Recently in Business Category

Consumers nationwide demand a refund saying they overpaid for certain hi-tech devices

Consumers won a victory in their fight against a group of technology companies including Sony (NYSE: SNE), Hitachi (NYSE: HIT) and Philips (NYSE: PHG), who are accused of fixing prices of optical disc drives (ODD) common in computers, DVD and Blu-Ray players among other devices.

In a ruling on June 24, Judge Walker rejected a motion to postpone evidence gathering for a class-action lawsuit filed by consumers while the defendants address criminal charges. The judge's ruling allows the attorneys representing consumers to continue to build the case against these corporations that dominate the ODD market. 

Published reports state that ODD manufacturers sell 313 million drives a year for use in personal computers, and another 200 million for other applications, with revenue topping $45 billion between 2004 and 2008, and estimated at $14 billion for 2010.

Individual losses vary depending on the number of ODDs purchased, but attorneys believe the amounts are significant. "We intend to prove that the defendants conspired to inflate and sustain prices of ODDs simply to increase profit, all at the expense of consumers," said Steve Berman, founding partner of Hagens Berman and lead attorney representing consumers.

"While the Department of Justice is working on the criminal investigation, we think it is vitally important for us to push forward with our civil class action," said Berman. "While one of the goals of the criminal action is to punish the guilty, our goal is solely to return what we believe are ill-gotten profits to the pockets of consumers."

The relatively small numbers of ODD manufacturers, including the defendants, have a long history of joint ventures and other close working arrangements that gave ample opportunity to share information, the complaint states.

Berman said that the high cost of entry into the ODD market adds to the tight control the defendants have over the ODD marketplace. "When you can lock out competition, it makes it much easier to artificially - and illegally - set prices and bar competition."

Earlier this month, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the court to postpone Hagens Berman's efforts to collect evidence, saying the actions could interfere with its criminal investigation. The court's ruling allows the civil case to continue forward parallel to the criminal investigation.

"The court's decision supports our belief that consumers' claims are as important as the criminal investigation and that our prosecution of those claims can commence alongside the DOJ investigation," Berman added.

Some of the defendants have been involved in the DOJ investigations on related issues in the past. Samsung, for example, paid a $300 million fine following claims of price fixing involving Dynamic Random Access Memory chips (DRAM). Hagens Berman was lead counsel in the DRAM litigation.

The DOJ also launched an investigation of Samsung, LG Electronics, Toshiba and Hitachi, among others, probing claims of collusion in the manufacture of liquid crystal displays. The ongoing criminal investigation has led to admissions of guilt by LG Electronics, who paid a $400 million fine and Hitachi who paid $31 million.

On Monday, October 26, 2009, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp., a joint venture between defendants Toshiba and Samsung Electronics; Hitachi-LG Data Storage, a joint venture between defendants Hitachi and LG Electronics; and Sony Optiarc America confirmed that they received subpoenas from the DOJ concerning a criminal antitrust investigation including possible price fixing charges. In Philips Electronics' 2009 annual report issued a few weeks later, the Dutch electronics company also disclosed it was a subject of the same investigation. 

Since the investigation was launched, the defendants have been the subject of a grand-jury investigation. "Rarely does the Department of Justice go to the extent of convening a grand jury unless they have solid reasons to believe that a crime has occurred," Berman added.

Under antitrust law, customers who can prove that they have been overcharged as a result of price fixing may collect damages worth three times the amount of the overcharge. Attorneys intend to prove that the defendants in the ODD case agreed to manipulate prices and overcharged consumers for certain devices. 

Hagens Berman is representing consumers who purchased ODD devices after November 1, 2005. Consumers interested in tracking the progress of the case can view court documents and relevant updates at www.hbsslaw.com/ODD.

A Miami-area resident who owned and operated an HIV infusion clinic was arrested today and charged for her alleged participation in a $23 million HIV infusion Medicare fraud scheme, the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services (HHS) announced.

An indictment unsealed today in U.S. District Court in Miami charges Flor Crisologo, 58, with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, to cause the submission of false claims to the Medicare program, and to pay health care kickbacks; one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud; and three counts of submitting false claims to the Medicare program.  Crisologo also is charged with one count of conspiracy to launder the proceeds of her crimes and four counts of money laundering.  Crisologo made her initial appearance today in U.S. District Court in Miami before Magistrate Judge William C. Turnoff. 

