The American Trucking Associations (ATA) today joined petroleum refiners and other end-users in a legal challenge to California's recently enacted low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS). The regulation adopted by the California Air Resources Board requires annual reductions in the carbon intensity of gasoline and diesel over the next ten years. The LCFS regulation falls directly upon fuel providers (refiners, importers and blenders of fuel), but will impact end-users because of associated fuel price increases.

The legal challenge is largely based on the Commerce Clause with assertions that the "shuffling" of low-carbon fuel to California and away from other states will significantly burden fuel providers and consumers without any net change in fuel's carbon-intensity on a global scale, resulting in no reduction -- and a likely increase -- in greenhouse gas emissions.

"The LCFS would essentially ban imports to California of fuels derived from unconventional sources such as oil sands from Canada, oil shale from the Western U.S., or domestic coal supplies that can be converted into transportation fuels," said ATA Vice President Rich Moskowitz. "Discouraging these fuels will simply increase costs while failing to prevent their export to and consumption by other nations."

The Complaint, filed in United States District Court in California, also challenged the regulatory scheme as discriminating in favor of California-produced fuels by assigning them lower carbon-intensity ratings because of shorter transportation distances to users. Others joining the suit include the Center for North American Energy Security, Consumer Energy Alliance and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.

The American Trucking Associations is the largest national trade association for the trucking industry. Through a federation of other trucking groups, industry-related conferences, and its 50 affiliated state trucking associations, ATA represents more than 37,000 members covering every type of motor carrier in the United States.

SOURCE American Trucking Associations

Mina Mar Group Inc. www.minamargroup.com/ (MMG) and Mina Mar Marketing Group www.minamargroup.net/ (MMMG) inform the public that the courts ruled in the favour of Mina Mar Group in slander lawsuit against Investors Hub.

Mr. Justice Belobaba, Ontario Superior Court Of Justice awarded judgment in favor of Mina Mar Group, and awarded $75,000 in general damages, $10,000 in punitive damages and $20,000 for the trial costs to the company.

This was never about the money but rather principle. These stock bashers should not be allowed to destroy other peoples reputations and businesses with slanderous and malicious posts on the Internet

The court ruling can be seen on this link http://www.minamargroup.com/stock_bashers.php

Mina Mar Group wishes to quote some key declarations of the court:

    "4... THIS COURT ORDERS that all negative, defamatory and libellous
postings, made by Posters and members of Investors Hub.Com Inc web site are
untrue and are and were made without any foundation nor basis for any of their
content

    5... THE COURT ORDERS THAT the Defendants, Robert Zumbrunnen, Matt Brown
and InvestorsHub.com Inc. apologize and publicly retract the libelous
statements made against the Plaintiffs and that they shall send their signed
retraction to the Plaintiffs and publish the same on the web site,
InvestorsHub.com

    6. THIS COURT ORDERS that Robert Zumbrunnen, Matt Brown and
InvestorsHub.com Inc. provide the names and addresses of the following of its
members and posters:
    Stratey, itlogic, Jim Bishop, Janice Shell, Universal Trader, Rtso,
Livingstyle, Soyelpato, AccipiterO, strongtower, snow, peraire, and Fast Flyer
03, Strongtower, 1 summer, AccipiterQ, bob41, Buckley, soyelpato, greedy
malone, rolltide, marine-1, firelane, (and any other poster who makes
negative, libelous or defamatory statements against the Plaintiffs)
anonymously named John Doe (the foregoing collectively known as "The
Posters"). ..."

Mina Mar Group recently introduced the "Get the Facts Right" statement to our clients, which we remind all of our clients' shareholders to review before taking any advice from a stock board chat room. Most advisors have hidden agendas and prey on the unsuspecting.

