" post in the first place, and also turned up evidence that supports Liberis' account of certain business practices and working conditions at the firm. But the Consumerist.com also found that Cash4Gold may have made improvements in the time since Liberis worked there last year. For example, Liberis said the firm was shut down temporarily for "health and code violations," a statement the company disputed. Fire department records show that the Cash4Gold location was indeed shut down after a number of violations last year, but that Cash4Gold has accumulated no new violations since moving to a different address earlier this year.

"We're proud of the work that Ben and Meg have done, and we only regret that their report could not include a response from Cash4Gold CEO Jeff Aronson beyond his earlier public comments," Perton said. "We also hope today's post will help lay to rest the idea that blogs don't do investigative reporting."

SOURCE Consumer Reports

Lee William Dubois, a former Department of Defense (DoD) contractor, was sentenced today to three years in prison for his participation in a scheme to steal fuel worth approximately $39.6 million from the U.S. Army in Iraq, announced Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division Lanny A. Breuer and U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Dana J. Boente.

Dubois, 32, of Lexington, S.C., was sentenced today by U.S. District Court Judge Gerald Bruce Lee in the Eastern District of Virginia. Dubois had pleaded guilty to a one-count information charging him with theft of government property on Oct. 7, 2008. In connection with his plea, Dubois testified at the trial of his co-conspirator, Robert Jeffery, who was convicted by a jury on Aug. 11, 2009. Dubois also repaid to the U.S. government $450,000 that represented the illicit proceeds of the scheme.

In his plea, Dubois admitted that between July 2007 and May 2008, he and his co-conspirators, purportedly representing DoD contractors in Iraq, used fraudulently-obtained documents to enter the Victory Bulk Fuel Point (VBFP) in Camp Liberty, Iraq, and presented false fuel authorization forms to steal aviation and diesel fuel from the VBFP for subsequent sale on the black market. According to plea documents, the United States owns and operates the VBFP in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The VBFP supplies aviation and diesel fuel to both military units and U.S. government contractors operating in and around the VBFP. To retrieve and transport the stolen fuel from the VBFP, Dubois admitted he and his co-conspirators employed approximately 10 individuals to serve as drivers and escorts of the trucks containing the stolen fuel. These individuals were able to enter the VBFP illegally by using government-issued common access cards.

Dubois admitted he obtained the cards by falsely representing to the U.S. Army that the drivers and escorts were employees of a DoD contractor, when, in fact, they were not employed by any government contractors. In addition, Dubois admitted he went to the VBFP and presented false documents authorizing his co-conspirators to draw fuel. Dubois also admitted that for two months during the scheme, he served as the lead escort for the stolen fuel. According to information contained in the plea documents, during the course of the scheme, Dubois and his co-conspirators stole approximately 10 million gallons of fuel worth approximately $39.6 million. Dubois received at least $450,000 in personal profits from the subsequent sale of the fuel on the black market.

In related cases, Robert Jeffery was convicted on Aug. 11, 2009, after a two-day jury trial, of one count of conspiracy and one count of theft of government property for his role in the fuel theft. Robert Young and Michel Jamil each pleaded guilty to participating in the same scheme. The evidence at trial showed that Jeffery served as an escort for the fuel trucks and retrieved hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel from the VBFP. Sentencing for Jeffery is scheduled for December 11, 2009.

Young, 56, a former captain in the U.S. Army, pleaded guilty on July 24, 2009. In his guilty plea, Young admitted that between October 2007 and May 2008, he and his co-conspirators used fraudulently-obtained documents to enter the VBFP and presented false fuel authorization forms to steal aviation and diesel fuel from the VBFP for subsequent sale on the black market. As a result of the scheme, Young received approximately $1 million in personal profits. Sentencing for Young is scheduled for Oct. 30, 2009.

Jamil, 59, pleaded guilty on July 27, 2009, with his role in the scheme. Jamil admitted that in March 2007, he and two of his co-conspirators arranged for the creation of a false Memorandum for Record (MFR) authorizing individuals to draw fuel from VBFP, purportedly on behalf of a company serving as a contractor to the U.S. government. Jamil admitted that he and his co-conspirators used this false MFR and others to steal large quantities of fuel from the U.S. Army for subsequent sale on the Iraqi black market. As a result of the scheme, Jamil admitted he received between $75,000 and $87,500 in profits. Sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 13, 2009.