According to the indictment, Crisologo was the owner and operator of J & F Community Medical Center Inc.  The indictment alleges that Crisologo submitted approximately $23 million in false and fraudulent claims to the Medicare program for HIV injection and infusion services purportedly provided through J & F.  According to the indictment, Crisologo hired a physician at J & F and caused the physician to order unnecessary tests, sign false medical analyses and diagnosis forms, and authorize treatments to make it appear that medical services were being provided to patients who were Medicare beneficiaries.  The services included medically unnecessary injection and infusion therapies.  The indictment alleges that Crisologo and her co-conspirators paid Medicare beneficiaries kickbacks to induce the beneficiaries to claim they received legitimate services at the clinic when in fact the HIV infusion services were either not provided or were not medically necessary. 

According to the indictment, Crisologo engaged in a scheme to launder the proceeds of the fraudulent Medicare claims by, among other things, transferring thousands of dollars in proceeds to two shell corporations that she owned and controlled, ABC Med Way Inc., and MSG Investment and Services Corp.

The maximum sentence for each count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and filing false claims is five years in prison.  The maximum sentence for each count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering and money laundering is 10 years in prison.  The indictment seeks forfeiture of assets held by the defendant. 

An indictment is merely a charge and defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Today's charges were announced by Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer of the Southern District of Florida; John V. Gillies, Special Agent-in-Charge of the FBI's Miami field office; and Special Agent-in-Charge Christopher Dennis of the HHS Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), Office of Investigations Miami office.

This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Joseph S. Beemsterboer of the Criminal Division's Fraud Section.  The case was investigated by the FBI and HHS-OIG, and was brought as part of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, supervised by the Criminal Division's Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Miami.  

Since their inception in March 2007, Strike Force operations in seven districts have obtained indictments of more than 560 individuals who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program for more than $1.2 billion.  In addition, the HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, working in conjunction with the HHS-OIG, are taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.

To learn more about the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), go to:www.stopmedicarefraud.gov.

SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice

More than 42,000 gallons of oil have been leaking daily following a massive explosion on an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, with the potential to cause major economic and environmental damage

Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. has filed a class action lawsuit (AL-2010-CR256941) against British Petroleum ("BP") and several other companies with ties to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The firm seeks to represent individuals and businesses that have incurred damages related to the disaster, including;  real property damages; personal property damages; loss of profits and earning capacity; loss of commercial and subsistence use of natural resources; increased costs of public services; and, loss of revenues.

The oil spill resulted from the explosion and sinking of the oil platform Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20th. Coast Guard officials estimate 5,000 barrels a day are leaking into the Gulf. The oil slick made landfall in southern Louisiana early Friday and is expected to reach Mississippi and Alabama within the coming days.

Experts are calling this the worst environmental crisis since the Exxon Valdez and are predicting the economic impact to be greater than that associated with hurricane Katrina. They estimate the massive oil spill has the potential to negatively affect the entire Gulf coastline. This includes a negative economic impact on thousands who earn their livelihood in the fishing industry, as well as tourism, itself a major industry along the scenic oceanfront. Additionally, the environmental impact is expected to be severe, with oil and byproducts damaging fragile marshlands, marine and bird life.

"We are calling on the Alabama congressional delegation to do everything in their power to speed federal resources to the Gulf coast in order to minimize damage to the environment and the thousands of families that depend on these waters for their livelihood. Our thoughts and prayers are with responders," said Jere Beasley, founding shareholder of Beasley Allen.

Beasley Allen has an experienced Toxic Tort section that includes lawyers and staff who have handled numerous environmental disaster cases. Protection of people, their property, and their livelihood from large corporate polluters is one of Beasley Allen's top priorities. Our attorneys are fighting to make a difference in the lives of those threatened by environmental pollution. We currently are handling class action litigation against the Tennessee Valley Authority in the largest coal ash spill in U.S. history. These are difficult cases, but Beasley Allen is fighting to make a difference. From the largest toxic tort settlement in U.S. history for PCB contamination - $700 million - to a $20.7 million verdict against Continental Carbon for air pollution, Beasley Allen is playing a significant role in toxic tort cases.

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

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.

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.

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.  

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

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.

