﻿<?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>Portal Blogs</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/portal</link><description>LexisNexis Communities</description><copyright>http://www.lexisnexis.com/terms/copyright.aspx</copyright><atom:link href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/portal/Rss.aspx?id=399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Wednesday, June 19, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=344543&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=344543&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;The Shepard's Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"&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: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&lt;img src="/Community/emergingissues/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/lexisnexis_2D00_logo_2D00_335x189.png" border="0" style="max-width: 550px;" /&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:36:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet  - Court Opinions For Tuesday, June 18, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=344013&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=344013&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;The Shepard's Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #0000ff;"&gt;www.lexis.com&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;img src="/Community/emergingissues/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/lexisnexis_2D00_logo_2D00_335x189.png" border="0" style="max-width: 550px;" /&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 14pt;"&gt;&lt;a target="newWindow" href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: windowtext; font-size: 11pt; text-decoration: none;</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:32:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Split U.S. Supreme Court Rules Attorneys May Not Use DMV Info To Solicit Clients</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=343450&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=343450&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey's) Soliciting clients for a class action lawsuit is not a permissible attorney action covered by the Driver's Privacy Protection Act's litigation exception, a split U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 17 (&lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;Edward F. Maracich, et al. v. Michael Eugene Spears, et al.&lt;/span&gt;, No. 12-25, U.S. Sup.).&lt;b&gt; [lexis.com subscribers may &lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00271&amp;amp;searchtype=bo&amp;amp;search=number%2812-25%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=Split%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20Rules%20Attorneys%20May%20Not%20Use%20DMV%20Info%20To%20Solicit%20Clients&amp;amp;source=NEWS;MEALEY&amp;amp;view=full"&gt;Opinion available.&amp;nbsp; Document #43-130621-007Z&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer</description><author>bajeerah.lacava@lexisnexis.com (Bajeerah LaCava)</author><pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:03:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>High Court: Reverse-Payment Settlements Are Not Immune From Antitrust Scrutiny </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=343446&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=343446&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey's) The U.S. Supreme Court on June 17 ruled 5-3 that reverse-payment settlements of patent litigation between the holder of a drug patent and potential generic manufacturers of the drug are not necessarily immunized from an antitrust challenge, even if the anti-competitive effects of the agreement fall within the scope of the exclusionary potential of the patent, and that reverse-payment settlements should be analyzed under the rule of reason (&lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., et al.&lt;/span&gt;, No. 12-416, 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%2812-416%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=000271&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2013%20U.S.%20LEXIS%204545"&gt;the opinion</description><author>joan.grossman@lexisnexis.com (Joan Grossman)</author><pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:57:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Bankruptcy Case Involving Charge On Debtor's Property</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=343444&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=343444&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey's) The U.S. Supreme Court on June 17 granted &lt;i&gt;certiorari&lt;/i&gt; in a case involving the question of whether a bankruptcy court has the power to levy a financial charge against a Chapter 7 debtor's residential property, which he has claimed falls under the homestead exemption, despite the suggestion of the U.S. solicitor general that the high court deny hearing the case (&lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;Stephen Law v. Alfred Siegel&lt;/span&gt;, No. 12-5196, 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%2812-5196%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="/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_Supreme-Court.jpg"&gt;&lt;img src="/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer</description><author>james.cordrey@lexisnexis.com (James Cordrey)</author><pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:51:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Monday, June 17, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=343419&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=343419&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;The Shepard's Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"&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: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;img src="/Community/emergingissues/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/lexisnexis_2D00_logo_2D00_335x189.png" border="0" style="max-width: 550px;" /&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"&gt;&lt;a target="mainFrame" href="/trial/contactrepNALM.asp?ProductName=CACourts_ClientWeb"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #0000ff;"&gt;Find a</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:46:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Abbey Spanier LLP: California Appeals Court Reverses Its Previous Denial Of Class Certification In Light Of Brinker Decision</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=342029&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=342029&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/Community/immigration-law/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/Abbey-Spanier-logo.png" border="0" style="max-width: 550px;" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Plaintiffs brought a class action on behalf of approximately 4,000 current and former employees of Boyd &amp;amp; Associates, Inc. which provides security guard services. Plaintiffs alleged that Boyd denied off-duty meal breaks and off-duty rest breaks and did not include certain reimbursements and an annual bonus payment in calculating the hourly rate of overtime pay. Plaintiffs proposed three subclasses: (1) the Meal Break Class, (2) the Rest Break Class, and (3) the Overtime Class. The appeals court initially issued an opinion affirming the denial of class certification of the Meal Break Class and the Rest Break Class and reversing the order denying certification of the Overtime Class. After the court issued its opinion, the California Supreme Court issued its landmark decision Brinker Restaurant Corp</description><author>Abbey.Spanier@placeholder.com (Abbey Spanier)</author><pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:27:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>The Week In Securities Litigation: SEC Settles Going Private Transaction Fraud Action</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=342021&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=342021&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/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;" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Commission filed a settled action alleging fraud in connection with a going private transaction based on Exchange Act Section 13(e). The agency also brought its first action penalizing an exchange for regulatory filings this week. