Under terms of the settlement, Raza did not admit nor deny allegations that he unlawfully netted nearly $1.5 million by trading on confidential company information.

Raza was also barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company for five years, and he was permanently enjoined from future violations of the federal securities laws.

Raza Microelectronics said late Tuesday that Raza resigned as company chairman effective Jan. 17, two months after he stepped down as CEO. A spokesman said Raza's settlement would not have "any impact as the company moves forward."

Raza Microelectronics' Web site stated Tuesday that Raza was also serving as a director at AMI Semiconductor, Mellanox Technologies (MLNX), eASIC and MetaRAM.

Officials at Raza Microelectronics, which makes chips for telecommunications switches and network routers, were not immediately available to comment on the settlement.

The SEC alleged that Raza in September 2006 was informed by OrthoClear's CEO that the company had agreed to cease competing with rival Align Technology Inc. (ALGN), of Santa Clara, Calif. The agreement, which effectively put OrthoClear out of business, followed a long-running intellectual property rights dispute between the transparent teeth-aligner market competitors.

Raza within two days of learning about the settlement began making large purchases of Align call options - which would increase in value if the company's share price rose - before the litigation settlement agreement became public, the commission said.

When the OrthoClear settlement was publicly announced several days later, the price of Align stock shot up 48% and Raza netted a profit of $1,450,900.

Raza agreed to pay a total of $2,977,842, including repaying his $1,450,900 in trading profits, $76,042 in prejudgment interest and a civil penalty of $1,450, 900, the SEC said.

Raza was at one point expected to become chief executive at AMD. He resigned from the No. 2 spot in 1999, citing personal reasons, but his departure followed big losses suffered during a price war with rival Intel Corp. (INTC).

But when Albrecht's parents learned years later that they had buried him without a brain, they filed a lawsuit that raises ethical, moral and religious questions about the treatment of one's body after death.

The case, to be argued Wednesday before the Ohio Supreme Court, has drawn international attention for its ramifications to coroners, crime investigators, EMTs, funeral directors and followers of religions that espouse the importance of burying the whole body.

The Albrechts argue that they had a right under the Ohio Constitution to their son's brain, and a right under the U.S. Constitution to reclaim the brain before it was destroyed. The lawsuit is a class action suit against coroners and commissioners in 87 of Ohio's 88 counties covering cases dating to 1991.

Under Ohio law, brains, hearts and other body parts and fluids removed during an autopsy are classified as medical waste, which generally means they are incinerated after use.

"What this case really comes down to is, for the convenience of the government, are we Ohioans, we humans, supposed to give up our most basic rights to the human remains of our loved ones?" said John Metz, an attorney who brought the Albrechts' suit. "I am absolutely amazed to have to be standing in front of the highest court in our state to defend against such a socialist view."

Defenders of the coroners, including the Ohio State Coroners Association, Ohio State Medical Association and the National Association of Medical Examiners, contend that establishing property rights for families to the organs, tissue, blood and other fluids extracted during an autopsy could jeopardize timely autopsies and jeopardize criminal evidence.

"The longer you wait to perform an autopsy, the more evidence and information you lose," said Elizabeth Mason, an assistant Clermont County prosecutor leading the county coroners' defense.

Brains are particularly difficult to reunite with a body in time for burial, because it takes three to 14 days to prepare them for examination.

Mason anticipates an onslaught of litigation against counties if the Albrechts prevail. Relatives are often upset about autopsies taking place, and may begin negotiating with coroners about what to do with body parts. But relatives may not always agree with each other.

"I call that the 'Chicken-Little-Sky-Is-Falling' defense," Metz said. "We recognize you, as the state, have a right to our loved one's body to do an autopsy. But once you're done, all you have to do is pick up the phone and talk to these people, and say, 'I'm done with your child's heart.'"

Metz and co-counsel Patrick Perotti have been taken to task before the court for making a legal question too emotional. Perotti's briefs have contained references to Achilles' slaying of Hector in The Iliad, the drowning of Shakespeare's Ophelia and poet Walt Whitman's "I Sing The Body Electric."

