The debate over physician-assisted suicide and the right of incurably suffering people to end their own lives has again been brought to national attention by the HBO premiere of "You Don't Know Jack," on the HBO pay-channel, April 24th. The film is based on the book "Between the Dying and the Dead: Dr. Jack Kevorkian's Life and the Battle to Legalize Euthanasia," by Neal Nicol and Harry Wylie.

Jerry Dincin, president of Final Exit Network (FEN), urges watching (or taping!) this important movie: "While the right to die exists for residents in Oregon, Washington, and Montana, most states still have laws specifically against assisted suicide. Regulators in many parts of the country have ramped up efforts to restrict the right to die with dignity. Groups that simply provide information and counseling have come under the gun-sights of zealots, and a witch-hunt has ensued."  

The needs of mentally competent, suffering patients who have not been declared "terminal" (having fewer than six months to live) have especially not been addressed. "Non-terminal" is an awesome designation when accompanied by the diagnosis of a lethal disease, in spite of the phrase's encouraging sound. It means that for that patient, a process has already begun: a deadly, inexorable deterioration that will likely multiply exponentially past the limit of most human beings to endure. Its merciful end is death, though that destination lies currently off the map. Quality of life for these people is a distant memory; all that remains is the reality of an indefinite and hopeless future. Dincin says, "Our organization is their only advocate."

Advances made in medicine over the last 50 years have been astonishing. Thanks to sophisticated new technologies and treatments, diseases once considered death sentences are now manageable conditions. The progress is often, however, a mixed blessing. Doctors' once-revered vow to keep patients alive - no matter what - often results not in extending life but extending death. Perpetuating "life" in a nightmare of powerlessness, constant pain, social isolation, and mental deterioration is tantamount to torture.

FEN is an all-volunteer organization dedicated to counseling, support, and guidance for those clients, who themselves choose the when, how, under what circumstances, and especially IF, to proceed. Dincin stresses that "FEN does not encourage anyone to end their life, does not provide the means to do so and does not actively assist in the person's death. We do, however, believe in the ultimate human right of people to end their lives when circumstances justify, and to have support in carrying out their plan," said Dincin.

Sherri Hill, distinguished and successful designer of high quality prom dresses and evening gowns, and Sherri Hill, Inc., have sued Let's Fashion, Inc., a Los Angeles-based manufacturer and wholesaler, for knocking off distinctive elements of nine of Sherri Hill's well-known dresses.  Let's Fashion is accused of distributing the infringing dresses to boutiques and retailers for sale to customers.  Widely acclaimed for her achievements in the pageant industry, Sherri Hill has designed gowns that have been worn with success by pageant winners and contestants including recent winners of the Miss USA® and Miss America® pageants.  Her stylish prom dresses have become instant hits, and are sold through hundreds of reputable retailers throughout the world.

The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles federal court by the New York-based brand protection law firm Gioconda Law Group PLLC, accuses Let's Fashion of copyright and trade dress infringement, unfair competition, as well as misappropriation of Sherri Hill's name under California law.  The Complaint specifically alleges that Let's Fashion has copied numerous distinctive and copyrighted bead and embroidery designs owned by Sherri Hill, and that employees at Let's Fashion are specifically describing them as Sherri Hill designs.  

According to papers filed in court, the lineup of infringing dresses that appear in the current Let's Fashion product catalog "illustrates the great extent to which the design elements on Let's Fashion's dresses are copies of Sherri Hill's legally protected design elements."  Approximately ninety percent of Let's Fashion's production is domestically produced and sewn in Los Angeles, but some of the more elaborate knockoffs are allegedly made in China.  In addition to a product recall, Sherri Hill is seeking unspecified damages, an injunction, corrective advertising, as well as a list of those retailers who are selling the infringing Let's Fashion dresses to consumers.

The Gioconda Law Group PLLC, One Penn Plaza, 36th Floor, Fashion Avenue and West 34th Street, New York, NY 10119, Tel: (212) 786-7549, Fax: (888) 697-9665, www.GiocondaLaw.com.

SOURCE The Gioconda Law Group PLLC

"Anatomy of a Scandal" ,the cover story of ai5000's March/April issue, addresses the mystery of why Wesleyan University's $500 million endowment failed to notice the alleged gross misconduct of its chief investment officer for close to a decade.

Wesleyan has initiated a $3 million lawsuit against its terminated CIO, Thomas Kannam, who stands accused of submitting questionable expense reports and using university resources to engage in a series of outside ventures.