Get the Facts Right. The issuer works hard to continue to keep our shareholders informed, and news is updated frequently via Press Releases, Pink Sheet http://www.pinksheets.com/ filings, and updates to our websites. Other websites not sponsored, or recognized by the Company may provide misleading or disinformation to investors in order to manipulate trading patterns for a given stock. Always look for original content from trusted sources, rather than relying on 'excerpts' or discussion boards that may not give you the whole story. The Securities and Exchange Commission requires financial institutions or brokerage firms to provide their clients with documentation, describing the risks of investing in penny stocks.

Vigorous enforcement of the court order including motions for contempt of court for any non compliance will commence shortly in Florida.

SOURCE Mina Mar Group

Don Beebe, former NFL star and wide receiver for the Buffalo Bills, testified before the jury about how his brother-in-law, Dave Walker, has been affected by injuries from a 2007 incident where Walker was struck by a waverunner while snorkeling in the Bahamas. Beebe explained Dave's biggest passion was coaching his son's school football team. "He wasn't one of those coaches that stood over there with a whistle. I mean, he was a hands-on guy. He was going to be out there demonstrating how to do it. Well, now he is one of the guys with the whistle. It's very frustrating for him."

Mr. Walker was represented at trial by attorneys Todd McPharlin and Todd Falzone, partners in the Kelley/Uustal Law Firm, along with Attorney Eric Rosen. "This case was all about responsibility," Falzone said. "Despite being in clear violation of the law, the driver of the jetski refused to take any responsibility at all for the terrible injuries he caused. Thankfully, the Jury served justice and held the driver accountable."

Dave Walker, an Illinois drywall contractor, was snorkeling in 6 feet of water in Paradise Island in the Bahamas just off the beach at the Atlantis hotel when he was struck by Eric Elliot of Miami Beach, Florida. The jury found Elliot to be 100% at fault for causing the collision. Mr. Walker's then 14 year old son, who had been snorkeling at his father's side only moments before, watched in horror as the Waverunner ran his dad over at 25 miles per hour. The impact was so severe that it fractured 2 vertebrae in Dave's upper back, and herniated a disc in his neck, which required a fusion surgery.

Dave's injuries have left him unable to work as a drywall contractor. The business he spent nearly 30 years building with his own two hands is now falling apart. Mr. Walker's attorney, Todd McPharlin, went on to explain, "Dave and his company had become a big part of the community. He was a hands-on dry wall hanger who had a reputation for being honest, hardworking and meticulous. He was a perfectionist who loved and was proud of his work and hoped one day to pass his business on to his sons. Now all of that is gone. He can never do that type of physical work again."

At trial the defense tried to argue that the accident was everyone's fault, except the driver of the waverunner. They asked the jury to blame Mr. Walker, his 11 and 14 year old sons, Mrs. Walker, and the Atlantis resort for negligently causing this accident to occur. Yet despite compelling evidence to the contrary, the only person the defense argued was not at fault was the driver who ran Dave over.

The jury awarded $3,378,729.34 in total damages: $845,000.00 in lost earning capacity, $388,729.34 in past and future medical expenses and $2,145,000.00 in pain and suffering.

SOURCE Kelley Uustal PLC

The California Restaurant Mutual Benefit Corporation (CRMBC) announced today its 4th conviction for Workers' Compensation fraud against an employer member.  Tamisha Carson pleaded no contest today in Solano County court to one count of insurance fraud, charged as a misdemeanor. Carson had been videoed in April 2008 staging an injury at a Vallejo Taco Bell.

Carson had claimed that a box of soda had fallen on her foot while she was attempting to move it.  Video surveillance reviewed by the Taco Bell franchisee, PRB Management, showed that she had in fact placed the box on her foot and called for help.  Intercare, the claims management company working with the CRMBC, denied the claim and launched its investigation through its Special Investigation Unit.  The case was pursued and conviction obtained by the Solano County District Attorney.

Carson will pay $1,255 in restitution as well as additional fines and fees and will be on probation for 2 years.  She will have 75 hours of community service and has been ordered to make at least 7 completed job applications per week and maintain full-time employment once she has a job.