The case is being prosecuted by Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Linick, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division's Fraud Section, and Fraud Section Trial Attorneys Andrew Gentin and Brigham Cannon. The investigation of this case was conducted by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the Washington Field Office of the FBI and members of the National Procurement Fraud Task Force and the International Contract Corruption Task Force (ICCTF).

The National Procurement Fraud Task Force, created in October 2006 by the Department of Justice, was designed to promote the early detection, identification, prevention and prosecution of procurement fraud associated with the increase in government contracting activity for national security and other government programs. The ICCTF is a joint law enforcement agency task force that seeks to detect, investigate and dismantle corruption and contract fraud resulting from U.S. Overseas Contingency Operations, including in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kuwait.

Source: US Dept. of Justice

The U.S. Department of Labor has obtained a consent judgment and order requiring the former president of Chicago-based AA Capital Partners Inc. to restore $50 million in losses to five Michigan pension funds as restitution for misuse of the plans' assets to benefit the investment firm and himself. The judgment also bars defendant John Orecchio from serving in a fiduciary or service provider capacity to any employee benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

"Fiduciaries have a legal obligation to ensure plan assets are used only to pay benefits and reasonable expenses of a plan. Those who violate that trust will be held accountable for their actions," said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis.

Although Orecchio has submitted proof of current inability to make restitution, the consent judgment requires him to submit annual financial statements to the Labor Department and to pay off the judgment as funds are received by him.

The Labor Department filed a lawsuit on April 10, 2008 against AA Capital Partners, its co-owner and president Orecchio, chief financial officer Mary Elizabeth Stevens, and affiliate AA Capital Liquidity Management, LLC for allegedly misusing plan assets and charging the plans excessive fees on investments. In July 2008, the department filed an amended complaint adding an additional count which alleged that plan assets were imprudently invested in a limited partnership created to invest in Xyience Inc., a Nevada corporation which manufactures and sells food, vitamins and beverages, even though a prudent investigation had not been conducted with respect to this investment strategy.

The pension plans that suffered losses as a result of Orecchio's actions covered more than 60,000 participants of the Carpenters Pension Trust Fund of Detroit and Vicinity, Operating Engineers Local No. 324 Pension Fund, Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters Annuity Fund, Millwrights' Local No. 1102 Supplemental Pension Fund, and Michigan Teamsters Joint Council #43 Pension Fund. As of April 30, 2006, the pension plans had total assets of approximately $3.1 billion.

At various times from 2002 to 2006, the defendants allegedly improperly used $25.9 million of the plans' assets to pay for, among other things, the operating expenses of the firm, renovations to a horse farm, and a strip club owned by Orecchio. In addition, they caused the plans to pay unauthorized fees to AA Capital.

AA Capital is a registered investment advisory firm to employee benefit plans, including ERISA-covered benefit plans. The firm created AA Capital Liquidity Management as the general partner for a fund that invested in real estate loans and entities that developed real property. In 2006, AA Capital was placed in the hands of a court-appointed receiver.

The Chicago Regional Office of the Labor Department's Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) investigated this case. The suit was filed in federal district court in Chicago. Employers and workers can contact the Chicago office at 312-353-0900 or EBSA's toll-free number, 866-444-3272, for help with problems relating to private-sector health and pension plans.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor

The Business Software Alliance (BSA), which represents the world's commercial software industry, announced today that Donegal Mutual Insurance Company of Marietta, PA paid $105,000 to settle claims that it had unlicensed copies of Microsoft software installed on its computers. As part of the settlement agreement, Donegal agreed to delete all unlicensed copies of software on its computers, purchase any licenses necessary to become compliant, and commit to implementing stronger software asset management (SAM) practices.

BSA was alerted to the unlicensed software use by a confidential report made on BSA's website www.nopiracy.com. Each year, BSA receives more than 2,500 reports of software piracy to its website and hotline, 1-888-NO PIRACY. The majority of BSA's leads come from current or former employees who had information related to the unlicensed software activity.

"Upon learning of the licensing problem, Donegal immediately came into compliance," said a spokesperson from the company.

Through BSA's "Know it, Report it, Reward it" program, individuals who provide qualified reports of software piracy are eligible to receive up to $1 million in cash rewards. In 2008, the BSA paid a total of $136,100 in rewards to 42 individuals for tips about software piracy. Despite the rewards program, many opt not to take the reward. Informal studies conducted by BSA suggest that a key driver for reporting software piracy is the motivation to simply "do the right thing."