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

Leggett & Platt, Incorporated (NYSE: LEG), a diversified manufacturer of engineered components including the Virtu® line of superwide digital printers for solid and textile substrates, has won an agreement to dismissal of a lawsuit by Vutek, Inc. which challenged the validity of two of Leggett & Platt's U.S. patents on Leggett's groundbreaking technology for ultraviolet (UV) curing of ink in superwide format ink jet printers. Vutek agreed to withdraw its challenges to the validity of both of the Leggett patents.

Vutek, a subsidiary of Electronics For Imaging, Inc. (EFI), sued Leggett & Platt in federal court for the Eastern District of Missouri in November 2007, initially alleging invalidity of Leggett's U.S. Patent No. 7,290,874 and later of Leggett's U.S. Patent No. 7,520,602. These patents were based on Leggett's invention of revolutionary methods for quickly curing UV ink under the print head of superwide ink jet printers. The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office issued one of the patents after full review of an earlier appellate court decision declaring a related patent invalid, thus recognizing the importance of Leggett's invention of the first practical 'on the printhead' UV ink curing technology for superwide inkjet printers. The leading printing association, the Specialty Graphic Imaging Association ("SGIA"), also recognized Leggett's pioneering technology by awarding the 2006 DPI Innovator Award to Leggett's inventor, Mr. Richard Codos.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Visit Leggett's website at www.leggett.com.

COMPANY DESCRIPTION: Leggett & Platt (NYSE: LEG) is a FORTUNE 500 diversified manufacturer that conceives, designs and produces a broad variety of engineered components and products that can be found in most homes, offices, and automobiles. The company serves a broad suite of customers that comprise a "Who's Who" of U.S. manufacturers and retailers. The 126-year-old firm is comprised of 19 business units, 19,000 employee-partners, and more than 160 manufacturing facilities located in 18 countries.

Leggett & Platt is North America's leading independent manufacturer of: a) components for residential furniture and bedding; b) components for office furniture; c) drawn steel wire; d) automotive seat support and lumbar systems; e) carpet underlay; f) adjustable beds; and g) bedding industry machinery for wire forming, sewing and quilting.

SOURCE Leggett & Platt

Simmons Bedding Company ("Simmons" or the "Company") a leading manufacturer of premium-branded bedding products, today announced that Tempur-Pedic Management, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC (collectively, "Tempur-Pedic") have agreed to voluntarily dismiss the patent infringement lawsuit that Tempur-Pedic filed on June 10, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The suit named 17 mattress manufacturers, including Simmons and its subsidiary, The Simmons Manufacturing Co., LLC.

The Tempur-Pedic lawsuit alleged that two Simmons products infringed its U.S. Patent No. 7,507,468, titled "Laminated Visco-Elastic Support" (the "'468 Patent"). Simmons denied Tempur-Pedic's allegations of infringement and in addition, requested that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the "USPTO") reexamine the validity of the '468 Patent.

Tempur-Pedic cited Simmons' request that the USPTO reexamine the validity of the '468 Patent as the impetus for its decision to dismiss the lawsuit. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the lawsuit will be dismissed without prejudice subject to the court's entry of a stipulated order.

Stephen G. Fendrich, President and Chief Operating Officer of Simmons, said, "We're pleased that Tempur-Pedic has made the decision to end this legal action against Simmons. We maintain that the '468 Patent is not valid and its review by the USPTO through the reexamination process remains pending."

Atlanta-based Simmons Bedding Company is one of the world's largest mattress manufacturers, manufacturing and marketing a broad range of products including Beautyrest®, Beautyrest Black®, Beautyrest Studio(TM), ComforPedic by Simmons(TM), ComforPedic Loft(TM), Natural Care®, Beautyrest Beginnings(TM) and BeautySleep®. Simmons Bedding operates 19 conventional bedding manufacturing facilities and one juvenile bedding manufacturing facility across the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. Simmons Bedding also serves as a key supplier of beds to many of the world's leading hotel groups and resort properties. Simmons Bedding is committed to developing superior mattresses and promoting a higher quality sleep for consumers around the world. For more information, visit Simmons Bedding's website at www.simmons.com.

SOURCE Simmons Bedding Company

A federal grand jury in the Western District of New York, has returned a superseding indictment charging David Vega and Francis Rowe with committing violations of the Clean Air Act while they were project managers for Gordon-Smith Contracting, Inc., an asbestos removal company owned by Keith Gordon-Smith, the Justice Department announced.

