A statewide class action in which Massachusetts homeowners accuse U.S. Bancorp and Ally Financial Inc. of faulty foreclosures will resume now that the state’s high court ruled in a similar case last week.

The litigation was on hold while the Supreme Judicial Court decided whether state law required foreclosures to be conducted by the mortgage owner. The high court ruled Jan. 7 in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez that an industry practice allowing post-foreclosure assignments violated state law.

“This is a statewide class action and it’s going to bring relief to all of the people who are dispossessed homeowners in many instances,” Kevin Costello, a lawyer for the borrowers, said in a telephone interview today. Costello today filed a motion to restart evidence gathering in the case.

Claims of wrongdoing by banks and loan servicers triggered a 50-state investigation last year into whether hundreds of thousands of foreclosures were properly documented as the housing market collapsed.

Unwinding of foreclosures may lead to loan workouts with homeowners or force originators to buy back loans that ended up in mortgage-backed securities.

A new foundation, Investor Claims against Fortis, has started legal proceedings in the Netherlands against the former bancassurer Fortis for "misleading investors", which it claims led to combined losses of €2bn.

The organisation argues that Fortis persisted in persuading investors to invest between May 2007 and October 2008 when the company was already on the ropes.

One of the foundation's claims is that Fortis failed to supply timely, accurate information about its exposure to sub-prime mortgages in the US.

The legal case – brought for the Utrecht court in the Netherlands – comes after the US high court decided that a class action by "foreign investors who have bought a stake in foreign companies on foreign stock markets" was inadmissible in a US court.

Within the EU, the legal climate in the Netherlands is ideal for shareholders wishing to reclaim damages from listed companies, according to Jay Eisenhofer, partner at law firm Grant & Eisenhofer.

Stuart Berman of law firm Barroway Topaz added: "This case offers a valuable framework for compensating duped investors outside the US."

Both law firms, as well as Alexander Reus, the foundation's director, have represented international shareholders against Shell for providing incorrect information about its oil reserves.

After Fortis became one of the three players that took over Dutch bank ABN Amro, it had to be rescued by the national governments of the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.

Ultimately, the company was split up, with a large part of its assets being sold to third parties. The remainder of Fortis is now operating as Ageas.

Earlier, Fortis shareholders tried in vain to block the break-up of Fortis and hold its executive board accountable for the incurred losses.

The Amsterdam business court has not yet finalised a survey – conducted at the request of shareholders – into alleged mismanagement at Fortis.

The foundation said it had the support of more than 140 institutional investors, as well as 2,000 private investors worldwide.

A landmark David-versus-Goliath legal battle is unfolding in the town of Shannon, Que.

In 2007, residents of the small community northeast of Quebec City won the right to seek damages in a class-action lawsuit against the federal government over the town’s contaminated water supply.

Now, a trial is underway with the potential for billions worth of damages on the line for 2,300 current and past Shannon residents.

The lawsuit alleges munitions manufacturer Industries Valcartier Inc. and the Department of National Defence were negligent in handling and disposing of trichloroethylene, or TCE, a known carcinogenic substance used at nearby Canadian Forces base Valcartier.

For 40 years, personnel at CFB Valcartier used TCE as a cleaning agent for cannons and other military hardware at the base.

In 2000, TCE was discovered in Shannon’s water wells. For years, residents unknowingly drank and bathed in water laced with the deadly toxic substance.

Around the same time, residents started to take note of an increasingly high rate of cancer diagnoses. 500 cancer cases were documented in Shannon, 200 of which proved fatal, an alarmingly high rate of disease for a town with a population barely 4,000-strong.

While legal counsel for the government dismissed residents’ claims for a lack of scientific evidence, Charles Veilleux, the lawyer representing the people of Shannon, will attempt to prove how exposure to TCE is directly linked to the high rate of cancer and illness in Shannon.

A lawsuit that alleges the maker of Marlboro Lights used deceptive trade practices and false advertising when it marketed its cigarettes as "light" can proceed in Minnesota as a class-action claim, the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

The 45-page ruling by the three-judge panel sends the 2001 lawsuit against Philip Morris back to Hennepin County District Court.

The class would include people who bought Marlboro Lights in Minnesota for their personal use from 1972 through November 2004. The number of people in the class and the amount of damages they would seek was not immediately available Tuesday. The plaintiffs are seeking refunds of money they spent on the cigarettes.

In a statement, Philip Morris said it was considering its options for an appeal. The company said it believes class-action status is inappropriate because the circumstances of each smoker are different.

The district court denied the request for class certification in 2004, saying it was necessary to look at each person's reasons for smoking light cigarettes and the manner in which they smoked them. But later that year, the district court reversed itself and certified the class, saying that because the injury being claimed was economic, not physical, all class members suffered similar injury.

A federal judge granted class-action status to Netflix Inc. subscribers in their lawsuit against the company and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. over DVDs.

US District Judge Phyllis Hamilton said that the subscribers bringing suit against the companies in 2009 were “united by common and overlapping issues of fact and law,’’ in an order dated Dec. 23 and filed in federal court in Oakland, Calif.

Wal-Mart and the plaintiffs reached a preliminary settlement of the lawsuit that could pay them as much as $40 million in cash or equivalents, according to a motion filed Dec. 14. A hearing on that motion will be Feb. 9. It doesn’t include Netflix.

The plaintiffs charged that Netflix and Wal-Mart conspired in 2005 to divide the market for selling and renting DVDs to reduce competition. The companies formed an agreement in which Wal-Mart.com would stop renting DVDs online and Netflix wouldn’t offer them for sale.

Town officials may file a class-action lawsuit against the state for what they say is inadequate funding of the district's special education program.

A task force reviewing Framingham structural deficit asked earlier this month for Town Manager Julian Suso and Superintendent Steven Hiersche to look into filing a lawsuit, Hiersche said yesterday.

"We haven't had time to talk about it," he said, adding he expected discussions to begin in the new year.

The task force said a potential lawsuit would be in response to the state's underfunding of the town's special education services. Like many towns, Framingham had its special education "circuit-breaker" reimbursement cut by the state last year, and Suso said Framingham historically has been underfunded in the state's education funding formula.

"The playing field is not level," he said.

Hierche said the lawsuit also could consider other recent cuts to local aid.

"(The Structural Deficit Review Task Force) is looking at a lot of things the state has backed away from," he said.

Suso said the aim of the lawsuit would be to make the state's funding formulas more equitable to Framingham, though there is no specific figure being sought at this time.

A coalition of environmental and Native American groups on Monday sued the California Department of Fish and Game over permits issued to build 21,000 homes on Los Angeles County's last major tract of undeveloped land.

The coalition, which filed the suit in San Francisco County Superior Court, alleges that fish and game officials violated state environmental codes in granting permits Dec. 3 for the controversial Newhall Ranch development.

"It is appalling that the Department of Fish and Game, the trustee for all of California's wildlife, approved ecological destruction on this scale," said John Buse, a senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs. "Far less damaging options were available, but the department brushed them aside."

Fish and Game spokesman Andrew Hughan said he could not comment because the department has not yet seen the lawsuit, but in an earlier statement department officials said the approved plan will preserve 70 percent of the nearly 14,000-acre area as natural open space.

That space includes preserves to protect 76 percent of the rare San Fernando Valley spineflower and 93 percent of the Santa Clara River corridor.

Developers must also establish a $6 million endowment for preservation efforts.

"Hundreds of people, including biologists, botanists, hydrologists and other scientists, worked together to shape this biologically innovative project, and the end result ensures the protection of this site's unique natural resources," said Ed Pert, South Coast regional manager.