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The SEC also added a managing director of a New York brokerage firm as a defendant in its case centered on bribes paid to an official of an Argentine bank. The Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office filed parallel criminal charges against the same person. In addition, the Commission filed another action against an investment adviser, this time centered on the theft of assets, and three new insider trading cases. One insider trading case involved tipping by a corporate executive; another tipping by the brother-in-law of a corporate director;</description><author>TGormanSECActionsBlog@porterwright.com (Thomas O. Gorman)</author><pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:05:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Friday, June 14, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=341763&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=341763&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;The Shepard's Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #0000ff;"&gt;www.lexis.com&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;img src="/Community/emergingissues/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/lexisnexis_2D00_logo_2D00_335x189.png" border="0" style="max-width: 550px;" /&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"&gt;&lt;a target="mainFrame" href="/trial/contactrepNALM.asp?ProductName</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:14:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Florida Appeals Court Strikes Punitive Damages, Orders Remittitur On Others In Tobacco Case</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=341382&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=341382&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - (Mealey's) A Florida appeals court conditionally struck $5 million in punitive damages from a tobacco wrongful death suit June 12 and directed a trial judge to grant remittitur on $15 million in survivors' consortium claims (&lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;Philip Morris USA Inc., et al. v. Sharon Putney, et al.&lt;/span&gt;, Nos. 4D10-3606 and 4D10-5244, Fla. App., 4th Dist.; 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9279).&amp;nbsp;&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=Florida%20Appeals%20Court%20Strikes%20Punitive%20Damages%2C%20Orders%20Remittitur%20On%20Others&amp;amp;source=NEWS;MEALEY&amp;amp;view=full"&gt;Opinion available.&amp;nbsp; Document #04-130619-035Z&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/Community/emergingissues/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Emerging+Issues+Images/EI-Cigarettes-Skull-and-Crossbones.jpg" border="0" style="max-width: 550px;" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Fourth District</description><author>michael.lefkowitz@lexisnexis.com (Michael Lefkowitz)</author><pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:34:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Supreme Court Partly Reverses, Says Isolated DNA Not Patentable</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=341279&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=341279&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey's) In a unanimous ruling June 13, the U.S. Supreme Court found that although complementary DNA, or "cDNA," is patent-eligible, isolated DNA is not (&lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;The Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. Myriad Genetics Inc.&lt;/span&gt;, No. 12-398, 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%2812-398%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=00271&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2013%20U.S.%20LEXIS%204540"&gt;the opinion&lt;/a&gt; for this case)&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/DNA.jpg"&gt;&lt;img src="/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images</description><author>melissa.ritti@lexisnexis.com (Melissa Ritti)</author><pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:12:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Thursday, June 13, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=341549&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=341549&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;The Shepard's Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #0000ff;"&gt;www.lexis.com&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;img src="/Community/emergingissues/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/lexisnexis_2D00_logo_2D00_335x189.png" border="0" style="max-width: 550px;" /&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"&gt;&lt;a target="mainFrame" href="/trial/contactrepNALM.asp?ProductName</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:53:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Recent SEC Charges Raise Liability Questions For Government Entities</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=340628&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=340628&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/Community/UCC-Commerciallaw/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Contributor+Spotlight+Authors/Kevin-LaCroix_5F00_130x112.jpg" border="0" style="max-width: 550px;" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In two administrative enforcement actions last month, the SEC charged two municipalities - Harrisburg, Pa. and South Miami, Fla. - with securities fraud. These high-profile actions sounded alarm bells and raised concerns about possible securities violations involving other state and local governments. But while these two actions have grabbed a great deal of attention, the unfortunate fact is that allegations of securities law violations against local governments are nothing new. However, the recent problems do raise serious concerns for state and local government bond investors, which in turn raise concerns about what the liability implications may be for the government entities and their officials.