"To a large extent, this story highlights a common aberration in our nation's financial system, of which Wesleyan is just an example," observed editor Kip McDaniel. "Even when alleged misconduct is practiced in plain sight, investors don't want to look too closely at the sausage-making if the individual in question is making money for us."

Paula Vasan, co-writer of the article, added, "Although the case has yet to be decided, it appears to us that neither Wesleyan nor Mr. Kannam is blameless. The evidence suggests that Wesleyan may have looked the other way, so long as it was convenient to do so."

ai5000 describes how Kannam signed a contract in 2005 agreeing not to participate in "distracting" outside business opportunities, and soon thereafter appeared to accelerate his entrepreneurial ventures. The university's lawsuit contends that Kannam expensed family trips to the university and used university staff for external ventures. Two years later, Wesleyan noticed Kannam's "extracurricular activities" and asked him to sign a "more robust" conflict-of-interest document. His wife's response to this request: "Oucheroo." Nevertheless, ai5000 reports that

this document was "impressively vague." Ultimately, under Kannam's supervision, the endowment lost 24% in 2008, well beyond the NACUBO average of -19%.

"One of the sad aspects of this case is that the trustees and administrators of the endowment are involved in doing good and likely assume that anyone who works for them has the same mindset," McDaniel commented. "Unfortunately, laissez-faire environments don't always bring out the best in people, regardless of the larger institution's admirable intentions."

A quarterly online publication, ai5000 focuses on the 5,000 largest pools of capital in the world, across pension plans, sovereign wealth funds, endowments, foundations, insurance funds and other leading institutional investors. ai5000 is edited by Charles Ruffel, founder of Asset International and PLANSPONSOR, PLANADVISER and Global Custodian.

Asset International is a privately-held publisher and information provider to global pension funds, asset managers, financial advisers, banking service providers, and other financial institutions in the private and public sector. Asset International produces and distributes print and digital publications, conferences, research and data resources via its industry-leading brands PLANSPONSOR, PLANADVISER and Global Custodian. The company was acquired in January 2009 by Austin Ventures and has offices in New York, London and Stamford, CT.

The intellectual property Law Firm of Greenberg & Lieberman, LLC today announced that the Alexandria Circuit Court has ruled in favor of their client Alex McMillan IV, DDS, P.C., a Washington, DC area dentist, regarding a legal action initiated against a former employee charged with trademark infringement, trade secret violations, and domain theft.

On March 5, 2010, The Firm of Greenberg and Lieberman, LLC., led by Attorneys Stevan Lieberman and Debora McCormick, joined by local counsel Jonathan Westreich, completed a three day trial to adjudicate the intellectual property infringement matters brought before the court by Dr. McMillan. On March 17, 2010, the Court entered an Order which found that Thomas Winkler, the Defendant and former employee of Dr. McMillan, never had any ownership interest in Plaintiffs trademarks, "No matter how many Years and How Many Fears, It's Time for You to Smile Easy," "Burkedentists.com," and "SmileEasy.com." Further the court clarified that the trademarks are and always have been assets of Alex McMillan IV, DDS, P.C., and that Thomas Winkler deliberately and intentionally misappropriated the practice's trade secrets.

The Court Ordered Thomas Winkler to execute an assignment assigning all contested trademarks to Dr. McMillan and further ordered him to destroy all copies of a disputed patient list that the court determined was stolen from Dr. McMillan. A full copy of the Order may be seen at http://www.aplegal.com/ourwork.php. (http://bit.ly/94ToLV)

About Greenberg & Lieberman

Greenberg & Lieberman is an Intellectual Property Law Firm which has been in business since 1996 and provides patent, trademark, copyright prosecution, litigation and representation services. Greenberg & Lieberman serves clients nationally and internationally with a particular focus on computer / Internet law and patent prosecution for the small business. The firm has served over 20,000 clients.

Dr. Alex McMillan IV is a general dentist with locations in Burke and Alexandria, VA. With over 30 years of experience, Dr. McMillan's primary emphasis is on the provision of comprehensive restorative, cosmetic, implant and sedation dentistry.

Consumer advocate Harvey Rosenfield has filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court urging the court to remove false and misleading statements that Mercury Insurance Company has made in its ballot arguments that will appear in the Official Voter Guide for the June ballot.

Mercury is the sponsor of Proposition 17, the controversial initiative that "will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who do not have a history of continuous insurance coverage," according to the ballot summary that Attorney General Jerry Brown has proposed to include in the Voter Guide.

