﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="../StyleSheet/rss.xsl"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Litigation Resource Community Litigation Blog</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/litigationresourcecenter</link><description>Litigation Resource Community, LexisNexis</description><copyright>http://www.lexisnexis.com/terms/copyright.aspx</copyright><atom:link href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/litigationresourcecenter/Rss.aspx?id=201" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>The Week In Securities Litigation: Securities Enforcement Focus Continues To Be SAC Capital</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/24/the-week-in-securities-litigation-securities-enforcement-focus-continues-to-be-sac-capital.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/24/the-week-in-securities-litigation-securities-enforcement-focus-continues-to-be-sac-capital.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/UCC-Commerciallaw/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Contributor+Spotlight+Authors/Thomas-O-Gorman_5F00_130x112.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The focus this week in securities enforcement continues to be SAC Capital. The firm&amp;#39;s owner received a grand jury subpoena in the on-going criminal and civil insider trading investigations being conducted by the Manhattan U.S. Attorney&amp;#39;s Office and the SEC. The investigations face a critical deadline in a few weeks as the five year criminal statute of limitations runs on certain trades. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The SEC received a warning from the FSOC regarding money market funds this week. The FSOC is reviewing comments on the money market fund proposals it put out last fall. If the SEC does not act by the time that review is completed, according to testimony from the Treasury Secretary, the FSOC may. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commission brought an action against</description><author>TGormanSECActionsBlog@porterwright.com (Thomas O. Gorman)</author><pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 17:03:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Defense Verdict Returned In 1st Da Vinci Surgical Robot Injury/Death Case</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/24/defense-verdict-returned-in-1st-da-vinci-surgical-robot-injury-death-case.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/24/defense-verdict-returned-in-1st-da-vinci-surgical-robot-injury-death-case.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;PORT ORCHARD, Wash. - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) A Washington state court jury on May 23 found that the maker of the da Vinci surgical robot did not fail to provide adequate warnings or training to a surgeon who used the device on a patient who died four years later, allegedly from complications from the surgery, the defendant said (&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;Fred Taylor, et al. v. Intuitive Surgical Inc.&lt;/span&gt;, No. 09-2-03136-5, Wash. Super., Kitsap Co.).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_CourtHouse.jpg"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_CourtHouse.jpg" border="0" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Intuitive Surgical Inc., the trial was the first of 26 product liability cases pending against it in federal and state courts.</description><author>thomas.moylan@lexisnexis.com (Tom Moylan)</author><pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:12:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Friday, May 24, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/24/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-friday-may-24-2013.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/24/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-friday-may-24-2013.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;The Shepard&amp;#39;s Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Calibri&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;www.lexis.com&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/LexisNexis-Logo-Horizontal.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;font</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 15:55:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Thursday, May 23, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/23/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-thursday-may-23-2013.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/23/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-thursday-may-23-2013.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p class="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;The Shepard&amp;#39;s Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;span class="Object" id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT170"&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Calibri&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;www.lexis.com&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;span class="Object"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/emergingissues/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/lexisnexis_2D00_logo_2D00_335x189.png" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 11:36:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>William A. Ruskin: 2nd Circuit Grapples With Medical Monitoring</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/22/william-a-ruskin-2nd-circuit-grapples-with-medical-monitoring.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/22/william-a-ruskin-2nd-circuit-grapples-with-medical-monitoring.aspx</guid><description>&lt;h3&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/immigration-law/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Contributor+Spotlight+Authors/William-Ruskin_5F00_130x112.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;By William A. Ruskin&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 1, 2013, the Second Circuit issued an important decision in &lt;a href="http://www.leagle.com/xmlresult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020130501105.xml&amp;amp;docbase=CsLwAr3-2007-Curr"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Caronia v. Philip Morris USA Inc.