Chair of the Board of Trustees for CRMBC, David Mitchell, said:

"We are stepping up our fight against Work Comp fraud in California.  Small employers are the backbone of our economy but they often don't get a lot of help.  CRMBC is going to continue to drive support to its members for safer workplaces, fewer injuries and an end to fraudulent claims."

SOURCE California Restaurant Mutual Benefit Corporation

Lawsuit Presents Evidence that OMP, the World' s #1 Professional Skin Care Product Company, Has Improperly Attempted to Prevent Consumers from Obtaining Access to Dr. Obagi's Newest Skin Care Line

ZO Skin Health, Inc. ("ZO"), a company formed to give consumers access to world-renowned dermatologist Dr. Zein Obagi's non-prescription skin care products, today filed suit in California Superior Court challenging the anti-competitive practices of Obagi Medical Products, Inc. ("OMP") ( OMPI). The lawsuit presents evidence that OMP, the world's top distributor of physician-dispensed, prescription skin care products, has engaged in a wide range of unlawful activities to prevent ZO from providing the general consumer market with access to the newest anti-aging skin care products invented by Dr. Obagi.

Summary of the Case

Dr. Zein Obagi is a world-renowned dermatologist who has, over the course of his more than 30-year career, invented some of the most enduringly effective anti-aging skin-care products ever. In 1988, Dr. Obagi founded Worldwide Products Distribution, Inc. ("Worldwide"), the company that would later form the core of Obagi Medical Products, Inc. ("OMP"). OMP provides medical skin-care products to doctors for use on their patients around the world.

In 1997, Dr. Obagi sold a controlling share in OMP to outside investors. A Stonington Partners private equity fund acquired a majority interest in OMP and later took the company public. Even to this day, Dr. Obagi's Nu-Derm System, which he invented in the 1980s, continues to be the economic foundation of OMP's business. And Dr. Obagi remains OMP's second-largest shareholder.

Dr. Obagi recently created a new line of anti-aging skincare. His plan is to make these newly formulated--and highly effective--skin-care products widely available to consumers who do not have the need for, or access to, the physician-dispensed products that OMP sells.

Dr. Obagi first offered OMP the opportunity to market and distribute his new consumer product line because these products are designed to complement and enhance OMP's existing physician-dispensed skin-care lines. And, as OMP's second-largest shareholder, Dr. Obagi wants OMP to realize continued success.

After a lengthy round of discussions--during which Dr. Obagi and ZO shared with OMP highly confidential information -- OMP declined to pursue Dr. Obagi's new products. Instead, ZO distributed Dr. Obagi's new consumer product line. ZO has already had tremendous success, with products now available to consumers at Nordstrom and at leading spas, such as Vdara Hotel and Spa at CityCenter Las Vegas.

OMP responded to ZO's success by engaging in a far-reaching and legally improper campaign to prevent ZO from marketing and selling its line of products. In addition, OMP wrongfully scuttled the sale of ZO to a major Japanese pharmaceutical company. OMP has attempted to justify its campaign against ZO by referring to non-compete clauses--clauses that are unenforceable as a matter of California law and contravene OMP's own Code of Ethics.

ZO's goals in filing this lawsuit are (i) to halt OMP's illegal campaign against ZO, (ii) to permit ZO's new products to be widely distributed to consumers without threats and wrongful interference, and (iii) to secure just compensation for the damage that OMP's improper campaign has already caused.

OMP's Bad Faith Negotiations with ZO

ZO Skin Health's lawsuit asserts that Dr. Obagi first gave OMP the opportunity to market his new consumer product line. ZO was then formed with OMP's knowledge and expressions of support. But according to the complaint filed today in court, "despite OMP's repeated promises that it was interested in collaborating with ZO on the development, marketing and sales of the ZO Line, and its requests for trade-secret and confidential business information that ZO accommodated, OMP's actions demonstrate that it never acted in good faith and never truly was interested in collaborating with ZO."