Software piracy affects more than just the software industry. According to the Sixth Annual BSA and IDC Global Software Piracy Study, the worldwide PC software piracy rate rose from 38 percent to 41 percent and the retail value of unlicensed software--representing revenue losses to software companies--was estimated at $53 billion. Piracy also saps local governments of needed tax revenues and spreads information security risks. However, reducing piracy also brings economic benefits for the local IT industry. For every $1 of PC software licensed, there is another $3 to $4 of revenues for local service and distribution firms. "If one message is loud and clear, it's that doing the right thing by using legal software is the key to both reducing piracy, strengthening the local IT industry, and driving jobs so needed during these challenging economic times," said Jenny Blank, Senior Director of Legal Affairs for BSA.

Financial Risks

Businesses found to be using pirated software could pay thousands of dollars in damages for infringing BSA members' copyrights. A company found using pirated software and violating copyright laws can be liable for damages of up to $150,000 for each software title copied. If convicted, violators can be fined up to $250,000 per title or given a jail term of up to five years, or both.

When BSA receives a tip about a company using unlicensed software, it typically contacts the company and asks it to conduct an audit of its software assets. Then both parties work toward a resolution that involves immediate legalization of software. If an agreement cannot be reached, BSA may opt to file a lawsuit, as in last July's case with Taney Engineering of Nevada.

Security Risks

By utilizing pirated software, users' networks and computers are vulnerable to serious IT security threats. Company computers could be infected with Trojans, viruses, malware, and other threats. The lack of security could also compromise sensitive data and the personal information of its employees and customers. As companies and government agencies have found, having confidential information exposed to outsiders is costly and can also put an organization's reputation at risk.

Tools & Resources to Ensure Compliance

BSA works with businesses to help ensure that their company isn't at risk for financial, technical, and legal risks associated with illegal software. In addition to resources provided on www.bsa.org, BSA partnered with the U.S. Small Business Administration to educate up to 100,000 small businesses on software licenses, copyright laws, tips on how to purchase safe and legal software online, and how to develop a Software Asset Management program. Through the partnership, BSA helps small businesses develop smart strategies to manage their software.

Businesses trying to determine whether their organizations are using unlicensed software can download the free software audit tools at www.bsaaudit.com.

SOURCE Business Software Alliance

Shattering the warm and fuzzy image that has sustained German toymaker Steiff GmbH for over a century, a longtime Steiff employee has brought a lawsuit against the company's chief executive officer, accusing him of a five-year campaign of sexual harassment and intimidation, including outright sexual assault in the passenger seat of his wife's car.

The complaint, filed in New York State Supreme Court, details a pattern of uninvited and unwelcome hounding by Martin Frechen, 40, CEO of Steiff since 2006 and previously chief executive of the company's North American operations, where the alleged harassment began two years earlier.

The claims have been brought by Jane Collins, now 32, who began working at Steiff in 2000 as a temporary receptionist and has since risen to become an assistant marketing manager, responsible for creating custom special products for some of the company's largest customer retail accounts in the U.S. Ironically, Ms. Collins was at one time Mr. Frechen's executive assistant, considering him both a mentor and a friend.

In addition to the lawsuit, Ms. Collins has filed a separate complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination - Steiff's U.S. operations are based in Raynham, Mass., outside Boston.

The claims are in striking contrast to the public image of Mr. Frechen, who serves as the human face of Steiff, regularly posing with the company's adorable stuffed animals at toy shows and in the media. In addition to alleging that the CEO stalked and propositioned her personally, Ms. Collins recounts numerous instances where Mr. Frechen made sexually-charged comments in front of groups of employees, as well as discussing visits to strip clubs.

As if her CEO's behavior was not disturbing enough, Ms. Collins further charges that her appeals for help to Steiff's current head of U.S. operations, James Pitocco, were dismissed, minimized, or met with unhelpful suggestions such as to modify her appearance or avoid wearing "cute dresses."

Upon learning of Ms. Collins' distress at having to work with her former boss when he returned to the U.S. as companywide CEO, Mr. Pitocco allegedly responded, "Don't tell me any more -- the less I know the better." Mr. Pitocco, 51, is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit, as is Steiff's U.S. operations, Steiff North America Inc.