The indictment supersedes an earlier indictment returned by the grand jury in June 2009, against Keith Gordon-Smith, charging him with numerous violations of the Clean Air Act, submitting false statements and obstruction of justice. The superseding indictment now also charges Gordon-Smith's company with the same criminal violations. In addition, the superseding indictment charges Francis Rowe with submitting a false statement in an effort to obtain a court-appointed attorney.

The charges stem from allegations that Gordon-Smith, Gordon-Smith Contracting, Vega and Rowe directed and caused workers to illegally remove and dispose of asbestos during the demolition of the Genesee Hospital complex in Rochester, N.Y.

The Clean Air Act requires contractors who remove asbestos from public buildings to follow federally-established work practice standards to ensure the safe removal of the asbestos. The required standards include providing notice to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before commencing asbestos removal, adequately wetting the asbestos during the removal and before disposal, and properly disposing of the asbestos at an EPA-approved disposal site.

The 18-count indictment alleges that at different time periods between June 2007 and April 2009, Gordon-Smith, Vega and Rowe had Gordon-Smith Contracting employees remove asbestos from the Genesee Hospital complex without ensuring that the asbestos was kept adequately wet or properly disposed. The indictment also alleges that Gordon-Smith caused his company's employees to perform illegal asbestos removal at other sites, including schools, and that Gordon-Smith took several steps to hide the illegal asbestos removal from federal agencies. These included failing to provide prior notification to EPA before the asbestos removal projects were performed at the schools and hospital, giving false statements to an inspector from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and providing a false notification to the EPA.

If convicted, Gordon-Smith, Vega and Rowe could each be punished by up to five years in prison as well as a criminal fine of up to $250,000 for each count. Gordon-Smith Contracting could be subject to a criminal fine of the greater of $500,000 or twice the gain obtained by the company or suffered by any victims as a result of the crimes, for each count.

SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice

MFG Chemical, Inc., has agreed to pay $270,000 in civil penalties to resolve claims resulting from a toxic release on April 12, 2004 of extremely hazardous chemicals at the company's Dalton, Ga., plant, the Justice Department announced today.

The toxic release resulted from a runaway reaction at the plant when MFG, upon its initial production run for triallyl cyanuarate, mixed allyl alcohol with other chemicals, leading to an extreme increase in temperature and causing an explosion that released toxic gases to the atmosphere.

As a result, the surrounding community within a half mile radius of the MFG plant was evacuated. Over 150 people, including several emergency responders, were treated for exposure at the local hospital. One-half mile of vegetation south of the MFG plant was also burned and much of the aquatic life was killed throughout several miles of surrounding creeks which were contaminated by the water sprayed on the toxic vapor cloud in an attempt to control the vapor release.

The complaint, filed today in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleges that MFG failed to adhere to the Clean Air Act's general duty of care provision. The general duty of care requirement obligates companies handling extremely hazardous substances to take preventative measures to identify the risks involved and to reduce the risks by providing layers of protection on their equipment such as high temperature alarms, automatic feed shut off mechanisms, adequate pressure relief systems and a vapor release recovery and containment system. The complaint alleges MFG failed to identify the risk of a runaway reaction through its failure to calculate the temperature/time profile and to have appropriate layers of protection in place prior to the incident.

MFG has implemented measures to address conditions at the plant contributing to the explosion and release, including halting the use of allyl alcohol and hiring an experienced safety engineer to oversee its compliance with its Clean Air Act obligations. MFG also paid for the clean up of surrounding contaminated creeks. The $270,000 reflects the civil penalty that the United States determined MFG has the financial ability to pay.

Copies of the stipulation of settlement are available on the Department of Justice Web site at: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.

SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice

SunPower Corp. (Nasdaq: SPWRA, SPWRB) and SunLink Corporation today announced the two companies have settled a patent infringement case brought by SunPower before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. SunPower brought the lawsuit against SunLink in February 2008 asserting infringement of SunPower's patent rights covering its lightweight rooftop mounting products, SunPower® PowerGuard® and the SunPower® T10 Solar Roof Tile.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the specifics of which are confidential, SunLink has acknowledged the infringement of SunLink's MMS rooftop solar product as well as the validity and enforceability of SunPower's patent rights. For confidential consideration provided under the settlement, SunLink has received a license to SunPower's infringed patents.