OMP's Unlawful Attempts to Prevent Others from Doing Business with ZO

The lawsuit alleges that OMP prevented distributors from selling ZO Skin Health's products. OMP, according to the lawsuit, "told a Canadian distributor that it could not distribute ZO products because such an arrangement supposedly would violate a non-compete clause in a contract between OMP and Dr. Obagi." The lawsuit also indicates that OMP "prevented ZO from using a distributor in Europe by making the same assertion in bad faith. Upon information and belief, OMP has similarly dissuaded other potential customers from working with ZO." Finally, according to the complaint, "one of the biggest skin-care and cosmetic e-commerce companies signed an agreement to purchase and distribute the ZO Line. Upon information and belief, OMP instructed the e-commerce company that it was not allowed to sell ZO products because of a non-compete agreement between OMP and Dr. Obagi. This company has since refused to sell the ZO Line as a result of the claims and threats made by OMP."

OMP's Improper Reliance on an Illegal Non-Compete Clause

According to the lawsuit, the non-compete clause relied on by OMP is clearly unenforceable because it is "void and against California public policy." In addition, such non-compete clauses violate OMP's own corporate policy, which states clearly that "no agreement will contain any provisions not to compete or to boycott certain buyers, sellers, or competitors."

OMP's Illegal Interference with ZO's Attempt to Sell the Company

The lawsuit also alleges that OMP unlawfully interfered with ZO Skin Health's attempt to sell its business to a Japanese firm, Rohto Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., for millions of dollars. The complaint says that after ZO accepted Rohto's written intent to purchase ZO's business in September 2009, OMP worked to scuttle the deal "by accusing ZO and Dr. Obagi of violating agreements not to compete and threatening Rohto if it were to pursue the agreement. OMP told Rohto that it would refuse to permit ZO to be sold to any other interested company, and would limit any outside investment in ZO to merely a passive investment."

In response to OMP's threats, according to the complaint, "Rohto told ZO that Rohto still admired Dr. Obagi's methods and products, still wished to pursue expansion of the ZO Line throughout the world, and still believed the deal with ZO had great business potential. Nevertheless, Rohto told ZO that it was backing out of the agreement due to OMP's conduct and interference."

Violations of California Law and the Misleading of Shareholders

The lawsuit filed by international law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP, alleges that OMP's anti-competitive practices violate California state laws, including:

• California Business and Professions Code: "OMP's intentional, bad faith and wrongful reliance on the void non-compete clauses in its contracts with Dr. Obagi to interfere with the economic relationships between ZO and Rohto and ZO and product distributors constitutes independently wrongful conduct in violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 16600. OMP knew these non-compete clauses violated not only California Business & Professions Code Section 16600 but its own Code of Conduct."
• California's Unfair Competition Law: According to the complaint, OMP's actions "constitute unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent business practices within the meaning of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") ... because OMP's anti-competitive behavior is designed and attempts to restrict ZO's ability to market, distribute, and sell the ZO Line. OMP wrongfully and in bad faith relied on void and unlawful non-compete clauses in its contracts with Dr. Obagi, in violation of OMP's own Code of Conduct and California Business & Professions Code Section 16600, in order to: (1) prevent ZO from selling through various distributors; (2) prevent ZO from selling its line through third-party skin care websites; and (3) interfere with the contract for the multi-million dollar sale of ZO's business to Rohto."
• Misleading Shareholders, Customers and the Public: According to the lawsuit, "OMP's actions were fraudulent in violation of the UCL because OMP misled its shareholders, customers, health care professionals, ZO and the public at large by falsely claiming in its Code of Conduct that it supports fair and ethical competition in the marketplace and does not enter into contracts that contain non-compete provisions. In fact, an important part of OMP's strategy is to compete unfairly by using void non-competition covenants to threaten other skin care product developers, manufacturers, and distributors."

Request for Injunctive Relief, and Compensatory and Punitive Damages

The lawsuit asks the California Superior Court to enter preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against OMP's unlawful practices and to order OMP to pay compensatory and punitive damages to ZO Skin Health.