"Mercury Insurance Company is attempting to put one over on the voters of California and this Court," the lawsuit says. "Mercury and its surrogates are entitled to use the space allotted to them in the official Ballot Pamphlet to make the most persuasive case they can in support of the initiative...But the law does not allow Mercury to use the official Ballot Pamphlet to propagate false and misleading statements regarding either the terms of its proposed initiative or the state of existing law. And that is exactly what Mercury has done..."

The 202-page lawsuit identifies numerous false and misleading statements made by Mercury's ballot signers. For example, responding to criticism of Prop 17 by military vets and USAA, an insurance company that serves the armed forces, Mercury claims in its argument that soldiers living stateside are exempted from Prop 17's surcharges, and that California consumers are currently charged using the "continuous coverage" factor that Prop 17 is promoting. These assertions are false, as explained in a brief summary below. The lawsuit can be downloaded at: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/RosenfieldProp17Suit.pdf

Prop 103, the 1988 insurance rate rollback and regulation measure, bans the surcharge Mercury is now asking voters to approve. The lawsuit details how Mercury Insurance and its chairman George Joseph first flouted Proposition 103, then tried to override it with legislation nearly identical to Prop 17. Each time, the state Insurance Commissioner and the courts rejected the same arguments contained in Mercury's Prop 17 ballot arguments, and concluded that the proposal would raise premiums for many motorists. (Recently released internal reports by the California Department of Insurance confirm that Mercury violated the law.)

"We already knew this corrupt insurance company would spend tens of millions of dollars to lie to voters about Prop 17 - it spent $3.5 million just to stick the measure on the June ballot," said Rosenfield. "Now Mercury is trying deceive the voters through devious lies in court and in the official state Voter Guide - Mercury wants to mislead voters at taxpayers' expense."

Accuracy of Voter Guide Key as Mercury Spends Millions on Deceptive Campaign

The Voter Guide contains official analyses of each ballot measure prepared by the Attorney General and the Legislative Analyst (which reports to the state legislature). It also contains arguments and rebuttals prepared by supporters and opponents of each initiative. The Guide is produced by the Secretary of State and mailed to registered voters at taxpayer expense. The Voter Guide is considered one of the most important sources of accurate information concerning ballot propositions. The truthfulness of statements about Prop 17 in the Voter Guide will be crucial because Mercury is expected to spend millions on deceptive radio and television advertising, consumer advocates say.

The challenge to Mercury's ballot arguments will be heard by Sacramento Superior Court on March 12th in conjunction with two other Prop 17 lawsuits: one filed by Mercury's campaign against Rosenfield, Elisa Odabashian of Consumers Union, former Attorney General John Van de Kamp, former Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, and Jon Soltz, chair of VoteVets.org, who signed the ballot arguments against 17; and a second lawsuit filed by Attorney General Jerry Brown to correct and strengthen the official Prop 17 Title and Summary that will appear in the voter pamphlet. Mercury is expected to oppose the correction.

Fred Woocher of the Los Angeles-based law firm Strumwasser and Woocher is representing Harvey Rosenfield and other opponents of Prop 17 in the suits.

A copy of the lawsuit can be downloaded at: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/RosenfieldProp17Suit.pdf

Examples of false and misleading statements challenged by Rosenfield's lawsuit:

Impact on the military. Prop 17's surcharge for drivers who have not had five years of continuous insurance coverage has a limited exception for only those soldiers who are "absent from the United States while in military service." Soldiers serving the country on base in the states are not exempt, even though they might not need to have and pay for automobile insurance while on base. Nonetheless, the Rebuttal Argument falsely claims that the ballot measure exempts soldiers who "cancel insurance when serving overseas or in another state" from its surcharges. When Mercury sponsored SB 841 in 2003 to allow the same surcharge against California motorists, it included an exemption for soldiers serving in other states. But Prop 17 has no such protection for stateside soldiers.

Current law. Prop 17 creates a new rating factor in order to circumvent the consumer protections of current law and surcharge many good drivers in California. But throughout its ballot arguments, Mercury pretends that the new rating factor it proposes to create, "continuous coverage," already exists under current law. The Argument in Favor of 17 states: "Under current law, drivers who have maintained auto insurance with the same company are eligible for a continuous coverage discount." This is untrue. The language of Proposition 17 itself states that it creates a new rating factor "in addition to" and "notwithstanding" current law. Mercury is falsely equating discounts for motorists who remain with the same company for a period of years, which are permitted under Proposition 103, with a new rating factor the company wants to use to base premiums on whether or not people can show they have been continuously insured by any company with no lapses over 90 days over a five year period and have had no missed payments. Mercury has made the same false statements in previous court cases, and the courts have consistently rejected Mercury's effort to equate the two.

