Aquila admitted no wrongdoing as part of the settlement, Butkus said. The company will record the $10.5 million charge in its second or third quarter, he said.

The proposed settlement was filed Monday with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

The suit was filed in late September 2004 in the U.S. District Court in Kansas City. A former employee sued the Kansas City-based company (NYSE: ILA) and its board of directors for promoting the company's stock as a "conservative" investment for participants in the company's retirement plan.

The class included more than 7,000 current and former employees who put Aquila stock into the company's retirement plan from 1999 to May 5, 2004.

A hearing on the settlement' s final approval has been scheduled on Nov. 13 before U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple.

After both of the parties contacted Microsoft and reported the problem, they were refused reimbursement or replacement discs. That’s when they decided to take legal action.

Microsoft has acknowledged the obvious defects in its consoles with the red rings of death, but they have yet to acknowledge any defects in their console which scratches discs. Perhaps they will have to add on to the $1 billion they’ve already set aside to deal with the red rings.

Copernic Inc., (the "Company"), (NASDAQ: CNIC), formerly Mamma.com Inc., previously announced on March 8, 2007, that an order by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in the consolidated securities class action was filed preliminarily approving the proposed settlement of the class action.

The court has approved the settlement following a hearing on July 9, 2007, at which time the Court heard from all parties before concluding that the settlement is fair and all procedural requisites were met.

As a result, all claims asserted in the class actions against the Company and the individual officer defendants have been resolved, with the exception of three shareholders who have indicated they will exclude themselves from the settlement so as to preserve rights to maintain separate actions should they elect to do so. The amount paid into escrow, along with any interest earned, will be distributed as provided under the settlement to pay class members, plaintiffs' attorney fee, and the costs of claims administration.

The Sony Electronics Corporation "removed" a class action lawsuit from California state court to federal district court on Tuesday. The lawsuit concerns defects to Sony's "Trinitron" televisions. Sony refuted the complaint but admitted that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

"Removal" is a legal term allowing a defendant to move a case from state court to federal court if it believes (and defends a challenge from the plaintiff) that federal court is the correct venue in which to try the suit.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 requires that all class actions involving damages exceeding $5 million be brought in federal district courts rather than state courts. In this case, Sony is arguing that because the damages sought will likely exceed $5 million dollars, federal court, rather than state court, is the proper venue.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company, and one or more members of its senior management, violated federal securities laws by issuing various materially false and misleading statements that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities and causing Class members to overpay for the securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action. If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may, no later than July 24, 2007, ask the Court to allow you to serve as lead plaintiff for the proposed Class. To serve as a lead plaintiff, you must satisfy certain legal requirements. In making your decision, you should take into account that those with large financial losses resulting from the alleged federal securities law violations are given preference in being appointed lead plaintiff.

If you have suffered a net loss for all transactions in Dendreon Corporation securities during the Class Period (including shares or calls purchased during, but retained after, the Class Period or put options sold but not covered until after the Class Period), you may obtain additional information about this lawsuit and your ability to become a lead plaintiff by contacting Brower Piven (without obligation or cost to you) at www.browerpiven.com, by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com, by calling 410-986-0036, or at Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202. The partners at the firm responsible for this case have combined experience in securities and class action litigation of over 40 years. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven, or you may retain other counsel of your choice.

AT&T has lost an attempt to block a class-action lawsuit which is suing the carrier for alleged over-charging roaming fees. AT&T, known at the time as Cingular Wireless had tried to argue before Washington State's Supreme Court that the customers had signed a contract which included a clause forbidden the customer from starting a class-action lawsuit, but the court decided that the clause was unfair and sent the case back to the trial court in King County where it began.

The lawsuit was filed back in 2004 against Cingular has claimed that the carrier advertised free roaming in areas covered by AT&T Wireless - which at the time was actually a separate company - but charged customers for the roaming service. It is claimed that Cingular had overcharged customers between $1 and $40 per month.

Public Justice, America's public interest law firm, based in Washington, DC which represented the customers, argued that Cingular's class action ban is "unconscionable" under state law because it forces customers to arbitrate their individually-small claims one-by-one and denies them the option of acting as a group with a common grievance for any reason. Public Justice also argued that federal law does not trump state laws that preclude companies from barring class actions in contract provisions.

"This decision is likely to have a significant influence on the way other courts think about this issue," said Paul Bland of Public Justice, who argued the appeal. "A number of courts around the country are wrestling with this issue right now, and the Washington Supreme Court's opinion is so thoughtful and well-reasoned that it is likely to persuade many other courts to also protect consumer rights."

In striking down the class action ban, the court emphasized that, if Cingular's customers couldn't bring a class action, they would be prevented from pursuing valid claims against the company. Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Tom Chambers stated that, if enforced, Cingular's class action ban would "effectively den[y] large numbers of consumers the protection of Washington's Consumer Protection Act."

The court also recognized that class actions are necessary to "strongly deter future similar wrongful conduct, which benefits the community as a whole."