"SunPower has a long history of developing industry-leading technology and we will take actions necessary to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights," said SunPower CEO Tom Werner. "We are glad to achieve a resolution to this lawsuit consistent with this objective."

"We are happy to bring this litigation to a close with an agreement that is not only beneficial to both parties, but also protects our current and future customers," said SunLink CEO Christopher Tilley. "With these licenses, we continue to add to SunLink's IP portfolio and are looking forward to introducing new, innovative photovoltaic mounting solutions to the market soon."

SunPower holds more than 120 patents for its innovative solar technology, including the world's most efficient solar cell and the recently launched SunPower® T5 Solar Roof Tile.

About SunPower

Founded in 1985, SunPower Corp. (Nasdaq: SPWRA, SPWRB) designs, manufactures and delivers the planet's most powerful solar technology broadly available today. Residential, business, government and utility customers rely on the company's experience and proven results to maximize return on investment. With headquarters in San Jose, Calif., SunPower has offices in North America, Europe, Australia and Asia. For more information, visit www.sunpowercorp.com.

About SunLink

SunLink Inc, based in San Rafael, CA, offers the solar industry's most comprehensive, highly engineered solar module mounting solutions. The company designs and manufactures rooftop and ground mounted systems for commercial and utility-scale installations, supporting modules from nearly every photovoltaic manufacturer. SunLink has been the chosen solution on more than 60 MW of projects spanning over 400 sites across North America. For more information about SunLink's history, product lines or engineering services, visit www.sunlink.com.

SOURCE SunPower Corp.

DigiBIRD Battery Supplier Found Liable for Fraud, Unfair Trade Practices and Breach of Contract

ION Geophysical Corporation (NYSE: IO) today announced that on October 1, 2009, the jury returned a verdict in its favor in a lawsuit filed by ION against operating subsidiaries of battery manufacturer Greatbatch, Inc. (NYSE: GB), including its Electrochem division, in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson in the State of Louisiana.

ION filed the lawsuit in 2002, alleging that Greatbatch had fraudulently misappropriated ION's product designs and other trade secrets related to the batteries and battery pack used in ION's DigiBIRD® marine towed streamer vertical control device and used ION's information to manufacture and market competing batteries and battery packs. The jury found that Greatbatch committed fraud, violated the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and breached a trust and nondisclosure agreement between Greatbatch and ION, and awarded ION $21,733,411 in damages. In addition to the jury award, ION will be entitled to recover its attorneys' fees and costs related to the case, along with prejudgment interest accruing from the date of filing of the lawsuit.

SOURCE ION Geophysical Corporation

PharmaNet Development Group, Inc., a leading provider of clinical development services to innovative pharmaceutical, biotechnology, generic drug and medical device companies, today announced that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has notified the Company that it has completed a two and half year investigation of the Company related to revenue recognition, earnings, company operations and related party transactions and does not intend to recommend any enforcement action by the Commission. The investigation, which is now closed, was originally initiated as an informal investigation in 2006 and became formal in March 2007.

"We are very pleased that the SEC has concluded its investigation of the Company and is recommending that no action be taken by the Commission," commented Jeffrey P. McMullen, president and CEO, PharmaNet Development Group, Inc. "This very favorable outcome now allows us to put this matter behind us."

About PharmaNet Development Group, Inc.

PharmaNet Development Group, Inc., a global drug development services company, provides a comprehensive range of services to the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, generic drug and medical device industries. The Company offers early and late stage consulting, Phase I clinical studies and bioanalytical analyses, and Phase II, III and IV clinical development programs. With approximately 2,300 employees and 40 facilities throughout the world, PharmaNet is a recognized leader in outsourced clinical development. For more information, please visit our website at www.pharmanet.com.

A federal judge today assessed the Southern Union Company $18 million for illegally storing mercury at a company-owned site in Pawtucket. The sentence imposed in federal court includes a $6 million criminal fine and $12 million in payments to community initiatives including the Rhode Island Foundation, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) Emergency Response Fund and Hasbro's Children's Hospital.

John C. Cruden, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Attorney Peter F. Neronha and Michael E. Hubbard, Special Agent in Charge of the Boston Area Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, Criminal Investigation Division (EPA-CID), jointly announced the sentence, which U.S. District Court Judge William E. Smith imposed in U.S. District Court in Providence, R.I.