 

SOURCE ZO Skin Health, Inc.

Overstock.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: OSTK) today announced that Rocker Partners (now known as Copper River Partners) will pay $5 million to Overstock.com to settle Overstock's claims against the remaining defendants in its case against Rocker Partners, David Rocker, Marc Cohodes, and the management companies and hedge funds they controlled and advised. The defendants have agreed to dismiss their cross-complaint against Overstock.com and Patrick Byrne. Below is a letter from Patrick Byrne, the company's Chairman and CEO, commenting on the settlement (see our story at DeepCapture.com for full details).

Dear Owner:

The good guys won.

I announced Overstock's lawsuit against Rocker in an August 12, 2005 conference call I titled, "The Miscreants' Ball". In that call (and in subsequent elaboration on DeepCapture.com) I claimed that a network of dirty Wall Street players was engineering modern bear raids, destroying companies and destabilizing the system. I claimed that the network of hedge fund manipulators and compliant reporters intersected in a dirty journalist named Jim Cramer. In the network, I claimed, were hedge funds such as David Rocker's; putatively independent research firms like Gradient which essentially took dictation from hedge funds; a small group of financial journalists such as Herb Greenberg and Carol Remond who, it appears, also took assignments from this hedge fund network; Milberg Weiss (a plaintiff's class action law firm which was coordinating its lawsuits with these bear raids); and Eliot Spitzer (whose investigations as New York's Attorney General mirrored the trading activities of these hedge funds, which were among his largest backers). In addition, I said that the SEC was saying grace over all of this because they had become hopelessly "captured" by Wall Street's worst elements.

Since then, the SEC's turn-a-blind-eye deference towards Wall Street has been revealed by the Aguirre and Madoff-Markopoulis affairs (if not much more); Milberg Weiss imploded under DOJ indictments and its leaders were jailed; Jim Cramer was exposed on national TV for the scoundrel he is; Eliot Spitzer was also exposed (but not yet, I believe, for his real connection to this crew); Herb Greenberg and others of the journalists I named have crawled under rocks (or gone to work for the hedge fund network for which I had so implausibly claimed they were shilling); David Rocker's hedge fund melted down (thanks, according to DowJones, to the SEC finally closing the gaping option market maker loophole against which Overstock had been lobbying for three years - if only, the SEC would now institute a pre-borrow requirement); and Rocker Partners is paying Overstock $5 million (that is on top of Gradient's earlier retraction and apology, and any monies Gradient paid which I cannot disclose).

So let's score that one for the good guys.

What is of vastly greater significance than this $5 million payment, however, is an examination of the cover-up conducted by elements of the New York financial press. Taking the lead was CNBC, which spent a great deal of airtime downplaying the significance of this suit, vilifying me, and smearing Overstock. For example, though less than 1/4 of the Miscreants' Ball conference call had even been about Overstock, and the remaining 3/4 concerned the modern bear raid, CNBC aggressively distorted the former and refused to mention (or allow mention of) the latter. This pattern was followed with suspicious alacrity by some of the more prominent members of the New York financial press, some of whom (e.g., Bethany McLean) saw some public emails which demonstrated precisely the relationship I had suggested, and some of whom (e.g., Herb Greenberg, Joe Nocera, and Dan Calaruso) were later secretly taped trying to persuade other journalists to engage in a cover-up. Ultimately, I resorted to creating a website of investigative journalism called www.DeepCapture.com (winner of the 2008 Weblogs Award for Best Business Blog), at which point CNBC, Fortune Magazine Joe Nocera, etc. developed sudden cases of laryngitis about me (lest they have to mention the website where my opinions were expressed without filtering: DeepCapture.com).

Now that Overstock has won, I would expect CNBC to invite me back to discuss these events, about which CNBC was so wrong and vocal. I estimate that the chance this happens, however, are roughly the same as the chance that any mainstream journalist who covers this $5 million settlement will mention DeepCapture.com, despite its having been central to these events.