Steiff, headquartered in Giengen, Germany, was founded in 1880 by Margarete Steiff, an enterprising dressmaker with a love of children, whose very first creation was an elephant-shaped pincushion made of felt. The company remains private and family-owned by a small group of shareholders, including Margarete Steiff's heirs.

Steiff today manufactures an extensive line of high-quality stuffed animals -- elephants, tigers, giraffes, lions, monkeys and, best-known of all, variations of the iconic Steiff Teddy bear. All of its branded animals carry the company's well-known "button in ear", and Steiff also sells animal key chains and other trinkets. In addition to its worldwide reputation for distinctive and high-priced toys treasured by collectors as well as children, Steiff is revered in its native Germany. Its motto: "Only the best is good enough for children."

Despite its worldwide renown, Steiff remains a small, close-knit company with only a handful of full-time employees in the U.S., plus a larger number of sales representatives. A number of incidents cited in Ms. Collins' complaint took place in New York City and are subject to New York State and City human rights laws.

Steiff also does substantial business in New York through its sales to major retailers and toy shops, as well as its regular appearances at the annual Toy Fair Show each February. Indeed, to ensure that Mr. Frechen would be personally served in the U.S., he received service of Ms. Collins' pending complaint while visiting FAO Schwarz's flagship store on Fifth Avenue, recently purchased by Toys "R" Us.

Ms. Collins and Mr. Frechen both worked at the company's Raynham, Mass. facility from 2000 to 2004, when he returned to Germany to join another company. That opportunity apparently did not last long and Mr. Frechen was soon back at Steiff, this time as chief executive of the entire firm.

Although Mr. Frechen's new position was based in Germany, the long distance allegedly did not prevent him from calling Ms. Collins repeatedly and, during his periodic business trips to the U.S., pursuing and harassing her as he had done prior to his departure.

From Executive Assistant to Victim

Ms. Collins, who resides in Fall River, Mass. and holds an associate's degree in early childhood education, was originally hired at Steiff's Raynham facility in 2000 as a receptionist and company phone operator. Significantly, she notes, she never received an employee handbook and has never been aware of such a document existing at Steiff, including any protocols for reporting and responding to complaints of sexual harassment.

When Mr. Frechen arrived with his family in 2002 to become CEO of Steiff North America Inc., Ms. Collins was reassigned as his executive assistant. In Ms. Collins' current position as assistant marketing manager, she is a liaison to many of the company's major retail accounts and shares responsibility for product development, advertising materials and communications between the company's German and American offices. She has received consistently positive reviews and commendations for her dedication and work, as well as merit-based bonuses.

According to her complaint, Ms. Collins' and Mr. Frechen's relationship was thoroughly professional until he began preparing to return to Germany in 2004 to join another company outside the toy industry. The professional demeanor Mr. Frechen had maintained with his executive assistant completely disintegrated in September 2004, Ms. Collins' complaint alleges, as the time approached for him to leave both the U.S. and Steiff.

Misconduct at Hotel, Assault in a Shipping Container

Outlined in the complaint, Mr. Frechen first tried to make sexual contact with Ms. Collins in 2004 during a Steiff corporate event in a Plymouth, Mass. hotel where Steiff employees were staying. After asking her to accompany him to his room to retrieve some papers, Mr. Frechen confided in Ms. Collins that his wife and young son were out shopping. He then hugged and forcefully attempted to kiss Ms. Collins, which she resisted. According to Ms. Collins, Mr. Frechen's only comment on his sudden pass at her was that this was their "goodbye," as they would no longer be working together; beyond that, he neither apologized nor explained his actions.

Later that evening, Mr. Frechen approached Ms. Collins at a hotel event and invited her to meet him behind a nearby gas station, which she also refused. The exchange was overheard by one of Ms. Collins' colleagues, whom she later asked to accompany her when she left the hotel out of apprehension over Mr. Frechen's intentions.

Ms. Collins claims that her boss's overtures grew far more aggressive days later, as Mr. Frechen made final preparations to return his family's possessions to Germany. After asking Ms. Collins to arrange for a shipping container to transport his wife's car, a Volkswagen Golf, to Europe, Mr. Frechen invited Ms. Collins to lunch, to which she reluctantly agreed.

