The justices declined to examine a trial procedure in which a jury first determines whether smokers as a group are entitled to punitive damages before establishing whether any single smoker is entitled to compensation.

Later, a new jury addresses issues unique to each alleged smoking victim who sued.

West Virginia courts are allowing the approach, which has been used in other types of lawsuits, including claims for asbestos exposure.

The second phases of such trials rarely occur, because the two sides usually settle once they know the value of the case.

Tobacco companies oppose use of the legal device, which lawyers call "reverse bifurcation."

The tobacco industry said a jury doesn't know until later in a case whether any smoker was actually harmed or how serious any injury was; which defendants if any were responsible; or the amount of compensatory damages any defendant owes to smokers.

In addition to helping resolve suits over asbestos exposure, reverse bifurcation has been applied to claims against makers of the dangerous diet drug fen-phen.

In asking the justices not to take the case, lawyers for the smokers said further delay would mean that most of their clients would die before their cases could be tried, "thus affording the defendants a free pass" for their alleged misconduct.

The smokers say the companies secretly agreed not to market a truly safer cigarette while publicly proclaiming the safety of their own particular brands.

The first phase of the trial was scheduled to begin March 18.

The case is Philip Morris USA v. Accord, 07-806.

The justices declined to examine a trial procedure in which a jury first determines whether smokers as a group are entitled to punitive damages before establishing whether any single smoker is entitled to compensation.

Later, a new jury addresses issues unique to each alleged smoking victim who sued.

West Virginia courts are allowing the approach, which has been used in other types of lawsuits, including claims for asbestos exposure.

The second phases of such trials rarely occur, because the two sides usually settle once they know the value of the case.

Tobacco companies oppose use of the legal device, which lawyers call "reverse bifurcation."

The tobacco industry said a jury doesn't know until later in a case whether any smoker was actually harmed or how serious any injury was; which defendants if any were responsible; or the amount of compensatory damages any defendant owes to smokers.

In addition to helping resolve suits over asbestos exposure, reverse bifurcation has been applied to claims against makers of the dangerous diet drug fen-phen.

In asking the justices not to take the case, lawyers for the smokers said further delay would mean that most of their clients would die before their cases could be tried, "thus affording the defendants a free pass" for their alleged misconduct.

The smokers say the companies secretly agreed not to market a truly safer cigarette while publicly proclaiming the safety of their own particular brands.

The first phase of the trial was scheduled to begin March 18.

The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the prosecution of Chief of the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM), Som Mittal, for not providing adequate security to a female employee who was raped and murdered in 2005.

“If you are the head of a company, you are responsible for the safety of your employees,” the apex court said.

Pratibha Srikant Murthy, an employee of Hewlett-Packard (HP) GlobalSoft's BPO (Business Process Outsourcing) unit was raped and murdered in Bangalore by a cab driver who was dropping her home after work.

Mittal was the Managing Director of Hewlett-Packard GlobalSoft Pvt Ltd at that time.

However, Hewlett-Packard said in a statement: “In the matter concerning the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in response to a petition filed by Som Mittal, HP India would like to clarify that the Hon'ble Court has not pronounced either Mittal or HP guilty on any count. It has only directed Mittal to urge all the contentions as available under law, including maintainability of the complaint, before the trial court. However, since the matter is sub-judice, HP would not like to comment on any specifics related to the case at this point,” it added.

NASSCOM, which is a body representing Indian IT companies and BPO firms, refused to comment.

Overturning a lower court decision that AIG could withhold the documents as privileged, a unanimous five-judge panel of the Appellate Division of New York State Supreme Court ruled that the two former AIG executives are entitled to the legal memoranda, which include some related to AIG’s allegedly fraudulent 2000 loss portfolio reinsurance deal with General Re Corp.

Yesterday’s appeals ruling stems from then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s 2005 lawsuit charging Messrs. Greenberg and Smith with fraud related to the Gen Re deal and other allegedly sham transactions designed to manipulate AIG’s financial statements. AIG itself was originally a defendant, but settled with regulators in 2006, paying $1.6 billion.

Messrs. Greenberg and Smith have argued in part that they relied on the advice of legal counsel in the transactions cited in the attorney general’s lawsuit, and have sought copies of all legal memoranda related to the transactions prepared at the time they were AIG officers.

AIG refused to turn over the documents, and a New York judge ruled that they were protected by AIG’s attorney-client privilege.

The Appellate Division panel reversed that ruling, though, finding that the two former executives have a qualified right to inspect the memoranda.

Wilyum Henderson, 50, entered the plea Tuesday in federal court in Beaumont.

The U.S. Attorney's Office said Henderson filed a fake claim with the Federal Emergency Management Agency for disaster housing and individual assistance for losses from the hurricane that hit the Gulf Coast in 2005. He received $2,000 in assistance.

Henderson could be sentenced to up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000. A sentencing date hasn't been set.

The order in the U.S. came after a Swiss bank, the Julius Baer Group, filed a complaint earlier this month against the site and San Mateo, Calif.-based Dynadot LLC, Wikileaks' domain name registry, for posting several hundred of the bank's documents.

Some of those documents allegedly reveal that the Julius Baer Group was involved in offshore money laundering and tax evasion in the Cayman Islands for customers in several countries, including the U.S.

The court ordered that "Dynadot shall immediately clear and remove all DNS-hosting records for the wikileaks.org domain name," according to court documents. It also said that Dynadot should prevent the domain name from resolving to the wikileaks.org Web site, or any other Web site or server other than a blank park page until further notice.

A spokesman for the Julius Baer Group could not be reached for comment Monday.

According to its Web site, the purpose of Wikileaks, founded in 2006, is to develop "an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking and public analysis."

Wikileaks has been plagued by controversy since its inception, coming under fire from institutions whose confidential documents have been posted on the site and from critics who have questioned the motives of the site's founders. Still, others have praised the site for supporting the free dissemination of information.

Wikileaks posted a press statement on its site about the U.S. order, calling it "clearly unconstitutional" and said it "exceeds its jurisdiction."