The administrators of Lehman Brothers' assets in Europe said Monday that they may seek a direct agreement with hedge funds and other creditors to return money tied up since the collapse of the parent company as an alternative to a court-sanctioned settlement.

PricewaterhouseCoopers — which controls some $8.9 billion in assets from Lehman Brothers International (Europe) since the parent company went bankrupt on Sept. 15, 2008 — has proposed a contractual agreement with creditors following an adverse ruling by the High Court in London. The court ruled in July that it had no power to grant the administrators' request to set a "bar date" or deadline for creditors to file claims.

PricewaterhouseCoopers is appealing the court ruling, with a hearing expected on Oct. 26, but meanwhile it has disclosed a timetable for the alternate settlement.

The administrators sought a bar date because they had not received responses from all clients of Lehman Brothers, they could not depend on the accuracy of Lehmans' record and had not received all the information requested from custodians, depositories and affiliates of Lehman Brothers International (Europe).

Consumers, confronting job losses and weak income growth, likely cut back on their borrowing for a sixth consecutive month in July.

Consumer borrowing likely fell by $4.5 billion at an annual rate in July, according to economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters. The Federal Reserve is scheduled to release the report at 3 p.m. EDT Tuesday.

In June, consumers slashed their borrowing at a rate of $10.3 billion, marking another month where households cut back sharply on their use of credit cards and other types of loans amid the longest recession since World War II.

In April, consumers trimmed borrowing at a rate of $17.4 billion, the largest amount on records that date to 1943.

Widespread job losses, declining home values and shrunken stock portfolios have contributed to Americans' more thrifty mood.

The Labor Department reported last week that the unemployment rate jumped almost a half a point to 9.7 percent in August, the highest since 1983. Many economists believe the rate will hit 10 percent before the end of this year and will remain elevated levels for some time.

A U.S. appeals court upheld an Internet gambling ban Tuesday, rejecting a challenge from an association of off-shore bookies that the federal prohibition was too vague and violated privacy rights.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia rejected arguments from Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association in New Jersey, which had filed the lawsuit hoping to legalize online betting in that state.

Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2006 to ban online gambling that would be illegal in the state where the individual or gambling business conducts the transaction. The law does not target the bet itself but criminalizes bank or credit card transactions linked to the bet.

The group, comprised of mostly offshore betting operators, had attacked the law as unconstitutionally vague. Their lawyers questioned how the location of an online bet would be determined if the gambler is in Delaware, for instance, and the operation is in Costa Rica.

At least one of the three judges who heard arguments last month seemed to question that logic.

"No matter how metaphysical you want to get, I'm not in Costa Rica, I'm in Delaware," 3rd Circuit Judge Kent Jordan said.

The court also rejected arguments that the law invades a gambler's right to privacy in the home.

The Justice Department, which successfully defended the law, had no immediate comment, a spokesman said.

A unit of Seiko Epson Corp agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiring to fix prices for liquid crystal screens sold to mobile phone maker Motorola Inc, the U.S. Justice Department said on Tuesday.

Epson Imaging Devices Corp, which was known as Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices Corp at the time of the conspiracy, agreed to pay a $26 million fine for the conspiracy involving LCD panels that were used in Razr mobile phones from late 2005 through mid-2006, the government said.

The company was charged with agreeing with unnamed co-conpirators in Japan to charge certain prices for so-called Thin Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Display panels and issuing price quotations in line with those agreements, the Justice Department said.

In addition to the guilty plea, which is subject to court approval, Epson also agreed to continue with the ongoing antitrust investigation.

An attempt to reach the company for comment was not immediately successful.

The suit, which was filed in Illinois, claims Wells Fargo failed to accurately assess the value of customers' houses before deciding to cut the size of their credit lines. San Francisco-based Wells Fargo is being accused of using unreliable computer models that wrongly valued home prices too low to justify cutting the size of customers' loans.

Home equity lines of credit are similar to credit cards in that a customer has a credit limit and can continue to borrow money until the limit is reached. Once a portion is paid off, it again becomes accessible to borrow. But, home equity lines of credit are backed by a borrower's property, whereas credit cares are unsecured.

Michael Hickman, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and is seeking class action status for it, claims Wells Fargo also did not provide proper notice that the bank was reducing the size of the credit lines.

The bank's notice for reducing the lines also did not specifically provide a new estimated value for the property or the method used to determine the houses value. Hickman's lawsuit said that information was needed so a customer could challenge the change in the credit limit and try and reinstate the previous limit.

Hickman is being represented by KamberEdelson LLC, a Chicago-based law firm, which is also representing clients that have filed similar suits against JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc.

Nearly all banks have been hit hard by mounting loan losses tied to residential real estate over the past two years. Reducing lines of credit can limit exposure to the struggling sector.

A federal appeals court has revived a discrimination lawsuit brought by black employees who claim they worked in a racially hostile environment at a Nucor Steel mill in South Carolina, attorneys said Tuesday.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a decision issued Aug. 7 that the case against the Charlotte-based manufacturer can go forward with class-action status. It has been sent back to federal district court and will be tried in Charleston, S.C.

"While this class certification doesn't mean they've won ... the decision is a victory," lead attorney Robert L. Wiggins Jr. said in a statement. "Being involved in this case as a plaintiff has taken courage, but these individuals believed that it was important to change the horrific situation at Nucor for all black employees, and not just themselves."

The lawsuit, originally filed in December 2003, charged that racial slurs and monkey noises were broadcast over the radio system at the company's Huger, S.C. mill. The plaintiffs — seven black former and current Nucor employees — also claim that racially charged e-mails depicting blacks with nooses around their necks were circulated, some employees used racial slurs when referring to black workers and that the mill discriminated against blacks in making promotions.

Richmond, Va.-based Massey said in a statement Friday that the retirement of former Justice Larry Starcher last year prompted it to give up the suit.

Starcher was known for often harsh criticism of Massey chief Don Blankenship. At various times over the years, Starcher called Blankenship "stupid" and a "clown."

Massey filed the suit in U.S. District Court in 2006 after Starcher refused to recuse himself from an appeal involving the company.

A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court had no immediate comment Friday.