I believe that the two factors which most determine the long-term health of a nation are its education system and its capital market (that is, its systems for developing human capital and for marrying it to financial capital). The miscreants of Wall Street may not be numerous, but they work together, and their blackguard ways impose an enormous social cost on our country. Presumably that claim will strike many as more plausible than it did when I first began publicly making it in August 2005.

I'd like to thank the late John O'Quinn, in whom I found an ally. I wish also to thank Overstock's fine legal team at Stein & Lubin for the superb work they did on this case. They will now be turning their full attention to Overstock.com's pending suit against the prime brokers (see below).

Your humble servant,

Patrick M. Byrne

History of the Rocker Case

In the landmark case, filed in Marin County, California August 11, 2005, Overstock.com, along with shareholder plaintiffs, sued Gradient Analytics, Inc.; Rocker Partners, L.P.; Rocker Management, LLC; Rocker Offshore Management Company, Inc. and their respective principals. On October 12, 2005, Overstock.com filed an amended complaint against the same entities alleging libel, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and violations of California's unfair business practices act. On October 22, 2008, Overstock.com amended its complaint to name as additional defendants Cathy Longinotti, Mark Montgomery, Phillip Renna and Terrence Warzecha because of their former or existing status as general partners of Copper River Partners, L.P.

Overstock.com asserted that David Rocker, his partner, Marc Cohodes, entities under their control, and other confederates worked with the so-called "independent" research firm, Gradient Analytics, to defame Overstock.com by publishing false information in order to drive down Overstock.com shares and profit from their short positions in the stock. Overstock.com based its complaint on affidavits from four former Gradient insiders who swore that it was well known that Gradient worked closely with some of its short-selling hedge-fund subscribers to issue "special" negative reports on specific companies targeted by those subscribers, and that Rocker, among others, had special editorial privileges and coordinated publication timing to allow his hedge fund to position their portfolios in advance of publication. Overstock.com alleged that Rocker and Cohodes participated in suggesting and editing the false reports which were published throughout the period of 2004 to 2005, and which a judge, in commenting on the frequency of the attacks referred to as, "carpet bombing." Overstock.com also asserted that high profile reporters in the financial media were given unprecedented access to the Gradient reports for the purpose of further coordinated dissemination of the false Gradient reports in Rockers concerted effort to damage and defame the company and drive down its share price.

On October 10, 2008, Overstock and Patrick Byrne reached a confidential settlement agreement with Gradient Analytics and its current and former principals. Those defendants have been dismissed from the case after issuing a statement of "regret," reversing Gradient's published positions on Overstock.com, and stating that Gradient had "examined and improved its internal policies concerning how it communicates with clients, including hedge funds, and the media."

On May 14, 2009, the shareholder plaintiffs dismissed their claims against the Rocker defendants.

On November 9, 2007, Copper River Partners, L.P. f/k/a Rocker Partners L.P. filed a cross-complaint against Overstock.com and certain of its current and former directors. The Copper River cross-complaint alleged cross-defendants engaged in violations of California's state securities laws, violations of California's unfair business practices act, tortuous interference with contract and prospective business advantage, and deceit. On April 23, 2008, the court dismissed Copper River's cross claims against certain former Overstock.com directors. In that same ruling, the court dismissed four of the six claims against one of the former Overstock.com directors (and later Copper River dismissed the remaining claims against that director). In a separate ruling on the same day relating to Overstock.com and Patrick Byrne, the court dismissed the common law fraud claims and equitable indemnity claims and eliminated the possibility of money damages under Copper River's claims that Overstock.com and Byrne engaged in unfair business practices.

Trial for both the Overstock.com complaint and the Copper River cross-complaint were set for February 9, 2010.

History of the Prime Broker Case

On February 2, 2007, Overstock.com, along with five shareholder plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit in San Francisco against Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Goldman Sachs & Co., Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., Bank of America Securities LLC, Bank of New York, Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse (USA) Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., and UBS Financial Services, Inc. In September 2007, Overstock.com filed an amended complaint adding two plaintiff shareholders, naming Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. as a defendant, eliminating the previous claim of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and clarifying various points of other claims in the original complaint.