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On May 6, 2013, in the first of the two most recent actions, the SEC instituted</description><author>klacroix@oakbridgeins.com (Kevin M. LaCroix)</author><pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:02:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>William A. Ruskin: No FIFRA Preemption, No Problem! </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=340552&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=340552&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="/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;" /&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;By William A. Ruskin&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;Gresser v. Dow Chemical Co&lt;/span&gt;., Ind. Ct. App., No 79A02-1111-CT-1014, 4/30/13 [&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00271&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2013%20Ind.%20App.%20LEXIS%20204&amp;amp;view=full"&gt;enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers&lt;/a&gt;], the plaintiffs in this toxic tort case alleged that their children developed a variety of illnesses after a purported exposure to Dursban TC in their home following a pesticide application by the co-defendant pesticide applicator.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Plaintiffs alleged that defendants Dow Chemical Company and &lt;a href="http://www.dowagro.com/"&gt;Dow Agrosciences&lt;/a&gt; (collectively, "Dow") failed to use reasonable care</description><author>wruskin@placeholder.com (William A. Ruskin)</author><pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:58:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Wednesday, June 12, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=340320&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=340320&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;The Shepard's Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #0000ff;"&gt;www.lexis.com&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 14pt;"&gt;&lt;img src="/Community/emergingissues/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/lexisnexis_2D00_logo_2D00_335x189.png" border="0" style="max-width: 550px;" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Times</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:15:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>FDA Lifts All Restrictions On Plan B One-Step Contraceptive, Will Drop Appeal</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=339853&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=339853&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;BROOKLYN, N.Y. - (Mealey's) The federal government on June 10 told a federal judge that it will make the one-pill Plan B One-Step emergency contraceptive available without age or point-of-sale restrictions and intends to voluntarily withdraw its appeal of the judge's order requiring the lifting of all restrictions (&lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;Annie Tummino, et al. v. Margaret Hamburg, et al.&lt;/span&gt;, No. 12-763, E.D. N.Y., &lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;Annie Tummino, et al. v. Margaret Hamburg, et al.&lt;/span&gt;, No. 13-1690, 2nd Cir).&amp;nbsp;&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=FDA%20Lifts%20All%20Restrictions%20On%20Plan%20B%20One-Step%20Contraceptive%2C%20Will%20Drop%20Appeal&amp;amp;source=NEWS;MEALEY&amp;amp;view=full"&gt;Letter available.&amp;nbsp; Document #28-130620-003X.&amp;nbsp; Citizen petition letter available.&amp;nbsp; Document #28-130620-004X&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/COMMUNITY/EMERGINGISSUES</description><author>thomas.moylan@lexisnexis.com (Tom Moylan)</author><pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:22:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Tuesday, June 11, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=339866&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=339866&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;The Shepard's Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #0000ff;"&gt;www.lexis.com&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 14pt;"&gt;&lt;a target="newWindow" href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: windowtext; font-size: 11pt; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"&gt;&lt;v:shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f" id="_x0000_t75"&gt;&lt;v:stroke joinstyle="miter"&gt;&lt;/v:stroke</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:08:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>U.S. Supreme Court To  Rule On Precondition To Arbitration Issue</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=339198&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=339198&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey's) The U.S. Supreme Court on June 10 granted a petition for writ of &lt;i&gt;certiorari&lt;/i&gt; filed by a U.K. investor in a dispute with the Republic of Argentina over whether courts, rather than arbitrators, should decide whether a precondition to arbitration has been satisfied (&lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;BG Group Plc v. Republic of Argentina&lt;/span&gt;, No. 12-138, U.S. Sup. &lt;b&gt;[lexis.com subscribers may &lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00271&amp;amp;searchtype=bo&amp;amp;search=number%2812-138%29&amp;amp;source=CRTFLS;BRIEFS"&gt;access Supreme Court briefs for this case&lt;/a&gt;].&lt;/b&gt;).&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&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%20To%20%20Rule%20On%20Precondition%20To%20Arbitration%20Issue&amp;amp;source=NEWS;MEALEY&amp;amp;view=full"&gt;Order list available.&amp;nbsp; Document #05-130625-012X&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.)&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;a href="/COMMUNITY</description><author>lisa.schaeffer@lexisnexis.com (Lisa M. Schaeffer)</author><pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:17:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions ForMonday, June 10, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=339184&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=339184&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;The Shepard's Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;www.lexis.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="/Community/emergingissues/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/lexisnexis_2D00_logo_2D00_335x189.png" border="0" style="max-width: 550px;" /&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;a target="mainFrame" href="/trial/contactrepNALM.asp?ProductName=CACourts_ClientWeb"&gt;Find a LexisNexis Sales Representative&lt;/a&gt; &lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;▪&lt;/span&gt; &lt;a target="mainFrame" href="http://bookstore.lexis.com/bookstore/catalog"&gt;Browse Legal Bookstore&lt;/a&gt; &lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;▪ &lt;/span&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="/courtlink/"&gt;Search Court Records&lt;/a&gt; &lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;▪ &lt;a target="newWindow" href="mailto:LN.CaliforniaCourt@lexisnexis.com?subject=CA%20e-advance%20feedback"&gt;Feedback&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;The CA e-Advance provides a business daily e-mail service to keep you updated and</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:02:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>2nd Circuit Lifts Stay On 2-Pill Plan B Contraceptive, Expedites FDA's Appeal</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=338352&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=338352&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;NEW YORK - (Mealey's) The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 5 said the federal government failed to meet the standard to obtain a stay of a lower court order that the Food and Drug Administration immediately make the older, two-pill Plan B emergency contraceptive available without prescription and without age or sales restrictions (&lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;Annie Tummino, et al. v. Margaret Hamburg, et al.