A federal judge on Friday approved Eastman Kodak Co.'s $21.4 million offer to settle class-action lawsuits by black employees who maintained white counterparts were favored over them for pay and promotion.

In an almost seven-year legal tussle, U.S. Magistrate Jonathan Feldman signed off on a deal that pays about 3,000 current and past Kodak workers amounts ranging from $1,000 to $50,000. The decision ends a 2004 class-action lawsuit and a similar suit filed by other black workers in 2007.

The Rochester, N.Y.-based photography products maker was accused of paying black employees less than white co-workers, passing them over for promotions and maintaining a racially hostile work environment.

Last October, Feldman heard arguments in favor of the deal from Kodak and lawyers for the plaintiffs. He then fielded complaints from more than a dozen former employees who said proposed payouts were inadequate, lawyer fees too high and the offer unfairly excluded workers who left Kodak before 1999.

Under the settlement, 3,008 workers get $9.65 million and their lawyers $9.7 million in fees and expenses. Adjustments to individual awards were negotiated, with a dozen workers having $75,000 awards reduced by one-third.

The balance of the settlement will go to administering the claims and supporting enhanced diversity training for supervisors that Kodak promised as part of the deal. The company will also hire an industrial psychologist and two labor statisticians to review pay and promotion policies and recommend improvements.

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of TeleNav, Inc. pursuant to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with its May 13, 2010, initial public offering (the "IPO"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

TeleNav provides wireless location-based services in North and South America, Asia, and Europe. The Complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its executive officers and/or directors violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning TeleNav's business, operations and financial prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's securities. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and failed to disclose that: (a) the Company would soon be renegotiating its contract to provide its largest customer, Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint"), with its Sprint Navigation application, which would result in lower overall revenues to TeleNav; (b) Sprint's unwillingness to continue with the same contract terms beyond December 31, 2010 would result in lower revenues from Sprint and negatively affect TeleNav's other wireless relationships; and (c), as a result, the foregoing would cause TeleNav's financial results to trend adversely compared to the trends included in the Registration Statement.

No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased TeleNav common stock pursuant to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's May 13, 2010 IPO, you have certain rights, and have 60 days from the date of this Notice to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, Toll-Free at (888) 638-4847, by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Google has reached a settlement on a class-action suit regarding its Buzz social-networking feature.

The company agreed to pay $8.5 million, which – after attorneys' fees and expenses are covered – will be donated to Internet privacy and education organizations.

The case dates back to February, when two law firms filed suit against Google in California district court on behalf of 24-year-old Harvard Law School student Eva Hibnick. "They opted me into this social network and I didn't want it," she said at the time.

Google introduced Buzz in February. It added a "news feed" feature to Gmail and was also incorporated into Google's mobile offering on Android phones and the iPhone. Amidst concerns over what information was displayed publicly, however, Google soon tweaked Buzz to give user more control over their settings. This did not appease all users, however, and a class-action suit was born.

According to court filings, Google held a formal meeting at its headquarters April 21 with attorneys from the opposing side. After a day-long discussion about Buzz and the class members' concerns, both sides agreed to a formal mediation. They met again on June 2 and after a 14-hour discussion, agreed on a settlement.

The federal government lacks the authority to force Americans to buy health insurance, a class action claimed Tuesday in Federal Court.

People V. Us, Independent American Party of Nevada, the Nevada Eagle Forum and several individuals claim in a 55-page lawsuit that "the United States Constitution gives Congress no legal authority to, and the Bill of Rights disarms the federal government of, any power to compel citizens who have not purchased, and do not wish to purchase, health insurance."

They say the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law by President Obama in March, "exceeds the powers of the United States," and that "Congress has no enumerated power ... to compel plaintiffs herein to purchase with after-tax dollar a particular product, here health insurance."

They also say the law violates their right to privacy because it forces Americans "against their will, and without legal authority, to divulge highly personal and confidential information," through the likely creation of a database that will store health care information.

They also say the law doubles as involuntary servitude "because it involuntarily creates a debt and coerces plaintiffs herein to work off the debt by threat of legal sanction." They also claim the law is tantamount to a federally sponsored religion by "promoting and compelling participation in the secular religion of Socialism."

Plaintiffs want the courts to determine the law unconstitutional, and to ban its enforcement.

An attorney says Ford Motor Co. has settled a Mississippi lawsuit over damages sought from a 2001 rollover crash that killed a New York Mets prospect in the Florida Panhandle.

Tab Turner, an attorney for the family of Brian Cole, told The Associated Press the settlement Thursday came after the jury in Jasper County awarded $131 million in actual damages to the family and before it was to consider possible punitive damages.

Turner said the settlement amount and terms were confidential.

A Ford spokeswoman blamed speeding and reckless driving for the accident.

Cole died from injuries he suffered when his Ford Explorer overturned as he drove home on March 31, 2001, from spring training in Port St. Lucie, Fla., to Meridian, Miss.

All bets are off at Betcha.com, a Seattle-based online bookmaker that couldn't skirt the state's gambling laws by making it optional for losing bettors to pay off wagers.

In a unanimous ruling Thursday, the Washington state Supreme Court said Betcha.com qualified as an illegal bookie because it arranged bets and took a percentage of the action as a fee.

Since that definition of professional gambling fits the company's activities, justices said they didn't have to decide whether optional payments by bettors would allow Betcha.com to technically escape the state's gambling restrictions.

"Under the statutory definition of bookmaking, it is immaterial whether or not Betcha users were engaged in gambling activity," Justice Tom Chambers wrote for the court.

In a blog post, Betcha.com founder Nicholas Jenkins said the court's reasoning "didn't pass the giggle test."

"Never in a million years did I expect an opinion like this one," Jenkins wrote. "The court's error is so obvious that I wonder if a single justice even cracked our brief, let alone the Revised Code of Washington."

Washington state allows some forms of non-tribal gambling, including cardrooms that offer poker, blackjack and other games with relatively low stakes. Online gambling and bookmaking fees, however, are specifically outlawed in the state. Internet gambling also is illegal on the federal level.

A federal appeals court has ruled against the Baltimore Ravens and the National Football league in a copyright dispute over the team's original logo.

A divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond ruled Thursday that the commercial use of the "Flying B" logo in old game films infringes on amateur artist Frederick Bouchat's copyright.

The panel sent the case back to federal court in Baltimore to determine whether an injunction should be issued.

However, the court says the Ravens can use the logo in a team history display at their headquarters.

A jury ruled in 1998 that the Ravens stole the logo idea from Bouchat, but refused to award damages. The logo was used from 1996 through 1998.