Dole Food Company Inc filed a defamation lawsuit on Wednesday against Swedish film makers it accuses of knowingly including "patent falsehoods" in a documentary about Nicaraguan banana workers who sued Dole for allegedly exposing them to pesticides on its plantations.

Dole said it repeatedly "implored" director Fredrik Gertten and producer Margarete Jangard to revise the film "Bananas!*" to show that the bananeros' lawsuits against Dole were thrown out in April by a Los Angeles judge who found a "pervasive conspiracy" to defraud U.S. courts by plaintiffs attorneys and Nicaraguan judges.

Gertten "refused to make any meaningful changes to the film, and persisted in publicly screening it and touting its accuracy in the face of court rulings that the story was false ...," said the suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.

A federal appeals court has rejected a lawsuit accusing Abbott Laboratories of antitrust violations over a sudden 400-percent price hike of a popular AIDS drug.

Advocacy groups and drug benefit providers sued Abbott in 2004. They alleged the North Chicago, Ill., drugmaker raised the price of the HIV-fighting Norvir to stifle competition and boost sales of its own alternative, Kaletra.

The company paid $10 million to settle the lawsuit and agreed to let the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals still determine if the price hike was an illegal business practice.

The court ruled in Abbott's favor Tuesday. If it had lost, Abbott would have had to pay an additional $17.5 million.

A lawyer for the advocacy groups says they're weighing whether to appeal the decision.

A central Minnesota woman ordered to pay $1.92 million for illegally sharing copyright-protected music is asking a federal judge to reduce the damages she must pay or grant a new trial, while the recording industry is taking steps to make sure she doesn't share music again.

Last month, a federal jury ruled Jammie Thomas-Rasset, 32, willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and that she must pay $80,000 per song. In documents filed Monday in U.S. District Court, attorney Kiwi Camara argued this amount is "grossly excessive."

Camara asked that the court either remove the statutory damages from the judgment, order that the damages be reduced to the statutory minimum — which would result in a total award of $18,000 — or grant a new trial altogether.

"The plaintiffs did not even attempt to offer evidence of their actual injuries, seeking, instead, an award of statutory damages entirely for purposes of punishment and deterrence," Camara wrote, adding that the $1.92 million figure "shocks the conscience and must be set aside."

He also wrote that civil penalties must relate to a defendant's own conduct and the injury she caused to the plaintiffs. Instead, he said, it seems the damages were awarded not because what Thomas-Rasset did, but because of "the widespread and generalized problem of illegal music downloading."

Camara wrote that if a new trial isn't ordered, Thomas-Rasset would appeal based on evidence he argued should not have been allowed at trial.

This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.

Phoenix-based Mesa had said that the termination of the contract, if successful, would cripple its airline.

Mesa said last year that the contract amounted to $20 million in monthly revenue for the parent company, or about 20 percent of its total sales for 2007.

Mesa won a preliminary court injunction from the federal district court in Atlanta to block the contract termination, and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, also in Atlanta, affirmed that decision Wednesday.

Delta says it will continue to fight to preserve its right to terminate the contract.

Defense attorneys had sought 12 years, while prosecutors wanted the maximum. The federal probation department had recommended 50 years. Chin called the fraud "staggering" and noted that it spanned more than 20 years. He says "the breach of trust was massive."

The 71-year-old former Nasdaq chairman pleaded guilty to securities fraud and other charges in March and has been jailed since.

Convicted Ponzi-scheme operator Bernard Madoff will learn Monday morning whether he'll spend the rest of his life behind bars for running a decades-long swindle that bilked thousands of investors out of billions of dollars.

Madoff, who admitted in March to orchestrating one of the largest and longest-running white-collar frauds in recent memory, is set to be sentenced at a hearing before U.S. District Judge Denny Chin in Manhattan at 10 a.m. EDT Monday.

Prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan have asked for the statutory maximum of 150 years or a sentence that will effectively guarantee the 71-year-old Madoff spends the rest of his life in prison.

"He engaged in wholesale fraud for more than a generation; his so-called 'investment advisory' business was a fraud; his frauds affected thousands of investors in the United States and worldwide; and he repeatedly lied under oath and filed false documents to conceal his fraud," Assistant U.S. Attorneys Mark Litt and Lisa Baroni said in a court documents last week. "The scope, duration and nature of Madoff's crimes render him exceptionally deserving of the maximum punishment allowed by law."

Ira Sorkin, Madoff's lawyer, has asked for a sentence of as little as 12 years in prison, citing Madoff's potential life expectancy of 13 years. In the alternative, he's asked for a sentence of 15 years to 20 years in prison.

On March 12, Madoff was ordered directly to jail after pleading guilty to 11 criminal charges, including money laundering and multiple counts of fraud, in a Ponzi scheme that prosecutors claim stretched back to the 1980s. Madoff himself has said the fraud began in 1990s during a recession.

U.S. District Judge Denny Chin entered the preliminary order Friday, ruling that Madoff must give up his interests in all property, including real estate, investments, cars and boats.

The forfeiture represents the total amount that could be connected to Madoff's fraud, not the amount stolen or lost, and the order made clear that nothing prevents other departments or entities from seeking to recover additional funds.

A call to Madoff's lawyer, Ira Sorkin, after hours Friday was not immediately returned. In a court filing in March, Sorkin said the government's forfeiture demand of $177 billion was "grossly overstated — and misleading — even for a case of this magnitude."

The 71-year-old Madoff pleaded guilty in March to charges that his exclusive investment advisory business was actually a massive Ponzi scheme. Federal prosecutors say Madoff orchestrated perhaps the largest financial swindle in history.

Acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin, who released a copy of the order Friday night, plans to seek a 150-year prison term at Madoff's sentencing Monday. Sorkin has argued in court papers for a 12-year term.

According to Friday's order, the government also settled claims against Madoff's wife. Under the arrangement, the government obtained Ruth Madoff's interest in all property, including more than $80 million-worth that she had claimed was hers, prosecutors said. The order left her $2.5 million in assets.