"Companies that handle hazardous chemicals like mercury need to follow the law designed to protect the public and the environment. This $18 million penalty is an indication that environmental crimes will not be taken lightly and violators will be held accountable," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Cruden.

"This is a significant penalty for what was a significant hazard to Pawtucket residents," U.S. Attorney Neronha said. "We are particularly pleased with the creative way in which Judge Smith fashioned the penalty, directing $12 million to benefit the people of Pawtucket."

"Today's sentence should serve as proof that EPA's Criminal Investigation Division will vigorously pursue those whose criminal conduct puts the American public and environment at risk," said Special Agent in Charge Hubbard.

In October 2008, a jury in Providence found Southern Union guilty of illegally storing mercury for several years at a site off Tidewater Street, near the Seekonk River. The Houston-based company owned New England Gas for several years.

During the trial in 2008, the government presented evidence that, in 2001, Southern Union began removing from customers' homes gas regulators that contained mercury. Southern Union employees brought the regulators to a facility on Tidewater Street in Pawtucket, where the regulators, and later loose mercury, were stored in a shed. Southern Union initially hired an environmental services company to prepare the mercury for shipment to a processing facility in Pennsylvania.

The recycling and reclamation ceased at the end of 2001. However, gas company technicians continued to remove regulators from customers' homes, and the company continued to store at Tidewater Street both loose liquid mercury -- in containers such as glass jars and a plastic jug -- and regulators that still contained mercury. A local company official drafted proposals to renew the removal project, but the company never finalized those proposals or put them out to bid.

In September 2004 three youths broke into the mercury storage building and took several containers of liquid mercury. They broke some of them, spilling mercury around the facility's grounds, and took some of the mercury to a nearby apartment complex, where it was also spilled.

For about three weeks, spilled mercury remained undetected at the Tidewater facility and at the apartment complex. After the contamination was discovered, the apartment complex was evacuated, and its 150 tenants were displaced for two months while the mercury was cleaned up.

In addition to fining Southern Union $6 million, Judge Smith put the company on two years probation. As a condition of probation, he ordered the company to pay $11 million to the Rhode Island Foundation for the establishment of environmental remediation and education projects and children's health initiatives. He also ordered that the company pay $1 million in $200,000 increments to the Rhode Island chapter of the American Red Cross, Hasbro's Children's Hospital and the DEM Environmental Response Fund. Judge Smith stayed the fine and other assessments while the company appeals the conviction.

The investigation that led to the prosecution was a joint effort of the Environmental Protection Agency, Criminal Investigation Division; the DEM, Office of Criminal Investigation; the DEM Office of Emergency Response and the DEM Office of Compliance and Inspection.

The case is being prosecuted by the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division and the U.S. Attorney's office for the District of Rhode Island.

Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice

TrueBeginnings LLC, the owner and operator of the True.com online dating website, has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that was brought against it by a former subscriber who alleged that True had unlawfully charged fees to his credit card after he cancelled his subscription. True denies all of the allegations, and has agreed to settle the case to focus on key priorities for the company, to best serve its customers, and because a successful defense of the Litigation would be expensive and distracting. On September 22, 2009, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas approved the settlement. Members of the settlement class have until October 21, 2009, to submit claims forms to participate in the settlement.

The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that True had a pattern and practice of imposing unauthorized charges on the credit cards or debit cards of subscribers who had previously cancelled their subscription. Discovery in the lawsuit revealed that True had in place a system -- which it called Auto-Subscription -- whereby certain former subscribers could automatically re-subscribe by clicking on certain hyper-links. The lawsuit alleged that True did not adequately inform the former subscribers of the existence of the Auto-Subscription system, or of the fact that they would be subject to re-subscription based upon clicking on those hyper-links. Among other things, True asserted this practice is convenient for its customers; the Auto-Subscription process merely initiated a new free trial, with both internet and email reminders about how and when to cancel to prevent any subscription fees.

As part of the settlement, True has agreed to pay $1.5 million into a settlement fund over a period from February 2009 through March 2010. Certain former True subscribers are eligible to make claims for refunds of either $35 (if they were charged only a single month's fees) or $50 (if they were charged two or more month's fees). In addition, a larger group of former subscribers will be offered 45 days of free subscription service on the True.com website. True also has agreed to a Court order requiring an intervening affirmative action or step to its Auto-Subscription system, to indicate that the potential subscriber assents to re-subscription.

