As Congress and the president talk about ending so-called abuses in the credit card industry like sudden rate hikes and late fees, Brady Dougan is in Connecticut courts fighting claims that he owes his ex-wife nearly $1 million for being 12 days tardy with a $7.5 million divorce-related payment.

The 49-year-old chief executive, who lives in Greenwich, suffered a blow in his legal case Wednesday, when the state Appellate Court ruled 2-1 that he must abide by the late payment penalty terms in his 2005 divorce agreement with Tomoko Hamada Dougan.

Retired state Supreme Court Justice David Borden, sitting on the Appellate Court for Dougan v. Dougan, wrote that Brady Dougan is a "highly educated and financially sophisticated" person who "wants to avoid the obligation that he knowingly undertook."

Supreme Court Justice C. Ian McLachlan, appointed to the high court in January, voted with Borden in the appellate ruling. He noted that at the time of the divorce agreement, Brady Dougan's estate was worth nearly $80 million and it appeared he could have made the $7.5 million payment soon after signing the deal.

The Appellate Court overturned a Superior Court decision and sent the case back to the lower court to decide how much Dougan should pay his ex-wife.

It was not clear if Dougan planned to appeal to the state Supreme Court. A message was left Thursday with his attorney, Gary Cohen.

Lawyers also will advocate for GM franchise owners, who are under increasing pressure to go out of business as the auto maker races to downsize in an effort to avoid a government-led bankruptcy.

GM's National Dealer Council retained the law firm of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP to help ensure dealers being forced to close get payouts they're owed from the auto maker, according to a memo sent to dealers.

The auto maker is looking to eliminate 2,600 dealers by 2010 as part of a recovery plan that aims to keep the company out of bankruptcy court by slashing costs and restructuring debt.

GM, which has said it expects minimal costs in reducing its dealer body, will inform dealers within the next two weeks whether they are among those marked to close.

A federal appeals court Tuesday revived a lawsuit alleging that a unit of Boeing Co. (BA) helped the Central Intelligence Agency seize terrorism suspects abroad and secretly transfer them to other countries for interrogation.

The ruling reinstates allegations by five men who claim that U.S. operatives - with support from Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., a Boeing unit - abducted them and sent them to other countries where they were tortured. They allege that Jeppesen provided critical flight planning and logistical support to the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program. The men are seeking unspecified monetary damages from the company.

The Bush administration had intervened on behalf of Jeppesen and warned that allowing the lawsuit to go forward could threaten national security. The Obama administration has made the same arguments.

A federal trial judge dismissed the case last year, ruling that it could not proceed because the very subject matter of the lawsuit was a state secret. But on Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the trial judge was wrong to dismiss the case at such an early stage in the proceedings.

"According to the government's theory, the judiciary should effectively cordon off all secret government actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the CIA and its partners from the demands and limits of the law," 9th Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel.

Though it revived the lawsuit, the appeals court said the government could assert a state-secrets privilege to protect specific pieces of secret evidence in the case. The court sent the case back to the trial judge for further proceedings.

A Jeppesen spokesman said the company was reviewing the ruling and had no comment. The U.S. Justice Department also said it was reviewing the decision.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the plaintiffs, called the ruling historic.

"Our clients, who are among the hundreds of victims of torture under the Bush administration, have waited for years just to get a foot in the courthouse door," ACLU attorney Ben Wizner said. "Now, at long last, they will have their day in court."

A unanimous three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that a lower court judge wrongly tossed out the lawsuit after the government asserted the case was a "state secret" that would harm national security if allowed to go forward.

The trial court judge dismissed the case before the prisoners could present evidence allegedly showing that the company's participation in the program was illegal. The Bush administration and then the Obama administration argued that the lawsuit should be thrown out before the government turns over any evidence because the nature of the legal action is itself a classified matter.

The federal government inserted itself into the lawsuit on the company's side because it said feared top-secret information would be disclosed.

The appeals court, however, said the five prisoners suing San Jose-based Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. can try to prove their case without using top-secret information that legitimately needs protection from disclosure.

Mattel sued MGA in 2004, alleging that Bratz designer Carter Bryant developed the concept for the pouty-lipped doll while working for Mattel.

After a four-year legal dispute, a jury last year awarded Mattel $10 million for copyright infringement and $90 million for breach of contract.

After the verdict, Mattel sought to block MGA from ever making the Bratz dolls, and Larson ordered the company in December to end its sales in early 2009.

MGA argued that retailers would not order the toys unless the court could guarantee they would remain in stores through most of this year. MGA got a reprieve in January when Larson ruled that the dolls could remain in stores for the rest of the year.

He left open the possibility that Mattel or a court-appointed receiver could ultimately market the dolls this year.

A hearing is scheduled for May 18 to discuss whether the receivership should be made permanent.

But economists expect that trend to moderate soon, as businesses bring inventories in line with slower sales. That should allow production to decline at a slower pace in the current quarter.

Still, the drop in March was steeper than expected. The Federal Reserve said production at the nation's factories, mines and utilities dropped a seasonally adjusted 1.5 percent, matching February's decline and worse than the 1 percent decline analysts forecast.

Factories and mines are increasingly idle, as the total industrial capacity utilization rate fell to 69.3 percent from 70.3 percent, the lowest on records dating to 1967.

Industrial production fell at a 20 percent annual rate in the first quarter, the Fed said, the sharpest quarterly downturn of the current recession. The drop will contribute to another steep contraction in the overall economy in the January-March period that economists estimate will be in the 4 to 5 percent range. The nation's economy shrank 6.3 percent in the fourth quarter of last year.

Some analysts expect industrial production to fall at a rate of less than 10 percent in the current quarter, as the economy's contraction slows.

His lawyers filed an emergency appeal with Justice Stephen Breyer after the federal appeals court in Denver turned down Nachio's latest bid to stay out of prison while he asks the high court to review his conviction in 2007 involving the sale of $52 million worth of stock in Qwest Communications International Inc.

Nacchio has been ordered to report to a prison camp in Minersville, Pa., by noon Tuesday to start a six-year term.

He says he should be allowed to remain free pending the Supreme Court's consideration of his case because there is a reasonable chance the justices will agree to consider overturning the conviction.

Federal prosecutors have opposed Nacchio's request.

They have said Nacchio hasn't met the requirement of showing that his Supreme Court appeal would probably win him a new trial or acquittal.