He now faces as many as 10 years in prison when he is sentenced in November.

Uhl, who is being held at a jail in Lynchburg, was arrested May 21 after Campbell County authorities who searched the trunk of his car found five bombs that state police agents called "homemade napalm." Campbell authorities have said they do not believe Uhl intended to disrupt Falwell's funeral services or harm the Falwell family.

At a bond hearing in May, a federal agent said Uhl had other plans for violence, including a plot with a friend to disrupt a prom at his former high school in northern Virginia with pepper spray.

The lawsuit alleges that American Home Mortgage and certain of its officers and directors violated Federal Securities laws. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that the Company was operating without adequate reserves for delinquent loan repurchases or an adequate strategic plan in relation to the volatility of certain of American Home Mortgage's loan products. As a result of defendants' failure to fully disclose that the Company was operating without adequate reserves in relation to the Company's prior sales of certain of American Home Mortgage's loan products or an adequate strategic plan for the repurchase of delinquent previously sold loans, defendants materially misrepresented to investors the true facts concerning American Home Mortgage's financial performance and prospects.

Then, on June 28, 2007, American Home Mortgage issued a press release announcing that it will take "substantial charges for credit-related expenses in the second quarter." The Company reported that the increase in losses was related to its practice of extending a three month timely payment warranty that the Company granted to loan buyers who purchased stated income loans. In response to this announcement, the price of American Home Mortgage stock declined from $20.91 per share to $18.38 per share on extremely heavy trading volume. Then, on July 27, 2007, after the close of the market, American Home Mortgage issued a press release announcing that its Board of Directors had determined to delay paying its dividend. In response to this announcement, on July 30, 2007, the NYSE halted trading in American Home Mortgage stock before the market opened.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than October 1, 2007, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs can participate in important decisions which could affect the recovery for class members.

If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact us, toll free, at (888) 529 4787 or by email at info.newcases@kmslaw.com.

Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP has specialized in complex litigation, including securities class actions, for several decades. The firm has repeatedly demonstrated its expertise in this field, and has been recognized by various courts which have appointed the firm to major positions in consolidated and multi-district litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, and the firm's achievements and quality of service have been chronicled in numerous published decisions. More information about the firm, class actions in general, or about the role of the lead plaintiffs in a securities class action can be obtained through Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP's website at http://www.kmslaw.com

Under the terms of the agreement, Nike Retail Services will pay $7.6 million to the current and former employees to resolve the claims. The lawsuit covers black employees who worked at the store from 1999 until now.

Nike also must make a host of other changes to address diversity, such as appointing a diversity consultant to monitor the Chicago store's compliance and a compliance officer at Nike's headquarters in Beaverton. The company must also add an ombudsperson at the store and conduct diversity training for all supervisors and managers there.

Nike also is required to review its human resources practice, create equal opportunity objectives for the store and review its theft-loss policies. It also will create a formal mentoring program for black employees.

The company and the attorney for the plaintiffs declined to comment further on the case.

Jaime Coulter, senior deputy district attorney, said Gore's sentencing will be continued until Feb. 7. If he has complied with all the conditions of the diversion program, the sentencing will be continued again for another year, with charges possibly being dropped in 2009.

"At that point, he will be able to withdraw his guilty plea as if he never entered it," Coulter said. Gore has been at a live-in treatment center since his arrest, said Allan Stokke, his attorney.

"He's actually doing more than what other people do as far as treatment goes," Stokke said. "He's got great family support." Gore's parents did not attend the hearing at the request of their son, but they were in California to support him, Stokke said.

The family had no comment, said Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman.

Deputies who pulled over Gore said they discovered less than an ounce of marijuana and a variety of medications, including Xanax, Valium, Vicodin and Adderall. Authorities said he did not have a prescription for any of those medications. Gore also was charged with a traffic infraction for speeding.

The son of the former vice president and Democratic presidential nominee was previously arrested for marijuana possession in Maryland in 2003, when he was a student at Harvard University. Gore completed substance abuse counseling to settle those charges.