&lt;/em&gt;,&lt;/a&gt; 2d Cir., No. 11-0316 (5/1/13) [&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00271&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2013%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%208861&amp;amp;view=full"&gt;enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers&lt;/a&gt;]. The Court provides an excellent summary of the law concerning medical monitoring claims in New York state and federal courts, and in other jurisdictions around the country. However, the Second Circuit concluded that the New York Court of</description><author>wruskin@placeholder.com (William A. Ruskin)</author><pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 11:34:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Wednesday, May 22, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/22/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-wednesday-may-22-2013.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/22/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-wednesday-may-22-2013.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p class="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;The Shepard&amp;#39;s Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;span class="Object" id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT108"&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Calibri&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;www.lexis.com&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;span class="Object"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/emergingissues/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/lexisnexis_2D00_logo_2D00_335x189.png" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 11:31:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Bankruptcy Judge Sets Specialty Products' Asbestos Liability At $1.16 Billion</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/21/bankruptcy-judge-sets-specialty-products-asbestos-liability-at-1-16-billion.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/21/bankruptcy-judge-sets-specialty-products-asbestos-liability-at-1-16-billion.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WILMINGTON, Del. -- (Mealey&amp;#39;s) Former joint compound producer Bondex International Inc. and its related holding company Specialty Products Holding Corp. face an estimated $1.16 billion in pending and future asbestos personal injury claims, about double what the companies estimate their asbestos liabilities at, a federal bankruptcy judge in Delaware overseeing the companies&amp;#39; joint Chapter 11 case ruled May 20 (&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;In re: Specialty Products Holding Corp., et al.&lt;/span&gt;, No. 10-11780, D. Del. Bkcy.; 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 2051) [&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00236&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2013%20Bankr.%20LEXIS%202051"&gt;an enhanced version of this opinion is available to lexis.com subscribers&lt;/a&gt;].&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Emerging+Issues+Images/Chinese-Drywall.jpg"&gt;&lt;img</description><author>emerson.heffner@lexisnexis.com (Emerson Heffner)</author><pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 17:42:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Tuesday, May 21, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/21/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-tuesday-may-21-2013.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/21/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-tuesday-may-21-2013.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;The&amp;nbsp;Shepard&amp;#39;s Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;span class="Object" id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT32"&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Calibri&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;www.lexis.com&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;span class="Object"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/emergingissues/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/lexisnexis_2D00_logo_2D00_335x189.png" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 17:32:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>U.S. Supreme Court OKs Attorney Fees In Untimely, Good Faith Vaccine Cases</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/20/u-s-supreme-court-oks-attorney-fees-in-untimely-good-faith-vaccine-cases.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/20/u-s-supreme-court-oks-attorney-fees-in-untimely-good-faith-vaccine-cases.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) A federal vaccine compensation petitioner who filed an untimely claim may qualify for attorney fees if her claim was filed in good faith and there was a reasonable basis for it, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled May 20 (&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;Kathleen Sebelius, et al. v. Melissa Cloer&lt;/span&gt;, No. 12-236, U.S. Sup.). &lt;b&gt;(lexis.com subscribers may &lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00237&amp;amp;searchtype=bo&amp;amp;search=number%2812-1128%29&amp;amp;source=CRTFLS;BRIEFS"&gt;access Supreme Court briefs for this case&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(&lt;b&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00271&amp;amp;searchtype=bo&amp;amp;search=U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20OKs%20Attorney%20Fees%20In%20Untimely%2C%20Good%20Faith%20Vaccine%20Cases&amp;amp;source=NEWS;MEALEY&amp;amp;view=full"&gt;Opinion available. Document #28-130606-005Z&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/cfs-file</description><author>thomas.moylan@lexisnexis.com (Tom Moylan)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 16:40:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Supreme Court Grants Certiorari In Dispute Over Cardiac Device Patents</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/20/supreme-court-grants-certiorari-in-dispute-over-cardiac-device-patents.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/20/supreme-court-grants-certiorari-in-dispute-over-cardiac-device-patents.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) The question of whether a patent licensee bears the burden of proving that its products do not infringe in a declaratory judgment action filed pursuant to &lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;MedImmune Inc. v. Genentech Inc.&lt;/span&gt; (549 U.S. 118, 137 [2007]) will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which on May 20 granted &lt;i&gt;certiorari&lt;/i&gt; in a dispute over cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices (&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. et al.