Lawyers for the coroners at one point tried and failed to get one particularly verbose submission — which traced the history of death from ancient to modern times — stricken from the record.

"We don't dispute that it is a cultural norm for us to accord that kind of respect for our dead," Mason said. "But that doesn't mean that when they went out to get Hector's body back, they scraped up every drop of blood to make sure they got everything."

In a brief, the Medical Examiners Association said material from a dead body is almost always lost. Bodies lose fluids at accident scenes and parts of some bodies are never found, the group said.

It argued that material taken by coroners is being singled out unfairly in this case.

Christopher Albrecht, 30, died in December 2001 when he suddenly plunged his vehicle into a pond.

The coroner determined that an epileptic seizure prompted his accident, but that his death was caused by drowning.

According to the autopsy, a portion of his brain had been removed during his life as part of a surgical procedure related to his epilepsy.

The Government has been accused of a "cavalier" attitude to personal information after it emerged that four CDs containing details from court cases have gone missing in the post.

In the latest embarrassing loss of potentially sensitive data, the computer discs vanished after being sent by recorded delivery.

Greater Manchester Police (GMP) hand-delivered the four CD-Roms to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Court Administration (HMICA) on December 6.

The discs contained details of at least 55 magistrates' court defendants and other "restricted" data not released in open court, the Daily Mail reported.

They went missing after being posted on December 15, according to the paper.

A GMP spokesman said the CDs contain only "routine material" and were handed to HMICA by police in a "completely secure way" before going missing later.

The police spokesman could not confirm whether the discs contain details of witnesses, although he said they may have held defendants' names.

HMICA has launched an internal investigation into what has happened to the discs.

Shadow justice secretary Nick Herbert said: "Yet another data blunder suggests a cavalier attitude to the handling of personal information by Government agencies.

"We need to know whether this is a problem limited to these courts, or whether it is more widespread across the criminal justice system."

Abdus-Shahid M.S. Ali's lawsuit against prison guards was based on allegations of harassment and mistreatment. But the Supreme Court's decision yesterday that he is barred from suing rests on an ambiguous federal statute that has confounded the courts and sharply divided the justices.

It involves the word "any."

Ali's lawsuit alleging a missing Koran and prayer rug is barred under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the court said in a 5 to 4 ruling, because the law includes prison guards among those immune from suit.

The confusion in the courts comes because the immunity is mentioned in a section of the law that blocks lawsuits against the government over the "loss of goods, merchandise or other property" detained by customs or excise officers. The law then adds "or any other law enforcement officer."

"Congress could not have chosen a more all-encompassing phrase than 'any other law enforcement officer' " to show that it intended broad immunity, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. Therefore, the law "forecloses lawsuits against the United States for the unlawful detention of property by 'any' not just 'some,' law enforcement officers."

Thomas was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the dissent for the rest of the court. He said the court was wrong not to look at the context of the statute -- that it related to customs rather than prisons -- and said the implications of the decision were great.

"The seizure of property by an officer raises serious concerns for the liberty of our people and the Act should not be read to permit appropriation of property without a remedy in tort by language so obscure and indirect," Kennedy wrote.

Ali said in lower-court proceedings that the Koran, prayer rug and other religious materials -- worth about $177 -- went missing during his transfer from a federal penitentiary in Atlanta to Big Sandy prison in Kentucky. He alleged it was one of a number of incidents of mistreatment and harassment of Muslim prisoners.

But a district court said the lawsuit was barred by federal law, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed. It is one of six circuits that have read the law to cover all law enforcement officers, in the same manner as Thomas and the court majority. Five circuits have read the law to limit the protection to officers performing customs or excise functions.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer agreed with Kennedy's dissent and added his own to reinforce his view of the importance of context.

"When I call out to my wife, 'There isn't any butter,' I do not mean, 'There isn't any butter in town,' " Breyer wrote. "The context makes clear to her that I am talking about the contents of our refrigerator.

"That is to say, it is context, not a dictionary, that sets the boundaries of time, place and circumstances within which words such as 'any' will apply," Breyer wrote.

The court's decision extends the law to "tens of thousands of officers performing unrelated tasks" to those covered by the statute, Breyer said.

Small tax-exempt organizations have a new filing requirement. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 made some big changes to the tax law as it affects charities, particularly the operation of tax-exempt charitable organizations. It included new rules for charitable giving, new reporting, unrelated business income and sanction rules, tougher rules for private foundations, tougher rules for supporting organizations and new rules for donor-advised funds.

One measure is a particularly nasty trap for small non-profits.

Small tax-exempt organizations, whose gross receipts are normally $25,000 or less, are not required to file Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax, or Form 990-EZ, Short Form Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax.

Now these organizations that have not had to file a 990 or 990-EZ must file electronically a Form 990-N, also known as the e-Postcard, with the IRS annually. The 990-N will include the organization's name, address, Internet address, employer identification number (EIN), name and address of the principal officer and evidence of the continued basis for its exemption from filing Form 990. This filing requirement applies to all types of exempt organizations (for example, trade associations and social clubs), not just Section 501(c)(3) organizations.

The following organizations are exempt and do not have to file the 990-N: organizations that are included in a group return, private foundations required to file Form 990-PF, section 509(a)(3) supporting organizations required to file Form 990 or Form 990-EZ, churches, their integrated auxiliaries and conventions or associations of churches.

An organization that is required to file the 990-N and fails to file for three consecutive years will have its tax-exempt status revoked as of the filing due date of the third year. If the organization's tax-exempt status is revoked, the organization must apply (or reapply) and pay the appropriate user fee to have its tax-exempt status reinstated.

The IRS is developing an electronic filing system (there will be no paper form) for the e-Postcard and will publicize filing procedures when the system is completed and ready for use. You must be able to access the Internet, but no software or download is required. If your non-profit does not have a computer, you will be able to fill out Form 990-N using a computer at a public library.

Form 990-N must be filed every year; however there is no one due date for filing the e-postcard. Instead, you must file "by the 15th day of the 5th month after" your nonprofit's fiscal year ends. For instance, if your fiscal year is the same as the calendar year (i.e., ending on Dec. 31), your organization does not need to file the e-postcard until May 15. This filing requirement applies to tax years beginning after 2006. If your organization is on a calendar year, the first 990-N for 2007 and is due on May 15, 2008.

The IRS has been mailing educational letters to more than 650,000 small tax-exempt organizations that are affected. Because these organizations have had no annual filing requirements before, the IRS may not have current addresses. If you believe the IRS may have an incorrect address for your organization, you can file Form 8822, Change of Address, with the IRS.

IRS forms can be downloaded at www.irs.gov. With frequent turnover of volunteer board members, and an executive who may also be a volunteer, many organizations may easily be unaware of the new requirement.

According to the IRS, this new filing requirement was added to improve transparency within the nonprofit sector. The information will ensure that donors, who may want to contribute to your organization, and the IRS have current information about your organization.

The Orlando law firm of Moran & Shams P.A. announced that two of its shareholders are leaving and the firm's name will change.

Maurice "Mo" Shams and Sidney Shams are departing amicably, the firm says.

The 14-attorney commercial law firm, renamed Moran Kidd Lyons Johnson & Berkson P. A., will remain at 111 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1200.

Meanwhile, the Shams have set up a new law firm in Maitland, to be called the Shams Law Firm, at 1015 Maitland Center Commons Blvd., Suite 110.

A joint statement by the Orlando firm and the Shams says the two attorneys are leaving to focus on their business, tax, estate and real estate practice.

"In light of the longstanding personal friendships and mutual respect of all of the firm's shareholders, the transition has been amicable and cooperative," says the statement.

The New York-based company told the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it believes the lawsuit related to its previously announced offering of convertible preferred shares was without merit.