This suit alleges that the prime broker defendants, who control over 80% of the prime brokerage market, participated in an illegal stock market manipulation scheme and that the defendants had no intention of covering short sell orders with borrowed stock, as they are required to do, causing what are referred to as "fails to deliver" and that the defendants' actions caused and continue to cause dramatic distortions within the nature and amount of trading in Overstock.com stock, as well as dramatic declines in the share price of Overstock.com stock. The suit asserts that a persistent large number of "fails to deliver" creates significant downward pressure on the price of a company's stock and that the amount of "fails to deliver" has exceeded the entire supply of outstanding Overstock.com shares. The suit accuses the defendants of violations of California securities laws and common law, specifically, conversion, trespass to chattels, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and violations of California's Unfair Business Practices Act.

In April 2007, defendants filed a demurrer and motion to strike the Overstock.com complaint. Overstock.com opposed the demurrer and motion to strike. In July 2007, the court substantially denied defendants' demurrer and motion to strike. In November 2007, the defendants filed additional motions to strike. In February 2008, the court denied defendants' motion to strike the Overstock.com claims under California's Securities Anti-Fraud statute and defendants' motion to strike the Overstock.com common law punitive damages claims, but granted in part the defendants' motion to strike the Overstock.com claims under California's Unfair Business Practices Act, while allowing the Overstock.com claims for injunctive relief under California's Unfair Business Practices Act.

Lehman Brothers Holdings filed for bankruptcy on September 15, 2008 and Barclays Bank has purchased its investment banking and trading business. Overstock.com elected not to pursue its claims against Lehman Brothers Holdings in the bankruptcy proceedings. On January 12, 2009, the prime broker defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the Second Amended Complaint regarding allegations of collective action among defendants and the request for punitive damages. Also, on January 12, 2009, the prime broker defendants filed a demurrer to the first and second causes of action for conversion and trespass to chattels and a motion to strike various other allegations of the Second Amended Complaint. On March 19, 2009, the court sustained the demurrer to the first and second causes of action, but granted leave to amend the complaint. The motion to strike was denied. On April 20, 2009, Overstock.com amended its complaint against all the defendants, re-pleading conversion and trespass to chattels causes of action. The prime broker defendants again filed demurrer to the amended complaint and, on July 23, 2009, the court sustained the demurrer. Discovery in this case continues.

No trial date has been set.

SOURCE Overstock.com, Inc.

Judge Robert Schaffer of the 152nd Judicial District Court in Houston has approved a class-action lawsuit settlement that would distribute approximately $4.6 million to former employees of the former First City Bancorporation. Each of the more than 2,400 eligible members of the class may receive payments of approximately $1,800 or more.

"These beneficiaries are likely to be retirees in their 70s and 80s for whom this financial settlement could be very welcome," says David Furlow of Thompson & Knight LLP and counsel for the class. "There remain several hundred former First City employees who have not responded to our efforts to contact them about their rights to receive a distribution from the settlement fund, and the deadline to do so is approaching."

Former First City employees who have questions about their eligibility should review the information on the Class Administrator's Web site at www.firstcityclassaction.com. Under the terms of the settlement, class members must currently submit a claims form before Friday, Dec. 18, 2009, to receive a distribution from the settlement fund. Membership in the class depends on whether a former First City employee was an annuitant under Prudential Insurance Company Group Annuity Contracts GA-5858 (which includes GA-5524) and GA-5523.

The dispute involved a defined-benefit retirement plan established and funded solely by First City for employees in 1976. First City cancelled the plan for being overfunded 10 years later. The company then made lump-sum payments to some participants and purchased long-term annuities on behalf of other employees from the Prudential Insurance Company.

After First City was declared insolvent in 1992 and went through an involuntary bankruptcy, successor corporations took the position that the former First City employees should receive nothing from the annuity investments.