&lt;/span&gt;, No. 12-1128, U.S. Sup.) &lt;b&gt;(lexis.com subscribers may &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00271&amp;amp;searchtype=bo&amp;amp;search=number%2812-1128%29&amp;amp;source=CRTFLS;BRIEFS"&gt;access Supreme Court briefs for this case&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_Supreme-Court-_2800_3_2900_</description><author>melissa.ritti@lexisnexis.com (Melissa Ritti)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 15:40:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Monday, May 20, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/20/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-monday-may-20-2013.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/20/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-monday-may-20-2013.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;The Shepard&amp;#39;s Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Calibri&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;www.lexis.com&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;font-size:14pt;"&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Calibri&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:windowtext;font-size:11pt;text-decoration:none;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 15:27:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>The Week in Securities Litigation: Companies With China-Based Operations Were SEC Focus</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/17/the-week-in-securities-litigation-companies-with-china-based-operations-were-sec-focus.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/17/the-week-in-securities-litigation-companies-with-china-based-operations-were-sec-focus.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/UCC-Commerciallaw/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Contributor+Spotlight+Authors/Thomas-O-Gorman_5F00_130x112.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Companies with China based operations were a focus this week for the SEC. The Commission filed two financial fraud actions against companies whose operations were in the PRC. In one there seemed to be virtually no operations while in the other two sets of books were used to falsify revenue while proceeds of a securities offering were diverted to the use of the chairman and the controlling shareholder. The SEC also concluded its &amp;quot;golden goose&amp;quot; insider trading case, settling with the two remaining defendants. And, another defendant in the Dell insider trading case was sentenced to prison. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commission prevailed in the Second Circuit which affirmed the entry of an officer and director bar ordered by the district court following</description><author>TGormanSECActionsBlog@porterwright.com (Thomas O. Gorman)</author><pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 17:11:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Friday, May 17, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/17/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-friday-may-17-2013.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/17/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-friday-may-17-2013.aspx</guid><description>&lt;div class="WordSection1"&gt;
&lt;div style="border-bottom:medium none;border-left:medium none;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0in;padding-right:0in;border-top:#b5c4df 1pt solid;border-right:medium none;padding-top:3pt;"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;The Shepard&amp;#39;s Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;span class="Object" id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT50"&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Calibri&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;www.lexis.com&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style="border-bottom:medium none;border-left:medium none;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0in;padding-right:0in;border-top:#b5c4df 1pt solid;border-right:medium none;padding-top:3pt;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;span class</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 16:51:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>N.J. Jury Finds For Defendant Novartis In Zometa Jaw Injury Trial</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/16/n-j-jury-finds-for-defendant-novartis-in-zometa-jaw-injury-trial.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/16/n-j-jury-finds-for-defendant-novartis-in-zometa-jaw-injury-trial.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) A New Jersey state court jury on May 15&lt;a name="_GoBack"&gt;&lt;/a&gt; returned a defense verdict for Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. in a Zometa jaw injury case, a source told &lt;b&gt;Mealey Publications&lt;/b&gt; (&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;Beverly Meng v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.&lt;/span&gt;, No. MID-L-7670-07-MT, N.J. Super., Middlesex Co.).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Torts+Images/Litigation-Drugs-II.jpg"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Torts+Images/Litigation-Drugs-II.jpg" border="0" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a 7-1 vote, the jury in the Middlesex County Superior Court found that Novartis did not fail to provide an adequate warning to plaintiff Beverly Meng&amp;#39;s prescribing physician concerning the risk of osteonecrosis</description><author>thomas.moylan@lexisnexis.com (Tom Moylan)</author><pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 16:44:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Thursday, May 16, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/16/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-thursday-may-16-2013.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/16/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-thursday-may-16-2013.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;The Shepard&amp;#39;s Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Calibri&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;www.lexis.com&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/LexisNexis-Logo-Horizontal.jpg"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/LexisNexis-Logo-Horizontal.jpg" border="0" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;span style=</description><author>gregg.lawson@lexisnexis.com (Gregg Lawson)</author><pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 17:04:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>William A. Ruskin: Comcast Corp. v. Behrend Decision Levels Class Action Playing Field</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/15/william-a-ruskin-comcast-corp-v-behrend-decision-levels-class-action-playing-field.