Instead of heading to a nearby diner, Mr. Frechen drove to a warehouse where the shipping container was located, under the pretext of determining if the car would fit inside. According to the complaint, once the car was enclosed in the storage unit, Mr. Frechen shut the container door, returned to the car and, suddenly positioning himself on top of Ms. Collins, raped her. As he fumbled with his trousers and tried to undress her, he maneuvered to push the passenger seat back to the prone position. Ms. Collins fiercely resisted the much stronger Mr. Frechen, who repeatedly told her, "It is okay." Bizarrely, after raping Ms. Collins, Mr. Frechen confessed to her that it was the first time he had cheated on his wife.

Too fearful of the consequences to report the incident, Ms. Collins began keeping a journal shortly after the assault in an effort to clear her thinking and calm her nerves. Her earliest entries explain in part her hesitancy about informing on Mr. Frechen either to the police or to anyone at Steiff. "Even if I tell anyone no one will believe me," Ms. Collins wrote on October 22, 2004, shortly after the attack in the storage container. "I am so scared I will lose my job. I need to put food on my table."

Five years later, in an interview, Ms. Collins reflects back on her decision: "I was a single mom at the time and I simply couldn't afford to lose this job. He wasn't just my boss, he was the head of the company. It's only more recently that I've come to accept the fact that he raped me. Before, I had put it out of my mind because I thought there was nothing I could do and he was leaving the country."

Continued Harassment - New Boss Shrugs His Shoulders

Mr. Frechen continued to call Ms. Collins from Germany, and she allowed herself to discuss her promotion to assistant marketing manager with him. After he invited her to meet him in Boston on one of his business trips, however, she decided to stop taking his calls completely.

Mr. Pitocco, then newly installed as CEO of Steiff's U.S. operations, noticed Ms. Collins' reticence about talking to her former boss. After learning some details of Mr. Frechen's harassment of Ms. Collins, Mr. Pitocco failed to initiate an investigation; indeed, Ms. Collins claims he strove to separate himself from any responsibility over the matter.

On another occasion, Ms. Collins claims that Mr. Pitocco pressured her to accompany Mr. Frechen on a shopping excursion during one of his U.S. visits. According to Ms. Collins, Mr. Frechen insisted she carry his shopping bags to his hotel room, whereupon he pulled her inside, though she was able to get away without further incident.

Significantly, Ms. Collins claims that Mr. Pitocco never informed her that she could safely report Mr. Frechen's misconduct without fear of retaliation. In fact, the company appeared to have no codified expectations for employee behavior or protocols for reporting harassment at all. The complaint states that Steiff, despite "earning millions of dollars annually in the U.S., made zero annual investment in the training of its employees in the recognition and reporting of sexual harassment in the workplace."

Company's Heritage Undermined

Ms. Collins's attorney, Christopher Brennan of the New York law firm of Ziegler, Ziegler & Associates LLP, says, "Steiff is a company with a long and proud heritage and an exalted status in the toy industry. It is astounding that a business whose principal products are meant to evoke joy and comfort would exhibit such a lack of sensitivity and accountability to issues raised by a loyal and hard-working employee, especially given the egregious nature of Ms. Collins' allegations and the number of occasions on which she tried to inform her direct supervisors that there was a problem with Mr. Frechen. Steiff was founded by a woman, but sadly a culture of chauvinism and permissiveness has allowed the harassment and degradation of a female employee who once loved and believed in the company."

Mr. Frechen has made semi-annual business trips to the U.S. for toy fairs and strategic meetings over the last several years, endeavoring to see Ms. Collins on each occasion and resuming his aggressive and suggestive posture toward her.

This past February, while the company's employees stayed at New York's Crowne Plaza Hotel during the annual Toy Fair, Mr. Frechen constantly phoned Ms. Collins' room and hounded her in person with requests for her to have drinks with him. At one point Mr. Frechen grabbed Ms. Collins' cell phone and used it to call his own mobile phone, thereby programming her number into his phone. He later followed her off a hotel elevator, asking about her boyfriend and whether she would consider having sex outside that relationship. According to Ms. Collins, Mr. Frechen then called her a "scaredy cat" because of her continued reluctance to meet with him alone.