Lead Class Counsel Robert S. MacIntyre, Jr. of Houston's MacIntyre & McCulloch, LLP, emphasizes that these payments will not affect anyone's right to receive pension benefits.

SOURCE Thompson & Knight LLP

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (NYSE: COG) today announced it has learned that a lawsuit has been filed by a group of Dimock residents who are claiming damage to their property and to water supplies.

Cabot has successfully drilled and completed dozens of natural gas wells in the Dimock area. These activities are heavily regulated pursuant to the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act and other environmental laws and regulations. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has the responsibility to administer and enforce these laws and to ensure the protection of the residents and the environment. Cabot recently entered into a consent order and agreement with the DEP to provide further assurance that its activities are conducted in full compliance with DEP-administered environmental protection laws. "Cabot continues to cooperate with the DEP to ensure protection of residents and their property," said Dan O. Dinges, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. "While we respect the right of any resident to seek a judicial solution for a legitimate issue, we see no merit in these claims and are disappointed that these citizens felt it necessary to proceed in this fashion. We do not believe this matter will impact our continuing operations in the area."

SOURCE Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation

BJ's Wholesale Club (NYSE: BJ) announced today that the Company has recorded an $11.7 million pre-tax charge in connection with settling a claim relating to the classification of various employees as exempt from overtime wages.

Under the settlement, which still must be approved by the federal court, certain current and former mid-level managers will be eligible to receive payments to compensate them for particular hours worked in prior years.

"BJ's Wholesale Club values the role each team member plays in serving our Members and helping our Company succeed and grow," said Sue Hoffman, Senior Vice President and Chief Personnel Officer at BJ's Wholesale Club. "As such, it was important that we move quickly to address and resolve this matter."

The issue of job classification faces nearly all employers in the retail industry. BJ's is compliant with applicable federal and state wage and hour laws. The settlement of the lawsuit is not an admission on the part of the Company of any wrongdoing.

The number of employees who will receive compensation and the amount of each settlement will not be known until the Court proceeds with final approval of the settlement terms and all employee claims are submitted. BJ's Wholesale Club will work with the settlement administrator in the months to follow as the parties establish the process through which the settlement amount will be allocated and the amount each eligible employee will receive is determined.

SOURCE BJ's Wholesale Club

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals - Kaiser Sunnyside Medical Center, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Northwest and Northwest Permanente P.C., Physicians & Surgeons (collectively, Kaiser NW) has agreed to pay the United States $1,830,322.41 to settle False Claims Act liability, the Justice Department announced today. The United States contends that Kaiser NW billed Medicare between 2000 and 2004 for hospice services that had been provided by the Kaiser Northwest Region Hospice without obtaining written certifications of terminal illness required under the federal health care program.

Medicare hospice care providers like Kaiser Northwest Region Hospice must obtain written certifications of terminal illness for each hospice beneficiary's initial certification period (the first 90 days of care) from the medical director of the hospice and the individual beneficiary's attending physician, if the beneficiary has one. Medicare requires a hospice to obtain these certifications prior to billing Medicare in order to help ensure that hospice care is medically necessary.

In June 2005, Kaiser NW submitted a report to the Department of Health and Human Service's Office of Inspector General disclosing that between October 2000 and March 2004, there were instances in which Kaiser NW did not obtain written certifications of terminal illness for hospice beneficiaries prior to billing Medicare for the beneficiaries' initial certification period. The settlement announced today resulted from the company's disclosure.

"By requiring that health care providers comply with Medicare's standards, we ensure that beneficiaries receive hospice care that is medically necessary and meets appropriate medical standards," said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Division. "We encourage disclosures of this nature and we consider them essential to ensuring the protection of the Medicare Trust Fund."

"This settlement furthers the strong public interest in protecting the integrity of the Medicare program and ensuring the appropriateness of hospice care for Medicare beneficiaries," said Kent Robinson, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon.

The case was handled by the Justice Department's Civil Division, the Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon and the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services.

SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice