The British defense group since June has been the subject of a criminal investigation in the United States of possible anti-corruption law violations related to its activities in Saudi Arabia.

Britain's Serious Fraud Office announced in 2006 that it was halting an investigation into claims that BAE Systems set up a slush fund for some members of the Saudi royal family during the giant 1980s Al-Yamamah deal. Press reports said BAE paid two billion dollars in bribes to the prince with staggered payments, a furnished Airbus A340 and a honeymoon for his daughter.

BAE has not denied the payments and in September US shareholders saying they had been injured filed suit against BAE executives and Prince Bandar.

Plaintiffs, after learning Bandar might sell some of his US properties, asked authorities to ensure that profits from any such sales were not allowed to leave the country.

In a decision announced Tuesday Judge Rosemary Collyer, who is handling the case in a Washington federal court, granted their request. The prince can sell his properties as he likes but the product of any sale would remain in a US account in his name, she ordered.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the EPA violated the Clean Air Act in 2005 when it exempted coal plants from the strictest emission controls for mercury and other toxic substances like arsenic, lead and nickel.

The EPA's "Clean Air Mercury Rule" would have created a "cap-and-trade" program to allow utilities to swap rights to emit mercury to comply with overall limits that would reduce nationwide emissions by 70 percent by 2018.

Some 14 states, including New York and California, sued the EPA over the rules, along with environmental and public health groups.

The court ruling means that big coal-burning utilities like Atlanta-based Southern Co and American Electric Power of Columbus, Ohio, will have to install expensive mercury-reduction equipment at more of their power plants rather than rely on a fleet-wide trading program.

The ruling adds to the U.S. backlash against building coal-fired power plants, which are also a major source of heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions.

Wall Street banks including Citigroup Inc, JP Morgan Chase & Co and Morgan Stanley this week issued standards that weigh carbon dioxide and mercury emissions when determining whether to lend money for new power plants.

"This adds to the momentum against building new coal-fired power plants," said John Walke, attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which participated in the lawsuit. "This immediately changes the landscape and adds to the argument against new pulverized coal plants."

First came the $211 billion in write-downs of subprime debt, now comes the legal bonanza. In the past four months, nearly 20 law firms have set up subprime practices comprising more than 500 attorneys, many of them in New York. Not since the savings and loan crisis two decades ago have so many law firms moved so fast to create a whole new discipline.

“It's a sea change,“ says Marvin Pickholz, the partner in charge of Duane Morris' month-old, 15-lawyer subprime practice group. “These problems are going to expand to such a dimension that it will consume vast amounts of lawyers' time.“

Among the first was powerhouse Greenberg Traurig, which has 1,750 lawyers. It began building what is now a 48-member group in August. Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo launched its 25-lawyer practice in December; Pepper Hamilton followed in February with its 70-member credit crisis response team. Many other firms, including Bryan Cave, are mulling plans for their own subprime groups.

At Bingham McCutchen, 65 partners make up a subprime practice that didn't exist two months ago. Such top firms often bill in the range of $600 to $800 an hour. Amy Kyle says she is already drawing additional lawyers from the 1,000-attorney firm and is open to hiring more legal talent.

“We'd be opportunistic,“ Ms. Kyle says.

At this point, firms seem to be running ahead of actual demand.

“A client told me that he got seven cold-calls last week from law firms offering their services in this area,“ says John Grossbart, partner at Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal and co-head of its 40-lawyer credit markets and subprime lending task force.

So far, much of the work has involved the investment houses that packaged and sold subprime debt. Law firms are being hired to sue or defend such companies as Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns. The work will by necessity be spread to many firms, as the lawyers who advised banks in the creation of these instruments will face conflicts of interest and most likely be barred from participating.

Mr. Grossbart reports a rise in fraud actions as insurers and other institutional investors absorb huge losses from holdings in supposedly top-rated subprime debt. One of his clients, an insurance company, has been the target of six subprime-related lawsuits in as many months. “Frankly, that's a lot,“ Mr. Grossbart says.

A growing number of investigations launched by federal, state and local authorities have generated further demand. In recent weeks, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York has launched criminal probes of Bear Stearns and UBS; the Securities and Exchange Commission has begun formal inquiries into Merrill Lynch, UBS, Morgan Stanley and others; and the New York attorney general has subpoenaed Bear Stearns, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch.

The decision could provoke a showdown between two of the world's most prominent technology companies with Internet search leader Google Inc. looming in the background. Leery of Microsoft expanding its turf on the Internet, Google already has offered to help Yahoo avert a takeover and urged antitrust regulators to take a hard look at the proposed deal.

If the world's largest software maker wants Yahoo badly enough, Microsoft could try to override Yahoo's board by taking its offer — originally valued at $31 per share — directly to the shareholders. Pursuing that risky route probably will require Microsoft to attempt to oust Yahoo's current 10-member board.

Alternatively, Microsoft could sweeten its bid. Many analysts believe Microsoft is prepared to offer as much as $35 per share for Yahoo, which still boasts one of the Internet's largest audiences and most powerful advertising vehicles despite a prolonged slump that has hammered its stock.

Yahoo's board reached the decision after exploring a wide variety of alternatives during the past week, according to the person who spoke to The Associated Press. The person didn't want to be identified because the reasons for Yahoo's rebuff won't be officially spelled out until Monday morning.

Microsoft and Yahoo declined to comment Saturday on the decision, first reported by The Wall Street Journal on its Web site.

Yahoo's board concluded Microsoft's offer is inadequate even though the company couldn't find any other potential bidders willing to offer a higher price.

Without other suitors on the horizon, Yahoo has had little choice but to turn a cold shoulder toward Microsoft if the board hopes to fulfill its responsibility to fetch the highest price possible for the company, said technology investment banker Ken Marlin.

"You would expect Yahoo's board to reject Microsoft at first," Marlin said. "If they didn't, they would be accused of malfeasance."

But by spurning Microsoft, Yahoo risks further alienating shareholders already upset about management missteps that have led to five consecutive quarters of declining profits.

The downturn caused Yahoo's stock price to plummet by more than 40 percent, erasing about $20 billion in shareholder wealth, in the three months leading up to Microsoft's bid.

Leaders of the Writers Guild of America recommended the deal Saturday to thousands of members gathered on both coasts and warned that holding out for a better deal might be disastrous.

Union chief negotiator John Bowman told writers at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles that "if they push any further, everyone would fall off the cliff," said Mike Rowe, a writer for the animated show "Futurama."

The WGA board planned to meet Sunday and decide whether to authorize a membership vote to lift the strike, according to a person familiar with the plan who requested anonymity because of a media blackout.

If guild members approve, they could be back at work on Wednesday, although formal approval of a contract would have to await ratification by members, which could take two weeks.

Giving writers a 48-hour window to vote on lifting the strike order would help alleviate concerns that the agreement was being pushed too rapidly by the guild's board.

Still, writers seemed confident that the walkout, which cost the Los Angeles area economy alone an estimated $1 billion or more, was coming to a close.

"It's a historic moment for labor in this country," said Oscar-nominated WGA member Michael Moore, who attended the New York meeting.

Carmen Culver, a film and TV writer, lauded the guild "for hanging tough."

"It's a great day for the labor movement. We have suffered a lot of privation in order to achieve what we've achieved," Culver said.

The WGA's first strike in 20 years began Nov. 5 and involved 10,000 members. It idled thousands of other entertainment industry workers, from caterers to security staff, disrupted both TV and movie production and derailed the Golden Globes awards, which was reduced to a news conference because actors wouldn't cross picket lines.

The Grammy Awards, set for Sunday night, were not affected because they received a waiver allowing writers to work on them. But an end to the strike could permit resumption of work for the Feb. 24 Academy Awards show.

A tentative three-year agreement was hammered out in recent talks between the WGA and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, with the actual contract language concluded by lawyers on Friday.

According to the guild's summary, the deal provides union jurisdiction over projects created for the Internet based on certain guidelines, sets compensation for streamed, ad-supported programs and increases residuals for downloaded movies and TV programs.

Exxon Mobil has gone after the assets of state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA in U.S., British and Dutch courts as it challenges the nationalization of a multibillion dollar oil project by Chavez's government.

A British court has issued an injunction "freezing" as much as $12 billion in assets.

"If you end up freezing (Venezuelan assets) and it harms us, we're going to harm you," Chavez said during his weekly radio and television program, "Hello, President." "Do you know how? We aren't going to send oil to the United States. Take note, Mr. Bush, Mr. Danger."

Chavez has repeatedly threatened to cut off oil shipments to the United States, which is Venezuela's No. 1 client, if Washington tries to oust him. Chavez's warnings on Sunday appeared to extend that threat to attempts by oil companies to challenge his government's nationalization drive through lawsuits.

"I speak to the U.S. empire, because that's the master: continue and you will see that we won't sent one drop of oil to the empire of the United States," Chavez said Sunday.

"The outlaws of Exxon Mobil will never again rob us," Chavez said, accusing the Irving, Texas-based oil company of acting in concert with Washington.

A U.S. Embassy spokeswoman did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez has argued that court orders won by Exxon Mobil have "no effect" on the state oil company PDVSA and are merely "transitory measures" while Venezuela presents its case in courts in New York and London.

Exxon Mobil is also taking its claims to international arbitration, disputing the terms it was granted under Chavez's nationalization last year of four heavy oil projects in the Orinoco River basin, one of the world's richest oil deposits.

Other major oil companies including U.S.-based Chevron Corp., France's Total, Britain's BP PLC, and Norway's StatoilHydro ASA have negotiated deals with Venezuela to continue on as minority partners in the Orinoco oil project.