Ms. Collins told Mr. Pitocco about the latest pressure she felt from Mr. Frechen during Toy Fair. Once again Mr. Pitocco brushed aside her concerns, dismissing them as overblown. When she asked him to keep Mr. Frechen out late in the evening so that he would not have time to proposition her, Mr. Pitocco replied that he would not "cover" for her.

Ms. Collins wrote in her journal about her boss's cavalier attitude over her concerns: "I would like to know what Jim [Pitocco] thinks, I have been telling him all along to keep [Mr. Frechen] away from me. Why does he only laugh it off?"

For Ms. Collins, it became clear that her future with the company was bleak.

Fundamental Workplace Protections Lacking

Frustrated by the lack of results from her repeated discussions with Mr. Pitocco, Ms. Collins ultimately reported Mr. Frechen's harassment to the Steiff head of human resources in the U.S., who asked her to record the events on paper. Still, an investigation was not initiated until Ms. Collins took the step of obtaining legal counsel.

When a female member of the Steiff family -- and one of the company's shareholders -- became aware of Ms. Collins' report of sexual harassment, she contacted Ms. Collins to offer sympathy and support. "Be prepared that ignorance of material makes people be unsupportive," the woman wrote in an e-mail. "There will be people who...are afraid to be as strong as you...or are so old fashioned they can't grasp that standing up is the only thing to do." However, Ms. Collins says that once she had retained a lawyer, the Steiff family member stopped speaking to her about her claims.

Ms. Collins said in a recent interview, "After I made a written report of the sexual harassment, I asked an employee of the company based in Germany if Martin had sexually harassed her also. She told me yes. My colleague confided that for years Martin had pressured her to have sex with him and she was repeatedly required to rebuff his advances. My colleague asked me how I knew she was being harassed also, and I told her that there was something in her face when I saw Martin around her. She said he tried the same thing with her, over there. Like her, I tried for so long to get him to stop, but he wouldn't listen and no one at the company helped me. I loved it here and I was ready to spend my whole career at Steiff, but my love for the company was completely taken from me."

Through her action, Ms. Collins is asking the court to ensure that Steiff take steps to end its violations of New York State and City human rights laws, and to ensure that any further harassment by Mr. Frechen cease. She is also seeking compensatory and punitive damages stemming from Mr. Frechen's actions and from the company's negligent hiring and retention of its two chief executives.

"It saddens me to bring a formal action against Steiff," Ms. Collins says. "I have spent nearly the last nine years of my life here and cannot easily imagine working anywhere else. I adore the company's line of Teddy Bears and have made lifelong friends with many of my colleagues. Unfortunately, I felt I was preyed upon by the one person I should have been able to trust and look up to the most. His ongoing behavior -- and the company's unwillingness to take any actions in response to my complaints -- left me no choice but to retain Ziegler, Ziegler & Associates on my behalf to file suit, in hopes that Steiff's workplace culture can once again reflect the wonderful image of the company's products."

SOURCE Ziegler, Ziegler & Associates LLP

Chris Bosh, Toronto Raptors forward, his digital marketing firm Max Deal Technologies, his agent, Henry Thomas, and his law firm, Winston & Strawn LLP, announced the recovery of the domain "chrisbosh.com". The return of the domain follows an April decision in federal court for the Southern District of California.

The court ordered that Luis Zavala, and his company Hoopology.com, which registered the domain "chrisbosh.com", turn over the domain to Bosh and cease all infringing conduct. The infringing website displayed ads using Chris Bosh's name to generate revenue for Zavala and Hoopology.com, and had no actual association to Bosh. Zavala and Hoopology.com currently own nearly 800 other domains incorporating the names of various professional athletes, college and high school athletes as well as well-known entertainers, product names and other entertainment properties.

"I am very happy with this ruling," said Chris Bosh, a four-time NBA all star, and Olympic gold medalist. "My intent was to make sure that consumers find me when they are looking for me on the Internet, rather than a website that is confusing and tries make money off my name and my intellectual property."

The court ordered the transfer of the domain and $120,000, which includes statutory damages, prejudgment interest, attorney's fees and costs.

"Chris is the last person who would try to confuse his fans on the web, especially given how Internet savvy he is," said Brian Heidelberger, Winston & Strawn partner who represented Bosh in this matter. "It was rewarding for us, his agent and his web design firm that the court ordered the transfer so that they can use the domain to further establish Chris' web presence via his popular viral videos and other entertainment properties."