&lt;/span&gt;, No. 13-1690, 2nd Cir.).&amp;nbsp;&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=2nd%20Circuit%20Lifts%20Stay%20On%202-Pill%20Plan%20B%20Contraceptive&amp;amp;source=NEWS;MEALEY&amp;amp;view=full"&gt;Order available.&amp;nbsp; Document #28-130620-001R&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Torts+Images/Litigation-Drugs-II.jpg"&gt;&lt;img src="/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0</description><author>thomas.moylan@lexisnexis.com (Tom Moylan)</author><pubDate>Sat, 08 Jun 2013 17:35:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>The Week In Securities Litigation: Money Market Funds The SEC Focus</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=338349&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=338349&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/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;" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Money market funds were the focus this week at the Commission. The agency issued proposed regulations for comment which may revise the operations of the widely used investment vehicles. The action follows a failed effort last year to propose new regulations and a warning from the FSOC that it may step-in if the SEC continued to dawdle on this important question.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;SEC Enforcement centered on offering fraud actions. Once case filed by the SEC involved thirty- five offerings that the complaint claims were actually one, integrated. A second centered on a series of offerings made by a small business owner. family owned business. The Commission settled another offering fraud case where the shares were used in microcap manipulations. In a variation, the Commission, in parallel</description><author>TGormanSECActionsBlog@porterwright.com (Thomas O. Gorman)</author><pubDate>Sat, 08 Jun 2013 17:31:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Friday, June 7, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=337926&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=337926&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;The Shepard's Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;www.lexis.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;img src="/Community/emergingissues/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/lexisnexis_2D00_logo_2D00_335x189.png" border="0" style="max-width: 550px;" /&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a target="mainFrame" href="/trial/contactrepNALM.asp?ProductName=CACourts_ClientWeb"&gt;Find a LexisNexis Sales Representative&lt;/a&gt; &lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;▪&lt;/span&gt; &lt;a target="mainFrame" href="http://bookstore.lexis.com/bookstore/catalog"&gt;Browse Legal Bookstore&lt;/a&gt; &lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;▪ &lt;/span&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="/courtlink/"&gt;Search Court Records&lt;/a&gt; &lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;▪ &lt;a target="newWindow" href="mailto:LN.CaliforniaCourt@lexisnexis.com?subject=CA%20e-advance%20feedback"&gt;Feedback&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;The CA e-Advance provides a business daily e-mail service to keep you updated</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:31:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Thursday, June 6, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=337090&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=337090&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;The Shepard's Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;span class="Object" id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT93"&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"&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: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;span class="Object"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="/Community/emergingissues/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/lexisnexis_2D00_logo_2D00_335x189.png" border="0" style="max-width: 550px;" /&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; 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</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:53:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Wednesday, June 5, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=336399&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=336399&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;The Shepard's Link(TM) feature has created hyperlinks to &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"&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: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&lt;img src="/Community/emergingissues/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Author+Thumbnails/lexisnexis_2D00_logo_2D00_335x189.png" border="0" style="max-width: 550px;" /&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;o:p&gt;&lt;/o:p&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="MsoNormal"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"&gt;&lt;a target="mainFrame" href="/trial/contactrepNALM.asp?ProductName</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:21:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Release of Lexis for Microsoft Office Now Integrates with Lexis Advance Content and Expands Functionality</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=335929&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=335929&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;h1&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: x-small;"&gt;Version brings customized search and results management to increase efficiency and accuracy in legal drafting process&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;NEW YORK, &lt;a sizset="0" sizcache="0" target="_nw" href="/"&gt;LexisNexis&lt;sup&gt;&amp;reg;&lt;/sup&gt; Legal &amp;amp; Professional&lt;/a&gt;, a leading provider of content and technology solutions, has announced that its industry-leading legal drafting solution, &lt;a sizset="1" sizcache="0" target="_nw" href="/en-us/products/lexis-for-microsoft-office.page"&gt;Lexis&lt;sup&gt;&amp;reg;&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt; Microsoft&lt;sup&gt;&amp;reg;&lt;/sup&gt; Office&lt;/a&gt; now integrates with &lt;a sizset="3" sizcache="0" target="_nw" href="/advance"&gt;Lexis Advance&lt;sup&gt;&amp;reg;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. With the advanced features, functionality and content of Lexis Advance, Lexis &lt;em&gt;for&lt;/em&gt; Microsoft Office now offers users even more options to quickly surface relevant results directly within their legal drafting process, streamline their workflow and improve the quality of their work product - directly</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:49:00 -0400</pubDate></item></channel></rss>