﻿<?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>U.S. Supreme Court OKs Attorney Fees In Untimely, Good Faith Vaccine Cases</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=330676&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=330676&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey'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="/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer</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/gotopost.aspx?PostID=330607&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=330607&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey'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="/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_Supreme-Court-_2800_3_2900_.jpg"&gt;&lt;img src</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/gotopost.aspx?PostID=330603&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=330603&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 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;b&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 style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 14pt;"&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; 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="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 14pt;"&gt;&lt;img src="/Community</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/gotopost.aspx?PostID=329918&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=329918&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;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 "golden goose" 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 the settlement of an insider trading case</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/gotopost.aspx?PostID=329912&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=329912&amp;AppID=1</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: '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_DWT50"&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;/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: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;span class="Object"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span</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/gotopost.aspx?PostID=329356&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=329356&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. - (Mealey'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="/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/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Torts+Images/Litigation-Drugs-II.jpg" border="0" /&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's prescribing physician concerning the risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) from Zometa that the defendant knew or should</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/gotopost.aspx?PostID=329372&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=329372&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;a href="/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/LexisNexis-Logo-Horizontal.jpg"&gt;&lt;img src="/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/LexisNexis-Logo-Horizontal.jpg" border="0" /&gt;&lt;/a&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</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/gotopost.aspx?PostID=328773&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=328773&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;h3&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;/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'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's discussion of &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-864.htm"&gt;Comcast Corp. v. Behrend&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;, 133 S. Ct. 1426,</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/gotopost.aspx?PostID=328683&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=328683&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p class="WordSection1"&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_DWT40"&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="WordSection1"&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="WordSection1"&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="WordSection1</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/gotopost.aspx?PostID=328182&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=328182&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p class="WordSection1"&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_DWT204"&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;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="WordSection1"&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="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; 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: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: windowtext; font-size: 11pt; text-decoration: none;"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #0000ff;"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;b</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/gotopost.aspx?PostID=327615&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=327615&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey'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="/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_Supreme-Court-_2800_3_2900_.jpg"&gt;&lt;img src="/COMMUNITY</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/gotopost.aspx?PostID=327619&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=327619&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey's) The U.S. Supreme Court on May 13 unanimously vacated and remanded a case involving a bank's claim that a debtor who had acted as trustee for his father'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 "defalcation" 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%203521"&gt;the opinion</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/gotopost.aspx?PostID=327686&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=327686&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p class="WordSection1"&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_DWT32"&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;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class="WordSection1"&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="WordSection1"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; 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: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; 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;/span&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span</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/gotopost.aspx?PostID=327025&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=327025&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 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'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 guard against material misstatements</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/gotopost.aspx?PostID=327013&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=327013&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;CHICAGO - (Mealey'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'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="/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/__key/CommunityServer</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/gotopost.aspx?PostID=326988&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=326988&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;div class="WordSection1"&gt;
&lt;p&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_DWT78"&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&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;/div&gt;
&lt;p class="WordSection1"&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="WordSection1"&gt;</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/gotopost.aspx?PostID=326987&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=326987&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p class="WordSection1"&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_DWT40"&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="WordSection1"&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="WordSection1"&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="WordSection1</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 17:09:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Plaintiffs Seek Approval Of $153M Securities Settlement With Fannie Mae, KPMG</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=325751&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=325751&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey's) Lead plaintiffs in a securities class action lawsuit against Fannie Mae and accounting firm KPMG LLP on May 7 asked a federal judge to approve a $153 million settlement that would end the lawsuit, which was brought in 2004 (&lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;In re: Fannie Mae Securities Litigation&lt;/span&gt;, No. 04-01639, D. D.C.).&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=Plaintiffs%20Seek%20Approval%20Of%20and%20Securities%20Settlement%20With%20Fannie%20Mae%2C%20KPMG&amp;amp;source=NEWS;MEALEY&amp;amp;view=full"&gt;Unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement available. Document #57-130513-077B&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/Community/immigration-law/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Corporate+_2600_+Securities+LC/ContentImage_2D00_StockCertificates.jpg" border="0" style="max-width: 550px;" /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Lead plaintiffs Ohio Republic Retirees</description><author>timothy.raub@lexisnexis.com (Timothy Raub)</author><pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 15:30:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet – Court Opinions For Wednesday, May 8, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=325745&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=325745&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p class="WordSection1"&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_DWT141"&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="WordSection1"&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="WordSection1"&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="WordSection1</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 15:20:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Advisen Says Corporate and Securities Litigation Up Slightly In First Quarter, But Below Annual Averages</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=325743&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=325743&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;During the first quarter of 2013, new corporate and securities lawsuits and regulatory enforcement actions increased slightly compared to the fourth quarter of 2012 but remained well below annual averages over the last two years, according to a new report from Advisen, the insurance information firm. The April 2013 report, which can be found &lt;a href="http://corner.advisen.com/pdf_files/QuarterlyD&amp;amp;O_ClaimsTrends_2013Q1.pdf"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;, is entitled "D&amp;amp;O Claims Trends: 1Q 2013," notes that "if the first quarter is any indication, it appears that this downward trend may continue throughout 2013."&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Reeders reviewing the Advisen report will want to be very careful to note that the report uses its own terminology. In particular, the report uses the term "securities suits</description><author>klacroix@oakbridgeins.com (Kevin M. LaCroix)</author><pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 15:13:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>SEC Reaches Settlement With Pennsylvania City Over Federal Securities Law Violations</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=325722&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=325722&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey's) The Securities and Exchange Commission and the City of Harrisburg, Pa., have agreed to a cease-and-desist order preventing the city from continuing its violation of federal securities laws in connection with statements it made both publicly and in financial documents regarding the city's failure to comply "with written undertakings executed by the City in the form of Continuing Disclosure Certificates," the SEC said in its order, filed May 6 (&lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;In the Matter of the City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania&lt;/span&gt;, No. 3-15316, SEC).&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=SEC%20Reaches%20Settlement%20With%20City%20Over%20Federal%20Securities%20Law%20Violations&amp;amp;source=NEWS;MEALEY&amp;amp;view=full"&gt;Cease-and-desist order available. Document #57-130513-073R.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/cfs-file.ashx</description><author>timothy.raub@lexisnexis.com (Timothy Raub)</author><pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 15:03:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Bank of America To Pay $1.7 Billion To Settle Mortgage-Backed Securities Claims </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=325132&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=325132&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;NEW YORK - (Mealey's) Bank of America Corp. (BoA) will pay nearly $1.7 billion to MBIA Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries to settle claims in New York State court that BoA misrepresented the investment quality of and risk associated with certain mortgage-backed securities (MBS) it sold to MBIA, according to press releases issued by both parties May 6 (&lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;MBIA Insurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc., et al.&lt;/span&gt;, No. 602825-2008, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/Community/immigration-law/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Corporate+_2600_+Securities+LC/ContentImage_2D00_StockCertificates.jpg" border="0" style="max-width: 550px;" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the MBIA press release, MBIA and subsidiaries MBIA Insurance Corp. and National Public Finance Guarantee Corp. (collectively, MBIA) will receive "a net payment of approximately $1.7 billion, consisting of approximately $1.6 billion in cash and $137</description><author>timothy.raub@lexisnexis.com (Timothy Raub)</author><pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 15:54:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet - Court Opinions For Tuesday, May 7, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=325094&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=325094&amp;AppID=1</guid><description>&lt;p class="WordSection1"&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_DWT32"&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="WordSection1"&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="WordSection1"&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="WordSection1</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 15:41:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>California Official Reports: Electronic Advance Sheet  - Court Opinions For Monday, May 6, 2013</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=324791&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=324791&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;&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;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a target="newWindow" href="http://www.lexis.com/"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&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</description><author>LexisNexisLitigationResourceCenter@x.com (LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 21:53:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>The Week In Securities Litigation: FCPA A Focus, SEC Prevails In Court</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=324089&amp;AppID=1</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LitigationResourceCenter/gotopost.aspx?PostID=324089&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 FCPA continued to be a focus this week. Another Alstrom executive was added to a pending criminal prosecution in a superseding indictment charging FCPA violations and money laundering. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In court the Commission prevailed in the D.C. Circuit as well as the district court. In the Circuit Court the Commission secured the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds of a suit challenging Exchange Act Section 13(q) and the related rules. Those provisions require the disclosure of certain payments made to foreign governments relating to the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals. In the district court the agency prevailed on a summary judgment motion in an investment fund fraud action. The agency also filed a settled administrative proceeding stemming from its inspection</description><author>TGormanSECActionsBlog@porterwright.com (Thomas O. Gorman)</author><pubDate>Sat, 04 May 2013 17:31:00 -0400</pubDate></item></channel></rss>