Missouri State University has hired a former vice president of Strong Law Firm as its new general counsel.

MSU’s Board of Governors executive committee today approved the hiring of Clifton “Clif” Smart, who begins Dec. 1. He will be paid $130,000 annually plus a car allowance, according to an MSU news release.

Smart was with Strong Law Firm PC for 15 years. He had been a shareholder there since 1995 and vice president since 1998. His practice consisted mostly of catastrophic injury, medical malpractice and commercial cases.

Smart holds a juris doctor degree from the University of Arkansas School of Law and a bachelor of arts degree from Tulane University.

Smart replaces John Black, who begins as general counsel at City Utilities on Dec. 1, according to CU spokesman Joel Alexander. Black was with the university for 12 years.

The European Union's consumer chief dismissed fears she intends to introduce US-style class action lawsuits to member states next year as part of her strategy to strengthen consumer rights.

EU Consumer Protection Commissioner Meglena Kuneva announced in March that she hoped to introduce a new system of "collective redress" aimed at giving European consumers more power to bring claims against providers of faulty goods or services.

But she dismissed claims that she proposed to copy the US system, where class action laws have allowed lawyers to create a thriving litigation industry seeking colossal damages against companies.

Class actions have been criticised in the US as letting enterprising law firms win big fees while often generating little return for the individuals concerned.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Office Depot's business and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Office Depot securities.

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 Office Depot common stock between April 26, 2007 and October 26, 2007, you have certain rights, and have until January 4, 2008, 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

The settlement is part of a class-action lawsuit brought by direct purchasers, the company said.

Under the proposal, all claims will be dismissed and the class action lawsuit will be terminated for a cash payment of $9 million.

The deal is still subject to negotiation.

Google Inc faces a federal patent infringement lawsuit by Northeastern University over technology used in its core Web search system, according to legal papers filed last week. The complaint was filed on Nov. 6 in Marshall, in the Eastern District of Texas -- the U.S. court with a history of decisions that are highly favorable to plaintiffs in patent cases -- but the case only came to light over the weekend.

The plaintiffs are Boston-based Northeastern University and Jarg Corp, a start-up founded by a Northeastern University professor that is the exclusive licensee of search technology patented in 1997, a year before Google was incorporated.

A spokesman for Mountain View, California-based Google said it believed the suit was without merit.

"While we have not been served, we are aware of the complaint and believe it to be without merit based upon our initial investigation," Google spokesman Jon Murchison said.

The leading Internet company derives 99 percent of its revenue from online advertising, which is delivered in response to keyword searches Google users perform to find Web links.

Michael Belanger, president and co-founder of Jarg, said in a phone interview that his company had become aware of the infringement several years ago, but lacked the resources to press its case until it found a law firm willing to fund the case on a contingency-fee basis. Northeastern then signed on.

The plaintiffs' attorneys are from the Texas-based global law firm of Vinson & Elkins, which is paying the costs of the case, assisted by local counsel in Marshall and nearby Tyler. 

--It was brought as a class action on behalf of 32,600 Alaskan fishermen.

--ExxonMobil (nyse: XOM - news - people ) has already paid more than $3.5 billion in fines, clean-up costs and other legal settlements relating to the spill.

A jury in an Alaska federal district court had originally awarded $5 billion in punitive damages, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cut in half in a December 2006 decision. The new figure was five times the economic damages of $500 million that the jury awarded to the class. The Supreme Court is the final avenue of appeal, and its decision could have implications that go beyond Exxon, and affect the wider corporate world.

Business groups have been prominent advocates of tort reform, and had hoped that the Valdez action would provide the Court with a further opportunity to circumscribe punitive damages awards. Yet the decision's impact is likely to be limited:

--By agreeing only to consider narrow issues of maritime law raised in this case, the Court signaled that for the time being, it is content to leave the current punitive damages framework alone.

--The Court could decide to expand this initial limitation and consider larger punitive damages issues, but in that event, would allow the attorneys involved additional time to brief these issues.

Over the last two decades, the Court has extended what until relatively recently had been a novel legal theory: that the U.S. Constitution imposes limitations on punitive damages awards. This departed from the then-precedent, in which the Court had declined to enunciate any constitutional or other legal limits on these awards:

--BMW case. In BMW of North America vs. Gore (1996), the Court decided that the Constitution's due process clause imposed limitations on punitive damages awards. In the past decade, the Court has further defined and refined this framework.

--Capping damages. In State Farm Insurance vs. Campbell (2003), the Court declined to set a 'hard cap' on the level of punitive damages that would be "excessive" on constitutional grounds. Yet the Court noted that, in most cases, punitive damages that exceed compensatory damages by more than a single digit ratio violate due process requirements. It suggested that a four-to-one ratio, while not "binding," should be regarded as "instructive."

--Reducing awards. In February, the Court in Philip Morris USA vs. Williams sent back for further review a jury award of $79.5 million in punitive damages (where $821,000 of compensatory damages had also been awarded) in product liability litigation over the death of an individual smoker. The Court decided that a jury's punitive damages award set in part on the basis of a desire to punish a defendant for harming 'non-parties' to the lawsuit--in this case, for injuries to smokers other than the plaintiff--contravenes the Constitution's due process clause. Yet in a confusing twist, the court determined that harm to others could still be considered when the jury assesses the "degree of reprehensibility" of a defendant's conduct.

Constitutional jurisprudence is not the only area in which significant changes have made it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring successful claims against (usually corporate) defendants. Several legal reform initiatives have occurred over the past few years, at both the federal and state levels, which taken together have also contributed to this trend.

Yet there are signs that the tort reform movement has peaked:

--Democratic resurgence. Following a series of successful efforts to change state laws to make lawsuits more difficult, and to elect state judges who would endorse pro-business legal interpretations, consumer advocates and trial lawyers who favor more plaintiff-friendly policies were boosted by the Democratic party's victory in the November 2006 elections.

--Congressional resistance. Advocates of further 'civil justice reform' are facing a much more skeptical Congress. Congressional leaders have linked disparate areas, such as widespread recalls of Chinese products, and the subprime mortgage crisis, to the failure of the relevant federal regulators to provide effective monitoring and oversight. Congressional leaders are currently ill-disposed to any further limitations on the ability of plaintiffs to bring lawsuits when the federal government has failed to regulate effectively. Some lawmakers may be open to expanding federal legal liability into new areas.