He now lives in Los Angeles and is an associate publisher of GOOD, a magazine aimed at young people that is about philanthropy.

If Friedman decides eBay has not designed around the patent, MercExchange could collect "hundreds of millions" of dollars in ongoing infringement fees, said Gregory Stillman, MercExchange's lawyer and a partner in the Hunton & Williams LLP law firm.

"The functionality of 'buy it now' is exactly the same as it was four years ago," Stillman said Monday.

MercExchange spokesman Michael Caputo called eBay a "rank infringer."

An eBay representative wasn't immediately available for comment.

MercExchange may appeal the district court decision on the injunction, Stillman said. That would continue a long battle between the two companies, one in which the U.S. Supreme Court has gotten involved.

The district court originally denied MercExchange's request for a permanent injunction, but the Virginia company appealed the ruling.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took the case and granted MercExchange an injunction, continuing the court's long-standing practice of granting injunctions in nearly every patent infringement case. But the Supreme Court, in May 2006, overturned the appeals court ruling, saying judges must weigh several factors before granting an injunction.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to Friedman to determine whether an injunction was warranted.

Friedman ruled that the injunction request did not pass the four-part test now required by the Supreme Court. MercExchange has tried to sell patent licenses and its patents to other companies, suggesting that monetary damages are adequate, Friedman wrote.

Since the original judgment in the case, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has also issued two interim findings that the MercExchange patent is invalid, Friedman wrote.

A permanent injunction would also hurt the public, the judge wrote.

"EBay is a multi-billion dollar corporation whose online marketplace brings together tens of millions of buyers and sellers around the world and eBay unquestionably has a substantial impact on the United States' economy," he wrote. "In contrast, MercExchange is a company with two employees that work out of their homes and appear to specialize in litigation and obtaining royalties based on the threat of litigation."

The district court's ruling on the injunction isn't surprising, given the Supreme Court decision and district court's original ruling, said Sarah King, a partner in Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin PC's intellectual property litigation group in San Francisco.

But the ruling is part of a "creeping sea change" in patentholder rights since the Supreme Court ruling, she said. "No longer will patentholders necessarily have the power to shut a company down for patent infringement," she said. "It really removes from the quiver of the patentholder a very powerful arrow that they hold against infringers."

In a dissenting opinion, one justice wrote that today's decision "rewards Dr. Woo's obnoxious behavior and allows him to profit handsomely," while also calling the original incident involving his assistant "intentional offensive and likely tortuous conduct."

Woo will get $750,000 in damages, attorney fees, and is also reimbursed the $250,000 that he paid to settle the original lawsuit with his employee.

The eight-year legal jumble can all be traced back to a pot-bellied pig named Walter, owned by Woo's surgical assistant. The assistant, who worked for Woo for five years, talked frequently about Walter in the office, and about the abandoned pot-bellied pigs that she cared for, according to court documents.

Woo made several remarks, including how he would like to barbecue Walter, documents said. He went on a boar-hunting trip and brought back pictures of a dead boar to show the assistant. Woo claimed that his comments were just part of a "friendly working environment," documents said.

But then he pulled out the fake boar tusks.

The assistant needed to have two teeth replaced with implants, and Woo told her he could do it, documents said.

Woo prepared a pair of fake boar tusks and, while his assistant was sedated for the procedure, Woo removed the oxygen mask, inserted the tusks in her mouth and took photos without her consent. He later developed the pictures and showed them to employees, and later one of his other employees gave them to the assistant as a birthday present. The assistant was stunned.

So stunned that she filed a lawsuit with several complaints against the dentist, including invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress and medical negligence.

Woo sought defense with his insurer, Fireman's, who would not defend him because his actions did not fall under "dental services," documents said.

Woo settled with his assistant for $250,000 and then took his insurer to court. In June 2003, the King County Superior Court jury awarded the dentist $750,000, but that was overturned two years later by the state Court of Appeals, although it left the $250,000 settlement intact.