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/15/william-a-ruskin-comcast-corp-v-behrend-decision-levels-class-action-playing-field.aspx</guid><description>&lt;h3&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/immigration-law/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Contributor+Spotlight+Authors/William-Ruskin_5F00_130x112.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;By William A. Ruskin&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href="http://www.foleyhoag.com/publications/alerts-and-updates/2013/april/product-liability-update"&gt;Foley Hoag Product Liability Update&lt;/a&gt; is a good source of information concerning developments in product liability and related law for product manufacturers and sellers. Published quarterly, the Update is prepared under the aegis of &lt;a href="http://www.foleyhoag.com/people/geiger-david"&gt;David R. Geiger&lt;/a&gt;, the chair of Foley Hoag&amp;#39;s product liability and complex tort practice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although any of the six articles in the April 2013 Update are worthy of comment, the Update&amp;#39;s discussion of &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-864.htm"&gt;Comcast Corp</description><author>wruskin@placeholder.com (William A. Ruskin)</author><pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 15:15:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Wednesday, May 15, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/15/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-wednesday-may-15-2013.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/15/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-wednesday-may-15-2013.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p class="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;The Shepard&amp;#39;s Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;span class="Object" id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT40"&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Calibri&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;www.lexis.com&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;span class="Object"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/emergingissues/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/lexisnexis_2D00_logo_2D00_335x189.png" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 15:07:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Tuesday, May 14, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/14/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-tuesday-may-14-2013.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/14/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-tuesday-may-14-2013.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p class="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;The Shepard&amp;#39;s Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;span class="Object" id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT204"&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Calibri&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;www.lexis.com&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;font-size:14pt;"&gt;&lt;span class="Object" id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT205"&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Calibri&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:windowtext;font-size:11pt;text-decoration</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 17:00:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Supreme Court Affirms Patent Exhaustion Not Applicable In Seed Dispute</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/13/supreme-court-affirms-patent-exhaustion-not-applicable-in-seed-dispute.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/13/supreme-court-affirms-patent-exhaustion-not-applicable-in-seed-dispute.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) A soybean farmer accused of infringing a patented pesticide-resistant seed was defeated May 13 in his efforts to avoid liability via the patent exhaustion doctrine, when the U.S. Supreme Court deemed the doctrine inapplicable to the dispute (&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;Vernon Hugh Bowman v. Monsanto Co., et al.&lt;/span&gt;, No. 11-796, U.S. Sup.) &lt;b&gt;(lexis.com subscribers may &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00209&amp;amp;searchtype=bo&amp;amp;search=number%2811-796%29&amp;amp;source=CRTFLS;BRIEFS"&gt;access Supreme Court briefs&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=000237&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2013%20U.S.%20LEXIS%203519"&gt;the opinion&lt;/a&gt; for this case)&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_Supreme-Court-_2800_3_2900_</description><author>melissa.ritti@lexisnexis.com (Melissa Ritti)</author><pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 16:39:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>U.S. Supreme Court Remands Bankruptcy Defalcation Case, Says Higher Standard Needed</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/13/u-s-supreme-court-remands-bankruptcy-defalcation-case-says-higher-standard-needed.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/13/u-s-supreme-court-remands-bankruptcy-defalcation-case-says-higher-standard-needed.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) The U.S. Supreme Court on May 13 unanimously vacated and remanded a case involving a bank&amp;#39;s claim that a debtor who had acted as trustee for his father&amp;#39;s insurance trust was guilty of defalcation for making loans to himself during the time he had control of the trust, ruling that the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals needed to review the case to determine if it should apply the higher standard of &amp;quot;defalcation&amp;quot; outlined by the high court (&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;Randy Curtis Bullock v. BankChampaign&lt;/span&gt;, No. 11-1518, Chapter 7, U.S. Sup.)&lt;b&gt; (lexis.com subscribers may &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00209&amp;amp;searchtype=bo&amp;amp;search=number%2811-1518%29&amp;amp;source=CRTFLS;BRIEFS"&gt;access Supreme Court briefs&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=000236&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2013%20U.S.