Winston & Strawn noted that the firm has extensive experience in Internet law and has successfully represented many other major corporations and individuals in cybersquatting cases.

SOURCE Winston & Strawn LLP

Consultores De Navegacion, a Spanish company that operates the M/T Nautilus, an ocean-going chemical tanker ship, pleaded guilty today in U.S. District Court in Boston and has agreed to pay a fine of $2.5 million for criminal violations related to the overboard discharge of oil-contaminated bilge waste on the high seas, the Justice Department announced.

The company pleaded guilty to conspiracy, falsification of records, false statements, obstruction, and two violations of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships for failing to maintain an accurate oil record book. The practice of improperly handling and disposing of oil-contaminated waste from the tanker as charged in the indictment took place from at least June 2007 until March 2008.

As part of the plea agreement, Consultores De Navegacion will serve three years of probation and implement a comprehensive environmental compliance plan to ensure there are no future violations of the law. The charges against Cyprus-based Iceport Shipping Co., the owner of the ship, have been dismissed. U.S. District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodlock scheduled sentencing for June, 30, 2009.

Engine room operations on board large oceangoing vessels such as the M/T Nautilus generate large amounts of waste oil and oil-contaminated bilge waste. International and U.S. law prohibit the discharge of waste containing more than 15 parts per million of oil and without treatment by an oily water separator -- a required pollution prevention device. Federal law also requires ships to accurately record each disposal of oil-contaminated bilge water in an oil record book and to have the Oil Record Book available for inspection by the U.S. Coast Guard within the internal waters of the United States.

According to the government, between June 2007 and March 2008, senior engineers on the M/T Nautilus directed subordinate engine room crew members to use a metal pipe to bypass the ship's oil water separator and instead to discharge oil-contaminated waste directly overboard. On two occasions in August 2007, Vadym Tumakov, a Ukrainian who at that time served as chief engineer of the M/T Nautilus, directed the discharge of pollution overboard. In addition, in February 2008, Carmelo Oria, a Spanish citizen who served as chief engineer at that time, directed a discharge directly overboard from the ship's bilge wells.

The government's investigation began in March 2008, when inspectors from the U.S. Coast Guard conducted an examination of the M/T Nautilus, following the ship's arrival in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, and subsequently in the Port of Boston. The inspections uncovered evidence that crewmembers aboard the ship had improperly handled and disposed of the ship's oil-contaminated bilge water and falsified entries in the ship's official oil record book to conceal these activities.

Oria, who was the chief engineer on the M/T Nautilus between January and March 2008 pleaded guilty on March 9, 2009, to maintaining an oil record book that concealed the improper discharge of untreated waste directly from the ship's bilges. Vadym Tumakov, who was the chief engineer on the M/T Nautilus in August 2007 pleaded guilty to using falsified records that concealed improper discharges of oil-contaminated bilge waste from the ship. They are both scheduled to be sentenced on April 13, 2009 and face up to 6 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000.

As chief engineers, Oria and Tumakov were responsible for all engine room operations. Charges against Tumakov were originally filed in the District of New Jersey and the case was subsequently transferred to the District of Massachusetts.

"Corporate entities and individual crewmembers that deliberately bypass required environmental controls and pump untreated bilge water directly into the ocean should expect to be investigated and prosecuted. Consultores De Navegacion violated the law and today they are facing the consequences," said John C. Cruden, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. "As long as individuals and maritime companies ignore this nation's environmental laws, the Justice Department will continue to bring cases and seek justice for those involved."

"We remain committed to protecting our precious natural resources, and hope that today's conviction sends a clear message to everyone in the worldwide maritime community that the Government will investigate and prosecute anyone who attempts to circumvent our nation's anti-pollution laws," said U.S. Attorney Michael J. Sullivan.

"This is a clear victory in our ongoing effort to stop intentional or negligent pollution and ensure those responsible are brought to justice," said Rear Admiral Dale G. Gabel, Commander of the First Coast Guard District in Boston, MA. "The Coast Guard remains committed to working with the maritime industry and federal, state and local law enforcement partners to protect the environmental resources of our nation."