Surcharges. Mercury's ballot Argument in Favor claims that "Yes on 17 eliminates an existing surcharge for changing companies" and its Rebuttal says that Prop "17 would allow drivers to take your continuous coverage discount with you." There is no existing surcharge for changing companies, and there is no existing "continuous coverage discount." Mercury's claims are false. Prop 17 would create a surcharge on good drivers who have not had five years of continuous auto insurance and would override Proposition 103's ban on surcharges against the previously uninsured or those who have had a lapse in coverage, even if these motorists are good drivers.

SOURCE Campaign for Consumer Rights

LDK Solar Co., Ltd. ("LDK Solar"; NYSE: LDK), a leading manufacturer of multicrystalline solar wafers, announced today that it has reached an agreement to settle the securities class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court of Northern California. After submitting the proposed settlement agreement to the court on February 16, 2010, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February 17, 2010. The settlement is not final until the class receives notice of the settlement and the court grants final approval of the settlement terms.

Under the terms of the agreement, all of the claims in the securities class action lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice. All of the defendants will receive a complete release of all the claims alleged in the case. The settlement agreement expressly states that it does not include any finding that any defendant committed any wrongful act. The defendants continue to maintain that the allegations in the case have no merit at all. To avoid legal expenses, uncertainties and distraction of management, LDK Solar elected to settle the case. As part of the settlement terms, LDK Solar and its insurance carrier will pay a total of $16 million (approximately 5% of the alleged damages) to compensate the class members and to cover all legal and administrative expenses.

"After more than a two year-period of litigation, LDK Solar believes the settlement is in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders," stated Xiaofeng Peng, Chairman and CEO of LDK Solar. "The resolution of this matter puts the litigation behind us and reduces the Company's ongoing legal expenses."

About LDK Solar ( LDK)

LDK Solar Co., Ltd. is a leading manufacturer of multicrystalline solar wafers, which are the principal raw material used to produce solar cells. LDK Solar sells multicrystalline wafers globally to manufacturers of photovoltaic products, including solar cells and solar modules. In addition, LDK Solar provides wafer processing services to monocrystalline and multicrystalline solar cell and module manufacturers. LDK Solar's headquarters and manufacturing facilities are located in Hi-Tech Industrial Park, Xinyu City, Jiangxi Province in the People's Republic of China. LDK Solar's office in the United States is located in Sunnyvale, California.

Safe Harbour Statement - LDK Solar

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the safe harbour provisions of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. All statements other than statements of historical fact in this press release are forward-looking statements, including but not limited to, the terms of the settlement agreement may be objected to and/or may not receive final approval, LDK Solar's ability to raise additional capital to finance its operating activities, the effectiveness, profitability and marketability of its products, the future trading of its securities, the ability of LDK Solar to operate as a public company, the period of time during which its current liquidity will enable LDK Solar to fund its operations, its ability to protect its proprietary information, the general economic and business environment and conditions, the volatility of LDK Solar's operating results and financial condition, its ability to attract and retain qualified senior management personnel and research and development staff, its ability to timely and efficiently complete its ongoing construction projects, including its polysilicon plants, and other risks and uncertainties disclosed in LDK Solar's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties and are based on information available to LDK Solar's management as of the date hereof and on its current expectations, assumptions, estimates and projections about LDK Solar and the solar industry. Actual results may differ materially from the anticipated results because of such and other risks and uncertainties. LDK Solar undertakes no obligation to update forward-looking statements to reflect subsequent events or circumstances, or changes in its expectations, assumptions, estimates and projections except as may be required by law.

SOURCE LDK Solar Co., Ltd.

A Sikh filed a discrimination lawsuit today after being told to remove his religiously-mandated beard if he wanted a job. The Sikh, Gurpreet Singh Kherha, filed his lawsuit in New Jersey state court against Tri-County Lexus where he wanted to work as a sales representative.

In 2008, Mr. Kherha was recruited for a sales position at Tri-County Lexus in Little Falls, New Jersey.  After completing two days of training at Lexus, Mr. Kherha participated in a final group interview with a Tri-County Lexus manager.  