%20LEXIS</description><author>james.cordrey@lexisnexis.com (James Cordrey)</author><pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 16:37:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Monday, May 13, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/13/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-monday-may-13-2013.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/13/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-monday-may-13-2013.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p class="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;The Shepard&amp;#39;s Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;span class="Object" id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT32"&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Calibri&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;www.lexis.com&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;font-size:14pt;"&gt;&lt;span class="Object" id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT33"&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Calibri&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:windowtext;font-size:11pt;text-decoration:none;</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 16:04:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>The Week In Securities Litigation: SEC Seeks Budget Hike, Brings 2 New Actions </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/10/the-week-in-securities-litigation-sec-seeks-budget-hike-brings-2-new-actions.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/10/the-week-in-securities-litigation-sec-seeks-budget-hike-brings-2-new-actions.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/UCC-Commerciallaw/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Contributor+Spotlight+Authors/Thomas-O-Gorman_5F00_130x112.jpg" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The focus this week was on the proposed SEC budget as new SEC Chair Mary Jo White told a House subcommittee that the agency needs about a 26% increase. Part of the additional funding is to hire almost 700 new staff members. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;SEC enforcement, in conjunction with the Manhattan U. S. Attorney&amp;#39;s Office, brought a kickback action involving payments to an official of an Argentinian bank by employees of a New York brokerage firm. The Commission also brought its first action against a City based on statements not contained in the financing papers. In conjunction with that proceeding the agency also issued a Section 21(a) report cautioning city officials regarding their statements and noting that appropriate procedures should be in place to</description><author>TGormanSECActionsBlog@porterwright.com (Thomas O. Gorman)</author><pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 17:44:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Illinois Jury Awards $2.2Million To Widower In 1st Humira Infection Case To Go To Trial</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/10/illinois-jury-awards-2-2million-to-widower-in-1st-humira-infection-case-to-go-to-trial.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/10/illinois-jury-awards-2-2million-to-widower-in-1st-humira-infection-case-to-go-to-trial.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;CHICAGO - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) An Illinois state court jury on May 9 found Abbott Laboratories negligent and ordered it to pay a plaintiff $2,244,063 for a near-fatal infection his late wife suffered while taking the rheumatoid arthritis drug Humira, according to the plaintiff&amp;#39;s law firm (&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;Milton Tietz, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al.&lt;/span&gt;, No. 12-L-002715, Ill. Cir., Cook Co.).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(&lt;b&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00271&amp;amp;searchtype=bo&amp;amp;search=Illinois%20Jury%20Awards%20and%20To%20Widower%20In%201st%20Humira%20Infection%20Case%20To%20Go%20To%20Trial&amp;amp;source=NEWS;MEALEY&amp;amp;view=full"&gt;Judgment available. Document #28-130516-018R.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Torts+Images/Litigation-Drugs-II.jpg"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER</description><author>thomas.moylan@lexisnexis.com (Tom Moylan)</author><pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 17:23:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Friday, May 10, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/10/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-friday-may-10-2013.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/10/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-friday-may-10-2013.aspx</guid><description>&lt;div class="WordSection1"&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;The Shepard&amp;#39;s Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;span class="Object" id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT78"&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Calibri&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;www.lexis.com&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;span class="Object"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/emergingissues/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/lexisnexis_2D00_logo_2D00_335x189.png" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p class="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 17:13:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Thursday, May 9, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/10/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-thursday-may-9-2013.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/blogs/litigationblog/archive/2013/05/10/california-official-reports-electronic-advance-sheet-court-opinions-for-thursday-may-9-2013.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p class="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;The Shepard&amp;#39;s Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;span class="Object" id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT40"&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Calibri&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#0000ff;"&gt;www.lexis.com&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color:black;font-size:10pt;"&gt;&lt;span class="Object"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/emergingissues/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/lexisnexis_2D00_logo_2D00_335x189.png" border="0" style="max-width:550px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;color</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 17:09:00 -0400</pubDate></item></channel></rss>