The case was investigated by the U.S. Coast Guard, Coast Guard Investigative Service. It was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Linda M. Ricci of the U.S. Attorney's Economic Crimes Unit, Trial Attorney Todd Mikolop of the Justice Department's Environmental Crimes Section, and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Jones of the U.S. Coast Guard First District Legal Office.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice

A federal grand jury in San Francisco returned an indictment today charging an executive at Hitachi Displays Ltd. with participating in a global conspiracy to fix the prices of Thin Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Display (TFT-LCD) panels sold to Dell Inc., the U.S. Department of Justice announced today.

The indictment, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, charges Sakae Someya with conspiring with unnamed co-conspirators to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the price of TFT-LCD panels sold to Dell for use in notebook computers. Someya participated in the conspiracy from on or about Jan. 1, 2001, to on or about Dec. 31, 2004. In 2006, the worldwide market for TFT-LCD panels was approximately $70 billion.

Including today's indictment, four companies and eight individuals have been charged in the Department's ongoing antitrust investigation into the TFT-LCD industry. To date, more than $585 million in fines have been imposed as a result of the TFT-LCD investigation.

"Practically every American consumer has been impacted by the TFT-LCD conspiracies," said Scott D. Hammond, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department's Antitrust Division. "Today the Department is holding a high-level executive accountable for his conduct."

Someya was charged with participating with co-conspirators in a conspiracy accomplished by the following means:

• Attending bilateral meetings and engaging in conversations and communications in Japan, Korea and the United States to discuss the prices of TFT-LCD panels sold to Dell;
• Agreeing during those meetings, conversations and communications to charge prices of TFT-LCD panels sold to Dell at certain levels;
• Exchanging information on sales of TFT-LCD panels sold to Dell, for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon prices;
• Authorizing, ordering and consenting to the participation of subordinate employees in the conspiracy;
• Issuing price quotations in accordance with the agreements reached;
• Accepting payment for the supply of TFT-LCD panels sold at collusive, noncompetitive prices to Dell; and
• Taking steps to conceal the conspiracy and conspiratorial contacts through various means.

Someya is charged with violating the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum fine of $1 million and 10 years imprisonment for individuals. The fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime, or twice the loss suffered by the victims, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum.

On Dec. 15, 2008, LG Display Co. (LG) pleaded guilty to participating in a worldwide conspiracy to fix the price for TFT-LCD panels and was sentenced to pay a $400 million criminal fine -- the second-largest fine in Antitrust Division history. On Dec. 16, 2008, Sharp Corp. pleaded guilty to participating in three separate conspiracies to fix the prices of TFT-LCD panels sold to Dell, Apple Computer Inc. and Motorola Inc. and was sentenced to pay a $120 million criminal fine. On Jan. 14, 2009, Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd. (Chunghwa) pleaded guilty to participating in the same worldwide conspiracy as LG, and was sentenced to pay a $65 million criminal fine.

In February 2009, former Chunghwa CEO Chieng-Hon "Frank" Lin and two Chunghwa executives, Chih-Chun "C.C." Liu and Hsueh-Lung "Brian" Lee, pleaded guilty to and were sentenced for participating in the same conspiracy as LG and Chunghwa. Lin was sentenced to serve nine months in prison and pay a $50,000 criminal fine. Liu was sentenced to serve seven months in prison and pay a $30,000 criminal fine. Lee was sentenced to serve six months in prison and pay a $20,000 criminal fine. Also in February 2009, LG executive Chang Suk "C.S." Chung pleaded guilty for his role in the same conspiracy as LG and Chunghwa. Chung was sentenced to serve seven months in prison and pay a $25,000 criminal fine.

On Feb. 3, 2009, a federal grand jury in San Francisco returned an indictment charging two former Chunghwa executives, Cheng Yuan Lin, aka C.Y. Lin, and Wen Jun Cheng, aka Tony Cheng, and one former executive from LG, Duk Mo Koo, for their participation in the same conspiracy as LG and Chunghwa. Warrants have been issued for the arrest of all three individuals.

On March 10, 2009, Hitachi Displays Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and pay a $31 million fine for its participation in a conspiracy to fix the prices of TFT-LCD panels sold to Dell for use in notebook computers from April 1, 2001, to March 31, 2004.

Someya's indictment is the result of a joint investigation by the Department of Justice Antitrust Division's San Francisco Field Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in San Francisco. Anyone with information concerning illegal conduct in the TFT-LCD industry is urged to call the San Francisco Field Office of the Antitrust Division at 415-436-6660.

SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice