The Supreme Court will consider whether to keep alive the largest job discrimination case in U.S. history, a lawsuit against Wal-Mart that grew from a half-dozen women to a class action that could involve billions of dollars for more than a half million female workers.

Wal-Mart is trying to halt the lawsuit, with the backing of many other big companies concerned about rules for class-action cases — those in which people with similar interests increase their leverage by joining in a single claim. Class actions against discount seller Costco and the tobacco industry are among pending claims that the high court’s decision might alter.

The suit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. contends that women at Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores are paid less and promoted less often than men. The case the high court accepted on Monday will not examine whether the claims are true, only whether they can be tried together.

Estimates of the size of the class range from 500,000 to 1.5 million women who work or once worked for Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Ark., is appealing a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that the class-action lawsuit could go to trial.

Tobacco giant Altria Corp., Bank of America Corp., Dole Food Company Inc., General Electric Co., Intel Corp., Pepsico Inc. and United Parcel Service Inc. are among the companies that also called for high court review of the case.

The Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide if the largest sex-discrimination class-action lawsuit in U.S. history against Wal-Mart Stores Inc can proceed, a case involving women workers who seek billions of dollars in damages.

The nation's highest court agreed to hear an appeal by the world's largest retailer and the largest private employer arguing the claims of as many as 1.5 million current and former female employees were too diverse to proceed as a single class-action lawsuit.

The justices decided to review a ruling by a appeals court in California that upheld the class-action certification in the lawsuit alleging discrimination against every woman employed over the past decade at the company's 3,400 U.S. stores.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the case, which immediately became the most important business dispute before the justices this term, in March, with a ruling likely by the end of June.

The ruling could affect other class-action lawsuits. Anthony Sabino, a professor of law and business at St. John's University in New York, said the case "will test the very limits of class litigation."

Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart said in a statement it was pleased the court granted review in the important case and it looked forward to the court's consideration of the appeal.

Housing stocks were trading mostly higher on Tuesday after an analyst forecast modest improvement in the housing market next year and better home orders for homebuilders.

In his report, J.P. Morgan analyst Michael Rehaut said he sees the housing market stabilizing and improving modestly next year, coming off a 2010 that has seen home sales weaken in the months following the end of federal homebuyer tax credits in April.

Rehaut notes that, while demand for homes remains highly depressed, new home construction and home sales have largely stabilized over the past four months.

"We see this recent stability as critical in terms of our outlook for only modest downside for home prices, in contrast to 2006-2008, when consistently falling demand trends played a key role in declining home prices," Rehaut wrote.

The analyst anticipates home prices will trend from flat to down about 3 percent next year -- a view that he notes is more positive than other forecasts, some of which see home prices falling another 5 percent to 10 percent in 2011.

As a result of more stable price trends, builders should see minimal land-related charges and a modest increase in profit margins, the analyst said.

He also expects more builders to generate operating earnings per share next year.

Employees at the Oscar Mayer meat processing plant in Davenport, Iowa have filed a class action lawsuit seeking compensation for time they spend putting on and taking off their safety equipment.

The lawsuit claims employees are not paid while they don and doff uniforms, safety footwear, hairnets, glasses and other equipment before and after their shifts in violation of the law.

Four current employees are the plaintiffs in the case. Their attorneys are seeking to represent a class of 1,750 employees at the plant, which processes pork, beef and poultry.

The lawsuit names Oscar Mayer's parent company, Northfield, Ill.-based Kraft Foods Inc.

Kraft spokeswoman Rachel Larsen says the company believes it is in full compliance with state and federal law.

A federal judge has ruled that a class-action lawsuit can be filed against Florida over the sale of personal driver's license information to a private firm.

The lawsuit claims the state, specifically the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, improperly sold about 30 million personal records between 2005 and 2009 to Shadowsoft Inc., an Irving, Texas-based Internet marketer.

Shadowsoft then sold the information to other firms that target consumers.

An attorney representing the drivers told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel that the sales violate a federal statute banning the disclosure of personal information from driver's licenses.

Howard Bushman says addresses, dates of birth and possibly Social Security numbers were released.

The judge in Tallahassee ruled earlier this month that affected drivers can become members of the suit.

Copyright 2010 High Plains Broadcasting LLC All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

The Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A., www.suemyadvisor.com, announced today it filed an arbitration claim against NEXT Financial Group (“NEXT”), for its failure to supervise one of its financial advisors who engaged in unauthorized and excessive trading within an investor’s account.

Consistent with the arbitration claim this Firm just filed, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (“FINRA”) BrokerCheck website, on November 10, 2010, states that NEXT “did not have a reasonable system for reviewing the transactions of its registered representatives for excessive trading.”

Gary Menzer, co-founder and managing partner of Menzer & Hill, P.A., says “the $400K fine and regulatory action FINRA assessed against NEXT is not surprising considering the activity we uncovered in the account of one of our clients and customer of NEXT.”  Investors are encouraged to contact Menzer & Hill, P.A. if they believe their accounts are being excessively traded by their brokers or are subject to other abuses.

The attorneys at the Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A. are dedicated to pursuing claims on behalf of investors who have suffered investment losses. 

For a free case evaluation or to discuss this matter, please contact the Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A., at 888-923-9223, or visit us on the web at www.suemyadvisor.com

The Securities Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes ("K&T"), www.nasd-law.com, announced today that it filed a securities arbitration claim against Securities America on behalf of a 69 year old retiree from Arizona, seeking to recover $230,000 which was invested in Medical Capital Notes.

In August of this year, Montana's Commissioner of Securities filed a Notice of Proposed Agency Disciplinary Action against Securities America relating to its sales of Medical Capital Notes. According to the Notice, Securities America "withheld material information regarding heightened risks" from its registered representatives and their clients concerning Medical Capital Notes. Montana's Commissioner of Securities also alleged that Securities America "concealed these risks" from its brokers and their clients. Additionally, in 2009, Massachusetts' Securities Division filed a Complaint against Securities America relating to its sales of Medical Capital Notes. Massachusetts alleged that Securities America ignored their own due diligence analysts and sold Medical Capital Notes to unsophisticated investors without telling them about the risks involved.

While a class action lawsuit regarding Medical Capital Notes has been filed, K&T reminds investors of the benefits of filing an individual securities arbitration claim, as opposed to participating in a class action lawsuit. By participating in a class action lawsuit, an investor may only recover a nominal amount. However, if one has experienced significant losses in Medical Capital Notes, it may be more beneficial for them to file an individual securities arbitration claim. In 2003, K&T conducted a detailed study of securities arbitration versus class action. The study concluded that investors who file a securities arbitration claim traditionally obtain an overall higher rate of recovery as opposed to participating in a class action lawsuit. To view the full results of the comparison, please visit our web-site: http://www.nasd-law.com/documents/classvr.pdf

Investors who purchased Medical Capital securities from a full-service brokerage firm and sustained significant losses can contact K&T to explore their legal rights and options. The attorneys at K&T are dedicated to pursuing claims on behalf of investors who have suffered investment losses. K&T, an experienced, qualified and nationally recognized securities litigation law firm, practices exclusively in the field of securities arbitration and litigation. It continues its representation of investors throughout the world in securities arbitration and litigation matters against major Wall Street brokerage firms.

If you have information relating to this announcement or have investment losses of $100,000 or more in Medical Capital Notes, please contact Steven D. Toskes, Esquire or Jahan K. Manasseh, Esquire of Klayman & Toskes, P.A., at 888-997-9956 or visit us on the web at http://www.nasd-law.com.