After the interview ended, a recruiter approached Mr. Kherha to ask if his beard is a religious requirement.  Mr. Kherha explained that he is a practicing Sikh who does not cut his hair, including his facial hair.  The recruiter then asked Mr. Kherha if he would be willing to remove his beard in order to obtain a job as a Tri-County Lexus sales representative.  Mr. Kherha replied he would not.

The recruiter then left Mr. Kherha to speak to his colleagues. Upon his return he informed Mr. Kherha that he had not been selected for a sales position at Tri-County Lexus.

The recruiter told Gurpreet that Tri-County Lexus' General Manager stated he was "exactly what they were looking for," "well-qualified" and "well-educated" but that the company has a corporate policy prohibiting salespersons from maintaining facial hair.  The recruiter also stated that Tri-County's general manager had contacted the corporate headquarters to request an accommodation for Mr. Kherha's religious practices, but had been rejected.

"I am taking a stand against not only Tri-County Lexus, but all employers who discriminate against qualified applicants," said Mr. Kherha. "I don't want any other Sikh to be told they are well educated and well qualified, but not hired because of their faith."

The Sikh Coalition has represented Mr. Kherha since April 2008. The Coalition engaged attorney Ravinder Singh Bhalla, an experienced New Jersey litigator, to work with jointly on the case. Since then, the legal team has:

• Been in direct contact with attorneys for Tri-County Lexus, which denies any wrong-doing. 
• Filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  The legal team has met with the EEOC and is cooperating with the agency's ongoing investigation of the case.
• Filed a lawsuit in New Jersey state court to vindicate Mr. Kherha's rights.

"Tri-County Lexus forced a Sikh to choose between his religion and employment," said Ravinder S. Bhalla. "Now they will have to answer for their discrimination in court."

Background:

Sikhism is the fifth largest world religion, with approximately 21 million adherents worldwide. Under the principals of their faith, Sikhs are mandated to leave their hair uncut, wrapping the hair on their heads underneath a turban.

Since 9/11, misperceptions about this appearance have led to hate attacks and discrimination against Sikhs across the country, by both public and private actors. The Sikh Coalition has worked to end this discrimination.

SOURCE Sikh Coalition

Stephen Harbeck, president of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), which maintains a special reserve fund authorized by Congress to help investors at failed brokerage firms, issued the following statement today:

"From the outset of the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC  (Madoff) liquidation proceeding, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation has made it clear that our No. 1 goal is to make sure that every eligible Madoff investor receives every penny that he is or she is entitled to receive per the recovery process.

"We have a great deal of empathy for the Madoff victims.  That is why we have worked around the clock for more than a year to expedite this matter despite the unprecedented complexities arising from the web of deceit spun by Mr. Madoff.   Our concern for the victims was also the reason why we worked with  Irving H. Picard, the court-appointed trustee for the Madoff liquidation, to establish a special hardship procedure for particularly hard-hit victims requiring special attention.

"That is why we are disappointed to see that certain attorneys are exploiting the plight of these victims to incorrectly direct their anger and frustration at SIPC.   Sadly, this frivolous litigation will have the effect of making it harder for SIPC to focus all of its time and attention on aiding the Madoff victims.

"That being said, SIPC is not now and never was a FDIC-like 'insurance' entity.  

"Regarding the question of 'net equity', which the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York is now weighing, we firmly believe that the calculation being used by Irving H. Picard, the court-appointed trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC of New York, NY, is correct.

"This determination is completely consistent with past precedent on the matter.

"SIPC has filed two extensive briefs with the Court, which explain our position in detail. At this time, we are awaiting the court's ruling on the matter. We look forward to the decision resolving this matter."

SIPC's primary brief in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New

The Securities Investor Protection Corporation is the U.S. investor's first line of defense in the event a brokerage firm fails, owing customer cash and securities that are missing from customer accounts. SIPC either acts as trustee or works with an independent court-appointed trustee in a brokerage insolvency case to recover funds.

The statute that created SIPC provides that customers of a failed brokerage firm receive all non-negotiable securities - such as stocks or bonds -- that are already registered in their names or in the process of being registered. At the same time, funds from the SIPC reserve are available to satisfy the remaining claims of each customer up to a maximum of $500,000. This figure includes a maximum of $100,000 on claims for cash. From the time Congress created it in 1970 through December 2008, SIPC has advanced $520 million in order to make possible the recovery of $160 billion in assets for an estimated 761,000 investors.

SOURCE Securities Investor Protection Corporation, Washington, D.C.

In response to a Florida woman's lawsuit alleging NFL Hall of Famer and former Dallas Cowboy Michael Irvin raped her, Michael Irvin's Attorney Larry Friedman filed a $100 million lawsuit today in Dallas County against Nicole Alicia Mustafa alleging a "civil extortion plot."

"Michael Irvin is appalled at Alicia Mustafa's accusations. He is a victim of his own success and what has become a widespread venture to sue high profile celebrities. It is typical for fame-seekers to attack celebrities of Irvin's stature to try and make a quick-buck. It is very obvious that this is a civil extortion plot," said Friedman.

The suit describes Mustafa's attorneys, "who created a salacious lawsuit and were sending copies around Dallas and Miami looking for people with ties to Irvin. When Mustafa's attorneys finally reached Irvin, they told him that if he did not pay them a million dollars they would file a lawsuit that would ruin his career."

According to the suit, over the next five months, Mustafa's attorneys constantly called Irvin inquiring into whether Irvin was going to "pay up."  According to the suit, "in January 2010, Mustafa's attorneys let it be known that if they did not get paid, they would file a pleading more detailed than required by the rules of the court during the Super Bowl so that his career would be over. This is nothing more than a thinly veiled effort to carry out Plaintiff's civil extortion plot while capitalizing on the media of Super Bowl weekend."

According to the suit, in July 2007, Mustafa went to the Seminole County Police Department claiming she was raped by Michael Irvin on July 5, 2007 fifteen days after the alleged incident.  On July 21, 2007, the day after opening a file with the police department, Mustafa signed two waivers of prosecution.

The Seminole Police Department found Mustafa's claims un-credible and stopped actively investigating the file over two years ago.

According to the suit, after seeing Irvin's success on Dancing With The Stars and his new reality show, Fourth and Long, Mustafa decided to take another stab at Irvin.

According to Larry Friedman, the $100 million suit filed today in Dallas County by Larry Friedman is the vehicle through which Irvin can recover against "the morally bankrupt individuals attempting to destroy the hard earned reputation and career of a highly-acclaimed sports figure." The causes of action listed in the suit include: Tortious Interference with Current and Prospective Business Relations; Civil Conspiracy; Defamation and Slander; and Civil Extortion among others.

SOURCE Larry Friedman

LORD Corporation -- a leader in vibration and motion control products and solutions for defense, aerospace and commercial markets -- filed suit in 2009 against Active Shock (recently acquired by General Kinetics Engineering Corporation) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (civil action number 5:09-CV-00318).  In this suit, LORD Corporation asserts certain patent infringement and false advertising as well as unfair and deceptive trade practices claims.  

Specifically, LORD Corporation claims infringement of its three U.S. patents entitled:  "Vibration Attenuating Method Utilizing Continuously Variable Semiactive Damper,"  "End Stop Control Method," and "System for Reducing Suspension End Stop Collisions."  LORD Corporation has taken this action to protect its intellectual property for these high-value, enabling technologies and to ensure that LORD Magneto-Rheological (MR) and adaptive suspension technology is accurately represented to customers.  

LORD Corporation's MR and adaptive suspension technology has been thoroughly proven through the licensing and broad intellectual property portfolio used in developing Delphi's MagneRide™ suspension system (now part of BWI Group).  First introduced on the 2002 Corvette, more than 500,000 devices appear in more than a dozen models from a wide range of manufacturers including Audi, Acura, Ferrari, GM, Holden and Honda.  The rapid acceptance of the technology by a wide range of manufacturers, from high-performance sports cars to SUVs, demonstrates the confidence the automotive industry has in the performance, reliability and durability of LORD technology.

LORD MR technology is based on commercial proprietary and patented fluid, damper, mount, brake and clutch designs and sophisticated computer control algorithms. When exposed to a magnetic field, MR materials change state nearly instantaneously and with complete reversibility. As a result, MR technology provides fast and infinitely variable control of energy dissipation for industrial and automotive devices. As the only provider of commercial MR fluids with more than 110 MR fluid, device, and controller algorithm patents worldwide, LORD is the largest manufacturer of MR devices and systems.  For information about LORD MR applications, visit www.lord.com/mr.

With headquarters in Cary, N.C., USA, and sales in excess of  $700-MM, LORD Corporation is a privately-held company that designs, manufactures and markets devices and systems to manage mechanical motion and control noise and vibration; formulates, produces and sells general purpose and specialty adhesives and coatings; and develops products and systems utilizing magnetically responsive technologies. With manufacturing in nine countries and offices in more than 15 major business centers, LORD Corporation employs more than 2,500 worldwide. Visit www.lord.com for more information.