Plaintiff is represented by Jonathan Tycko of the law firm of Tycko & Zavareei LLP, based in Washington, D.C., and Jon Sheperd of the law firm of Alston & Bird LLP, based in Dallas, Texas. About the settlement, Mr. Tycko said: "We believe this is a great result for True's former subscribers. Those former subscribers who were charged as a result of True's Auto-Subscription system can get a substantial refund, and we have put a stop to True's former practice of re-subscribing its customers via Auto-Subscription." In response, True's spokesperson said, "We want to do what is best for our current and potential subscribers, and a successful defense of this lawsuit diverts our attention from that objective. We therefore have agreed to this settlement in order to return our focus to bringing people together, even though we deny any wrongdoing."

The lawsuit is titled Thomas Wong v. TrueBeginnings, LLC d/b/a True.com, Civil Action No. 3-07CV1244-N (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas). More information about the settlement is available at the website www.trueclassaction.com.

SOURCE Tycko & Zavareei LLP

Smith & Nephew Inc's Advanced Wound Management division (LSE: SN; NYSE: SNN) announced that the German District Court in Dusseldorf decided in favour of Smith & Nephew by rejecting a request from Kinetic Concepts, Inc (NYSE: KCI) for a Preliminary Injunction against the marketing of Smith & Nephew's RENASYS* EZ Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) pump in Germany based on alleged infringement of the KCI patent EP0777504.

The District Court decision allows for Smith & Nephew to continue to commercialize its RENASYSEZNPWT product portfolio in Germany.

"This win in favor of Smith & Nephew allows us to continue providing wound care professionals in Germany with options for the latest innovations for NPWT," said Robin Carlstein, Senior Vice President of Advanced Wound Devices at Smith & Nephew. "Clearly, we are pleased with the German District Court's findings in this matter and look forward to continuing to provide our customers with our full range of RENASYS NPWT products in a very important market for the company."

For more information regarding Smith & Nephew, please visit our Web site at http://www.smith-nephew.com.

About Smith & Nephew

Smith & Nephew is a global medical technology business, specializing in Orthopaedics, including Reconstruction, Trauma and Clinical Therapies, Endoscopy and Advanced Wound Management. Smith & Nephew is a global leader in arthroscopy and advanced wound management and is one of the leading global orthopaedics companies.

Smith & Nephew is dedicated to helping improve people's lives. The Company prides itself on the strength of its relationships with its surgeons and professional healthcare customers, with whom its name is synonymous with high standards of performance, innovation and trust. The Company operates in 32 countries around the world. Annual sales in 2008 were nearly $3.8 billion.

SOURCE Smith & Nephew Inc

Nestle Waters North America Inc. is pleased to announce that an agreement has been reached with Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation that brings resolution to a lengthy Michigan legal case. The agreement preserves the Company's use of a spring water source that supports its Stanwood-based Ice Mountain(R) brand natural spring water bottling plant employing some 250 local people.

"Reaching this agreement is very important for Nestle Waters' employees and their families, the west Michigan community, and our company, in that it brings certainty for our operations, supports local jobs, and puts an issue behind us," said Nestle Waters North America Vice President Heidi Paul. "We are pleased that our west Michigan operations are thriving, providing valuable, good paying jobs for many local people, and contributing to area charitable causes. We look forward to continuing our investment in the area."

Under provisions of the agreement Nestle Waters will continue its sustainable use of natural spring water from four company-owned wells located in Mecosta County, Michigan. The Company will continue to withdraw an average of 218 gallons per minute of spring water (313,000 gallons per day), with rates varying depending on the time of the year and seasonal conditions at the site. The agreement makes the water withdrawal rates permanent.

Mecosta Circuit Court Judge Susan Grant approved the agreement on Monday (July 6), and entered a final order closing the case.

In developing the Sanctuary spring water source beginning in 2000, Nestle Waters conducted extensive hydrologic and ecologic assessments to assure the long-term sustainability of the source and surrounding environment. Moreover, Nestle Waters utilizes a network of environmental monitoring instruments at the site to ensure the area's abundant and renewable groundwater resources are carefully monitored for long-term sustainability.

Source: Nestle Waters North America Inc.